Noam Chomsky. The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Carnap s formal logic, Tarski s work on model theory, and Curry s combinatory logic are some of the milestones of these developments. These advances in formal sciences have had important influence on the birth of formal approaches to linguistics, as witnessed by Bar Hillel s [1] Chomsky s [2, 3, 4], Lambek s [5] and Montague s [6] works. The lineage from Frege, Curry, Lambek, Bar Hillel to Montague is of particular interest here due to an emerging algebraic view of language as a system of relations, and linguistics as a formal study of these relations. Along with the works of Lesniewski ....

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1995.

....Draft version, April 15, 2002, pp. 1 to 33. 1 Introduction The type of a minimalist grammar (MG) as introduced in [17] provides an attempt of a rigorous algebraic formalization of the perspectives adopted nowadays within the linguistic framework of transformational grammar (see e.g. [2]) An MG, roughly speaking, is a formal device which specifies a countable set of finite, binary (ordered) trees each being equipped with a leaf labeling function assigning a string of features to each leaf, and with an additional binary relation, the asymmetric relation of (immediate) ....

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

....in the transformational tradition have tried to capture this fact by proposing analyses that involve movement of constituents. Stabler ( 8] presents a formalism for de ning minimalist grammars that allow for movement of constituents. This formalism is based on Chomsky s Minimalist Program ([2]) Michaelis ( 5] provides an argument showing that minimalist grammars as de ned in ( 8] are weakly equivalent to multiple context free grammars as described in Seki et al. 6] Multiple context free grammars are non concatenative in the sense that a non terminal symbol in this grammar ....

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

....etc. At the moment, it is not clear how to define a suitable notion of polarity here. less informative) but this is still better than extension with a universally quantified formula. Our Full Representation Principle is intentionally reminiscent of Chomsky s Principle of Full Interpretation [3, 4], which disallows superfluous symbols in representations at any level, from PF (phonetic form) to LF (logical form) Applied to the syntactic level of LF, it requires that every LF element have a non vacuous role in the final interpretation of the syntactic representation. Chomsky s discussion of ....

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

....Chomsky notes that that is obviously very unlikely. He therefore looks for the minimal devices to add in order to satisfy all these constraints. Among these necessary devices, Chomsky argues for the absolute necessity of at least two fundamental operations: Merge and Attract (see also [2]) These operations must satisfy the Inclusiveness condition: In the course of a derivation, no elements are introduced by CHL That means that all the elements (in fact features) must be provided with the lexical entries. Operations of CHL can only manipulate them (delete them, duplicate them, ....

....in order to give a 2 bar object. Such an ordering requires the features be ordered in a syntactical object and therefore the product be non commutative. The question of neutral elements can be postponed, with its associate question of the inverses 2 . With this product, we rewrite [1] as: [2] Merge : OE=F; F ffl OE ffl If is empty, we get: OE=F; F OE, where we recognize the usual cancellation scheme in the very elementary categorial grammars (Ajduckiewicz Bar Hillel ones) In fact, this case is sufficient. Why Now that we have 2 see [5] for a linguistic model which uses ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N. Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, 1996.

....a structural part. On the logical side, the concept of hypothetical reasoning provides a principled account of MOVE as an abstraction operation. On the structural side, structural postulates capture the phenomenon of displacement. 1 Introduction In this paper 1 the minimalist theory of Chomsky [1] is studied in the perspective of Multimodal Categorial Grammar [5, MMCG] In the Minimalist Program, the basic operations of the Computational System are the structure building operations: MERGE and MOVE.MOVE defines the displacement of a phrase in a sentence, which is driven by the need to ....

....features are present, the derivation continues with operations until all uninterpretable features are checked. The need for feature checking drives the derivation to its phonological and logical form. As indicated by many researchers the minimalist framework as worked out in the Minimalist Program [1] and resource conscious logics such as Multimodal Categorial Grammar [5] show many similarities. Lecomte [4] and Cornell [2] give different approaches to interpret the minimalist mechanisms in MMCG. 0 Presented at the 11 th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, ESSLLI 99, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N. Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, 1995.

....Analysis (FSA) project at the Computing Science Department of the University of Groningen, which aims at the development of a method and tools for developing formal speci cations. For FSA, FAN is one of two major case studies, the other being the formalisation of Chomsky s Minimalist Program [2], a linguistic theory. FAN serves the following goals: providing descriptions of anaesthesiological knowledge required for the design and development of decision support systems; testing a general method for creating such descriptions; in the long run: contributing to the improvement of ....

N. Chomsky. Minimalist Program (MIT Press, 1995)

....linguistics. 1 Introduction In this paper, we aim at answering some questions arising from the introduction of economy and minimality considerations into the conception of Grammar. As pointed out by Chomsky himself, there are many reasons for viewing the computational system CHL as derivational ([3],p. 223) rather than representational. Among these reasons is the fact that in syntax, crucial relations are typically local, but a sequence of operations may yield a representation in which the locality is obscured . Head movement provides a usual example. But if so, questions of minimality ....

....are typically local, but a sequence of operations may yield a representation in which the locality is obscured . Head movement provides a usual example. But if so, questions of minimality raised by some authors ( 14] must be answered in derivational terms. There is an interesting debate in [3], p. 181, on this topic. Chomsky says : there appears to be a conflict between two natural notions of economy: shortest move versus fewest steps in a derivation. If a derivation keeps to shortest moves, it will have more steps; if it reduces the number of steps, it will have longer moves . For ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Noam Chomsky. The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

....exceptional circumstances. Such effects arise in multiple wh questions as the contrast observable in (8) 8) a. Who C[ liked what] b. What C did [who like] This suggests that when C attracts a wh feature, it has to attract the closest. This reflects a more general principle of movement that Chomsky(1995, ch. 4) calls the Attract Closest condition. Pesetsky Torrego (2000) give a pertinent rephrasal of Chomsky scondition as Attract Closest F (henceforth, ACF) which they define as in (9) Intervention Effects in English Questions 3 Attract Closest F (ACF) 9) If ahead K attracts Feature F on ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program,MIT Press, Cambridge.

....was winning the race when something did not allow her. 13) a. Mara saba la verdad STATE b. Mara was knowing the truth. 3. Aspect in Phrase Structure We assume Giorgi Pianesis (1997) analysis of the parametric differences between Germanic and Romance languages, an analysis couched within Chomskys (1995) Minimalist framework. Giorgi Pianesi propose that the functional category AspP, and its associated feature [ perfective] entailing closure, is instantiated in Germanic Romance languages. The difference between English and Spanish lies in the feature composition and values of the AspP ....

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

....position are in order. 3.1 Preliminaries: V position In Runner (1995, 1998) I argue, following Johnson (1991) that the main verb in English moves to a functional head position external to VP. This differs from the currently standard view on verb movement. 19) illustrates the Pollock (1989) Chomsky (1995) account of verb movement in French and English: 19) a. DP verb [ VP ADV [ VP t V DP ] French] b. DP [ VP ADV [ VP verb DP ] English] The claim that V does not move overtly in English is based in part on the assumption that the adverbs in question are adjoined to VP. However, I assume ....

....inherent Case account altogether. 1 Larson (1988) assumes the inherent Case approach. Runner The Double Object Construction at the Interfaces 37 http: www.ling.rochester.edu wpls Let us re think passive for a moment. The Case assignment approach I have been taking, following essentially Chomsky (1995), is that the verb itself has Case features that it checks off in AGRo. If the verb has one internal argument, it has one Case feature. If it has two internal arguments, it has two Case features. The fact that a verb has Case features to check implies that the functional array of the tree had ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

....to me like he saw Ada. According to Ura, the central challenge inherent in a movement analysis of CR is why A movement is possible from the subject position of a finite clause, a Case position, in violation of the economy condition of Last Resort, stated informally in (23) 23) Last Resort (Chomsky 1993, 1995) syntactic operations must be motivated Under Uras assumptions, movement is driven feature checking and an element may move if and only if the derivation would otherwise crash (Ura 1998:71) The puzzle is that it would appear that an element should have no motivation to move from a Case ....

....It continues to be a part of the Minimalist Program in Chomsky 2000. 3 Second, we question the desirability of a language particular Rule S. Within the Minimalist Program, parametric variation is restricted to the lexicon; the computational system is claimed to be invariant across languages (Chomsky 1995). Rule S clearly violates this desideratum. Furthermore, Rule S is ultimately stipulative and unexplanatory, a solution whose complexity we think is on the order of the complexity of the problem. While it accounts for CR, it apparently has no other consequences in the grammar of Igbo. The final ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

....clear what a superparser would be like in a more traditional principles and parameters system, such as that used by the Triggering Learning Algorithm, and by the genetic algorithm studies of Clark Roberts. Fodor Sakas instead cast the TLA within a framework based upon the minimalist program (Chomsky, 1995); in their view, a parameter is a small piece of syntactic structure, a tree fragment, and learning a grammar means identifying which of the possible parameters are in use by the target language. Constructing such a superparser is a challenge, and is the topic of current research (Fodor, to ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....both [ FocP John i [ IP I have seen John i ] and [ FocP Mary j [ IP I have seen Mary j ] At which point are these copies erased Whatever our choice, the ATB operations must be done after, if the remnants which they should target are to be completely identical. One possibility, in the spirit of Chomsky (1995), ch.4, is that the fronting and ATB operations are performed at a level very close to PF, a point in which they can no longer influence semantics. Some evidence toward this conclusion could perhaps be found in a fact pointed out to me by Chris Wilder (p.c. Normally, English auxiliaries cannot ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

....of the verb in relation to objects is maintained (Rice Wexler 1996) This raises the question of whether SVO might be the universal canonical order to grammatical relationships. A suggestion along these lines has been made by Kayne (1994) in the context of Government and Binding theory (Chomsky 1995). It is argued that SpecifierHead Complement is the only order made available by Universal Grammar for all phrases. Consequently, SVO is said to be the underlying order of all languages and deviations from SVO are caused by movement operations. For example, the OV orders of German and Japanese ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....of the selection of parameters for grammar acquisition is one of the main problems for which there is no single answer. Parameters applicable to more than one language are studied in the field of language universals as well as the principles andparameters approach (Chomsky 1981) and its successors (Chomsky 1995). Widely devised as the basis of universal grammar, the principlesand parameters approach has focused on the universality of certain formal grammatical rules within that particular approach rather on the substantive and exhaustive list of universal parameters, a subset of which is applicable ....

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....the categorial properties of some element on the right, immediately eliminating the putative PP rule. Additionally, X theory postulated that the non projecting elements on the right side of a rewrite rule must all be phrasal. Together, these two principles give rise to the following schema: of Chomsky (1995, ch.4) give rise to an analogous view of trees as the representation of (an equivalence class of) sequences of combinatory operations. Primitive Asymmetric C command Derives X Theory (5) X # # YP # X ### YP # Rather than interpreting this schema as a template for rewrite rules in a ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

.... with of V Raising to T, C, and Neg in the Bare Phrase Structure Theory Mark Brand New York University Email: brandm xs4all.nl 12 September 1997 Introduction This paper applies the principles of the Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) (Chomsky 1994, 1995) theory to provide a unified account of a number of problems widely understood to involve leftward dislocation of a verb. In the process of developing this account, some additional specification of BPS is offered. The BPS framework has, at face value, a number of shortcomings in dealing with ....

....assumptions about the phenomena at issue are called into question. The result is a unified view of V raising to T, C, and Neg. Section 1 provides a starting place for the discussion, outlining the most important points of BPS. In this section it is my intention to summarize the views presented of Chomsky (1994,1995), saving the presentation of my own views for later sections. Nevertheless, summarizing requires a degree of interpretation and I must therefore acknowledge the likelihood that this intention only partially succeeds. Section 2 deals with V raising to T, concentrating on two well known issues. The ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

....combine with each other in all possible ways, then there is a lower cardinality bound of 5 k on the reference set for a sentence S, where k = the number of basic clausal domains in S. 21 This exponential rate of increase produces a rapid expansion in the size of the 19 See, for example, Chomsky (1995b) pp. 359 362. 20 5b resembles the LF postulated for transitive clauses in earlier versions of the MP, as, for example, in Chapter 3 of Chomsky (1995b) In the earlier account, the clause contains two functional heads AGR S and AGR O marked with the Case and features of the SUBJ and the Case of the OBJ ....

....in which pre lexical semantic structures provide the input to syntactic derivations, and the derivations from these structures to the interface levels is 32 controlled by global derivational conditions. 36 This model would suffer from the excessive power and lack of restrictiveness that led Chomsky to reject it in the early 1970 s. If we retain the more restricted version of the MP in which numerations are strictly lexical, then Fox s proposed structures for sentences with stage level predicates are excluded. One might try to reply to the second objection by taking the existential quantifier in 29 to be an optional ....

Chomsky, N. (1995b), The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

.... pattern of morpho syntactic skills, in terms of a modular view of the language faculty in which the knowledge of language is assumed to consist of two separate components, a lexicon of stored entries and a computational system of combinatorial operations to form larger linguistic expressions (e.g. Chomsky 1995, Pinker 1999) They argued that in WS, these two core modules of language are dissociated such that the computational (rule based) system for language is selectively spared, while lexical representations and or their access procedures are impaired. Recently, however, this account of WS has been ....

....such as worse, better and further are probably lexically listed, and the periphrastic construction involves the insertion merger of more for adjectives that do not have a morphologically formed comparative. Graziano King (1999) presents an analysis of the more Adj construction in terms of Chomsky (1995) in which the periphrastic construction is formed in the syntax, as a last resort to check an abstract degree feature when a bare adjective form is unable to do so; in other words, more insertion is blocked by the presence of a suppletive or suffixed comparative form. By contrast, the linguistic ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

....into abstraction. More refined versions of this homomorphism are used in modal systems, where rules 9 for modalities are associated with the intensional and extensional operators. It is always assumed that each step in a derivation is associated with a semantical operation. In generative grammar [1], the production of logical forms is in continuation with the derivation. After the so called Spell Out point, there are still moves which displace only semantical features, and at the end of this process, two forms can be extracted from the result of the derivation: a phonological form and a ....

N. Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, 1996.

....a simulation is not ruled out for lack of formal adequacy on the part of either. CCG has been made somewhat more accessible than CTL to mainstream linguists. However, the relationship between CTL and transformational formalisms is much more transparent, as recent CTL simulations of Minimalism [7] demonstrate [34] By making the connections between CTL and CCG clearer, we can make the wider program 5 The idea of slash passing can be perceived as a re ection of controlled use of commutativity associativity, together with slash introduction rules from the base logic. The idea of ....

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.

....at both LF and S structure in English, while in Hindi it applies only at LF. These different licensing conditions in Hindi versus English are ascribed to a parametric difference. Two other proposals present different analyses of the asymmetry problem: Bhandari [2] proposes a Minimalist solution [6] whereby licensing occurs purely at LF. Hindi negation projects a functional projection NegP and the negation head selects for Tense Phrase (TP) The difference between English and Hindi subject NPI licensing is due to the fact that the functional projection Agreement Subject Phrase lies below TP ....

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

....one can consider unification based grammars or tree adjoining grammars. Since I think that the previous sections showed that the Shieber et al. approach is transferable in general, the results they present are applicable here as well. 3 Instead, I want to consider parsing of minimalist grammars (Chomsky, 1995) as defined in recent work by Stabler (1997, 1999) 4 3.1 Minimalist Parsing We cannot cover the theory behind derivational minimalism as presented in Stabler s papers in any detail. Very briefly, lexical items are combined with each other by a binary operation merge which is triggered by the ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program, Vol. 28 of Current Studies in Linguistics, MIT Press.

....and Borer and Wexler. It is however distinguished in what it takes to be the object of maturation: the formal machinery underlying the grammar rather than the substantive grammatical 2 Under a view of parameters as properties of functional elements, as proposed by Borer (1984) and pursued in Chomsky (1995), this amounts to saying that certain parameters havenotyet been set. IfwhatIsaidabove about how parameters are set on the basis of simple and plentiful data carries over to this lexical parameter framework, there is once again little reason why such lexical acquisition should be delayed. 2 ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....categorial approach and those based on movement, seen here as a complex of structural rules fed by product types appearing in lexical type formulas. 1 Introduction Many researchers in the past few years have remarked on the apparent relation between ideas from Chomsky s minimalist program [2, and fundamental ideas in categorial grammar. 1 In this paper we present a formalization of some ideas from [2] in the framework of multimodal type logical grammar (e.g. 9] and refs) This project is in many respects rather straightforward, but makes use of aspects of the type logical machinery ....

....appearing in lexical type formulas. 1 Introduction Many researchers in the past few years have remarked on the apparent relation between ideas from Chomsky s minimalist program [2, and fundamental ideas in categorial grammar. 1 In this paper we present a formalization of some ideas from [2] in the framework of multimodal type logical grammar (e.g. 9] and refs) This project is in many respects rather straightforward, but makes use of aspects of the type logical machinery which are generally not used, or at least not used for these purposes, in categorial grammar. This allows us to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....in each of these cases the same slot filled by I d like to get store credit for that amount in (d) or thought about it in (e) we propose that it is this syntactic slot that the reduplicated item fills. The next assumption for this analysis is the copy theory of movement (see, for example, Chomsky 1995, 1998) Under this view, a moved item leaves behind not a trace but a copy of itself. For the purposes of illustration consider the following example, taken from Hornstein (1999:79) 79) a) John hopes to leave. b) IP John [ VP John [hopes [ IP John to [ VP John leave] Hornstein, who ....

Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.

....properties as a primitive dominance relation. Indeed, if we follow in the line of Kayne s LCA, and require that derived dominance, i.e. # ## , behave like real dominance, we will rule such structures out altogether. There are reasons to believe that this conclusion is not completely unwelcome. Chomsky (1995, chapter 4) argues that structures containing non trivial node chains are conceptually undesirable. Under a view where syntactic structure is an artifact of a sequence of combinatory operations, merges in Chomsky s terminology, there is no sense in which structure can grow without some kind ....

....they ought to be treated as such. This leaves us in the situation where structure (37) is ruled out by the LCA and (38) is ruled out on conceptual grounds. Thus, if we are to maintain the LCA while conceding Chomsky s conceptual point, something must give way so as to allow for complementation. Chomsky (1995, chapter 4) and Moro (1997) suggest that it is the LCA. Specifically, they argue that during the course of a derivation, a phrase marker may violate the LCA, so long as it is repaired prior to the interface at which ordering is relevant, presumably PF. The mode of repair they assume is movement ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

.... orders, or for modeling simultaneous modifier modified phrase in sign languages 2 The simplification of the generative mechanisms is taken to an extreme in theories of government and binding, and even more so in certain recent minimalist proposals of the transformational tradition in syntax [14]. In these recent minimalist proposals, two other assumptions of the categorial tradition are adopted: first, the generative mechanisms are assumed to be simple and universal (i.e. all language variation is lexical) and second, the languages are generated from lexical resources. In sum, we have ....

....of Joshi, Kulick, and Kurtonina [40, 41] on Partial Proof Trees as building blocks of a categorial grammar, using TAG like operations, resemble construction in proof nets of [71, 56] although they also use natural deduction. 3. 2 Minimalist grammar The minimalist grammar introduced by Chomsky [14] differs from the prior tradition in transformational grammar in a number of respects. We will very roughly indicate just some of these here. Deep structure is eliminated; rather than applying movement operations to a fully constructed deep structure, move and merge both apply in the course of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.

....resolution follow scope assignment. But if these procedures are independent of each other, then the QR analysis of ACE does not go through. The second problem is pointed out in Lasnik (1994) and concerns the role of QR in the model of grammar developed within the minimalist program (MP) On Chomsky s (1995) 3 Lappin (1992) and J L present arguments to show that ellipsis resolution is also independent of scope assignment in intersentential VP ellipsis. These arguments undermine both the QR account of reconstruction and the parallelism conditions on intersentential VP ellipsis proposed in Sag (1976) ....

....to ellipsis reconstruction. In fact, given this view of covert movement, Lasnik s observation can be generalized to cast doubt on the possibility of sustaining any intepretationally motivated covert operation like QR within the MP. The third problem arises on the copy theory of traces adopted by Chomsky (1995). According to this theory, a trace is a subset of the set of features that characterize the moved expression, where this subset excludes (at least) the phonetic features of the expression. But on this view the trace left by QR in 10b will contain the semantic features of the quantified NP to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. (1995), The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....such clitics as agreement markers rather than subject pronouns (see De Cat, in progress, for discussion) Our approach to subject clitics is neutral on the question of whether they are in [spec,IP] or in I. 4. It might also be claimed that if checking involves only feature movement at LF (as in Chomsky, 1995) then a root specifier position might remain available to the subject. However, if wh features are checked on C, then the null constant in [spec,IP] after EPP checking would have to raise to [Spec,CP] for no reason other than to get to a position in which it could be licensed from discourse, ....

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....etc. Importantly, however, they are argued to be a meeting point of form and meaning; that is, they encode the functional (or grammatical) meanings related to the particular inflectional morphemes, including tense and aspect morphology. Recent developments in linguistic theory, particularly Chomsky s (1995) Minimalist Program, conceive of functional categories and their feature specifications as the locus of all cross linguistic differences. This approach has important implications for language acquisition. The general assumption is that if learners have acquired a specific functional projection, ....

....existing T A development inquiry. 4. Theoretical Account Recent advances in linguistic theory can help us gain more precise knowledge of the nature of temporal aspectual interpretations in interlanguage. As mentioned in the introduction, within the (Chomskian) Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky 1986, 1995, among others) a principled distinction is made between lexical and functional categories in a phrase structure representation. The lexical categories verb (V) noun (N) adjective (A) and preposition (P) head what is known as lexical phrases VP, NP, AP, PP, respectively. Apart from those ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

....1997) on the basis of verbal prefixation in French and Italian. In our theory, the operations and the conditions of the grammar generate asymmetrical relations. Words and phrases are derived in the same computational space, but are subject to domain specific operations and conditions. 5 2 See (Chomsky, 1995), 1999) Hale Keyser, 1993) and related works. 3 X c commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y (Kayne, 1994, 16) See also (Chomsky, 1998) Epstein, 1995) Reuland, 1997) Robert Vijayashankar, 1995) for different ....

Chomsky N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

....are as simple as they can be (given the demands of expressiveness) and do not involve any unnecessary lexical items or dislocations. There have been a variety of formalizations of the relevant notion of economy, with a range of empirical consequence. Let us look at one of these, proposed by Chomsky (1995, ch.4) to account for the contrast between the examples in (1) 1) a. There seems [t to be [a unicorn in the garden] b. There seems [a unicorn to be [t in the garden] From a certain perspective, the derivations of both of these sentences are equally complex: both involve a single instance of ....

....remain to merge forces us to employ the more costly move operation. Note that the presence or absence of there in these examples is, for Chomsky, determined prior to the onset of the derivation. Further, on Chomsky s theory structures with distinct numerations are not compared for economy. See Chomsky (1995; 1998) for further discussion. Thanks to Colin Wilson, and Paul Hagstrom for helpful discussion, to two anonymous reviewers for comments, and to the National Science Foundation for their monetary support in the form of grant SBR 9710247. Robert Frank 2. Eliminating the need for economy ....

CHOMSKY N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Noam Chomsky. The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

No context found.

Chomsky, N., The Minimalist Program (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).

No context found.

N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

No context found.

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

No context found.

N. Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995. 17

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

No context found.

Noam A. Chomsky (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 5

No context found.

Noam A. Chomsky (1993). The Minimalist Program. In The View from Building 20, Hale and Keyser (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1995), The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program,MIT Press, Cambridge.

No context found.

Chomsky, N.(1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge.

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program,MIT Press, Cambridge. Dekker,Paul. `The value of variables in dynamic semantics', Linguistics and Philosophy 19,211--257. vanEijck, Jan. Incremental dynamics,Technical Report INS-R9811 & LP-1998-08, CWI &ILLC.

No context found.

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, 1995.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1996), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC