Minimalist program

  (Redirected from Bare phrase structure)

In linguistics, the minimalist program (MP) 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.[1]

Chomsky presents MP as a program, not as a theory, following Imre Lakatos's distinction.[2] The MP seeks to be a mode of inquiry characterized by the flexibility of the multiple directions that its minimalism enables. Ultimately, the MP provides a conceptual framework used to guide the development of linguistic theory. In minimalism, Chomsky attempts to approach universal grammar from below—that is, proposing the question "what would be the optimal answer to what the theory of I-Language should be?"

For Chomsky, there are minimalist questions, but the answers can be framed in any theory. Of all these questions, the two that play the most crucial role are:[3]

(1) What is language?
(2) Why does it have the properties it has?

Theoretical goalsEdit

PerfectionEdit

The MP appeals to the idea that the language ability in humans shows signs of being incorporated under an optimal design with exquisite organization, which seems to suggest that the inner workings conform to a very simple computational law or a particular mental organ. In other words, the MP works on the assumption that universal grammar constitutes a perfect design in the sense that it contains only what is necessary to meet humans' conceptual and physical (phonological) needs.[4]

From a theoretical standpoint, and in the context of generative grammar, the MP draws on the minimalist approach of the principles and parameters program, considered to be the ultimate standard theoretical model that generative linguistics has developed since the 1980s. What this approach suggests is the existence of a fixed set of principles valid for all languages, which, when combined with settings for a finite set of binary switches (parameters), may describe the specific properties that characterize the language system a child eventually comes to attain.[5]

The MP aims to get to know how much of the principles and parameters model can be taken as a result of this hypothetical optimal and computationally efficient design of the human language faculty. In turn, more developed versions of the principles and parameters approach provide technical principles from which the MP can be seen to follow.[6]

EconomyEdit

The MP aims at the further development of ideas involving economy of derivation and economy of representation, which had started to become significant in the early 1990s, but were still peripheral aspects of transformational grammar.[7]

  • Economy of derivation is a principle stating that movements (i.e., transformations) only occur in order to match interpretable features with uninterpretable features. An example of an interpretable feature is the plural inflection on regular English nouns, e.g., dogs. The word dogs can only be used to refer to several dogs, not a single dog, and so this inflection contributes to meaning, making it interpretable. English verbs are inflected according to the number of their subject (e.g., "Dogs bite" vs. "A dog bites"), but this information is only interpretable once a relationship is formed between the subject and the verb, so movement of the subject is required.
  • Economy of representation is the principle that grammatical structures must exist for a purpose, i.e., the structure of a sentence should be no larger or more complex than required to satisfy constraints on grammaticality, which are equivalent to constraints on the mapping between the conceptual/intentional and sensori-motor interfaces in the optimal system that minimalism seeks to explore.

Technical innovationsEdit

The exploration of minimalist questions has led to several radical changes in the technical apparatus of transformational generative grammatical theory. Some of the most important are:[8]

  • The generalization of X-bar theory into bare phrase structure (see below).
  • The simplification of representational levels in the grammatical model, eliminating the distinction between deep structure and surface structure in favor of a more explicitly derivational approach.
  • The elimination of the notion of government.
  • The inclusion of two new points of interaction, namely, a "spell-out" point between syntax and the interface with the phonological form, and an additional point of interaction with the logical form.
  • The idea that syntactic derivations proceed by clearly delineated stages called "phases" (see below).

Bare Phrase StructureEdit

A major development of MP inquiry is bare phrase structure (BPS), a theory of phrase structure (structure building operations) developed by Noam Chomsky.[9] The introduction of BPS has moved the Chomskyan tradition toward the dependency grammar tradition, which operates with significantly less structure than most phrase structure grammars.[10]

History of Bare Phrase StructureEdit

Dependency GrammarEdit

There is a trend in minimalism that shifts from constituency-based to dependency-based structures. Under the dependency grammar umbrella, exists bare phrase structure (BPS), label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax.

  1. Specifier-less syntax was introduced as a way to enable each single words that were initially labelled as a specifier, to become their own phrases, which then introduces a complement.

To complete the development of the dependency grammar, Merge is introduced.

Merge and MoveEdit

BPS incorporates two basic operations: "merge" and "move". Although there is active debate on exactly how "move" should be formulated, the differences between the current proposals are relatively minute. The following description follows Chomsky's original proposal.

Merge is a function that takes two objects (say α and β) and merges them into an unordered set with a label (either α or β, in this case α). The label identifies the properties of the phrase.

Merge (α, β) → {α, {α, β} }

For example, "merge" can operate on the lexical items "drink" and "water" to give "drink water". Note that sometimes people mistakenly claim that the phrase "drink water" behaves more like the verb drink than like the noun water. That is, wherever the verb drink can be put, so too can the phrase "drink water":

(1a) I like to drink.
(1b) I like to drink water.
(2a) Drinking is fun.
(2b) Drinking water is fun.

Furthermore, the phrase "drink water" can not typically be put in the same places as the noun water:

It can be said, "There's some water on the table", but not "There's some drink water on the table".

However, obviously drink water cannot be put in the same place as drink into an infinitely large number of sentences in which drink already has a direct object, for instance:

(3a) I like to drink milk.

but not

(3b) *I like to drink water milk.

Despite being obviously incorrect, people tend to use the principle of "distributional identity" to explain which of two words will serve as the "head" or "label" of the word combination.

In the Minimalist Program, the phrase is identified with a label. In the case of "drink water", the label is drink since the phrase acts as a verb. For simplicity, this phrase is called a verb phrase (VP). If "cold" and "water" were merged to get "cold water", this would be a noun phrase (NP) with the label "water"; it follows that the phrase "cold water" can appear in the same environments as the noun water in the three test sentences above. So, for drink water, there is the following:

Merge (drink, water) → {drink, {drink, water} }

This can be represented in a typical syntax tree as follows:

 

or, with more technical terms, as:

 

Merge can also operate on structures already built. If it could not, then such a system would predict only two-word utterances to be grammatical. If a new head is merged with a previously formed object (a phrase), the function has the form

Merge (γ, {α, {α, β}}) → {γ, {γ, {α, {α, β}}}}

Here, γ is the label, so that γ "projects" from the label of the head. This corresponds to the following tree structure:

 

Merge operates blindly, projecting labels in all possible combinations. The subcategorization features of the head then license certain label projections and eliminate all derivations with alternate projections.

Features in Bare Phrase StructureEdit

Bare Phrase Structure contains many features:

  1. Xmax: maximal projection
  2. Xmin: minimal prjection
  3. EPP: extended projection principle
  4. Lexical items that represent locality of selection, such as {D,C,T,etc.}

Examples of Bare Phrase StructureEdit

Comparison of Bare Phrase Structure with X-bar TheoryEdit

This theory contrasts with X-bar theory, which preceded it, in four important ways:

  1. BPS is explicitly derivational. That is, it is built from the bottom up, bit by bit. In contrast, X-bar theory is representational—a structure for a given construction is built in one fell swoop, and lexical items are inserted into the structure.
  2. BPS does not have a preconceived phrasal structure, while in X-bar theory every phrase has a specifier, a head, and a complement.
  3. BPS permits only binary branching, while X-bar theory permits both binary and unary branching.
  4. BPS does not distinguish between a "head" and a "terminal", while some versions of X-bar theory require such a distinction.
  5. BPS incorporates features into their structure, such as Xmax and Xmin, while X-bar theory contains levels, such as XP, X', X

The reasons behind the transition between X-bar theory and BPS are two:

  1. Eliminating the notion of non-branching domination
  2. Eliminating the necessity of bar-level projections

PhasesEdit

A "phase" is a syntactic domain first hypothesized by Noam Chomsky in 1998.[11]

Exemplification of CP and vP phasesEdit

A simple sentence is often decomposed into two phases, CP and vP (see X-bar theory). Chomsky[12] considers vP and CP to be strong phases because they show strong phase effects.

 
Syntax Tree of simple sentence

Chomsky[12] assumed that vP and CP form phases based on evidence from movement, proposition and reconstruction effects:

Movement evidence:

vP and CP can be the focus of pseudo-cleft movement, therefore showing that vP and CP both form a syntactic unit.

(1) Mary said [CP that John is bringing the dessert].

(2) What Mary said was [CP that John is bringing the dessert].

  • Example (1) and (2) show that CP can be the focus of pseudo-cleft movement:

(3) Alice will [vP arrive tomorrow].

(4) What Alice will do is [vP arrive tomorrow].

  • Example (3) and (4) show that vP can be the focus of pseudo-cleft movement:

Proposition evidence:

vP is considered a propositional unit because all the theta roles are assigned in vP. CP is also a propositional unit because it is a full clause that has tense and force.

Reconstruction effects:

The edges of vP and CP phase provide potential reconstruction site. There is evidence from reconstruction effects that CP and VP are phases.

(1) [which picture of himselfk/j] did Johnk think Fredj liked  ?

(2) [which of the papers that hek gave Maryj] did every studentk   ask herj to read X carefully?

  • Example (1), shows that the wh-phrase is able to stop at the edge of every CP (space with check marks) since the binding requirement of himself being bound by John and Fred is satisfied.
  • Example (2), shows that the wh-phrase can only stop at the edge of the matrix vP because it satisfies the binding requirement: he must be bound by every student and Mary must not be bound by her.

Exemplification of phase impenetrability condition (PIC)Edit

Chomsky theorized that syntactic operations must obey the 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 is defined as the residue of X', in either specifier or elements adjoined to XP[13]. This condition is described in the phase impenetrability condition, which has been variously formulated within the literature. The EPP feature condition is a feature on heads of phases that trigger the intermediate movement steps to phase edges[14].


This is an example of wh-movement in English under the PIC[14]:

[CP Who did you [vP you see who]]?

This sentence has 2 phases (vP and CP). To generate this sentence, ‘who’ has to move from the vP phase (lower phase) to the CP phase (higher phase). This must occur in 2 steps since ‘who’ starts off in the complement position of vP and therefore cannot move out of the phase under the PIC.

  • First, ‘who’ must move from the complement position of vP to the edge of vP. The EPP feature of the verb motivates the movement of ‘who’ to the edge of vP
  • Now that ‘who’ is at the left edge of the vP phase, it can move into the specifier of the CP phase.

What can (not) be a phaseEdit

In its original conception, only the vP in transitive and unergative verbs constitute phases. The vP in passives and unaccusative verbs (if even present) are not phases. This topic is, however, currently under debate in the literature.[15] It has also been proposed that a TP can be a phase, depending on the language. [16]

LabelingEdit

In the last decade, a substantial body of literature in the Minimalist tradition has focused on how a phrase receives the proper label. A label is the indication about the kind of phrase that is built via merge. This eschews the bare phrase structure formulation of Merge in favor of a simpler Merge(a,b) = {a,b}.[17] This further departs from older schools of generative grammar in which the label of a phrase is labels are determined endocentrically. In a series of articles, Chomsky has proposed that labels are determined by a labeling algorithm which operates after syntactic structure have been built.

Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)Edit

In 2016 Chomsky and Berwick co-wrote their book titled Why Only Us where they defined both the Minimalist Program and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. According to Berwick and Chomsky, the Strong Minimalist Thesis states that "The optimal situation would be that UG reduces to the simplest computational principles which operate in accord with conditions of computational efficiency. This conjecture is ... called the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)."[18]

CriticismsEdit

In the late 1990s, David E. Johnson and Shalom Lappin published the first detailed critiques of Chomsky's minimalist program.[19] This technical work was followed by a lively debate with proponents of minimalism on the scientific status of the program.[20][21][22] The original article provoked several replies[23][24][25][26][27] and two further rounds of replies and counter-replies in subsequent issues of the same journal.

Lappin et al. argue that the minimalist program is a radical departure from earlier Chomskyan linguistic practice that is not motivated by any new empirical discoveries, but rather by a general appeal to perfection, which is both empirically unmotivated and so vague as to be unfalsifiable. They compare the adoption of this paradigm by linguistic researchers to other historical paradigm shifts in natural sciences and conclude that of the minimalist program has been an "unscientific revolution", driven primarily by Chomsky's authority in linguistics. The several replies to the article in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Volume 18 number 4 (2000) make a number of different defenses of the minimalist program. Some claim that it is not in fact revolutionary or not in fact widely adopted, while others agree with Lappin and Johnson on these points, but defend the vagueness of its formulation as not problematic in light of its status as a research program rather than a theory (see above).

Prakash Mondal has published a book-length critique of the Minimalist model of grammar, showing a number of contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes within the formal structure of the system. In particular, his critique interrogates closely the consequences of adopting some rather innocuous and widespread assumptions or axioms about the nature of language as ensconced in the Minimalist model of the language faculty.[28]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT occasional papers in linguistics no. 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
  2. ^ For a thorough discussion of this distinction in the context of linguistics, see Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Boeckx, Cedric Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims, pp. 84 and 115.
  4. ^ Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. ^ There are many introductions to Principle and Parameters. Two that align PP in such a way that make the transition to MP smooth are Carnie, Andrew. 2006. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 2nd Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, and Cook, Vivian J. and Newson, Mark. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  6. ^ For a detailed introductory discussion between the transition of the technicalities from PP to MP see, among others, Gert Webelhuth. 1995. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Wiley-Blackwell; Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason. An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. ^ For a full description of the checking mechanism see Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; and also Carnie, Andrew. 2006. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishers
  8. ^ For some conceptual and empirical advantages of the MP over the traditional view see: Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-Structure, Θ-Criterion, and Movement into Θ-Positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286, and for more detailed discussions Bošković, Željko and Howard Lasnik (eds). 2006. Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  9. ^ See Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare Phrase Structure. In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory. Essays in honor of Carlos Otero., eds. Hector Campos and Paula Kempchinsky, 51–109.
  10. ^ Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Gross 2011. Bare phrase structure, label-less structures, and specifier-less syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364
  11. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1998). "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework" MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Republished in 2000 in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (eds.). Step By Step: Essays In Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 89–155. MIT Press.
  12. ^ a b Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 89–156. ISBN 026213361X.
  13. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1999). Derivation by Phase. MIT, Department of Linguistics.
  14. ^ a b Obata, Miki (2006-01-01). "Phase and Convergence". University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 12 (1).
  15. ^ See, among others, Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some Interface Properties of the Phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–516 and Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
  16. ^ See Assmann et al. (2015) Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax. Syntax 18:4 pp. 343–387
  17. ^ Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (1 ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2002. doi:10.1002/9780470755662#page=53.
  18. ^ Chomsky and Berwick. Why Only Us?. MIT Press. 2016. Page 94.
  19. ^ Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin (1997), "A Critique of the Minimalist Program" in Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 273–333, and Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin (1999). Local Constraints vs Economy. Stanford: CSLI
  20. ^ *Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2000a). "The Structure of Unscientific Revolutions." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 665–771
  21. ^ Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2000b). "The Revolution Confused: A Reply to our Critics." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 873–890
  22. ^ Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2001). "The Revolution Maximally Confused." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 901–919
  23. ^ Holmberg, Anders (2000). "Am I Unscientific? A Reply to Lappin, Levine, and Johnson". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 18: 837–842. doi:10.1023/A:1006425604798.
  24. ^ Reuland, Eric (2000). "Revolution, Discovery, and an Elementary Principle of Logic". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 18: 843–848. doi:10.1023/A:1006404305706.
  25. ^ Roberts, Ian (2000). "Caricaturing Dissent". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 18: 849–857. doi:10.1023/A:1006408422545.
  26. ^ Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo (2000). "The Metric of Open-Mindedness". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 18: 859–862. doi:10.1023/A:1006460406615.
  27. ^ Uriagereka, Juan (2000). "On the Emptiness of 'Design' Polemics". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 18: 863–871. doi:10.1023/A:1006412507524.
  28. ^ Mondal, Prakash (2014). Language, Mind and Computation. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Further readingEdit

Much research has been devoted to the study of the consequences that arise when minimalist questions are formulated. This list is not exhaustive.

Works by Noam ChomskyEdit

  • 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
  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT 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. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge 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. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
  • 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. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.

Linguistic textbooks on minimalismEdit

  • Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bošković, Željko and Howard Lasnik (eds). 2006. Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Cook, Vivian J. and Newson, Mark. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Lasnik, Howard, Juan Uriagereka, Cedric Boeckx. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell
  • 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

Works on the main theoretical notions and their applicationsEdit

  • Boeckx, Cedric (ed). 2006. Minimalist Essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. An Economy Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-Logical Form: a Radically Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Epstein, Samuel David, and Hornstein, Norbert (eds). 1999. Working Minimalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Epstein, Samuel David, and Seely, T. Daniel (eds). 2002. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Fox, Danny. 1999. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Martin, Roger, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds). 2000. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Pesetsky, David. 2001. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stroik, Thomas. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.