1. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) ‘we assume that S 0 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 S 0 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 S 0 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-gaMary-o butta John- NOM Mary- ACC hit ‘we assume that S 0 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-gaMary-o butta John- NOM Mary- ACC hit ‘we assume that S 0 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 S 0 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 Mary-o F F → English F is weak (hence does not attract OB) → Japanese F is strong (hence attracts OB to it)

7. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)a.John hit Mary b.John-ga______ butta ‘we assume that S 0 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 Mary-o F F → accusative Case is checked in F’s specifier position

8. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (1)a.John hit Mary b.John-ga______ butta ‘we assume that S 0 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)? Mary-o F F A:an Agreement head (cf. NOM : Portuguese (2))

9. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (2)a.elesaprovarem a proposta they- NOM approve- 3PL the proposal b.(*eles)aprovar a proposta ‘we assume that S 0 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 [ TP T [ AgrOP __ [ AgrO [ VP SU [ V OB ]]]]]]] ‘we assume that S 0 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 ) → movement of SU and OB to SpecAgrP positions SUOB (V also moves, up to AgrO; AgrO-to-T; T-to-AgrS) → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts

11. t j t i sample derivation bottom-up tree building V OB i V' VP SU j AgrO' AgrO T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP next, V raises to AgrO and OB raises to the newly-merged SpecAgrOP

12. t j t i sample derivation bottom-up tree building V OB i V' VP SU j AgrO' AgrO AgrOP T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP titi next, T merges w/ AgrOP and SU raises to the newly-merged SpecTPnext, AgrO raises to T TP tjtj and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP mov’t ensuenext, AgrS merges tjtj

13. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3a) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in situ [ AgrSP __ [ AgrS [ TP T [ AgrOP __ [ AgrO [ VP SU [ V OB ]]]]]]] ‘we assume that S 0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ SU OB → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts

14. The Minimalist Program Parameters as properties of F-categories (3b) Spell-Out: SU in SpecAgrSP, OB in SpecAgrOP [ AgrSP __ [ AgrS [ TP T [ AgrOP __ [ AgrO [ VP SU [ V OB ]]]]]]] ‘we assume that S 0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ SUOB → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts

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 [ TP T [ AgrOP __ [ AgrO [ VP SU [ V OB ]]]]]]] ‘we assume that S 0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ SUOB → language variation wrt the timing of these mov’ts V → clearly, SU & OB do not always check case overtly → the Case Filter is not an S-Structure condition!

16. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) ‘we assume that S 0 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 [ CP Op 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.John i does not know that Bill k took pictures of himself *i/k b.John i does not know how many pictures of himself i/k Bill k took c.how many pictures of himself i/k does John i think Bill k took? (5a) is straightforward (5b) gives us the i-reading at S-Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36. Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (5)a.John i does not know that Bill k took pictures of himself *i/k b.John i does not know how many pictures of himself i/k Bill k took c.how many pictures of himself i/k does John i think Bill k 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.John i does not know that Bill k took pictures of himself *i/k b.John i does not know how many pictures of himself i/k Bill k took c.how many pictures of himself i/k does John i think Bill k 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.John i does not know that Bill k took pictures of himself *i/k b.John i does not know how many pictures of himself i/k Bill k took c.how many pictures of himself i/k does John i think Bill k 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 S 0 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 Mary-o AgrO → English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly → Japanese AgrO is strong, attracts OB at Spell-Out Mary-o

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 [ TP T [ AgrOP __ [ AgrO [ VP SU [ V OB ]]]]]]] SUOB

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

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 AgrO → English AgrO is weak, does not attract OB overtly … but it does ultimately attract OB, covertly ( → at LF) Mary

51. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! … back to the English/Japanese contrast: (1') (1')a.John hit Mary b.John-ga______ butta Mary-o AgrO so that AgrO’s & OB’s uninterpretable Case features are checked and eliminated, in keeping with FI (8) Mary Mary-o

52. 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’ → also forces expletives to be removed at LF

53. The Minimalist Program It’s the economy, stupid…! (8)The Principle of Full Interpretation Remove all uninterpretable symbols from the interface representations! (9)a.there are many people in the room b.many people are in the room ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ → expletive replacement takes care of agreement

54. The Minimalist Program Chomsky (1995:170–71) ‘we assume that S 0 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’

55. The Minimalist Program Further issues (I): X-bar Theory Q1:Could we allow X-bar structure to be simplified? Could we manage without the X'/XP distinction? Q2:Could we force X-bar structure to be simplified? Could the X'/XP distinction be shown to be bad?

56. t j t i V NP V' VP NP i I' I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP NP raises to SpecIP Q: how do we ensure that the result is IP, not NP? The Minimalist Program NP i IP*NP trivial with standard X-bar theory: the NP-labelled structure is ill-formed → I-projection is incomplete not immediately obvious with simplified X-bar theory: I-projection is certainly not incomplete IP VP I’s strong feature that triggers NP’s mov’t must be checked before I is included in a larger structure with a different label

57. t j t i V NP 2 VP NP 1 IP I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP Is there a compelling reason to prefer (10) to (11)? The Minimalist Program I' IVP NP 1 V' VNP 2 N1N1 N1N1 N2N2 N2N2 (10) (11) NO → (11) is simpler, hence preferred cet. par.

58. t j t i V NP 2 VP NP 1 IP I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)? The Minimalist Program I' IVP NP 1 V' VNP 2 N1N1 N1N1 N2N2 N2N2 (10) (11) YES → (10) does not translate into word order → in (10), NP 1 asymmetrically c-commands V (etc.)

59. t j t i V NP 2 VP NP 1 IP I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)? The Minimalist Program I' IVP NP 1 V' VNP 2 N1N1 N1N1 N2N2 N2N2 (10) (11) YES → (10) does not translate into word order … but V' also asymmetrically c-commands N 1

60. t j t i V NP 2 VP NP 1 IP I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)? The Minimalist Program I' IVP NP 1 V' VNP 2 N1N1 N1N1 N2N2 N2N2 (10) (11) YES → (10) does not translate into word order so if asymmetric c-command yields linear order… Kayne (1994)

61. t j t i V NP 2 VP NP 1 IP I T T' TP AgrS AgrS' AgrSP Is there a compelling reason to prefer (11) to (10)? The Minimalist Program I' IVP NP 1 V' VNP 2 N1N1 N1N1 N2N2 N2N2 (10) (11) YES → (10) does not translate into word order … then (10) fails to linearly order N 1 and V← BAD!

62. The Minimalist Program Further issues (II): Agr Q1:Could we simplify the ‘split-IP’ structure? Could we manage without the AgrPs? Q2:Could we force IP structure to be simplified? Could the AgrP structure be argued to be bad? NB1:‘agreement’ is a relationship, not in any obvious sense a node in the tree NB2:‘Agr’ qua node is totally devoid of interpretation

63. AgrSP SU j AgrS' AgrS TP t j T' TAgrOP OB i AgrO' AgrOVP t j V' Vt i sample derivation (recapitulation) a bit of an ‘embarrassment of riches’ upstairs…

64. AgrSP SU j AgrS' AgrS TP t j T' TAgrOP OB i AgrO' AgrOVP t j V' Vt i sample derivation (recapitulation) … we don’t seem to need both AgrSP and TP

65. TP SU j T' T vP OB i vP t j v' vVP Vt i the alternative (Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4) the v is a agentive/causative ‘light verb’

66. TP SU j T' T vP OB i vP t j v' vVP Vt i the alternative (Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4) v introduces SU and checks OB’s accusative Case Burzio’s Generalisation is now derived

67. TP SU j T' T vP OB i vP t j v' vVP Vt i the alternative (Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4) v needs multiple specifiers to play its part

68. TP SU j T' T vP OB i vP t j v' vVP Vt i the alternative (Chomsky 1995: Ch. 4) multiple specifiers are incompatible w/ Kayne (94) Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry is abandoned

69. The Minimalist Program Further issues (III): ‘Bare Phrase Structure’ Q1:Could we allow X-bar theory to be abandoned? Could we manage without bar-level distinctions? Q2:Could we force X-bar theory to be abandoned? Could bar-level distinctions be proven wrong? → Chomsky’s ‘Bare Phrase Structure’ attempts to show that X-bar theory is unnecessary and has to be abandoned (to allow multiple specs)

70. T SU j T T v OB i v t j v vV Vt i the alternative (à la ‘Bare Phrase Structure’) maybe even the labels are superfluous (Collins)

71. The Minimalist Program More recent developments (Chomsky 2000, 2001) locality theory and the concept of phase →Agree can establish relationships between matching features only within a local domain, the phase (cf. ‘bounding node’, ‘barrier’, ‘cycle’) cyclic Spell-out and the overt-covert distinction →‘purely “covert” Agree is just part of the single narrow-syntactic cycle’ →‘perform computations as quickly as possible’ (‘earliness’ à la Pesetsky; contra Procrastinate!)