Editing Minimalist program (section)

== Implications ==

=== Connections to other models ===

==== Principles and parameters ====
From a theoretical standpoint, and in the context of [[generative grammar]], the Minimalist Program is an outgrowth of the [[principles and parameters]] (P&P) model, considered to be the ultimate standard theoretical model that generative linguistics developed from the early 1980s through to the early 1990s.<ref>There are many introductions to Principle and Parameters. Two that align PP in such a way that make the transition to MP smooth are Carnie, Andrew. 2006. ''Syntax: A Generative Introduction'', 2nd Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, and Cook, Vivian J. and Newson, Mark. 2007. ''Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction''. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.</ref> The Principles and Parameters model posits a fixed set of principles (held to be valid for all human languages) that—when combined with settings for a finite set of parameters—could describe the properties that characterize the language competence that a child eventually attains. One aim of the Minimalist Program is to ascertain how much of the Principles and Parameters model can be taken to result from the hypothethesized optimal and computationally efficient design of the human language faculty. In turn, some aspects of the  Principles and Parameters model provide technical tools and foundational concepts that inform the broad outlines of the Minimalist Program.<ref>For a detailed introductory discussion between the transition of the technicalities from PP to MP see, among others, Gert Webelhuth. 1995. ''Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory''. Wiley-Blackwell; Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=xmG7hq4-2qMC Rhyme and Reason. An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax]''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: [[MIT Press]]; Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. ''Understanding Minimalism''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. ''Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>

==== X-bar theory ====
[[X-bar theory]]—first introduced in Chomsky (1970) and elaborated in Jackendoff (1977) among other works—was a major milestone in the history of the development of generative grammar. It contains the following postulates:<ref name="fukui2011">{{cite book|last1=Fukui|first1=Naoki|title=The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Merge and Bare Phrase Structure|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=1–24}}</ref>
* Each phrase has a head (endocentric) and it projects to a larger phrase.
* Heads are feature complexes that consist of a primitive feature.
* The general X-bar schema in (1) is a property of [[Universal grammar|universal grammar (UG)]]:
:(1) X' → X...
::X″ → [Spec, X'] X'
In the chapter "[[Phrase structure grammar|Phrase Structure]]" of ''The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory'', Naoki Fukui determined three kinds of syntactic relationships, (1) ''Dominance'': the hierarchical categorization of the lexical items and constituents of the structure, (2) ''Labeling'': the syntactic category of each constituent and (3) ''Linear order'' (or ''Precedence''): the left-to-right order of the [[Constituent (linguistics)|constituents]] (essentially the existence of the X-bar schemata). Whereas X-bar theory was composed of the three relationships, bare phrase structure only encodes the first two relationships.<ref name=":10" /> Claims 1 and 2 have almost completely withstood their original forms through grammatical theory development, unlike Claim 3, which has not. Claim 1 will be eliminated later on in favour of projection-less nodes.<ref name="fukui2011" />

In 1980, the principles and parameters (P&P) approach took place which marked the emergence of different theories that stray from rule-based grammars/rules, and have instead been replaced with multiple segments of UG such as X-bar theory, case theory, etc. During this time, PS rules disappeared because they have proved to be redundant since they recap what is in the lexicon. [[Transformational grammar|Transformational rules]] have survived with a few amendments to how they are expressed. For complex traditional rules, they do not need to be defined and they can be dwindled to a general schema called Move-α—which means things can be moved anywhere. The only two sub-theories that withstood time within P&P is Move-α. Of the fundamental properties mentioned above, X-bar theory accounts for hierarchical structure and endocentricity, while Move-α accounts for unboundedness and non-local dependencies. A few years later, an effort was made to merge X-bar theory with Move-a by suggesting that structures are built from the bottom going up (using [[Adjunct (grammar)|adjunction]] or substitution depending on the target structure):<ref name="fukui2011" />
* Features are discharged as soon as a [[Head (linguistics)|head]] projects. This follows from the idea that phrases are endocentric (headed): the head is the obligatory component of a phrasal constituent and projects its essential features.
*There is no X-bar schema, and no requirements for maximal projection to be specified as bar levels. This is a consequence of the claim that features discharged by projection of the head.
* At any given bar level, iteration is possible. This is based on the idea that phrase structure composition is infinite.
* Adjunction is responsible for movement and structure-building. This is based on the idea that transformational operations are fundamental.
* Projections are closed by agreement. This based on the idea that in some languages (Japanese), phrases do not close and elements can be added to keep expanding it. (This is not the case in English.)
X-bar theory had a number of weaknesses and was replaced by bare phrase structure, but some X-bar theory notions were borrowed by BPS.<ref name="lowe2020" /> Labeling in bar phrase structure specifically was adapted from conventions of X-bar theory; however, in order to get the "barest" phrase structures there are some dissimilarities. BPS differs from X-bar theory in the following ways:<ref name=":10" />
# BPS is explicitly derivational. That is, it is built from the bottom up, bit by bit. In contrast, X-bar theory is representational—a structure for a given construction is built in one fell swoop, and [[lexical items]] are inserted into the structure.
# BPS does not have a preconceived phrasal structure, while in X-bar theory every phrase has a [[Specifier (linguistics)|specifier]], a head, and a [[complement (linguistics)|complement]].
# BPS permits only binary branching, while X-bar theory permits both binary and unary branching.
# BPS does not distinguish between a "head" and a "terminal", while some versions of X-bar theory require such a distinction.
# BPS incorporates features into their structure, such as Xmax and Xmin, while X-bar theory contains levels, such as XP, X', X
#BPS accounts cross-linguistically as maximal projections can be perceived at an XP level or an X' level, whereas X-bar theory only perceives XP as the maximal projection.

The main reasoning behind the transition from X-bar theory to BPS is the following:
# Eliminating the notion of non-[[Branching (linguistics)|branching]] domination
# Eliminating the necessity of bar-level projections
The examples below show the progression of [[syntax]] structure from X-bar theory (the theory preceding BPS), to specifier-less structure. BPS satisfies the principles of UG using at minimum two interfaces such as 'conceptual-intentional and sensorimotor systems' or a third condition not specific to language but still satisfying the conditions put forth by the interface.<ref name="fukui2011" />
[[File:Syntax tree - 2020-12-18T192059.565.png|thumb|333x333px|This tree is drawn according to the principles of X-bar theory, the theory that precedes BPS.|left]]
[[File:Syntax tree - 2020-12-18T192300.216.png|none|thumb|483x483px|This is a tree of the same sentence as the X-bar theory syntax tree right above; however, this one uses BPS along with selection features.]]

==== Functionalism ====

In linguistics, there are differing approaches taken to explore the basis of language: two of these approaches are [[formalism (linguistics)|formalism]] and [[Functional linguistics|functionalism]]. It has been argued that the formalist approach can be characterized by the belief that rules governing syntax can be analyzed independently from things such as meaning and discourse. In other words, according to formalists, syntax is an independent system (referred to as the [[autonomy of syntax]]). By contrast, functionalists believe that syntax is determined largely by the communicative function that it serves. Therefore, syntax is not kept separate from things such as meaning and discourse.<ref name="newmeyer2010">{{cite journal|last1=Newmeyer|first1=Frederick J|date=2010|title=Formalism and functionalism in linguistics|journal=Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science|volume=1|issue=3|pages=301–307|doi=10.1002/wcs.6|pmid=26271372}}</ref>

Under functionalism, there is a belief that language evolved alongside other cognitive abilities, and that these cognitive abilities must be understood in order to understand language. In Chomsky's theories prior to MP, he had been interested exclusively in formalism, and had believed that language could be isolated from other cognitive abilities. However, with the introduction of MP, Chomsky considers aspects of cognition (e.g. the conceptual-intentional (CI) system and the sensory motor (SM) system) to be linked to language. Rather than arguing that syntax is a specialized model which excludes other systems, under MP, Chomsky considers the roles of cognition, production, and articulation in formulating language. Given that these cognitive systems are considered in an account of language under MP, it has been argued that in contrast to Chomsky's previous theories, MP is consistent with functionalism.<ref name="golumbia2010">{{cite journal|last1=Golumbia|first1=David|date=2010|title=Minimalism is functionalism|journal=Language Sciences (Oxford)|volume=32|issue=1|pages=28–42|doi=10.1016/j.langsci.2008.07.001}}</ref>

==== Dependency grammar ====
There is a trend in [[Minimalist grammar|minimalism]] that shifts from constituency-based to [[Dependency grammar|dependency]]-based structures. Minimalism falls under the dependency grammar umbrella by virtue of adopting bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Osborne|first1=Timothy|last2=Putnam|first2=Michael|last3=Gross|first3=Thomas M.|date=2011|title=Bare phrase structure, label-less tress, and specifier-less syntax. Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar?|journal=The Linguistic Review|volume=28|issue=3|doi=10.1515/tlir.2011.009|s2cid=170269106}}</ref><ref name="jayaseelan2008">{{Cite journal|last=Jayaseelan|first=K.A.|date=2008|title=Bare Phrase Structure and Specifier-less Syntax|url=http://www.biolinguistics.eu|journal=[[Biolinguistics]]|volume=2|issue=1|pages=087–106|doi=10.5964/bioling.8623 |s2cid=119001119 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

* '''bare phrase structure''': [[Merge (linguistics)|merge]] does away with non-branching nodes and bar levels, which are replaced by minimal projections (X<sup>MIN</sup>) and maximal projections (X<sup>MAX</sup>):
** a '''minimal projection''' does not dominate other lexical items or categories
** a '''maximal projection''' is unable to project any higher.
* '''label-less trees''': to simplify phrase structures, Noam Chomsky argues that the labels of the category are unnecessary, and therefore do not need to be included, leading to what is now known as label-less trees. In lieu of a specific category in the projection, the [[Lexical semantics|lexical]] item that is classified as a head become its own label.
* '''specifier-less syntax''': the generalization of Abney's (1987) [[Determiner phrase|DP hypothesis]] gives rise to the development of specifier-less syntax. Lexical items that would have been analyzed as a specifier in earlier versions of X-bar theory—e.g. Determiners were introduced in [Spec,N]; Auxiliaries were introduced in [Spec,V]—become the heads of their own phrases. For example, D introduces NP as a complement; T introduces VP as a complement.

=== First language (L1) acquisition ===
As discussed by Helen Goodluck and Nina Kazanin in their 2020 paper, certain aspects of the minimalist program provide insightful accounts for first language (L1) acquisition by children.<ref name="goodluck2020">{{cite journal|last1=Goodluck|first1=Helen|last2=Kazanina|first2=Nina|date=2020|title=Fragments Along the Way: Minimalism as an Account of Some Stages in First Language Acquisition|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=11|page=584|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00584|pmc=7225273|pmid=32457672|doi-access=free}}</ref>

* '''Two-word stage''': Merge is the operation where two syntactic elements are brought together and combined to form a constituent. The head of the pair determines the constituent's label, but the element that becomes the head depends on the language. English is a left-headed language, such that the element on the left is the head; Japanese is a right-headed language, such that the element on the right is the head. Merge (a critical operation in MP) can account for the patterns of word-combination, and more specifically word-order, observed in children's first [[language acquisition]]. In first language acquisition, it has been observed that young children combine two words in ways that are consistent with either the head-initial or head-final pattern of the language they are learning. Children learning English produce "pivot" words (e.g. see) before "open" words (e.g. shoe), which is consistent with the head-initial pattern of English, whereas children learning Japanese produce "open" words before "pivot" words.
* '''Emergence of headed combinations''': Within the minimalist program, bare phrase structure, described in detail above, accounts for children's first language acquisition better than earlier theories of phrase structure building, such as X-bar theory. This is because, under bare phrase structure, children do not need to account for the intermediate layers of structure that appear in X-bar theory. The account of first language acquisition provided under bare phrase structure is simpler than that provided under X-bar theory. In particular, children typically progress from (unordered) conjunctions to headed combinations. This trajectory can be modelled as a progression from symmetric Merge (where the output label output of the derived syntactic object is indeterminate) to asymmetric Merge (where the output label of the derived syntactic object is determinate; i.e. endocentric/headed).