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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 Gisbert Fanselow Notes 1.Superiority can be violated in similar contexts in Swedish, too. (ii) was accepted by two of my five informants, two rejected it, one found it questionable. All five informants considered (i) grammatical. (i) Vem tror att Johan gjorde vad Who believes that John did what (ii) Vad tror vem att Johan gjorde 2.Contrast between structures rated as “?” with others rated as “*” may not be too impressive, but examples involving different kinds of A-bar-movement yield clearer contrasts: (i) which violin-1 is this sonata-2 easy to play t-2 on t-1 (ii) *which sonata is this violin easy to play on 3.And the model proposed below does so by linking the acceptability of a crossing constellation to the expression of a non-standard information structure. 4. As suggested by Hubert Haider, p.c. 5.The relevance of such examples has been brought to my attention by Gereon Müller. 6.One may wonder, why scrambling is able to create structures incompatible with a simple MLC. Fanselow (2001) suggests that this problem is part of an argument in favor of the base-generation of scrambling structures. 7.Tibetan shows at least some of the contrasts one is familiar with from English (Seele p.c, Chungda Haller, p.c), in spite of the fact that it is a free constituent order language. I have no explanation for this. (i) a. su ga re nyos pa red? who what bought b.*ga re su nyos pa red 8.One might claim that these languages nevertheless allow scrambling, but only as an intermediate step followed by further movements. It is difficult to assess, however, which data could possibly refute such an account. Its empirical force is thus limited, and we refrain from considering it.
References The MLC and derivational economy 119 Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, David Lightfoot and Amy Weinberg 1987 Two Types of Locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 537–577. Aoun, Joseph, and Audrey Li 1989 Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141–172. 1993 The Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002 Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press. Baker, C. 1970 Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219. Beck, Sigrid 1996 Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4, 1–56. Billings, Loren and Catherine Rudin 1996 Optimality and Superiority: A new approach to overt multiple-wh ordering. In; Proceedings of Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The College Park Meeting 1994, Jindrich Toman (ed), 35–60. Michigan Slavic Publications. Ann Arbor. Błaszczak, Joanna and Susann Fischer 2002 Multiple Wh-Konstruktionen im Slavischen. Linguistics in Potsdam 14. Bobaljik, Jonathan and Diane Jonas 1996 Subject Positions and the Role of TP’. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236. Bolinger, Dwight 1978 Asking more than one thing at a time. In; Questions, Henry Hiz (ed.), 107–150. Dordrecht: Reidel. Bonet, Eulalia 1993 Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Bo‰koviç, Îeljko 1997 Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102: 1–20. 2002 On multiple wh fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. Bresnan, Joan 1972 Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1993 A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In; The View from Building 20, Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), 1–58. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.
Page 1 and 2: The MLC and Derivational Economy Gi
Page 3 and 4: Independent of whether such a facto
Page 5 and 6: Penka Stateva, my second Bulgarian
Page 7 and 8: The MLC and derivational economy 79
Page 9 and 10: (12) constitute further evidence fo
Page 11 and 12: (18) Missing superiority effect for
Page 13 and 14: (22) Missing Adjunct Effects in OV-
Page 17 and 18: For example, Swedish respects the n
Page 21 and 22: (33a) and the locality requirements
Page 23 and 24: The key to an understanding of this
Page 25 and 26: (44) MLC: Liberal Version α cannot
Page 27 and 28: oft ‘often’, i.e., it precedes
Page 29 and 30: Such an analysis is not convincing,
Page 37 and 38: (63) Restricted liberalization of s
Page 39 and 40: (65) Multiple questions in Yiddish
Page 41 and 42: (70) Non-referential subjects in wh
Page 43 and 44: The absence of a contrast between (
Page 45: Similarly, noun phrases with an obl
Page 51: The MLC and derivational economy 12

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?