The Minimalist Program

1
The Minimalist Program
Chomsky (199517071)
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, ?-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
2
The Minimalist Program
Chomsky (199517071)
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, ?-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
3
The Minimalist Program
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
4
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)
a. John hit
Mary b. John-ga Mary-o butta John-NOM Mary-
ACC hit
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
5
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)
a. John hit
Mary b. John-ga Mary-o butta John-NOM Mary-
ACC hit
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? word-order variation as variation in the
properties of the F-category regulating
object placement
6
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)
a. John hit
Mary b. John-ga ______ butta
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? word-order variation as variation in the
properties of the F-category regulating
object placement
? English F is weak (hence does not attract OB) ?
Japanese F is strong (hence attracts OB to it)
F
Mary-o
F
7
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)
a. John hit
Mary b. John-ga ______ butta
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? F is the node checking accusative Case (-o) on
OB
? accusative Case is checked in Fs specifier
position
F
Mary-o
F
8
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)
a. John hit
Mary b. John-ga ______ butta
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
Q what is the nature of F checking ACC in (1)?
A an Agreement head (cf. NOM Portuguese (2))
F
Mary-o
F
9
The Minimalist Program

• Parameters as properties of F-categories
• a. eles aprovarem a proposta
• they-NOM approve-3PL the proposal
• b. (eles) aprovar a proposta

we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
Q what is the nature of F checking ACC in (1)?
A an Agreement head (cf. NOM Portuguese (2))
10
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (3)
AgrSP __ AgrS TP T AgrOP __ AgrO VP SU V
OB
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? two Agr nodes, for subject (NOM) and object
(ACC)
(V also moves, up to AgrO AgrO-to-T T-to-AgrS)
? movement of SU and OB to SpecAgrP positions
? language variation wrt the timing of these
movts
SU
OB
11
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
sample derivation bottom-up tree building
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
T'
T
AgrO'
VP
AgrO
V'
SUj
V
OBi
next, V raises to AgrO
and OB raises to the newly-merged SpecAgrOP
12
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
sample derivation bottom-up tree building
AgrS'
AgrS
TP
TP
T'
tj
T
AgrOP
AgrO'
VP
AgrO
V'
SUj
tj
V
OBi
ti
next, T merges w/ AgrOP
and SU raises to the newly-merged SpecTP
next, AgrO raises to T
and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP movt ensue
next, AgrS merges
13
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (3a)
Spell-Out SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in situ AgrSP __
AgrS TP T AgrOP __ AgrO VP SU V OB
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? language variation wrt the timing of these
movts
OB
SU
14
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (3b)
Spell-Out SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in
SpecAgrOP AgrSP __ AgrS TP T AgrOP __ AgrO
VP SU V OB
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? language variation wrt the timing of these
movts
SU
OB
15
The Minimalist Program
Parameters as properties of F-categories (3c)
Spell-Out SU and OB in situ, V in AgrO (or
higher) AgrSP __ AgrS TP T AgrOP __ AgrO VP
SU V OB
we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant
principles with options restricted to
functional elements and general properties of the
lexicon
? clearly, SU OB do not always check case
overtly
? language variation wrt the timing of these
movts
? the Case Filter is not an S-Structure
condition!
SU
OB
V
16
The Minimalist Program
Chomsky (199517071)
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, ?-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
17
The Minimalist Program
Conditions on representations at the interface
?
conditions on representations those of
binding theory, Case theory, ?-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 tough-movement/easy-to-please construction
18
The Minimalist Program
Conditions on representations at the
interface (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
conditions on representations those of
binding theory, Case theory, ?-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 tough-movement/easy-to-please construction
19
The Minimalist Program
Conditions on representations at the interface
?
conditions on representations those of
binding theory, Case theory, ?-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
?
anaphor binding ambiguity and idiomatic fixing
20
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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
21
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
but S-Structure application of BT-A is
insufficient
because (5c) also gives us the i-reading
22
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
but S-Structure application of BT-A is
insufficient
and it can even be shown to be wrong
23
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading
photograph only gives us the k-reading
24
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
concentrate on (5b)
the apparent case for BT-A _at_ S-Structure
25
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
that the i-reading is available in (5b) in
principle
but NOT on the idiomatic photograph reading
26
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
does not follow if BT-A applies at S-Structure ?
at S-Structure John locally c-commands himself
27
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. Billk took
Johni does not know
how many pictures of himself
how many pictures of himself
is this going to be our final LF-representation?
NO the two copies are too rich!
28
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many pictures of himself
Billk took
Johni does not know
how many pictures of himself
reducing the copies ? OPTION I
keep the complete upstairs copy
turn the complete lower copy into a variable
29
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many pictures of himself
Billk took
Johni does not know
t
reducing the copies ? OPTION I ? RESULT
himself is present only in the upstairs copy
? the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues
30
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many pictures of himself
Billk took
Johni does not know
t
reducing the copies ? OPTION I ? RESULT
take pictures is NOT an LF-unit in this structure
? the idiomatic reading photograph is out
31
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many pictures of himself
Billk took
Johni does not know
how many pictures of himself
reducing the copies ? OPTION II
keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy
keep the restriction in the downstairs copy
32
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many Billk took
Johni does not know
t pictures of himself
reducing the copies ? OPTION II ? RESULT
himself is present only in the downstairs copy
? the k-reading (and only the k-reading) ensues
33
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many Billk took
Johni does not know
t pictures of himself
reducing the copies ? OPTION II ? RESULT
take pictures IS an LF-unit
? the idiomatic reading photograph is okay
34
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many pictures of himself
Billk took
Johni does not know
t
summary OPTION I
(i) i-reading (John) only
(ii) idiomatic reading photograph UNavailable
35
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) b. how many Billk took
Johni does not know
t pictures of himself
summary OPTION II
(i) k-reading (Bill) only
(ii) idiomatic reading photograph available
36
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structure
we could base antecedent choice directly on (5b)
37
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
independently of what happens later, at LF!
(i.e., regardless of whether option I or II is
chosen)
38
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
(5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took
pictures of himselfi/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?
so we would predict the i-reading to be okay
on the idiomatic reading of take pictures
? BAD!
39
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
Principle A and Binding _at_ S-Structure
conclusion correlation between idiomatic fixing
and antecedent choice follows ONLY w/ BT-A at LF
40
Binding Theory Levels of Representation
Principle A and Binding _at_ S-Structure
conclusion ? reference to S-Structure is
impossible in the domain of the Binding Theory
41
The Minimalist Program
Conditions on representations at the interface
?
?
conditions on representations those of
binding theory, Case theory, ?-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
?
42
The Minimalist Program
Chomsky (199517071)
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, ?-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
43
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid!
the linguistic expressions are the optimal
realizations of the interface conditions,
where optimality is determined by economy
conditions of UG
44
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (6) Procrastinate D
ont move before Spell-Out if you dont
absolutely have to!
the linguistic expressions are the optimal
realizations of the interface conditions,
where optimality is determined by economy
conditions of UG
45
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! recall the
English/Japanese contrast (1') (1') a. John
hit Mary b. John-ga ______
butta
? English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB
overtly ? Japanese AgrO is strong, attracts OB at
Spell-Out
AgrO
Mary-o
Mary-o
AgrO
46
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (7) The Minimal Link
Condition Make the shortest move!
the linguistic expressions are the optimal
realizations of the interface conditions,
where optimality is determined by economy
conditions of UG
47
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (3) converges both
SU and OB are making the shortest possible
move (3) AgrSP __ AgrS TP T AgrOP __ AgrO
VP SU V OB
SU
OB
48
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (3') crashes OB is
making too long a move (3') AgrSP __ AgrS
TP T AgrOP __ AgrO VP SU V OB
? this ensures that John kissed Mary cannot mean
what Mary kissed John means
SU
OB
49
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (8) The Principle of
Full Interpretation Remove all uninterpretable
symbols from the interface representations!
the linguistic expressions are the optimal
realizations of the interface conditions,
where optimality is determined by economy
conditions of UG
50
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! back to the
English/Japanese contrast (1') (1') a. John
hit Mary
? English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB
overtly
but it does ultimately attract OB, covertly (?
at LF)
Mary
Mary
AgrO
51
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! back to the
English/Japanese contrast (1') (1') a. John
hit Mary b. John-ga ______
butta
so that AgrOs OBs uninterpretable Case
features
are checked and eliminated, in keeping with FI (8)
Mary
AgrO
Mary-o
Mary-o
AgrO
52
The Minimalist Program
Its the economy, stupid! (8) The Principle of
Full Interpretation Remove all uninterpretable
symbols from the interface representations!
the linguistic expressions are the optimal
realizations of the interface conditions,
where optimality is determined by economy
conditions of UG
? also forces expletives to be removed at LF
53
The Minimalist Program

• Its the economy, stupid!
• (8) The Principle of Full Interpretation
• Remove all uninterpretable symbols
• from the interface representations!
• a. there are many people in the room
• b. 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
54
The Minimalist Program
Chomsky (199517071)
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, ?-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
55
The Minimalist Program
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?
56
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
trivial with standard X-bar theory the
NP-labelled structure is ill-formed
? I-projection is incomplete
T'
IP
NP
T
I'
IP
VP
I
not immediately obvious with simplified X-bar
theory I-projection is certainly not incomplete
V'
NPi
NPi
VP
V
NP
NP raises to SpecIP
Q how do we ensure that the result is IP, not
NP?
Is strong feature that triggers NPs movt must
be checked before I is included in a larger
structure with a different label
57
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (10) to
(11)?
T'
NO ? (11) is simpler, hence preferred cet. par.
T
(10) (11)
IP
I'
VP
I
I
VP
VP
NP1
NP1
V'
V
V
NP2
NP2
N1
N1
N2
N2
58
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to
(10)?
T'
YES ? (10) does not translate into word order
T
(10) (11)
IP
I'
VP
I
I
VP
VP
NP1
NP1
V'
V
V
NP2
NP2
N1
N1
N2
N2
? in (10), NP1 asymmetrically c-commands V (etc.)
59
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to
(10)?
T'
YES ? (10) does not translate into word order
T
(10) (11)
IP
I'
VP
I
I
VP
VP
NP1
NP1
V'
V
V
NP2
NP2
N1
N1
N2
N2
but V' also asymmetrically c-commands N1
60
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to
(10)?
T'
YES ? (10) does not translate into word order
T
(10) (11)
IP
I'
VP
I
I
VP
VP
NP1
NP1
V'
V
V
NP2
NP2
N1
N1
Kayne (1994)
N2
N2
so if asymmetric c-command yields linear order
61
The Minimalist Program
AgrSP
tj

tj ti
AgrS'
TP
AgrS
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to
(10)?
T'
YES ? (10) does not translate into word order
T
(10) (11)
IP
I'
VP
I
I
VP
VP
NP1
NP1
V'
V
V
NP2
NP2
N1
N1
N2
N2
then (10) fails to linearly order N1 and V
? BAD!
62
The Minimalist Program
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
obvious sense a node in the tree
NB2 Agr qua node is totally devoid of
interpretation
63
AgrSP SUj AgrS' AgrS TP tj
T' T AgrOP
OBi AgrO' AgrO VP
tj V' V ti
sample derivation (recapitulation)
a bit of an embarrassment of riches upstairs
64
AgrSP SUj AgrS' AgrS TP tj
T' T AgrOP
OBi AgrO' AgrO VP
tj V' V ti
sample derivation (recapitulation)
we dont seem to need both AgrSP and TP
65
TP SUj T'
T vP OBi
vP tj v' v VP
V ti
the alternative (Chomsky 1995 Ch. 4)
the v is a agentive/causative light verb
66
TP SUj T'
T vP OBi
vP tj v' v VP
V ti
the alternative (Chomsky 1995 Ch. 4)
Burzios Generalisation is now derived
v introduces SU and checks OBs accusative Case
67
TP SUj T'
T vP OBi
vP tj v' v VP
V ti
the alternative (Chomsky 1995 Ch. 4)
v needs multiple specifiers to play its part
68
TP SUj T'
T vP OBi
vP tj v' v VP
V ti
the alternative (Chomsky 1995 Ch. 4)
Kaynes (1994) antisymmetry is abandoned
multiple specifiers are incompatible w/ Kayne (94)
69
The Minimalist Program
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?
? Chomskys Bare Phrase Structure attempts to
show that X-bar theory is unnecessary and has to
be abandoned (to allow multiple specs)
70
T SUj T T
v OBi v
tj v v V V ti
the alternative (à la Bare Phrase Structure)
maybe even the labels are superfluous (Collins)
71
The Minimalist Program
More recent developments (Chomsky 2000, 2001)
locality theory and the concept of phase
? Agree can establish relationships
between matching 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!)