2. Minimalist Program
The Minimalist Program is a set of programmatic ideas for the
creation of a theoretical framework for syntax, developed
by Noam A. Chomsky and his followers since the early 1990s.
It aims to eliminate from linguistic theory anything which is not
'virtually necessary'. For instance, in Chomsky (1992) it is claimed
that d-structure and s-structure can be dispensed with.
Given that language consists of expressions which are pairs of PF-
and LF-representations, the following elements are assumed to be
necessarily provided by Universal Grammar:
3. Universal Grammar
a set of (phonological, semantic, and grammatical) features
a procedure to assemble features into lexical items
a small set of operations that form syntactic objects: the
computational system of human language CHL.
The central thesis of the minimalist framework is that CHL is the
optimal, most simple, solution to legibility conditions at the PF- and
LF-interface; the goal is to explain observed properties of language in
terms of these legibility conditions, and of properties of CHL.
(CHL is Noam Chomsky’s shorthand for “Single Computational System of human language.” CHL
is that part of the faculty of language (FL) that integrates lexical information to form linguistic
expressions at the interfaces where language interacts with other cognitive systems.)
4. Minimalism
Minimalism is a program, not a theory, as Chomsky always emphasizes.
It encourages inquiry into certain questions, such as `why is language
the way it is’? The computational system is assumed to contain only
what is necessary to build representations that connect sound (or sign
or writing) to meaning. It is the same for all languages.
Since Chomsky (2005; 2007), as mentioned, the emphasis is on innate
principles not specific to the language faculty (Universal Grammar),
but to "general properties of organic systems" (Chomsky 2004: 105).
Chomsky identifies the three factors that are crucial in the
development of language as follows.
5. Three Factors 1. Genetic endowment
1. Genetic endowment, apparently nearly uniform for the
species, which interprets part of the environment as
linguistic experience, a nontrivial task that the infant carries
out reflexively, and which determines the general course of
the development of the language faculty. Among the genetic
elements, some may impose computational limitations that
disappear in a regular way through genetically timed
maturation …;
6. 2. Experience, Principles not specific
to FL
2. Experience, which leads to variation, within a fairly narrow
range, as in the case of other subsystems of the human
capacity and the organism generally” (Chomsky 2005: 6);
3. Principles not specific to FL [the Faculty of Language].
Some of the third factor principles have the flavor of the
constraints that enter into all facets of growth and
evolution.... Among these are principles of efficient
computation”. (Chomsky 2007: 3)
7. Merge
Chomsky advocated the merge and move theory in
his minimalist program. Merging occurs when two
words are placed next to each other to make a
new meaning; for example, soup and spoon. Soup
spoon then becomes a label. Move concerns when
a word shifts the reader’s attention from one
subject-object to another.
8.
9. Chomsky 1993
The minimalist program is a technique for understanding grammar. The idea was
first theorized by renowned grammarian Noam Chomsky in 1993. It is a form of
inquiry linked to cognitive science and Chomsky’s earlier musings on
transformative and generative grammar. Overall, it falls into the area of
theoretical linguistics.
Grammatical studies have not been linked to any one single language, but seek to
understand how all grammatical structures and rules come into being. The first
studies of English grammar were written in Latin in the 17th century. Each
language evolved in a different way, whether top-down like Japanese or
oppressed and bottom up like English and Hungarian. How much any one
individual should keep to the language’s rules, whether formal or informal, also
varies from language to language.
10. TG and Syntax
Noam Chomsky, when defining the minimalist program, sought to build upon
his own studies from the 1950s onwards concerning generative
and transformational grammar. Chomsky summarized generative grammar
in 1965. It is the study of syntax. Using such studies, Chomsky believed it is
possible to predict a sentence’s morphology based upon its rules. This led to
the creation of an algorithm.
The 1993 book on the minimalist program actually led to a return to the study
of transformational grammar. Transformational grammar is where a small
change to the deep structure of a sentence, its words and syntax, creates a
new meaning within its surface structure. Simple examples include turning a
statement into a question and turning an active sentence into a passive one.
Deep structure involves the words and their relationships, while the surface
structure is the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
11.
12.
13. UG
The first factor is the traditional Universal Grammar and
the second factor is the experience that we saw in Figure 1.1. The
third factor is new but somewhat related to the first; it is favored
above the language-specific one (for reasons of simplicity).
The third factor can be divided into several types, including
principles of efficient computation.
Economy Principles are probably also part of more general cognitive
principles, thus reducing the role of Universal Grammar even more.
Figure 1.2 can therefore be adapted as Figure 1.3.
14. Minimalist Program
Minimalist Program proposes syntactic models and
derivations that are very minimal and the same for every
language. Interfacing with the syntactic derivation are the
Conceptual-Intentional and Sensory-Motor systems.
The former is responsible for providing an interpretation and
includes non-linguistic knowledge where the latter is
responsible for externalizing the derivation i.e. providing a
spoken or signed or written representation.
15. minimalist model
The minimalist model for deriving a sentence from 1995 on
involves making a selection from the lexicon, as in (14), and
merging these items together, as in (15), from bottom to top.
The brackets indicate unordered sets that need to be ordered
when they are externalized.
(14) {they, read, will, the, books}
(15) a. {the, books}
b. {read, {the, books}}
c. {they, {read, {the, books}}}
d. {will, {they, {read, {the, books}}}}
e. {they, {will, {they, {read, {the, books}}}}}
16. In steps (15ab), we are just combining the object and the
verb, i.e. constructing the VP.
The other steps depend on the subject of the sentence being
merged immediately with the VP (15c) before the auxiliary
will is in (15d).
Sometimes the merge is `internal’, from inside the derivation,
e.g. they in (15e).
17. Another way of representing the derivation in (15) is through a tree, as in (16),
partially filled in. The TP is the Tense Phrase, where all vital information on finiteness
and agreement is stored. We will assume that what appears to the left of one word in
the tree will also be spoken, signed, or written first.
18. Merge as in (15) and (16) is recursive; one can
continue to merge if there is enough time. This
property means we can make sentences that in
principle endless, as in (17).
(17)
I thought she mentioned that they were leaving
because they had to visit an uncle who was now living
abroad in order to ...
19. Minimalism Constraints
The current Problems of Projection (PoP) approach within
Minimalism insists that the derivation in (16) isn’t labelled
when the tree/derivation is built.
It says that syntax only combines objects and yields
unordered sets {X, Y} without a label (Chomsky 2013: 42), as
already shown in (15).
The labeling is done when the syntax hands over its combined
sets to the interfaces, as shown in Figure 1.4, which
represents the current model. This labeling mechanism is a
third factor principle: needed for the interfaces.
