7. The Stupendous Success of the Minimalist Program

2019 ◽  
pp. 187-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norbert Hornstein
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program

No fear of George Kingsley Zipf

10.1558/37291 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-263
Author(s):  
Stefano Rastelli ◽  
Kook-Hee Gil
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Classroom Research ◽  
Language Design ◽  
Efficient Computation ◽  
Generative Linguistics ◽  
The Third ◽  
Factor Effect ◽  
Language Classroom ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Insight Into

This paper offers a new insight into GenSLA classroom research in light of recent developments in the Minimalist Program (MP). Recent research in GenSLA has shown how generative linguistics and acquisition studies can inform the language classroom, mostly focusing on what linguistic aspects of target properties should be integrated as a part of the classroom input. Based on insights from Chomsky’s ‘three factors for language design’ – which bring together the Faculty of Language, input and general principles of economy and efficient computation (the third factor effect) for language development – we put forward a theoretical rationale for how classroom research can offer a unique environment to test the learnability in L2 through the statistical enhancement of the input to which learners are exposed.

scholarly journals Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Role Assignment ◽  
Null Operator ◽  
Principles And Parameters

This article addresses the syntax of the notorious tough(-movement) construction (TC) in English. TCs exhibit a range of apparently contradictory empirical properties suggesting that their derivation involves the application of both A-movement and Ā-movement operations. Within previous principles-and-parameters models, TCs have remained “unexplained and in principle unexplainable” (Holmberg 2000:839) because of incompatibility with constraints on θ-role assignment, locality, and Case. This article argues that the phase-based implementation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004) permits a reanalysis of null wh-operators capable of circumventing the previous theoretical difficulties. Essentially, tough-movement consists of A-moving a constituent out of a “complex” null operator that has already undergone Ā-movement, a “smuggling” construction in the terms proposed by Collins (2005a,b).

The Concept of Explanatory Adequacy

2016 ◽  
pp. 96-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Rizzi
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Parametric Models ◽  
The Other ◽  
History Of ◽  
Explanatory Adequacy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Linguistic Phenomenon

This chapter illustrates the technical notion of ‘explanatory adequacy’ in the context of the other forms of empirical adequacy envisaged in the history of generative grammar: an analysis of a linguistic phenomenon is said to meet ‘explanatory adequacy’ when it comes with a reasonable account of how the phenomenon is acquired by the language learner. It discusses the relevance of arguments from the poverty of the stimulus, which bear on the complexity of the task that every language learner successfully accomplishes, and therefore define critical cases for evaluating the explanatory adequacy of a linguistic analysis. After illustrating the impact that parametric models had on the possibility of achieving explanatory adequacy on a large scale, the chapter addresses the role that explanatory adequacy plays in the context of the Minimalist Program, and the interplay that the concept has with the further explanation ‘beyond explanatory adequacy’ that minimalist analysis seeks.

The Minimalist Program

Language ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Freidin ◽  
Noam Chomsky
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program

A Note on Weakest Crossover

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Ruys
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Variable Binding

Conditions on variable binding are of two types:those that (roughly) require a pronoun to be A-bound, and those that ban locally ā-bound pronouns. While the two types are usually felt to be extensionally equivalent, argue here on the basis of weakest crossover that the former type, which fits the Minimalist Program better, is also empiri cally superior.

Resumptivity and two types of A′‑dependencies in the Minimalist Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-78
Author(s):  
Victor Junnan Pan
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Locality Condition ◽  
Sharp Distinction ◽  
Crossover Effects ◽  
Locality Constraint ◽  
Left Dislocation ◽  
Semantic Properties

This paper examines the derivation of two types of A′-dependencies — relative clauses and Left-Dislocation structures — in the framework of Minimalist Program based on Mandarin data. Relatives and LD structures demonstrate many distinct syntactic and semantic properties when they contain a gap and a resumptive pronoun respectively. A thorough study of the relevant data reveals that when a gap strategy is adopted, island effects and crossover effects are always observed, irrespective of whether the relevant gap is embedded within a relative clause or within an LD structure; on the contrary, when the resumptive strategy is adopted, a sharp distinction is observed between these two structures. A resumptive relative clause gives rise to island effects and crossover effects systematically; by contrast, a resumptive LD structure never gives rise to these effects. In the Minimalist Program, island effects and crossover effects are not exclusively used as diagnostic tests for movement since the operation Agree is also subject to locality constraints. I will argue that a relative clause containing either a gap or an RP and an LD structure with gap are derived by Agree and they are subject to the locality condition whereas a resumptive LD structure is derived by Match that is an island free operation and it is not subject to the locality constraint. Multiple Transfer and multiple Spell-Out are possible in an Agree chain, but not in a Matching chain. The choice of the derivational mechanism depends on the interpretability of the formal features attached to the Probe and to the Goal in the relevant A′-dependencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document