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

78 Gisbert Fanselow
(11) *welchen Studenten hat welcher Professor gehofft,
dass Irina einlädt
which.acc student.acc has which.nom professor hoped
that Irina invites
“which professor has hoped that Irina invites which student?”
In less restrictive dialects (such as the one spoken by the author), all sentences
in (12) are acceptable up to a certain degree, but (12a) and (12b)
have different interpretations. If (12a) is completely wellformed at all, the
sentence allows a single-pair interpretation only. A pair-list-reading is available
for (12b) only, i.e., for the structure which violates the MLC. In addition
the “scope-marking” construction (12c) allows the pair-list-reading as
well.
(12) Nonstandard German: Subordinate clause wh-elements crossing matrix
wh-phrases
a.(?)wer hat gehofft, dass Irina wen einlädt
who has hoped that Irina who invites
b. wen hat wer gehofft, dass Irina einlädt
who.acc has who.nom hoped that Irina invites
c. was hat wer gehofft, wen Irina einlädt
what has who hoped who.acc Irina invites
How can these data be understood? 1 In quite a number of languages, in situ
wh-phrases cannot take scope out of the minimal (finite) clause they are
contained in. Hindi is a case in point (see Mahajan 1990). The scope of an
in-situ wh-phrase must be determined by linking it to a higher wh-phrase, or
to a scope marker. The linking might be arrived at in various ways (binding,
covert movement), but the important observation concerning Hindi and other
languages is that linking is subject to strong locality requirements. In contrast
to what holds for overt movement (=wh-scrambling in the case of Hindi),
finite CPs are barriers for the linking relation. Consequently, (13) is ungrammatical
because the lower occurence of kis-ko must be linked to a whphrase
or a scope marker, but cannot be so because it is embedded in an
island for linking.