Minimalist program

Minimalist Program is a term used in linguistics.

Dating back to the title of an article by Noam Chomsky ( Chomsky 1992, A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory ) the term a further development of Generative Grammar commonly known as syntactic theory. Here is the Minimalist Program (hereinafter MP) a radical departure from a series formerly central assumptions is - especially here's the complete surrender of a differentiation between syntactic deep structure ( a more abstract underlying syntactic structure) and the syntactic surface structure (which by syntactic transformations is derived from the deep structure ) should be mentioned. In addition, syntactic movement phenomena can not be explained more about Directorate and binding ( Government and Binding ), but a number of economic principles. Overall, the MP aims to explain the structural properties of linguistic systems as the direct result of complex interactions of the processing mechanisms of other cognitive systems.

The Minimalist Program is, as the earlier versions of generative grammar of Noam Chomsky, a Konstituentengrammatik, insofar as it is based on the principle of constituency. A Konstituentengrammatik is no dependency grammar, based on the principle of dependence.

Basics

In order to understand the processes described by the Minimalist Program, it may be easier to look at the underlying idea of ​​him mental processes.

Before it can come to a spoken utterance, previously run from a series of unconscious mental processes. These processes build the linguistic knowledge of the individual piece together the respective desired by the speaker utterance. The sum of those processes is called derivation. The first step in the development of a spoken utterance, called " Numeration " takes the mental lexicon an unordered set of those lexemes from which the record is to be constructed ( eg " Hans ", " buy ", " car ", " a " for the sentence "John buys a car "). The selected lexemes are now sorted in the syntactic generator. To select the mental operation "select" of two elements, and combines them by means of the operation " merge" with an object of a higher order (e.g., a phrase). The operation " Move" is allowed under certain conditions, to move already integrated elements, thus changing their position within the emerging linguistic structure. "Select" and "Merge " expire until from all previously selected from the lexicon, disorderly elements a coherent linguistic form has emerged. "Merge " generates only those objects which have a broadly X'- compliant (see X -bar theory ) structure ( in more recent work on the MP, this assumption is, however, usually not done, see Bare Phrase Structure ).

The previously described processes were alone mental nature: in reality, the speaker has been no statement from him. But now the Lexemfolge generated is actually vocalized: by the operation " Spell-Out " is pronounced. Linguistic theory is divided into two components: a semantic ( " logical form " (LF) ) that contains the meaning of the utterance, as well as a phonological ( " phonetic form" ( PF) ) that the physically measurable aspects of the utterance ( the audible acoustic output) corresponds.

After the operation, " Spell-Out " reached the utterance thus two ways in which language processing competent mental unit ( " FoL " - Faculty of Language): the phonological component PF on the " articulatory - phonetic interface " (AP ) and the semantic component LF via the " Conceptual - Intentional interface " (CI ). An incoming speech utterance is so mentally processed on two levels, firstly as aurally perceived physical signal and the other as a meaningful mental construct.

Example:

Numeration: "John", " buy ", " car ", " one ", INFL   Derivation:   * Select - " Auto", " one "   * Merge - "Auto ", " a" - > DP [ a car ]   * Select - " buys ", DP [ a car ]   * Merge - " buys ", DP [ a car ] -> V ' [ buying DP [ a car ] ]   * Select - " Hans ", V ' [ buying DP [ a car ] ]   * Merge - " Hans ", V ' [ buying DP [ a car ] ] -> VP [ Hans V' [ buying DP [ a car ]]]   * Select - INFL VP [ Hans V ' [ buying DP [ a car ]]]   * Merge - INFL VP [ Hans V ' [ buying DP [ a car ]]] - > I ' [ INFL [ VP [ V Hans ' [ buying DP [ a car ]]]] ]   * Move - Hans -> IP [ Hans I ' [ INFL [ VP [ V t ' [ buying DP [ a car ]]] ]]] features

Each lexeme is regarded principally as a lot of different features in the MP. This distinction is first made between semantic, phonological and grammatical features. Features can be interpretable or non- interpretable, and strong or weak.

• Semantic features (eg, animacy, Eng. Animacy ) are always interpreted.
• Phonological features (mainly the sound sequence by which the lexeme is realized acoustically ) are not interpretable.
• Grammatical features are partially interpretable (eg, tense ) and partly non- interpretable (eg case ).

Non - interpretable weak features must be deleted from the derivation before it is passed to the conceptual - intentional system, non- interpretable features strong even before Spell-Out ( ie before the handover to the articulatory - phonetic system ). Derivative ions that contain only interpretable features converge derivative ions that contain non- interpretable features collapse. Grammatical features can be deleted only in the context of feature checking, phonological features are removed as part of Spell-Out of the Derivation.

Feature check

Non - interpretable grammatical features, such as case must in the MP at the latest when reaching the level of logical form ( if it is weak features is ), some even before Spell-Out (if there are strong features ) from the Derivation be repaid. This is only possible in certain structural configurations ( Checking Configurations ) - in general, it is believed that reason, only so-called specifier - head relations in question:

Example:

XP   / \ ZP X '     / \    X YP In the above example, there is such a relation between X ( the head of the phrase) and ZP ( the specifier ). Wearing the head and specifier an identical non- interpretable feature, it is deleted from the derivation. In concrete terms:

Example:

VP                   / \                  / \                 / \                / \               / \              / V '             / / \            / / \           / / \          / / \         / / VP        / / / \       / / / \      / / / \     V NP NP V '     | / \ | |     | V v | V     | | | | | The man looks [i ] 0 is the wife t [ i] [ Name ] [ Name ] [ Accreditation ] [ Akk ] The case features two NPs can each be repaid; the object NP (the wife ) is in a specifier - head relation with the lexical verb (looks ), the subject NP is in a specifier - head relation with a phonetically empty, affixalen light verb ( 0) with agentive interpretation to which the lexical verb is adjoined. The assumption of the existence easier verbs independently motivated by three -place predicates (Peter gave Lisa the book ), especially those with alternating ergativischer / causative structure (The ball rolled down the hill / They rolled the ball down the hill). In fact, a number of other functional projections are still partially accepted ( AGRO, AGRs, Agrio, T, etc. ), being discussed on this subject within the scientific community currently active. Checking strong grammatical features is the primary reason for overt syntactic movement.