The Empirical andor Theoretical Gains andor Losses of the Minimalist Program - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

The Empirical andor Theoretical Gains andor Losses of the Minimalist Program

Description:

Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation (Chomsky 1991) ... No semantically vacuous operations (Fox 1995, 1999, Reinhart 1993, 1997) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:94
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: randy167
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Empirical andor Theoretical Gains andor Losses of the Minimalist Program


1
The Empirical and/or Theoretical Gains and/or
Losses of the Minimalist Program
  • Barbara Citko
  • University of Washington
  • Department of Linguistics
  • February 10, 2006

2
Outline 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)

3
Two 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)

4
Strong 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?

5
Consequences 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?

6
Criticisms 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)

7
Criticisms 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)

8
What 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)

9
Two Empirical Issues
  • Phrase structure (X-bar theory versus bare phrase
    structure theory)
  • Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1981)

10
Phrase 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.
11
Consequences
  • No symmetric structures
  • small clauses
  • coordinate structures
  • multi-dominant structures


? 3
DP DP
John a fool
  • XP XP
  • 33
  • YP X YP

XP 9 XP Conj XP
12
Consequences
  • More elaborate structure for small clauses
  • More elaborate structure for coordinate
    structures
  • No multi-dominant/shared constituency structures

13
Bare 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

14
Asymmetric Merge
  • Merge ? and ?, Project ?
  • ?
  • A3
  • ? ?

Merge ? and ?, Project ?
? A 3 ? ?
15
Minimalist 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)

16
Multi-dominance in bare phrase structure theory
  • XP XP
  • 33
  • YP X YP
  • External Merge
  • Internal Merge
  • Parallel Merge

17
Copy Theory of MovementCopy and Paste Theory
of Movement
  • ?
  • 2
  • 2
  • ?

  • Copy ?
  • Merge ? with ?
  • Delete lower copy of ?

?
2 ?
2 ?
18
Movement as Internal Merge
  • ?
  • 2
  • 2
  • ?

?
2
2

?
Displacement is not an imperfection of language
its absence would be an imperfection (Chomsky
20018)
19
Parallel Merge
  • ?
  • 2
  • ? ?

? 2
? ? 2
? ?

?
? 2 ?
?
  • ?
  • 2
  • ?

20
Parallel Merge in ATB Wh-Questions (Citko 2005)
  • What did John read t and Maria file t ?

IP 6
DP
  • IP

what
GB approaches to multi-dominance Williams 1978,
Muadz 1991 , Moltmann 1992, Goodall 1983, 1987.
21
Properties 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

22
ATB 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 ?

23
ATB 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?
24
ATB 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?
25
Unless 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?
26
There 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?
27
Covert 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?
28
Parallel 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

31
Back 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

32
Empty 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)

33
Empirical 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 ?

34
Empirical 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.

36
Movement in Recent Minimalism
  • Attract Closest/Minimal Link Condition
  • Cyclic Spell-Out (at phase level)
  • No covert movement
  • Agree between Probe and Goal

37
Pesetsky 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

38
T-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

39
That-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

40
Superiority 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)
41
Condition 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)

42
Conclusions
  • 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com