[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-291127-105":59,"doc-detail-291127-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":127,"head_meta":129,"extra_data":131,"updated_unix":133},105,"en","from-superiority-to-the-mlc-modul-04-006-2002-syntax","From Superiority to the MLC - Modul 04-006-2002 - Syntax","","Lecture notes explaining how English superiority effects in multiple wh-questions follow from the Minimal Link Condition (MLC). Starting from the observation that only the higher wh-object may undergo wh-movement, the notes contrast classical formulations of Superiority with a modern locality-based reinterpretation. The discussion extends MLC beyond English wh-movement, including raising to SpecT, case discrimination, and raising across experiencers in Icelandic, while raising further questions about the straightforwardness of certain analyses.",{"@graph":69,"@context":126},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/from-superiority-to-the-mlc-modul-04-006-2002-syntax/291127/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/from-superiority-to-the-mlc-modul-04-006-2002-syntax/291127.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Ophelia","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118,122],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the key observation about English multiple wh-questions?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"In English, in multiple wh-questions an object wh-phrase cannot undergo wh-movement across a clause-mate subject wh-phrase; instead, the subject must move to SpecC. The same higher/lower asymmetry holds for both short and long wh-movement.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the classical account explain superiority effects?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The classical approach treats wh-movement as governed by a Superiority condition based on asymmetric c-command: the operation cannot apply ambiguously to a lower element when a superior element is also involved in the structural relation.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the MLC provide a modern reinterpretation?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The notes propose that the Minimal Link Condition blocks a lower element from establishing a grammatical relation with the higher probe when both could, in principle, enter the relation. The blocked relation concerns probing by the higher head (e.g., C), rather than being tied to the specific Move operation.",{"name":123,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":124},"How is the MLC extended beyond English wh-movement?",{"text":125,"@type":113},"MLC effects are argued to generalize to other configurations, including raising to subject position, where locality and case-related assumptions are used to derive ungrammaticality. The notes also discuss raising across an experiencer in Icelandic, where embedded raising is prohibited when the experiencer is part of the matrix VP, and asks whether the analysis of this pattern is completely straightforward.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":128,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":130,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":132,"site_id":62},291127,1789643523,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":135},{"doc_id":132,"user_id":136,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":143,"language":144,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":145,"faqs":146,"seo_title":147,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":133,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},7971461741311,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/74000253aff267980c6?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779345379180704826","Syntax Minimality and (Strict) Cyclicity  \nModul 04-006-2002  \nPhonology – Morphology – Syntax  \nInstitut für Linguistik  \nUniversität Leipzig  \n[home.uni-leipzig.de/heck](home.uni-leipzig.de/heck)  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nObservation (Kuno and Robinson 1972):  \nIn English multiple questions, an object wh-phrase may not undergo wh-movement across a clause-mate subject wh-phrase (1-b). Rather, the subject must move to SpecC instead (1-a).  \nThis holds for short and long wh-movement alike (2-a, b).  \n(1) a. Who  bought what?  \nb. *What did who buy  ?  \n(2) a. Who do you think [CP  bought what ]?  \nb. *What do you think [CP who bought  ]?  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \n(3) a. * CP b. * CP  \nWho C′ What C′  \nC TP  \nT′  \nT vP  \nv′  \nv VP  \nV what  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nMoreover:  \nA similar asymmetry holds for multiple questions that involve two wh-objects (Hendrick and Rochemont 1982, Pesetsky 1982,  \nBarss and Lasnik 1986), see (4-a, b).  \nOnly the “higher” one of the two objects (in terms of c-command) may undergo wh-movement, the “lower” must stay put.  \n(4) a. *What did you persuade who [ to read  ]?  \nb. Who did you persuade  [ to read what ]?  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nAside:  \nWhen it comes to illustrate superiority effects in English, typically the cases that involve wh-subjects are cited in the literature ((1), (2)) .  \nBut as noted in Chomsky (1981), there seems to be a restriction in English against leaving a wh-subject in SpecT, cf. (5) . This would already be enough to account for the ungrammaticality of superiority cases with subjects.  \nTherefore, the cases involving superiority between objects are crucial (at least for English) .  \n(5) *Who believes [CP that who will win the price ]?  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nClassical account (Chomsky 1973):  \nWh-movement is subject to the condition in (6), where the notion of“superiority” is usually interpreted in terms of asymmetric c-command.  \n(6) Superiority Condition:  \nNo rule can involve X, Y in the structure  \n... X ... [ ... Z ... WYV ... ] ... ,  \nwhere the rule applies ambiguously to Z and Y, and Z is superior to Y.  \nNote:  \nIn fact, (6) is already formulated in a very general way, so as to apply to operations other than wh-movement (other types of movement, but also other rules such as agreement) . Nevertheless, in the literature, (6) is usually associated with the particular constraint on wh-movement in multiple questions found in English (and some other languages) .  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nModern re-interpretation:  \nThere is the general locality principle in (7) (Ferguson 1993, Chomsky 1995; cf. also Rizzi 1990, Fanselow 1991)  \nThe MLC blocks a lower 􀀌 from establishing a grammatical relation with H across a c-commanding 􀀋 if 􀀋 and 􀀌 could, in principle, both enter into the relation.  \nThe relation R between H and 􀀌 that is blocked by the MLC is the probing by H (e.g., probing by C for a wh-phrase), not some Move operation that might be connected to it (e.g., wh-movement), see Dogge􀀝 (2004) .  \n(7) Minimal Link Condition (MLC):  \nIf in a structure  \n􀀆 = H ... [ ...􀀋... [ ...􀀌 ... ] ... ]  \n(where H c-commands 􀀋 and 􀀌, and 􀀋 asymmetrically c-commands 􀀌) both 􀀋 and 􀀌 are of the right type to establish a relation R with H, then H can establish R only with 􀀋 (but not with 􀀌) .  \nFrom Superiority to the MLC  \nSuperiority generalized:  \nMLC-effects are not confined to wh-movement in English.  \nFor instance, if movement to subject position is triggered by a [uN] feature on T, then why does it have to be NPext that moves to SpecT, and not, e.g., NPint (in a transitive clause)?  \n(8) a. Dr. Brumm at the honey.  \nb. *The honey ate Dr. Brumm.  \n(9) a. TP b. * TP  \nNPext T′ NPint T′  \nT vP  \nv′  \nV+v VP  \nV NPint  \nRaising to SpecT: English  \nRaising to subject and the MLC:  \nThe ungrammaticality of (8-b) follows directly from (6)/(7) (where X/H = T, Z/􀀋 = NPext , and Y/􀀌 = NPint) .  \nAssuming instead that only nominative marked NPs can unde","cbCaitPI9rABGhOw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitPI9rABGhOw","pdf",223591,52,"English","# Observation (Kuno and Robinson 1972)\n## Wh-movement and the Superiority restriction\n# Classical account (Chomsky 1973)\n## Superiority Condition\n# Modern re-interpretation: MLC\n## Minimal Link Condition (MLC)\n# Superiority generalized\n## Raising and case discrimination in English\n## Raising across experiencer in Icelandic\n# Open question\n## Whether the Icelandic argument is straightforward","[{\"question\":\"What is the key observation about English multiple wh-questions?\",\"answer\":\"In English, in multiple wh-questions an object wh-phrase cannot undergo wh-movement across a clause-mate subject wh-phrase; instead, the subject must move to SpecC. The same higher/lower asymmetry holds for both short and long wh-movement.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the classical account explain superiority effects?\",\"answer\":\"The classical approach treats wh-movement as governed by a Superiority condition based on asymmetric c-command: the operation cannot apply ambiguously to a lower element when a superior element is also involved in the structural relation.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the MLC provide a modern reinterpretation?\",\"answer\":\"The notes propose that the Minimal Link Condition blocks a lower element from establishing a grammatical relation with the higher probe when both could, in principle, enter the relation. The blocked relation concerns probing by the higher head (e.g., C), rather than being tied to the specific Move operation.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the MLC extended beyond English wh-movement?\",\"answer\":\"MLC effects are argued to generalize to other configurations, including raising to subject position, where locality and case-related assumptions are used to derive ungrammaticality. The notes also discuss raising across an experiencer in Icelandic, where embedded raising is prohibited when the experiencer is part of the matrix VP, and asks whether the analysis of this pattern is completely straightforward.\"}]","From Superiority to the MLC - Modul 04-006-2002 - Syntax | PDF",131]