Date post: | 19-Jan-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bertram-allen |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Minimalist ProgramChomsky (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’
The Minimalist ProgramChomsky (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’
The Minimalist ProgramParameters 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
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(1)a. John hit Maryb. John-ga Mary-o buttaJohn-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
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(1)a. John hit Maryb. John-ga Mary-o buttaJohn-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
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(1)a. John hit Maryb. 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
Mary-oFF
→ English F is weak (hence does not attract OB)→ Japanese F is strong (hence attracts OB to it)
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(1)a. John hit Maryb. 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
Mary-oFF
→ accusative Case is checked in F’s specifier position
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(1)a. John hit Maryb. 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)?
Mary-oFF
A: an Agreement head (cf. NOM: Portuguese (2))
The Minimalist ProgramParameters as properties of F-categories
(2)a. eles aprovarem a propostathey-NOM approve-3PL the proposalb. (*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))
The Minimalist ProgramParameters 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)→ 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
The Minimalist ProgramParameters 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’
SU OB
→ language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts
The Minimalist ProgramParameters 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’
SU OB
→ language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts
The Minimalist ProgramParameters 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’
SU OB
→ language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts
V
→ clearly, SU & OB do not always check case overtly→ the Case Filter is not an S-Structure condition!
The Minimalist ProgramChomsky (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’
The Minimalist ProgramConditions on representations at the
interface
• ‘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 tough-movement/easy-to-please construction
The Minimalist ProgramConditions 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, 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 tough-movement/easy-to-please construction
The Minimalist ProgramConditions on representations at the
interface
• ‘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’
☻
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?(5a) is straightforward(5b) gives us the i-reading at S-Structure
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?but S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficientbecause (5c) also gives us the i-reading
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
tookc. 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
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?‘photograph’ only gives us the k-reading
i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?… the apparent case for BT-A @ S-Structure
concentrate on (5b)
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?that the i-reading is available in (5b) in principlebut NOT on the idiomatic ‘photograph’ reading …
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?at S-Structure John locally c-commands himself
does not follow if BT-A applies at S-Structure →
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(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…
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(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
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION I
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many pictures of himself Billk took
→ the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues
himself is present only in the upstairs copy
t
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many pictures of himself Billk took
→ the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is out
take pictures is NOT an LF-unit in this structure
t
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many pictures of himself Billk took
keep the restriction in the downstairs copy
keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy
how many pictures of himself
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION II
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(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
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many Billk took
→ the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is okay
take pictures IS an LF-unit
t pictures of himself
Johni does not know…
reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many pictures of himself Billk took
(ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ UNavailable
(i) i-reading (‘John’) only
t
Johni does not know…
summary — OPTION I
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
(5) b.how many Billk took
(ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ available
(i) k-reading (‘Bill’) only
t pictures of himself
Johni does not know…
summary — OPTION II
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structurewe could base antecedent choice directly on (5b)
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
tookc. 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)
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
tookc. how many pictures of himselfi/k
does Johni think Billk took?… so we would predict the i-reading to be okayon the idiomatic reading of take pictures
← BAD!
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
Principle A andBinding @ S-Structure
conclusion:correlation between idiomatic fixing and antecedent choice follows ONLY w/ BT-A
at LF
Binding Theory &Levels of Representation
Principle A andBinding @ S-Structure
conclusion:→ reference to S-Structure is impossible
in the domain of the Binding Theory
The Minimalist ProgramConditions on representations at the
interface
• ‘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 Minimalist ProgramChomsky (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’
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
(6) ProcrastinateDon’t move before Spell-Outif you don’t absolutely have to!
• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
… recall the English/Japanese contrast: (1')
(1') a. John hit Maryb. John-ga ______ butta Mary-o
AgrOAgrO
→ English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly→ Japanese AgrO is strong, attracts OB at Spell-Out
Mary-o
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
(7) The Minimal Link ConditionMake the shortest move!
• ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
(3) converges: both SU and OB are makingthe shortest possible move
(3)[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V
OB]]]]]]]SU OB
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
(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
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s 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’
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
… 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
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
… back to the English/Japanese contrast: (1')
(1') a. John hit Maryb. John-ga ______ butta
Mary-oAgrOAgrO
so that AgrO’s & OB’s uninterpretable Case featuresare checked and eliminated, in keeping with FI (8)
MaryMary-o
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s 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
The Minimalist ProgramIt’s the economy, stupid…!
(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
The Minimalist ProgramChomsky (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’
The Minimalist ProgramFurther 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?
The Minimalist Program
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)?
The Minimalist Program
I'I VP
NP1 V'V NP
2N1 N1N2
N2
(10) (11)NO → (11) is simpler, hence preferred cet. par.
tj
tj
ti
V NP2
VP
VPNP1
IPI
TT'
TP
AgrSAgrS'
AgrSP
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)?
The Minimalist Program
I'I VP
NP1 V'V NP
2N1 N1N2
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
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)?
The Minimalist Program
I'I VP
NP1 V'V NP
2N1 N1N2
N2
(10) (11)YES → (10) does not translate into word order
… but V' also asymmetrically c-commands N1
tj
tj
ti
V NP2
VP
VPNP1
IPI
TT'
TP
AgrSAgrS'
AgrSP
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)?
The Minimalist Program
I'I VP
NP1 V'V NP
2N1 N1N2
N2
(10) (11)YES → (10) does not translate into word order
so if asymmetric c-command yields linear order…
Kayne (1994)
tj
tj
ti
V NP2
VP
VPNP1
IPI
TT'
TP
AgrSAgrS'
AgrSP
Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)?
The Minimalist Program
I'I VP
NP1 V'V NP
2N1 N1N2
N2
(10) (11)YES → (10) does not translate into word order
… then (10) fails to linearly order N1 and V← BAD!
The Minimalist ProgramFurther 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
OBiAgrO'
AgrO VP tj V'
Vti
sample derivation(recapitulation)
a bit of an ‘embarrassment of riches’ upstairs…
AgrSPSUj AgrS'
AgrS TP tj T' T AgrOP
OBiAgrO'
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
the alternative(Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4)
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
the alternative(Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4)
v needs multiple specifiers to play its part
TP SUj T' T vP
OBi vP
tj v' v VP
Vti
the alternative(Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4)
multiple specifiers are incompatible w/ Kayne (94)
Kayne’s (1994)antisymmetryis abandoned
The Minimalist ProgramFurther 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 V
ti
the alternative(à la ‘Bare Phrase Structure’)
maybe even the labels are superfluous (Collins)
The Minimalist ProgramMore 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!)