Cover not available
Part of
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 9–34

A program for the Minimalist Program

| University of Maryland
The paper reviews current understandings of the Minimalist enterprise and defends one version thereof. Our main departure from the norm involves substituting ‘cognitive generality’ (viz. non-linguistic-parochialism) for ‘computational efficiency’ as a minimalist regulative ideal. We argue that the former is important to realize minimalist ambitions. The latter, though welcome, is less vital.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.01hor
References (46)
References
Aho, Alfred V., Ullman, Jeffrey D. and Hopcroft, John E. 1983. Data Structures and Algorithms. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2003. “The interaction of ellipsis and Binding: Implications for the sequencing of principle A.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 215–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The non-unity of VP preposing.” Language 734–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, G. Edward, Berwick, Robert C. and Ristad, Eric S. 1987. Computational Complexity and Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1993. “Θ-theory and arguments.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 1–24.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert Cregar. 1980. “Computational analogues of constraints on grammars: A model of syntactic acquisition.” In 18th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics.Published in: Proceeding ACL ’80 Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 49–53. Association for Computational Linguistics Stroudsburg, PA, USA.
Berwick, Robert Cregar and Weinberg, Amy. 1982. “Parsing efficiency, computational complexity, and the evaluation of grammatical theories.” Linguistic Inquiry 13(2): 165–191.Google Scholar
. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert Cregar, Pietroski, Paul, Yanakama, Beracah and Chomsky, Noam. 2011. “Poverty of the stimulus revisited.” Cognitive Science 35: 1207–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaitin, Gregory. 1969. “On the simplicity and speed of programs for computing infinite sets of natural numbers.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 16: 407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. “On wh-movement.” In Formal Syntax, Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds), 71–132. Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step, Robert Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 91–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy.” In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Three factors in language design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2010. “A note on the verb phrase constituency paradox.” MS, UMD.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex, Kush, Dave and Hornstein, Norbert. 2011. “Minimalist construal: Two approaches to A and B.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. C. Boeckx (ed.), 396–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. In Progress. “A minimalist theory of binding.”
Embick, David and Poeppel, David. 2005. “Mapping syntax using imaging: Prospects and problems for the study of neurolinguistic computation.” In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C.R. and King, Adam Philip. 2009. Memory and the Computational Brain. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government & Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. “The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey and Idsardi, William. 2011. “Sentence and word complexity.” Science 333: 295–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “What complexity differences reveal about domains in language.” Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 111–131.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. “‘Tough’ constructions and their derivation.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 535–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2009. A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Three grades of grammatical involvement: Syntax from a minimalist perspective.” Mind and Language 28(4): 392–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William. 1992. “The computation of prosody.” Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2002. “Pronouns and their antecedents.” In Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (eds), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 133–166. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolmogoro, Andrey N. 1965. “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information.” Problems in Information Transmission 1(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. “Remarks on coreference.” Linguistic Analysis 2: 1–22.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2003. “Phrase structure paradoxes, movement and ellipsis.” In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds), 187–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. and Kilma, Edward S. 1963. “Rules for English pronominalization.” Language 39: 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Ming and Vitányi, Paul. 1997. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey and Idsardi, William J. 1998. “Chains and phono-logical form.” In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium , Alexis Dimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset and Alexander Williams (ed.), 109–125.Philadelphia: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Ortega-Santos, Ivan. 2008. “On the emergence of relativized minimality.” UMD. MS.
. 2011. “On relativized minimality, memory and cue-based parsing”. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3: 35–64.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1983. “Relating to the grid.” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. “Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomonoff, Ray J. 1964. “A formal theory of inductive inference Part I and Part II.” Information and Control 7: 1–22, 224–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2002. “Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding.” In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (ed.), 269–304. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar