(toc) #title= (Table of Content)
Introduction of Minimalism
The approach of the Minimalist Program (MP) is to explain the structure of language as a result of what are assumed to be intuitively natural economy conditions on the computational mechanisms that make up grammars. There are essentially two such mechanisms: phrase structure, which falls under X-bar theory in the principles and parameters framework, and movement, characterized by move-a in the Principles and Parameters framework.
In Principles and Parameters theory, and much of the work leading up to it, a major driving force is the uniformity principle. According to this principle, the value attached to any grammar depends on the extent to which it conforms to general configurational and derivational patterns. However, in the MP, there is a strong principle of structural and computational simplicity: grammars are more highly valued to the extent that they minimize structure and derivations. Below is the model:
Minimalist Model
spell out computational
(A-P) = PF (Marante, 1995:355)
In this model, lexical items are spilled into the working areas from the lexicon, and each lexical item has phi-features (gender, number, person) attached to it. Computation starts from a set of lexical resources. There are operations in working areas in this model: operation select, operation merge, and operation move.
Operation Select selects the items which are relevant for the realization of a structure; Operation merge merges selected items to individual features, while Operation Move moves merged items to the PF or LF for interpretation where they cross spell-out.
The PF and LF are the two interface levels recognized in MP, and moved elements converge at these levels. The x-bar theory, case theory, D-structure and S-structure of Government and Binding (GB) theory are all deleted in this model, while the Move-a (move alpha) is replaced with operation move. Some economic principles used in this model are:
(a) Short Move: This principle, taking over the subjacency principle, states that movement of an item must be to the next available upper space from its source.
(b) Greed: This principle states that an element moves to check its own feature. In other words, a constituent does not move unless it has to in order to satisfy some requirement that it has.
(c) Procrastination: This principle states that if an element can wait, it must wait; this makes movement occur as late as possible in derivation.
(d) Last Resort: This principle states that a short derivation is preferred to a longer one.
(e) Least Effort: This principle refers to the choice of a derivation in which minimum effort is required. In other words, a derivation takes a very minimal effort.
Let's begin by examining the notion of intuitively natural economy conditions as it relates to movement. The basic principle motivating the NP is that, other things being equal, the more economical derivation is preferred. Let's take movement from A to B, and then to a more distant C, for example. If A to B is a legitimate movement, then the additional movement to C is a further operation, adding complexity to the derivation. One interpretation of economy is that the shorter derivation is preferred over the longer one, and blocks the longer derivation. However, if we take this idea literally in its most simplistic form, we would end up with the notion that no movement is possible since the absence of movement is maximally economical. What is necessary in order to make the idea of economy more realistic is to have movements where the outcome of the alternatives is independently required, so that the option of no movement at all is not available. Thus, we can consider why movement takes place as well. Let's take movement just from A to B as an example. It is natural to think of the most economical way of going from A to B to be the path that involves the fewest steps. In a tree such as (1) below, a single movement to B might appear to be the most economical. On the other hand, the length of each step might enter into the computation of economy. It is difficult to see how a movement from A to B that employs many steps of minimal length would be more or less economical than the movement illustrated above without some stipulation.
Again, it is necessary in resolving this matter to consider not only what kind of movement is involved, but also why the movement takes place. Simply preferring a stepwise derivation of the movement from A to B will not entail an empirical difference with a single movement from A to B, since the same structure is derived in both cases. The notion of economy can, in principle, have some empirical consequences if in certain cases, non-movement and movement are valued differently as long as there is a fixed reason for why movements occur. Recalling our discussion concerning movement from A to B and then to C, for example, suppose that the shorter derivation blocks the longer one. Under such circumstances, the two derivations will give rise to different derived structures, yielding empirical differences. The principles of Greed and Procrastination substantiate this idea.
Procrastination can be motivated in terms of economy if we assume that early movements are more costly, in computational terms, than late movements, in particular Logical Form (LF) movements. To illustrate, let's consider the feature [Case]. Suppose that every DP possesses such a feature, and that in order to be licensed, a DP with this feature must appear in the specifier position as a case assigner (which we can call Agr) that possesses this feature. This relationship is an instance of feature checking. Assume further more, that a feature that is not licensed produces ungrammaticality. Now, since the feature [Case] must be licensed, it must move to [Spec, Agr P].
The striking out of the feature in the derived structure is one way of indicating feature checking. The next question that arises has to do with how the notion of economy can produce any real linguistic consequences, given that everything that has to move does move, and nothing moves until the last osi. The key is in our understanding of last possible moment, or Last Resort. The idea here is that for each feature there is a structure of Last Resort, such that the feature must be checked at some point in the derivation no later than that structure. Procrastinate together with Last Resort will produce the result that the feature will not be checked before this structure is derived.
Let's suppose that for some feature, the structure of Last Resort is the equivalent of S-Structure, that is, the structure that corresponds to the perceived order of constituents. In this case, the movement will produce some reordering of constituents. Let's suppose that for some urres the structure of Last Resort is LF. In this case, the movement will occur and the feature will be licensed, but the movement will produce no superficial effects. In other words, it will have no consequence for phonetic form (PF).
It is important to note that the MP does not assume that there is actually a distinct level of S-structure with certain well-defined properties. Rather, what corresponds to what we would call S-structure is reucture that exists at a stage of the derivation where the mapping into PF occurs, a process called Spell-Out. This stage can be any point in the derivation, so that S-structure is nothing more than the structure as it exists at the point of Spell-Out. In contrast, in the more rpapdriicnha,l the mapping into PF is determined by the nedfnpednevnlyof structure, that is, the level at which the Binding theory, agreement requirements, the ECP, and so on, apply. Effectively, there is no level of S-structure in the MP, although we will continue to use the term informally to refer to the structure at the point of Spell-Out.
Movements that occur prior to Spell-Out are costly in terms of economy of derivation, while movements that occur in LF are cost-free. Hence, it is preferable to wait until LF if at all possible, that is, Procrastinate.
Now, let us consider what features force movements before Spell-Out/S-Structure. As we noted at the beginning of this unit, Chomsky makes a distinction between strong and weak morphology. A strong feature is one that must be licensed at S-Structure prior to Spell-Out, while a weak feature is one that need be licensed only at LF. Crucially, the same feature may be weak in one language and strong in another, a difference that produces differences in constituent order assuming precisely the same underlying phrase structure. Continuing our example of case features, suppose that Accusative is strong in one language and weak in another, and suppose furthermore that the underlying structure is that of (3) below:
3. ... AgrP Spec Agr1 Agr VP [Accusative] V DP Accusative
Assume that uniformly, agreement holds between a head and its specifier. When this feature is strong, the DP will move to [Spec, AgrP] prior to S-Structure, producing an ordering in which the object precedes the V. In a language in which the feature is weak, the DP moves at LF and the order of constituents is unchanged, and the object follows the V. Assuming that there are no other movements, we thus reduce the Head Parameter to the relative strength of the object case morphology. In languages in which the subject precedes the verb, it is plausible to suppose that the Nominative feature is strong and that the subject moves to [Spec, AgrSP] prior to S-Structure.
Conclusion
The Minimalist Program represents the most current model of Chomskyan grammar. In this model, there is a progression towards minimalism, meaning the theory aims to reduce the expressive power (complexity) of syntax. Syntactic structures are built up through generalized transformations that may insert already formed trees into trees. In this model, certain features of the Principles and Parameters model are conspicuously absent, including Case theory, X-bar theory, and others. The MP offers a unique perspective on the economy of derivation and movement, shedding light on the fundamental principles underlying language structure.
Leave a comment behind