The Minimalist Program

The Minimalist Program

Chomsky (1995:170–71)

• ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’

• ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’

• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’• ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’


Chomsky (1995:170–71)





Parameters as properties of F-categories• ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options

restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’

→ language variation as variation in the properties of functional categories of individual languages


Parameters as properties of F-categories

(1)a. John hit Maryb. John-ga Mary-o butta

John-NOM Mary-ACC hit


→ language variation as variation in the properties of functional categories of individual languages



(1)a. John hit Maryb. John-ga Mary-o butta

John-NOM Mary-ACC hit


→ word-order variation as variation in the properties of the F-category regulating object placement



(1)a. John hit Mary

b. John-ga ______ butta


→ word-order variation as variation in the properties of the F-category regulating object placement

Mary-oFF

→ English F is weak (hence does not attract OB)→ Japanese F is strong (hence attracts OB to it)



(1)a. John hit Mary



→ F is the node checking accusative Case (-o) on OB

Mary-oFF

→ accusative Case is checked in F’s specifier position



(1)a. John hit Mary



Q: what is the nature of ‘F’ checking ACC in (1)?

Mary-oFF

A: an Agreement head (cf. NOM: Portuguese (2))



(2)a. eles aprovarem a proposta

they-NOM approve-3PL the proposalb. (*eles) aprovar a proposta


Q: what is the nature of ‘F’ checking ACC in (1)?A: an Agreement head (cf. NOM: Portuguese (2))



(3)[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V

OB]]]]]]]


→ two Agr nodes, for subject (NOM) and object (ACC)→ movement of SU and OB to SpecAgrP positions

SU OB

(V also moves, up to AgrO; AgrO-to-T; T-to-AgrS)→ language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts

tj

tj

ti

sample derivationbottom-up tree building

V OBi

V'

VPSUj

AgrO'AgrO

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

next, V raises to AgrO and OB raises to the newly-merged SpecAgrOP

tj

tj

ti

sample derivationbottom-up tree building

V OBi

V'

VPSUj

AgrO'AgrO

AgrOPTT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

ti

next, T merges w/ AgrOP and SU raises to the newly-merged SpecTP

next, AgrO raises to T

TP

tj

and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP mov’t ensue

next, AgrS merges

tj



(3a) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in situ

[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V

OB]]]]]]]


SU OB

→ language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts



(3b) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in SpecAgrOP


OB]]]]]]]


SU OB




(3c) Spell-Out: SU and OB in situ, V in AgrO (or higher)


OB]]]]]]]


SU OB


V

→ clearly, SU & OB do not always check case overtly→ the Case Filter is not an S-Structure condition!


Chomsky (1995:170–71)





Conditions on representations at the interface


☻

the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction



(4a) John is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]]

(4b) * John is easy [CP C [PRO to please him ]]

(4c) it is easy to please John


the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction




☻

anaphor binding ambiguity and idiomatic fixing

☻

Binding Theory &Levels of Representation

(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took

pictures of himself*i/k

b. Johni does not know how many

pictures of himselfi/k Billk took

c. how many pictures of himselfi/k

does Johni think Billk took?(5a) is straightforward

(5b) gives us the i-reading at S-Structure







does Johni think Billk took?but S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficientbecause (5c) also gives us the i-reading







does Johni think Billk took?but S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient… and it can even be shown to be wrong







does Johni think Billk took?

‘photograph’ only gives us the k-reading

i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading








… the apparent case for BT-A @ S-Structure

concentrate on (5b)







does Johni think Billk took?that the i-reading is available in (5b) in principlebut NOT on the idiomatic ‘photograph’ reading …








at S-Structure John locally c-commands himself

does not follow if BT-A applies at S-Structure →


(5) b.

Billk took

NO: the two copies are ‘too rich’!

is this going to be our final LF-representation?

how many pictures of himselfhow many pictures of himself

Johni does not know…


(5) b.how many pictures of himself

Billk took

turn the complete lower copy into a variable

keep the complete upstairs copy

how many pictures of himself


reducing the copies → OPTION I



Billk took

→ the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues

himself is present only in the upstairs copy

t


reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT



Billk took

→ the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is out

take pictures is NOT an LF-unit in this structure

t


reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT



Billk took

keep the restriction in the downstairs copy

keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy

how many pictures of himself


reducing the copies → OPTION II


(5) b.how many

Billk took

→ the k-reading (and only the k-reading) ensues

himself is present only in the downstairs copy

t pictures of himself


reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT


(5) b.how many

Billk took

→ the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is okay

take pictures IS an LF-unit



reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT



Billk took

(ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ UNavailable

(i) i-reading (‘John’) only

t


summary — OPTION I


(5) b.how many

Billk took

(ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ available

(i) k-reading (‘Bill’) only



summary — OPTION II







does Johni think Billk took?if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structurewe could base antecedent choice directly on (5b)







does Johni think Billk took?… independently of what happens later, at LF!(i.e., regardless of whether option I or II is chosen)







does Johni think Billk took?… so we would predict the i-reading to be okayon the idiomatic reading of take pictures

← BAD!


Principle A andBinding @ S-Structure

conclusion:correlation between idiomatic fixing and antecedent choice follows ONLY w/ BT-A

at LF


Principle A andBinding @ S-Structure

conclusion:→ reference to S-Structure is impossible

in the domain of the Binding Theory




☻

☻

☻


Chomsky (1995:170–71)





It’s the economy, stupid…!

• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’



(6) ProcrastinateDon’t move before Spell-Outif you don’t absolutely have to!




… recall the English/Japanese contrast: (1')

(1') a. John hit Maryb. John-ga ______ butta Mary-o

AgrO

AgrO

→ English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly→ Japanese AgrO is strong, attracts OB at Spell-Out

Mary-o



(7) The Minimal Link ConditionMake the shortest move!




(3) converges: both SU and OB are makingthe shortest possible move

(3)[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V

OB]]]]]]]SU OB



(3') crashes: OB is making too long a move

(3') *[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V

OB]]]]]]]SU OB

→ this ensures that John kissed Mary cannot mean what Mary kissed John means



(8) The Principle of Full Interpretation

Remove all uninterpretable symbols

from the interface representations!




… back to the English/Japanese contrast: (1')

(1') a. John hit MaryAgrO

→ English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly… but it does ultimately attract OB, covertly (→ at LF)

MaryMary



… back to the English/Japanese contrast: (1')

(1') a. John hit Maryb. John-ga ______ butta

Mary-oAgrO

AgrO

so that AgrO’s & OB’s uninterpretable Case featuresare checked and eliminated, in keeping with FI (8)

MaryMary-o



(8) The Principle of Full Interpretation

Remove all uninterpretable symbols

from the interface representations!


→ also forces expletives to be removed at LF



(8) The Principle of Full InterpretationRemove all uninterpretable symbolsfrom the interface representations!

(9)a. there are many people in the roomb. many people are in the room

• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’→ expletive replacement takes care of agreement


Chomsky (1995:170–71)





Further issues (I): X-bar Theory

Q1: Could we allow X-bar structure to be simplified?Could we manage without the X'/XP distinction?

Q2: Could we force X-bar structure to be simplified?Could the X'/XP distinction be shown to be bad?

tj

tj

ti

V NPV'

VPNPi

I'I

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

NP raises to SpecIP Q: how do we ensure that the result is IP, not NP?


NPi

IP*NP

trivial with standard X-bar theory: the NP-labelled structure is ill-formed →I-projection is incompletenot immediately obvious with simplified X-bar theory: I-projection is certainly not incomplete

IP

VP

I’s strong feature that triggers NP’s mov’t must be checkedbefore I is included in a larger structure with a different label

tj

tj

ti

V NP2

VP

VPNP1

IPI

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

Is there a compelling reason to prefer (10) to (11)?


I'I VP

NP1 V'V NP

2N1 N1

N2

N2

(10) (11)

NO → (11) is simpler, hence preferred cet. par.

tj

tj

ti

V NP2

VP

VPNP1

IPI

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP



I'I VP

NP1 V'V NP

2N1 N1

N2

N2

(10) (11)

YES → (10) does not translate into word order

→ in (10), NP1 asymmetrically c-commands V (etc.)

tj

tj

ti

V NP2

VP

VPNP1

IPI

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP



I'I VP

NP1 V'V NP

2N1 N1

N2

N2

(10) (11)


… but V' also asymmetrically c-commands N1

tj

tj

ti

V NP2

VP

VPNP1

IPI

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP



I'I VP

NP1 V'V NP

2N1 N1

N2

N2

(10) (11)


so if asymmetric c-command yields linear order…

Kayne (1994)

tj

tj

ti

V NP2

VP

VPNP1

IPI

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP



I'I VP

NP1 V'V NP

2N1 N1

N2

N2

(10) (11)


… then (10) fails to linearly order N1 and V← BAD!


Further issues (II): Agr

Q1: Could we simplify the ‘split-IP’ structure?

Could we manage without the AgrPs?

Q2: Could we force IP structure to be simplified?Could the AgrP structure be argued to be bad?

NB1: ‘agreement’ is a relationship, not in any obvioussense a node in the tree

NB2: ‘Agr’ qua node is totally devoid of interpretation

AgrSPSUj AgrS'

AgrS TP tj T' T AgrOP

OBi

AgrO' AgrO VP

tj V'

Vti

sample derivation(recapitulation)

a bit of an ‘embarrassment of riches’ upstairs…

AgrSPSUj AgrS'

AgrS TP tj T' T AgrOP

OBi

AgrO' AgrO VP

tj V'

Vti

sample derivation(recapitulation)

… we don’t seem to need both AgrSP and TP

TP SUj T' T vP

OBi vP

tj v' v VP

Vti

the alternative(Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4)

the v is a agentive/causative ‘light verb’

TP SUj T' T vP

OBi vP

tj v' v VP

Vti


v introduces SU and checks OB’s accusative Case

Burzio’sGeneralisationis now derived

TP SUj T' T vP

OBi vP

tj v' v VP

Vti


v needs multiple specifiers to play its part

TP SUj T' T vP

OBi vP

tj v' v VP

Vti


multiple specifiers are incompatible w/ Kayne (94)

Kayne’s (1994)antisymmetryis abandoned


Further issues (III): ‘Bare Phrase Structure’

Q1: Could we allow X-bar theory to be abandoned?Could we manage without bar-level distinctions?

Q2: Could we force X-bar theory to be abandoned?Could bar-level distinctions be proven wrong?

→ Chomsky’s ‘Bare Phrase Structure’ attemptsto show that X-bar theory is unnecessary andhas to be abandoned (to allow multiple specs)

T SUj T T v

OBi v

tj v v V

Vti

the alternative(à la ‘Bare Phrase Structure’)

maybe even the labels are superfluous (Collins)


More recent developments (Chomsky 2000, 2001)

• locality theory and the concept of phase

→ Agree can establish relationships betweenmatching features only within a local

domain,the phase (cf. ‘bounding node’, ‘barrier’,

‘cycle’)• cyclic Spell-out and the overt-covert distinction→ ‘purely “covert” Agree is just part of the single

narrow-syntactic cycle’→ ‘perform computations as quickly as possible’

(‘earliness’ à la Pesetsky; contra Procrastinate!)

Documents

The Minimalist Program