Minimalist program

In linguistics, the minimalist program is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside generative grammar since the early 1990s, starting with a 1993 paper by Noam Chomsky. Following Imre Lakatos's distinction, Chomsky presents minimalism as a program, understood as a mode of inquiry that provides a conceptual framework which guides the development of linguistic theory. As such, it is characterized by a broad and diverse range of research directions. For Chomsky, there are two basic minimalist questions—What is language? and Why does it have the properties it has?—but the answers to these two questions can be framed in any theory.

In linguistics, the minimalist program is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside generative grammar since the early 1990s, starting with a 1993 paper by Noam Chomsky. Following Imre Lakatos's distinction, Chomsky presents minimalism as a program, understood as a mode of inquiry that provides a conceptual framework which guides the development of linguistic theory. As such, it is characterized by a broad and diverse range of research directions. For Chomsky, there are two basic minimalist questions—What is language? and Why does it have the properties it has?—but the answers to these two questions can be framed in any theory. Adjunction and substitution: Chomsky's 1995 monograph entitled The Minimalist Program outlines two methods of forming structure: adjunction and substitution. The standard properties of segments, categories, adjuncts, and specifiers are easily constructed. In the general form of a structured tree for adjunction and substitution, α is an adjunct to X, and α is substituted into SPEC, X position. α can raise to aim for the X max position, and it builds a new position that can either be adjoined to [Y-X] or is SPEC, X, in which it is termed the 'target'. At the bottom of the tree, the minimal domain includes SPEC Y and Z along with a new position formed by the raising of α which is either contained within Z, or is Z. Adjunction: Before the introduction of bare phrase structure, adjuncts did not alter information about bar-level, category information, or the target's (located in the adjoined structure) head. An example of adjunction using the X-bar theory notation is given below for the sentence Luna bought the purse yesterday. Observe that the adverbial modifier yesterday is sister to VP and dominated by VP. Thus, the addition of the modifier does not change information about the bar-level: in this case the maximal projection VP. In the minimalist program, adjuncts are argued to exhibit a different, perhaps more simplified, structure. Chomsky (1995) proposes that adjunction forms a two-segment object/category consisting of: (i) the head of a label; (ii) a different label from the head of the label. The label L is not considered a term in the structure that is formed because it is not identical to the head S, but it is derived from it in an irrelevant way. If α adjoins to S, and S projects, then the structure that results is L = { ,{α,S}}, where the entire structure is replaced with the head S, as well as what the structure contains. The head is what projects, so it can itself be the label or can determine the label irrelevantly. In the new account developed in bare phrase structure, the properties of the head are no longer preserved in adjunction structures, as the attachment of an adjunct to a particular XP following adjunction is non-maximal, as shown in the figure below that illustrates adjunction in BPS. Such an account is applicable to XPs that are related to multiple adjunction. Adjunction DEFINITION : , where Label = { ,{α,S}} (S = head) Substitution forms a new category consisting of a head (H), which is the label, and an element being projected. Some ambiguities may arise if the features raising, in this case α, contain the entire head and the head is also X MAX . Substitution DEFINITION : Label = {H(S), {α,S}). Labeling algorithm (LA): Merge is a function that takes two objects (α and β) and merges them into an unordered set with a label (either α or β), where the label indicates the kind of phrase that is built via merge. But this labeling technique is too unrestricted since the input labels make incorrect predictions about which lexical categories can merge with each other. Consequently, a different mechanism is needed to generate the correct output label for each application of Merge in order to account for how lexical categories combine; this mechanism is referred to as the labeling algorithm (LA). Labeling via selection and agreement. In a series of articles, Chomsky has proposed that labels are determined by a labeling algorithm which operates after syntactic structures have been built. This mechanism departs from previous version of generative grammar in that the labels of a phrase are now determined endocentrically. There are a number of proposals that have been hypothesized to explain the exact nature of the labeling algorithm. In earlier discussions, Chomsky hypothesizes that determining the label of a set-theoretic object (α, β) depends on either semantic selection or agreement holding between α and β. Although this formulation of the LA is consistent with the basic principles of X-bar theory, reference to external relations like semantic selection and agreement are at odds with the goal of developing a parsimonious account. Labeling Algorithm (version 1): The output of Merge (α, β) is labeled by α if: (a) α selects β as its semantic argument, or (b) α agrees with β, meaning, β is led to α because of Spec-head agreement (feature checking) (Chomsky 1995b;2000) Labeling via external and internal Merge. Proposed by Chomsky in 2008, in this version of LA, clause (a) means that the output of Merge(V, DP) would be labelled V because V is a lexical item. Clause (b) means that if a syntactic object is re-introduced into the derivation via internal Merge—as it is when a subject DP moves to Spec,TP—then the output of Merge(DP,T) would be labelled T. However, this version of LA uses a disjunctive definition of labelling, one for external Merge (clause a), and one for internal merge (clause b). Labeling algorithm (version 2): The output of Merge (α, β) is labeled by α if (a) α is a lexical item (LI), or (b) β is internally merged to α (Chomsky 2008: 145) Labeling via prominence. Chomsky (2013) suggests an even simpler LA based on the notion of "prominence". In this version of the LA, the label is independently determined by whichever properties of UG (universal grammar) allow us to identify a "prominent Lexical Item. Due to this revision, it becomes questionable whether Merge plays any role at all in labelling/projection, since it is now redundant. Labeling algorithm (version 3): The label/head of an SO (syntactic object) Σ is the most prominent Lexical Item within Σ. (Chomsky 2013) Labeling via set formation: Further simplification is given in Chomsky (2000), where Merge is simplified to an elementary set-formation operation, meaning that syntactic objects (SOs) are no longer associated with non-terminal nodes, like projections. Labels are now only the syntactically relevant "head" of a phrase that are determined independently by the LA. With this theory, labeling leaves bare phrase structure (BPS) completely projection-free. Labeling algorithm (version 4): Merge(α, β) = {α, β}. Recently, the suitability of a labeling algorithm has been questioned, as syntacticians have identified a number of limitations associated with what Chomsky has proposed. It has been argued that two kinds of phrases pose a problem. The labeling algorithm proposes that labelling occurs via minimal search, a process where a single lexical item within a phrasal structure acts as a head and provides the label for the phrase. It has been noted that minimal search cannot account for the following two possibilities: {H, H} where both constituents are lexical items. {XP, YP} where neither constituent is a lexical item. In each of these cases, there is no lexical item acting as a prominent element (i.e. a head). Given this, it is not possible through minimal search to extract a label for the phrase. While Chomsky has proposed solutions for these cases, it has been argued that the fact that such cases are problematic suggests that the labeling algorithm violates the tenets of the minimalist program, as it departs from conceptual necessity. Other linguistic phenomena that create instances where Chomsky's labeling algorithm cannot assign labels include predicate fronting, embedded topicalization, scrambling (free movement of constituents), stacked structures (which involve multiple specifiers). Given these criticisms of Chomsky's labeling algorithm, it has been recently argued that the labeling algorithm theory should be eliminated altogether and replaced by another labeling mechanism. The symmetry principle has been identified as one such mechanism, as it provides an account of labeling that assigns the correct labels even when phrases are derived through complex linguistic phenomena. ====Phase impenetrability condition (PIC)==== Movement of a constituent out of a phase is (in the general case) only permitted if the constituent has first moved to the left edge of the phase (XP). The edge of a head X is defined as the residue outside of X', in either specifier of X and adjuncts to XP. English successive cyclic wh-movement obeys the PIC. Sentence (7) has two phases: vP and CP. Relative to the application of movement, who moves from the (lower) vP phase to the (higher) CP phase in two steps: Step 1: who moves from the complement position of VP to the left edge of vP, and the EPP feature of the verb forces movement of who to the edge of vP. Step 2: who moves from the left edge of the lower vP phase to the specifier of the (higher) CP phase. (7) [ CP Who did you [ vP see who ? ====Medumba wh-movement==== Another example of PIC can be observed when analyzing A'-agreement in Medumba. A'-agreement is a term used for the morphological reflex of A'-movement of an XP. In Medumba, when the moved phrase reaches a phase edge, a high low tonal melody is added to the head of the complement of the phase head. Since A'-agreement in Medumba requires movement, the presence of agreement on the complements of phase heads shows that the wh-word moves to the edges of phases and obeys PIC. Example: The sentence (2a) has a high low tone on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense ʤʉ̀n, therefore is grammatical. (2a) [ CP á wʉ́ Wàtɛ̀t nɔ́ɔ̀ʔ [ vP ⁿ-ʤʉ́ʉ̀n á? 'Who did Watat see?' The sentence (2b) does not have a high low tone on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense ʤʉ̀n, therefore is not grammatical. (2b) *[ CP á wʉ́ Wàtɛ̀t nɔ́ʔ [ vP ⁿ-ʤʉ́n á? * 'Who did Watat see?' To generate the grammatical sentence (2a), the wh-phrase á wʉ́ moves from the vP phase to the CP phase. To obey PIC, this movement must take two steps since the wh-phrase needs to move to the edge of the vP phase in order to move out of the lower phase. Step 1: First, the wh-phrase moves from the complement of VP to the edge of the vP phase to avoid violating PIC. In this position, the agreement is expressed on the verb ʤʉ̀n and surfaces as a high low (HL) tone melody (ⁿ-ʤʉ́ʉ̀n). The agreement is expressed on the verb which is the head of the complement of the v phase head. Step 2: Now that it is at the edge of the vP phase, the wh-phrase is able to leave the vP phase and move to the Spec-C position of the CP phase. Agreement is expressed on the tense nɔ́ʔ as a high low tone melody (nɔ́ɔ̀ʔ). The tense which agreement is expressed on is the head of the complement of the C phase head One can confirm that A' agreement only occurs with movement by examining sentences where the wh-phrase does not move. In sentence (2c) below, one can observe that there is no high low tone melody on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense fá since the wh-word does not move to the edge of the vP and CP phase. (2c) [m-ɛ́n nɔ́ʔ fá bɔ̀ á wʉ́ á] 'The child gave the bag to who?' Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG From Below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans Martin Gärtner, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. "A minimalist program for linguistic theory". In Hale, Kenneth L. and S. Jay Keyser, eds. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1–52. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. An Economy Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-Logical Form: a Radically Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason. An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Webelhuth, Gert (ed.). 1995. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Wiley-Blackwell ==See also== Biolinguistics c-command Generative grammar Generative linguistics Government and binding theory Labels Merge Principles and parameters Transformational generative grammar X-bar theory ==References==

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1374588980 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.