User:Cjfox45/sandbox

Superiority Condition
The superiority condition determines which wh-phrase moves in a clause that contains multiple wh-phrases. This is the outcome of applying the attract closest principle, where only the closest candidate is eligible for movement to the attracting head that selects for it. If the farther wh-phrase moves instead of the preceding wh-phrase, an ungrammatical structure is created (in English). Not all languages have instances of multiple-wh movement governed by the superiority condition, most have variations. There is no uniformity found across languages concerning the superiority condition.

For example, see the following English phrases:

a. [Whoi did you ask  who ti to buy what?]

b. *[Whati did you ask who to buy  what ti?]

It should be noted that the subscript "ti" or "i" are used to mark coreference. "t" represents a trace, while both "ti" and "i" represent that the words refer to each other and the same entity.

In a., the closer wh-phrase [who] moves up towards Spec,CP from being the subject of the VP [who to buy what]. The second wh-phrase [what] remains in-situ (as the direct object of the VP[who to buy what]). This is to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature in the Spec,CP.

In b., the farther wh-phrase [what] has incorrectly moved from the direct object position of the VP[who to buy  what ] into the Spec,CP position. The closer wh-phrase to Spec,CP [who] has remained in-situ as the subject of the VP[ who  to buy what]. This sentence contains a violation of the attract closest principle, as the closest candidate was not moved, rather the farther candidate. This sentence is ungrammatical which is marked by the asterisk (*).

Wh-Movement in German
German does not show the expected effects of the superiority condition during clauses with multiple wh-phrases. German appears to have a process that allows the farther wh-phrase to "cross-over" the closer wh-phrase and move, not remaining in-situ This movement is tolerated and has less consequences than when compared with English.

For example, see the following German phrases:

a. b. In a., the gloss shows that the wh-phrase [what] has "crossed over" wh-phrase [what] and is now in Spec,CP to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature. This movement is a violation of the attract closest principle, which is what the superiority condition is based upon.