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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
The MLC and derivational economy 79 (13) Clauseboundedness of the binding of in situ wh-phrases in Hindi *Raam-ne kis-ko kahaa ki Sitaa-ne kis-ko dekhaa Raam-erg who.dat told that Sita-erg who saw? “who did Ram tell that Sita saw who?” Let us now come back to (12). First, we want to explain why (12a) is out with a pair-list interpretation. This follows if (the relevant version of) German resembles Hindi in that finite CPs are barriers for the scope linking of in situ wh-phrases. Consequently, wen cannot be scope-linked to wer in (12a), which renders the structure ungrammatical under the intended interpretation. Finite clauses are not, however, barriers for overt movement. Therefore, there is a way of constructing a Logical Form for (12) in which both whphrases take matrix scope, viz. by moving the wh-element from the complement clause into the matrix-Spec-CP position, and by scope-linking the matrix subject to the matrix Spec,CP position. This is what has happened in (12b). None of the relations established there is in conflict with locality requirements – but the MLC is violated. Apparently, this MLC-violation is licensed because the relevant Logical Form cannot be arrived at in a different way – the structure (12a) respecting the MLC is incompatible with the locality of the licensing of wh-phrases in situ. (12) illustrates the same phenomenon as (7), but in a rather different context. The other examples in (12) illustrate two further points. (12c) shows that German is like Hindi in having a wh-scope-marking construction, in which a scope marker (was) rather than the real wh-phrase appears in Spec,CP. (12c) is well-formed in all dialects of German, and expresses a pair-list interpretation. A minor point illustrated by this example is that finite clauses are islands for scope taking in German only for wh-phrases that do not occupy a Spec,CP position (note that the lower wh-phrase is fronted in the complement clause). There are various ways of analysing the construction (see, e.g., the contributions in Lutz, Müller and von Stechow 2000), but details are irrelevant for the more important point: long wh-movement in (12b) and wh-scope marking in (12c) yield the same interpretation, but the wh-scope-marking construction (12c) avoids an MLC violation, in contrast to (12b). This shows that the sensitivity of the MLC to interpretation cannot involve a simple, “global” concept of meaning identity. If it would, the wellformedness of (12c) should imply that the MLC is able to rule out (12b). Given (12c), no MLC-violation is necessary for expressing the “meaning” of (12b). The MLC must therefore not be sensitive to “meaning identity” in a global sense. Rather, the identity of interpretation that is rele-
Page 1 and 2: The MLC and Derivational Economy Gi
Page 3 and 4: Independent of whether such a facto
Page 5: Penka Stateva, my second Bulgarian
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 15 and 16: The MLC and derivational economy 87
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 and 46: Similarly, noun phrases with an obl
Page 47 and 48: References The MLC and derivational
Page 51: The MLC and derivational economy 12

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?