Title: The Empirical andor Theoretical Gains andor Losses of the Minimalist Program
1The Empirical and/or Theoretical Gains and/or
Losses of the Minimalist Program
- Barbara Citko
- University of Washington
- Department of Linguistics
- February 10, 2006
2Outline of the Talk
- What is minimalism?
- What exactly distinguishes minimalist from
pre-minimalist (GB) approaches to language? - What are the common criticisms of the MP?
- Two empirical domains (phrase structure, Empty
Category Principle)
3Two Types of Minimalism
- Methodological minimalism
- Substantive minimalism
- Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and
Representation (Chomsky 1991) - Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1993)
- The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995)
- Minimalist Inquiries (Chomsky 1998)
- Derivation by Phase (Chomsky 1999)
- Beyond Explanatory Adequacy (Chomsky 2001)
- On Nature and Language (Chomsky 2002)
- Three Factors in the Language Design (Chomsky
2005a) - On Phases (Chomsky 2005b)
4Strong Minimalist Thesis
- Language is an optimal solution to minimal design
specifications. - Merge
- Interfaces (perceptual/articulatory system (PF)
and conceptual/intensional system (LF). - Bare output conditions/legibility conditions.
- To what extent is language optimal?
- Optimal with respect to what?
5Consequences of the SMT
- No superfluous levels
- D-structure, S-structure, LF, PF
- LF, PF
- No uneconomical operations
- Greed, Procrastinate, Last Resort, Enlightened
Self-Interest, Minimal Link Condition, Shortest
Move - No semantically vacuous operations (Fox 1995,
1999, Reinhart 1993, 1997) - No superfluous elements (Inclusiveness Condition)
- No indexes
- No traces
- No imperfections in language
- Probably the entire phonology is an
imperfection (Chomsky 2002118) - Morphology is a very striking imperfection
(Chomsky 2002119) - Formal features?
- Displacement?
6Criticisms of the MP
- We conclude that it MP lacks both empirical
and conceptual motivation. (Johnson and Lappin
1997277). - Chomskys triumphalistic rhetoric is inversely
proportional to the actual empirical results that
he can point to. (Newmeyer 2003 586) - No paper has ever been published within the
general rubric of the minimalist program that
does not propose some new UG principle or make
some new stipulation (however well motivated
empirically) about grammatical operations that
does not follow from the bare structure of the
MP. (Newmeyer 2003588) - The ease and speed with which so many GB
theorists have discarded the theoretical
framework in which they had invested so much
research effort and embraced the bizarrely vague
and unmotivated assumptions of the MP thus
suggest that in large sections of the field
theoretical commitment has little to do with
evidence or argument (Lappin, Levine and Johnson
2000669)
7Criticisms of the MP
- The foundational assumption of the MP rests upon
an obscure metaphor rather than a precise claim
with clear empirical content. (Lappin, Levine
and Johnson 2000666) - Judged by the objectives stated in the original
manifestoes, the revolution Chomskian revolution
in linguistics has not succeeded. (Searle 2002) - We seem forced to the conclusion that a not
insignificant part of our field is laboring under
the manufacture of consent. (Lappin, Levine and
Johnson 2000670) - Chomskys book The Minimalist Program is a sad
example of spurious science, as it fails to
satisfy basic scientific criteria, such as
respect for data, unambiguous formulations,
falsifiability, and also, on a different level,
simple good manners. (Seuren 20044)
8What Could be Chomskys Response?
- One should bear in mind that it is a program not
a theory, even less so than the PP approach.
(Chomsky 19985) - It is perhaps worth mentioning in this
connection that the Minimalist Program, right or
wrong, has a certain therapeutic value. (Chomsky
1995233) - All the phenomena of language appear to refute
it SMT (Chomsky 2002124) - While STM Strong Minimalist Thesis cannot be
seriously entertained, there is by now reason to
believe that in nontrivial respects some such
thesis holds, a surprising conclusion insofar as
it is true, with broad implications for the study
of language, and well beyond. (Chomsky 1999 1) - It MP encourages us to distinguish genuine
explanations from engineering solutions.
(Chomsky 1998)
9Two Empirical Issues
- Phrase structure (X-bar theory versus bare phrase
structure theory) - Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1981)
10Phrase Structure
- X-bar theory (plus directionality parameter)
XP 3
Spec X
3 Comp
Head
XP 3
Spec X
3 Head
Comp
- Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994)
Asymmetric c-command maps onto linear precedence.
11Consequences
- No symmetric structures
- small clauses
- coordinate structures
- multi-dominant structures
-
? 3
DP DP
John a fool
XP 9 XP Conj XP
12Consequences
- More elaborate structure for small clauses
- More elaborate structure for coordinate
structures - No multi-dominant/shared constituency structures
13Bare Phrase Structure
- Merge
- K ?, ?, ?, where ?, ? are objects and ? is
the label of K - What determines the label of K?
- neither ? nor ? projects
- both ? and ? project
- either ? or ? projects
14Asymmetric Merge
- Merge ? and ?, Project ?
- ?
- A3
- ? ?
Merge ? and ?, Project ?
? A 3 ? ?
15Minimalist Merge free labeling conventions
- Merge ? and ?, Project neither
- Collins 2001 Eliminating Labels
-
- 3
- ? ?
- Merge ? and ?, Project both
- lt? ,?gt
- 3
- ? ?
- Paratactic constructions, small clauses (Moro
2000), comparative conditionals (Citko 2006),
adjuncts (Chomsky 2001)
16Multi-dominance in bare phrase structure theory
- External Merge
- Internal Merge
- Parallel Merge
17Copy Theory of MovementCopy and Paste Theory
of Movement
- Copy ?
- Merge ? with ?
- Delete lower copy of ?
?
2 ?
2 ?
18Movement as Internal Merge
?
2
2
?
Displacement is not an imperfection of language
its absence would be an imperfection (Chomsky
20018)
19Parallel Merge
? 2
? ? 2
? ?
?
? 2 ?
?
20Parallel Merge in ATB Wh-Questions (Citko 2005)
- What did John read t and Maria file t ?
IP 6
DP
what
GB approaches to multi-dominance Williams 1978,
Muadz 1991 , Moltmann 1992, Goodall 1983, 1987.
21Properties of ATB Questions
- Immunity from the Coordinate Structure Constraint
- Case Matching and Case Syncretism Effects
- Lack of Multiple ATB Questions
- Lack of Covert ATB Movement
- Lack of Left Branch ATB Movement
22ATB movement is a (principled) exception to the
Coordinate Structure Constraint
- In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be
moved, nor may any element contained in a
conjunct be moved out of that conjunct - What did John recommend a book and Mary read
t ? - unless that element is moved out of both
conjuncts simultaneously - What did John recommend t and Mary read t ?
23ATB Wh-Movement does not yield multiple
wh-fronting
CP WH WH TP . t and TP t What
what did John recommend t and Mary read t ?
Kogo kogo Jan lubi t a Maria
kocha t ? whom whom Jan likes
and Maria loves Whom does Jan like
and Maria love?
Kogo komu Jan lubi t a
Maria sie przyglada t ? who-ACC
who-DAT Jan likes and Maria refl
looks-at Who does Jan like and Mary looks at?
24ATB Wh-Questions show case matching effects
Co Jan lubi t-ACC i Maria uwielbia
t-ACC ? what-ACC Jan likes and Maria
adores What does Jan like and Maria adore?
Co Jan lubi t-ACC i
Maria nienawidzi t -GEN? what-ACC Jan
likes and Maria hates
What does Jan like and Maria hate?
25Unless case syncretism is involved
Co Jan lubi t -ACC i
Maria nienawidzi t -GEN? what-ACC Jan
likes and Maria hates
What does Jan like and Maria hate?
Kogo Jan lubi t -ACC i
Maria nienawidzi t -GEN? who-ACC/GEN
Jan likes and Maria
hates Who does Jan like and Maria hate?
26There is no Across-the-Board Left Branch
Extraction
Którego Kowalski polecil t
studenta? which Kowalski recommended
student Which student did Kowalski
recommend?
Którego Kowalski polecil t
studenta i which Kowalski
recommended student and firma
zatrudnila t studenta? company employed
student Which student did Kowalski recommend and
the company hire?
27Covert ATB wh-movement does not seem to exist
Zhangsan xihuan shenme ren Lisi
taoyan shenmo ren? Zhangsan like
which person Lisi hate which
person Which person does Zhangsan like and which
person does Lisi hate?
John-i enu salam-ul cohaka-ko Maryka-ka enu
salam-ul miweha-ni? John which person
like-and Mary which person
hate-Q Which person does John like and which
person does Mary hate?
28Parallel Merge in ATB Wh-Questions
CP 2 C 2
1st conjunct
2nd conjunct
P
TP TP 2 2
John T
Mary T
2 2
T
vP T vP
2 2
v
v
VP
file
VP
2
read what
29 CP 2 what C 2
P
TP TP 2 2
John T Mary T
2 2
T vP T vP
2 2
v
v
unpronounced copy
VP
file
VP
2
read t
30 CP 2 what C 2
P
TP 2 Mary T
2
T vP 2
v VP 2
read t
TP
2
John T
2
T
vP
2
v VP
2
file t
31Back to the Properties of ATB Wh-Questions
- Immunity from the Coordinate Structure Constraint
- There is no way to move from one conjunct without
moving from the other - Case Matching and Case Syncretism Effects
- A single wh-pronoun is parallel merged inside two
clauses - Lack of Multiple ATB Questions
- A single wh-pronoun cannot result in multiple
fronted wh-pronouns - Lack of Covert ATB Movement
- The result cannot be linearized
- Lack of Left Branch ATB Movement
- The result cannot be linearized
32Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1981)
- A nonpronominal empty category must be properly
- governed.
- a properly governs ß iff a governs ß and
- a is a lexical category (lexical government), or
- a is coindexed with ß (antecedent government).
- a governs ß every maximal projection dominating
a also dominates ß and conversely (Aoun and
Sportiche 1981)
33Empirical Coverage of the ECP
- That-trace effect
- Which suspect do you think t (that) the police
arrested t? - Which suspect do you think t ( that) t committed
the crime? - T-C movement
- What did Mary buy t ?
- Who did buy the book t ?
- Who t bought the book ?
34Empirical Coverage of the ECP
- Superiority Effects
- Who TP t bought what?
- What did TP who buy t?
- Condition on Extraction Domains
- What did Mary leave the room PP after Bill
said t ? - What is to park there t illegal?
- Island Strength
- What were TP you wondering CP who TP read t
? - Who were TP you wondering CP what TP t read
t ? - How were you wondering CP who TP t fixed the
car t
35(Hypothetical) Inverse ECP
- Traces cannot be properly governed
- a properly governs ß if and only if
- a lexically governs ß
- a antecedent governs ß
- a lexically governs ß iff a governs ß, where a
is a lexical category and a assigns either Case
or a theta-role to a. - a antecedent governs ß iff a c-commands ß, a and
ß are coindexed, and minimality is respected.
36Movement in Recent Minimalism
- Attract Closest/Minimal Link Condition
- Cyclic Spell-Out (at phase level)
- No covert movement
- Agree between Probe and Goal
-
37Pesetsky and Torrego 2001 on that-trace effect
and T-to-C movement
- Both reduce to economy (of feature checking)
- Nominative Case is uT on DP
- C has an uT and uWh feature
- A wh-subject can check both the uWh and the uT
feature - A wh-object can only check the uWh feature
38T-to-C Subject/Object Asymmetry
- Object extraction (What did Mary buy?)
- CP C uT, uWh TP Mary buy what
- CP What did C uT, uWh TP Mary buy t
- Subject extraction (Who bought the book?, Who
did buy the book?) - CP C C uT, uWh TP who bought the book
- CP Who C C uT, uWh TP t bought the book
- CP Who did C C uT, uWh TP t buy the book
39That-trace effect
- Subject extraction (Which suspect do you think (
that) committed the crime?) - CP C uT, uWh TP which suspect committed the
crime - CP which suspect C uT, uWh TP t committed the
crime - CP which suspect C that uT, uWh TP t
committed the crime - Object extraction (Which suspect do you think
(that) the police arrested?) - CP C C uT, uWh TP the police arrested which
suspect - CP which suspect C that C uT, uWh TP the
police arrested t - CP which suspect the police C C uT, uWh TP
the police arrested t
40Superiority Effects
- Who IP t bought what?
- What did IP who buy t?
- CP what who IP t bought t ?
- CP who what did IP t buy t ?
What did John persuade whom to buy t ?
(Hendrick and Rochemont 1982) What did you
expect whom to see t ?
Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995) Attract
Closest (Richards 2001)
41Condition on Extraction Domains
- CED effects follow from cyclic Spell-Out (Nunes
and Uriagereka 2000) - CED effects are derivable from properties of
Merge (Sabel 2002) - The Subject and the Adjunct Condition should not
be unified. - The Adjunct Condition effects follow from
clausal Agree (Rackowski and Richards 2005) - The Adjunct Condition effects follow from
properties of Merge (Stepanov 2001, Chomsky 2005)
42Conclusions
- Minimalist approach to phrase structure (bare
phrase structure) can provide us with some new
empirical insights. - Facts covered by the Empty Category Principle do
not seem to be unifiable on minimalist
assumptions.