Minimality Effects in Syntax · The MLC and Derivational Economy ...

(70) Non-referential subjects in wh-questions in English
a. what did two boys find?
b.*what did a boy find?
c. which book did two boys find?
d.?which book did a boy find?
The MLC and derivational economy 113
Summing up, there is reason to believe that the difference between (68a) and
(68b) stems from the fact that a wh-subject must be topical in English when
it is in situ, while this does not hold for German.
Zubizarretta (1998) develops a prosodic theory for accent and focus placement
in English which implies that the predicate will be in focus in double
questions of English in which the subject is left in situ. Erteschik-Shir
(1997) proposes a model of the syntax-information structure interface which
also implies topichood for the subject when certain formal dependencies are
built up in a clause. In the interest of space, I will not try to assess the merits
of these approaches, but confine myself to pointing out that the connection
between topichood and in situ wh-subjects apparently need not be stipulated
for English.
Explanations borrowed from Zubizarretta and Erteschik-Shir may help
explaining the status of (68a) – but do they also fit the general model we try to
defend here, viz. that the MLC is an interface economy constraint that blocks
structures only if their (partial) LF can be arrived at in a more economical
way? What is the proper way of expressing questions in which an object
wh-pronoun is the sorting key for answers? It is worthwhile to compare the
constellations which lead to crossing effects with wh-pronouns in English
with those that do not:
(71) Structural constellations leading to crossing effects: passive
a. who bought what?
a’.*what did who buy?
a”. what was bought by whom?
b. who did you give _ what
b’.*what did you give who _
c. what did you give _ to whom
c’: *who did you give what to _