The superiority conspiracy: Four constraints and a processing effect

Abstract

English wh-in-situ restrictions are commonly analyzed in terms of locality and minimality type constraints, in minimalist theories as well as in optimality oriented approaches. The ‘Minimal Link Condition’ (MLC) is a present day rendering of Chomsky’s (1973) original concept of ‘superiority’. The wh-item closest to the top spec-position ('spec C') receives priority for movement to this position. A comparative look at Germanic languages, however, tells us that the wh-in-situ patterns do not follow a simple concept of locality or distance-based economy. From a cross-linguistic vantage point, English 'superiority' will be argued to be epiphenomenal of independently motivated grammar constraints, plus a processing restriction. The main claim of this contribution is as follows: MLC is inadequate for capturing the core patters of wh-in-situ. The crosslinguistic distribution patterns of wh-in-situ are determined by at least four independent grammatical factors: i) obligatory operator status of a wh-item in situ in spec-positions; ii) semantic type (individual level vs. higher type) of the licensing whelement; iii) domain requirement for semantic integration of an adverbial wh-item; iv) strictly binary licensing relation for an in-situ wh-element. The residue of superiority-like cases not covered by these constraints seems to invite an account in terms of a processing restriction, rather than a structural constraint. 1. Revisiting wh-in-situ In Haider (2000), the common and the contrasting properties of German and English wh-insitu constructions were derived as effects of semantic type and domain conditions (for adverbial wh-items) on the one hand and the different structural positions of the subject wh-elements on the other, plus a minimality condition relativised to the level of case features. This analysis is not fully adequate however. First, it remains silent on some intricate empirical issues (see examples 1 and 2), second, it does not satisfactorily capture the facts of Icelandic as the crucial testing ground for OV/VO-based accounts of crosslinguistic contrasts -, and third, as it seems, it elevated a processing restriction to the level of a grammatical constraint (see the discussion of the examples 3). Before going into details, let me enumerate the problem areas for the standard locality approach to superiority phenomena that will be discussed in this paper by assigning them to the constraints that will be shown to be responsible for these phenomena in the rest of the paper. i) obligatory operator constraint: The acceptability of an in-situ wh-element in a functional spec-position depends on its ability to function as an operator that binds a variable. This is not the case for an in-situ wh-item in its VP-internal argument position [see the 'amnesty' phenomenon illustrated by examples (1)].

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.