The Minimalist Program

1. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ • ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’

2. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ • ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’

3. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → language variation as variation in the properties of functional categories of individual languages

4. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1) a. John hit Mary b. John-ga Mary-o butta John-NOM Mary-ACC hit • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → language variation as variation in the properties of functional categories of individual languages

5. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1) a. John hit Mary b. John-ga Mary-o butta John-NOM Mary-ACC hit • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ →word-order variation as variation in the properties of the F-category regulating object placement

6. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1) a. John hit Mary b. John-ga ______ butta • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ →word-order variation as variation in the properties of the F-category regulating object placement → English F is weak (hence does not attract OB) → Japanese F is strong (hence attracts OB to it) F F Mary-o

7. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1) a. John hit Mary b. John-ga ______ butta • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ →F is the node checking accusative Case (-o) on OB → accusative Case is checked in F’s specifier position F F Mary-o

8. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1) a. John hit Mary b. John-ga ______ butta • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ Q: what is the nature of ‘F’ checking ACC in (1)? A: an Agreement head (cf. NOM: Portuguese (2)) F F Mary-o

9. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories • a. eles aprovarem a proposta they-NOM approve-3PL the proposal b. (*eles) aprovar a proposta • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ Q: what is the nature of ‘F’ checking ACC in (1)? A: an Agreement head (cf. NOM: Portuguese (2))

10. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3) [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [V OB]]]]]]] • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → two Agr nodes, for subject (NOM) and object (ACC) (V also moves, up to AgrO; AgrO-to-T; T-to-AgrS) → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts → movement of SU and OB to SpecAgrP positions SU OB

11. AgrSP tj tj ti sample derivation bottom-uptree building AgrS' TP AgrS T' T AgrO' AgrO VP SUj V' V OBi and OB raises to the newly-merged SpecAgrOP next, V raises to AgrO

12. AgrSP tj tj ti sample derivation bottom-uptree building AgrS' AgrS TP TP T' tj T AgrOP AgrO' AgrO VP SUj V' tj V OBi ti next, AgrO raises to T next, AgrS merges and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP mov’t ensue and SU raises to the newly-merged SpecTP next, T merges w/ AgrOP

13. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3a) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in situ [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [V OB]]]]]]] • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts OB SU

14. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3b) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in SpecAgrOP [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [V OB]]]]]]] • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts SU OB

15. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3c) Spell-Out: SU and OB in situ, V in AgrO (or higher) [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [VOB]]]]]]] • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ → clearly, SU & OB do not always check case overtly → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts → the Case Filter is not an S-Structure condition! SU V OB

16. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ • ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’

17. The Minimalist Program Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

18. The Minimalist Program Conditions on representations at the interface (4a) John is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t ]] (4b) * John is easy [CP C [PRO to please him ]] (4c) it is easy to please John • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

19. The Minimalist Program Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ ☻ anaphor binding ambiguity and idiomatic fixing

20. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? (5a) is straightforward (5b) gives us the i-reading at S-Structure

21. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? but S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient because (5c) also gives us the i-reading

22. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? but S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient … and it can even be shown to be wrong

23. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ only gives us the k-reading

24. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? concentrate on (5b) … the apparent case for BT-A @ S-Structure

25. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? that the i-reading is available in (5b) in principle but NOT on the idiomatic ‘photograph’ reading …

26. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? does not follow if BT-A applies at S-Structure → at S-Structure John locally c-commands himself

27. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself how many pictures of himself is this going to be our final LF-representation? NO: the two copies are ‘too rich’!

28. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION I keep the complete upstairs copy turn the complete lower copy into a variable

29. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… t reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT himself is present only in the upstairs copy → the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues

30. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… t reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT take pictures is NOT an LF-unit in this structure → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is out

31. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy keep the restriction in the downstairs copy

32. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many Billk took Johni does not know… t pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT himself is present only in the downstairs copy → the k-reading (and only the k-reading) ensues

33. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many Billk took Johni does not know… t pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT take pictures IS an LF-unit → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is okay

34. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… t summary — OPTION I (i)i-reading (‘John’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ UNavailable

35. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) b. how many Billk took Johni does not know… t pictures of himself summary — OPTION II (i)k-reading (‘Bill’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ available

36. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structure we could base antecedent choice directly on (5b)

37. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … independently of what happens later, at LF! (i.e., regardless of whether option I or II is chosen)

38. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (5) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … so we would predict the i-reading to be okay on the idiomatic reading of take pictures ← BAD!

39. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation Principle A and Binding @ S-Structure conclusion: correlation between idiomatic fixing and antecedent choice follows ONLY w/ BT-A at LF

40. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation Principle A and Binding @ S-Structure conclusion: → reference to S-Structure is impossible in the domain of the Binding Theory

41. The Minimalist Program Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ ☻

42. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ • ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’

43. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’

44. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (6) Procrastinate Don’t move before Spell-Out if you don’t absolutely have to! • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’

45. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! … recall the English/Japanese contrast: (1') (1') a. John hit Mary b. John-ga ______ butta → English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly → Japanese AgrO is strong, attracts OB at Spell-Out AgrO Mary-o Mary-o AgrO

46. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (7) The Minimal Link Condition Make the shortest move! • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’

47. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (3) converges: both SU and OB are making the shortest possible move (3) [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [V OB]]]]]]] SU OB

48. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (3') crashes: OB is making too long a move (3') * [AgrSP __ [AgrS [TPT [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VPSU [V OB]]]]]]] → this ensures that John kissed Mary cannot mean what Mary kissed John means SU OB

49. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (8) The Principle of Full Interpretation Remove all uninterpretable symbols from the interface representations! • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’

50. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! … back to the English/Japanese contrast: (1') (1') a. John hit Mary → English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly … but it does ultimately attract OB, covertly (→at LF) Mary Mary AgrO