An introduction to Radical Minimalism I: On Merge and Agree (and related issues)
Full text
©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! ! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I:!On!Merge!and! Agree!(and!related!issues)1! Diego!Krivochen! [email protected]! Universidad,Nacional,de,la,Plata, D.O.I.:!to!be!assigned! Abstract:! In! this! paper! I! will! try! to! outline! the! basic! tenets! of! Radical' Minimalism,!exploring!previous!ideas!in!further!depth!(Krivochen,!2010a,!b,! c,!d,!2011).!I!will!assume!orthodox!Minimalism,!and!take!that!as!a!point!of! departure! for! new! inquiries.! I! will! test! Radical! Minimalism! by! analyzing! what!I!consider!to!be!the!one!and!only!generative!mechanism!in!the!human! mind:! the! operation! merge.! I! will! review! previous! literature! that! has! addressed!this!topic!and!then!present!our!own!proposal,!trying!to!derive!the! conceptual! necessity! and! the! properties! of! merge, and! label, from! interface! conditions.!I!will!also!address!the!question!of!feature!interpretability,!and! see!if!I!can!dispense!with!that!in!order!to!build!a!radically!minimalist!theory.! I!will!also!present!our!theory!of!derivation,by,phases,in!radically!minimalist! terms,!which!will!implicate!positing!only!principled,operations!and!deriving! everything!from!the!dynamics!of!the!derivation!in!interaction!with!interface! requirements.!My!ultimate!goal!will!be!to!integrate!the!study!of!language! and! the! study! of! the! physical, universe,! as! a! physical' system' among! many! others! with! which! language! should! optimally! share! characteristics,! operations!and!principles!that!I!take!to!be!universal.!! Keywords:, Radical! Minimalism,! Merge,! Transfer,! phases,! labels,! quantum! mechanics,!features,!licensing,!interface!conditions.!! Resumen:!En! este! artículo! trataré! de! esbozar! los! principios! básicos! del! Minimalismo!Radical!profundizando!en!la!línea!de!lo!que!ya!he!propuesto! en! artículos! anteriores! (Krivochen! 2010a,! b,! c,!d,! 2011).! Asumiré! el! Minimalismo! ortodoxo! y! lo! tomaré! como! punto! de! partida! para! nuevas! preguntas.! ! Pondré! a! prueba! el! Minimalismo! Radical!analizando! lo! que! considero! que! es! el! único! mecanismo! generativo! en! la! mente! humana:! la! operación!fusión.!Revisaré!algunos!de!los!trabajos!realizados!sobre!este!tema! y! presentaré! mi! propia! propuesta! tratando! de! derivar! las! necesidades! conceptuales!y!las!propiedades!de!merge!y!etiqueta!desde!las!condiciones!de! los! interfaces.! También! trataré! la! cuestión! de! la! interpretabilidad! de! los! rasgos! y! veré! si! puedo! prescindir! de! esto! para! construir! una! teoría! minimalista!radical.!También!presentaré!mi!teoría!sobre!la!derivación!por! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 1!I! would! like! to! thank! Peter! Kosta,! Manuel! Leonetti,! Hedde! Zeijlstra,! Anna! Maria! Di! Sciullo,! Mike! Putnam! and! Phoevos! Panagiotidis!for! their! comments! and! support!in!the!development!of!this!approach.!Their!suggestions!have!helped!greatly!to! make!this!a!better!work!All!remaining!mistakes,!needless!to!say,!are!entirely!my!fault.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 21! Diego!Krivochen! fases! en! términos! de! minimalismo! radical.! Esto! implicará! proponer! solo! operaciones!controladas!por!principios!y!derivar!todo!desde!a!dinámica!de! la!derivación!en!interacción!con!los!requisitos!de!interfaz.!Mi!último!objetivo! será!integrar!el!estudio!del!lenguaje!en!el!estudio!del!universo!de!la!física! como! un! sistema, físico!entre! otros! muchos! con! los! que! el! lenguaje! podría! óptimamente!compartir!características,!operaciones!y!principios!que!asumo! universales., Palabras' clave:! Minimalismo! Radical,! Fusión,! Transferencia,! fases,! etiquetas,!mecánica!cuántica,!rasgos,!licencia,!condiciones!de!interfaz.!! Resumo:!Neste! artigo! tentarei! delinear! os! princípios! básicos! do! Minimalismo' Radical,! aprofundando! na! linha! daquilo! que! foi! dito! em! artigos!anteriores!(Krivochen,!2010a,!b,!c,!d,!2011).!Assumirei!o!Minimalismo! ortodoxo,! e! tomá=lo=ei! como! ponto! de! partida! para! novas! interrogações.! Testarei!o!Minimalismo!Radical!analisando!aquele!que!considero!ser!o!único! mecanismo!generativo!na!mente!humana:!a!operação!compor.!Farei!a!revisão! de!alguns!trabalhos!realizados!sobre!o!assunto!e!apresentarei!em!seguida!a! nossa! própria! proposta,! tentando! derivar! a! necessidade! conceitual!e! as! propriedades! de! compor!e! etiquetar!de! condições! de! interface.! Abordarei! também! a! questão! da! interpretabilidade! de! traços,! e! verei! se! dela! posso! prescindir! de! modo! a! construir! uma! teoria! radicalmente! minimalista.! Apresentarei! também! a! nossa! teoria! de! derivação, por, fases!em! termos! radicalmente! minimalistas,! o! que! implicará! assumir! apenas! operações! regidas!por!princípios!e!derivar!tudo!da!dinâmica!da!derivação!em!interação! com!os!requisitos!de!interface.!O!meu!objectivo!final!será!integrar!o!estudo! da!linguagem!no!estudo!do!universo,físico!enquanto!um!sistema'físico!entre! muitos! outros! com! os! quais! a!linguagem! deverá! otimamente! partilhar! caraterísticas,!operações!e!princípios!que!considero!serem!universais.!!! Palavras;chave:, Minimalismo! Radical,! Compor,! Transferência,! fases,! etiquetas,!mecânica!quântica,!traços,!licenciamento,!condições!de!interface.,, 1.!Merge! According! to! Chomsky! (2007:! 3,! 5),! “In, its, most, elementary, form,, a, generative, system, is, based, on, an, operation, that, takes, structures, already, formed, and, combines,them,into,a,new,structure.,Call,it,Merge.,(…)!Suppose,X,and,Y,are,merged., Evidently,, efficient, computation, will, leave, X, and, Y, unchanged, (the, NoKTampering, Condition, NTC).”! Merge! is! restricted! to! two! elements! for! theoretical! and! empirical!reasons:!two!is!the!smallest!non=trivial!union!of!elements,!which!is!the! optimal! option! in! a! minimalist! framework.! Besides,! positing! strictly! binary! Merge! is! supported,! among! other! arguments,! by! Kayne’s! unambiguous, paths! (which!can!be!seen!as!a!condition!on!phrase!markers!formation)!and!semantic! interpretation!(related!to!the!problem!of!labeling,!which!I!will!analyze!deeply)., Any! generative! theory! is,! then,! in! essence,! a! theory! about! Merge! and! its! motivations! and! consequences.! The! type! of! system! that! Chomsky! describes! generates!structures!like!the!following:!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 22! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! ! (1)! ! !! Note! that! Chomsky’s! remark! is! neutral! with! respect! to! the! mental! domain!in!which!the!operation!applies,!so!that!it!is!on!us!to!restrict!it!to!the! Faculty!of!Language!(FL!from!now!on)!or!take!the!stronger!view!that!merge!is! the!one!and!only!combinatory!mechanism!in!the!human!mind,!regardless!of!the! module.!As!I!have!argued!elsewhere!(Krivochen,!2010b,!d),!I!take!the!second,! strong!position.!Any!module!that!deals!with!structured!discrete!symbols!must! apply!merge!in!order!to!combine!them2,!be!them!semantic!primitives!(see!Mateu! Fontanals,!2000a,!b),!sounds!(Jackendoff!and!Lerdahl,!2004,!Katz!and!Pesetsky,! 2011)!or!lexical!items,!to!give!just!a!few!examples.!Merge!is!the!minimalist!name! for! Humboldt’s! remark! that! language! is! a' system! of! discrete! infinitude,! to! which! I! will! add! “but! not! the! only! one”.! The! nature! of! α! and! β! in! my! representation,! can! therefore! vary! depending! on! the! vertical! faculty! we! are! dealing!with.!The!only!thing!one!can!say!for!sure!is!that!this!operation!belongs! to!Chomsky’s!(2005b)!first,factor,!genetic!endowment,!that!is,!it!is!not!acquired! but!given.!Merge!is!an!operation!that!“comes!free”,!which!I!will!take!in!the!sense! that! (a)! it! is! computationally! costless! and! (b)! it! cannot! be! reduced! or! decomposed.!I!will!analyze!this!second!point!deeper!in!the!following!sections,! when! I! review! four! of! the! most! influential! conceptions! about! Merge, that! are! circulating!nowadays,!some!of!which!try!to!decompose!merge,in!more!primitive! operations.! 1.1.!Chomsky!(1998,!2004,!2005a,!2007)! Given!a!generative,system!as!characterized!above,!one!needs!something!to! combine,!and!this!something!will!be,!for!the!time!being,!lexical!items.!However,! this!is!not!it,!according!to!Chomsky.!We!also!need!a!certain!property!in!the! units!that!allows!them!to!be!combined,!say,!a!feature!conveying!the!syntactic! instruction!“I!am!mergeable”.!This!property!is!called!an!Edge,Feature!(Chomsky,! 2005a),!and!is!present!in!every,lexical,item,!excluding!vocatives!and!interjections.! Proposing!this!property!(it!is! not!a!feature,!really,!since!it!is!not!a!“valuable! dimension”,! in! Uriagereka’s! terms)! amounts! to! trying! to! justify! Merge! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 2!The!continuous!application!of! Merge!is!called!“monotonic!Merge”.!Merge’s! asymmetry! comes! from! its! intrinsically! diachronic! character! (Epstein,! 1999),! contra! Chomsky!(1995),!to!whom!its!asymmetry!was!given!by!headedness.!We!will!argue!that,! in! consonance! with! Chomsky! (2009),! headedness! is! an! epiphenomenon,! interface= motivated.!! α! β! γ!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 23! Diego!Krivochen! syntactically,!that!is,!Merge!is!a!feature,motivated,operation,!like!anything!else!in! C(HL).!Of!course,!in!a!strict!sense,!if!we!take!this!view,!Merge!does!not!“come!free”! at!all,!contrarily!to!Chomsky’s!claims,!since!we!have!to!introduce!a!new!element! in!the!model,!with!the!only!purpose!of!justifying!an!operation.!This!position!of! motivating!Merge!has!been!also!defended!by!Pesetsky!and!Torrego,!who!claim! that!there!must!be!some!kind!of!feature!checking!taking!place,!as!all,operations, should, optimally, be, featureKdriven.! The! role! of! the! EF! is! not! clear! nowadays,! because! it! has! been! posited! that! this! property,! that! allows! Merge! at! the! periphery!(in!consonance!with!the!Extension!Condition)!in!all!LI,!is!present!in! phase, heads! as! a! nonKerasable! element! (despite! being! uninterpretable),! thus! allowing! multiple, SpecK! positions! that! act! as! escape! hatches! and! intermediate! landing!sites!for!successive=cyclic!movement.!The!EF!also!overlaps!with!the!old! EPP!feature!especially!in!a!feature,inheritance!(or!sharing,!as!Gallego!2010!prefers! to! say)! framework.! Apparently,! phase, heads! bear! an! EF,! which! can! act! as! a! double!probe:!in!the!case!of!C,!for!example,!its!EF,!together!with!its!Wh=!feature,! attract!a!Wh=!marked!constituent!to!the!periphery!of!C,!while!it!also!attracts!the! EA!to!the!Spec=TP!position.!Bong=Kim!(2010)!has!suggested!that,!given!the!fact! that! V! and! T! inherit! features! from! their! dominating=phase! heads! (v*! and! C! respectively),!the!EPP!feature!in!T!can!be!reduced!to!(or!expressed!in!terms!of)! an! inherited! version! of! the! EF! in! C,! without! clarifying,! in! any! case,! which! exactly!is!the!nature!of!this!“inheritance”!process!or!the!EF!itself.!Gallego!(2010:! 62)!summarizes!all!these!possibilities!in!the!following!way:! 1) EPP1:!allows!LI!to!be!merged! 2) EPP2:!requires!Spec=TP!to!be!filled! 3) EPP3:!creates!operator=variable!relations! We!can!see!that!the!proliferation!of!features!that!has!resulted!from!the! extension! of! the! EF! effects! goes! against! any! pretention! of! substantive! Minimalism.! I! will! therefore! try! to! reduce! this! machinery! to! the! minimum,! while!still!accounting!for!the!whole!range!of!syntactic!operations.! GB’s! Move, α! has! also! been! analyzed! as! an! instance! of! Merge.! If! a! derivation!starts!from!a!lexical,array,!and!items!are!taken!and!merged!in!turn!in! the!working!area!(External!merge),!“moving”!something!is!merely!re=merging!a! constituent,!or,!actually,!a!copy!of!that!constituent,!which!can!be!seen!as!another! occurrence!of!that!particular!SO.!Movement!has!been!renamed!Internal,Merge! for!that!reason,!a!probe!α!seeks!within!its!c=command!domain!a!suitable!goal!β,! features!are!matched,![u=F]!are!valued!and!then,!if!an!EF!in!α!requires!so,!β!is! internally,merged!in!the!periphery!of!α,!leaving!behind!a!copy!which!will!not! (normally)!be!Spelled!Out.!! Merge!also!brings!the!problem!of!labeling,!how!to!signal!headedness!and! account!for!endocentricity,!since!it!seems!to!be!an!important!feature!of!human! language!(I!will!return!to!this!point!later!on).!Chomsky!attempted!to!solve!it!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 24! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! with!a!simple!rule:!he!proposed!that!there!were!two!kinds!of!merge,!pairKmerge, and! setKmerge! (Chomsky,! 1998:! 58).! In! the! former,! we! are! talking! about! adjunction,!which!is!still!a!problem!in!minimalist!theory,!since!no!satisfactory! theory!has!been!yet!proposed!(that!we!know!of).!In!those!cases,!if!we!externallyK pairKmerge,α!to!β,!it!is!always!β!that!projects.!Chomsky!has!suggested!(2004)!that! adjuncts!are!assembled!in!a!parallel!derivational!space,!and!then!introduced!in! the!main!tree!by!means!of!an!old!mechanism:!a!generalized,transformation,!which,! simplifying,! introduces! a! whole! tree! in! another.! Asymmetries! between! arguments!and!adjuncts!are!thus!theoretically!enhanced.!In!setKmerge,!there!is! some!“requirement”!of!α!which!is!satisfied!by!its!merger!with!β!(say,!argument! structure),! and! it! is! α! that! projects.! The! labeling! algorithm! that! Chomsky! proposes!can!be!summarized!as!follows!(Chomsky,!2005):! i. In!{H,!α},!H!an!LI,!H!is!the!label! ii. If!α!is!internally!merged!to!β,!forming!{α,!β},!then!the!label!of!β!is!the! label!of!{α,!β}.! The! problem! is! that! this! so=called! algorithm! is! highly! stipulative,! and! thus!has!to!be!replaced!with!an!interface=driven!procedure!to!make!this!labeling! principled.! As! regards! pair, merge,! we! would! need! to! encode! the! requirement! relation! between! α! and! β! in! some! form,! most! probably! as! a! feature! (or! a! subcategorization!frame),!an!option! against!which!I! will!argue,! since!we!put! forth! (along! the! lines! proposed! by! Boeckx! and! Gallego)! that! Merge! is! unbounded.!Besides,!my!goal!will!be!a!restrictivist,theory,!with!a!strong!presence! of! the! interface! conditions,! not! a! constructivist, theory.! The! disadvantage! presented!by!the!second!kind!of!theories!is!that,!as!their!goal!is!to!generate!only! convergent!objects,!they!need!a!number!of!filters!/!ad,hoc,principles!within!the! computational!system!itself,!therefore!preventing!some!mergers!not!because!of! interface! conditions,! but! because! some! stipulated! syntactic! filter.! Our! model! will!aim!to!construct!a!restrictivist,theory,!in!which!Merge!is!free!and!the!only! “filters”! for! representations! are! the! interface! conditions.! These! conditions! determine!the!set!of!what!is!known!as!“convergent!derivations”,!a!subset!of!the! possible! derivations.! Although! one! may! argue! against! restrictivism! by! saying! that!it!is!more!costly!than!constructivism!since!all!kinds!of!objects!may!reach!the! interface!levels,!this!can!be!easily!counter!argued.!We!must!think!of!derivations! not!only!in!computational!terms!but!also!in!biological!terms!(that!is,!we!have!to! take! into! account! biological! plausibility! when! positing! an! operation! or! a! constraint! on! derivations! /! representations),! as! information! is! transmitted! between! connected! neurons.! Recurrent! connections! are! rutinized! (i.e.,! automated),! and! non=convergent! derivations,! although! computationally! possible!(since,!as!I!have!said,!Merge!is!unbounded!and!free),!are!ruled!out!by! interface, conditions! at! first! and! by! statistics! later! on.! We! must! also! take! into!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 25! Diego!Krivochen! account! that,! if! we! choose! a! Distributed! Morphology! framework! with! Late! Insertion,!we!operate!with!the!following!principle!on!the!road!to!SM3:! (2),Morpheme,formation,constraint:! We!cannot!group!features!in!a!terminal!node!(i.e.,!morpheme)!if!there!is!no!vocabulary! item!in!the!B!List!specified!enough!to!be!inserted!in!that!node.! Bear!in!mind!that!this!is!not,a,principle,!but!a!descriptive!constraint!that! could!replace!typological!parameters,!like!VerbKframed,/,SatelliteKframed,languages:! if!Spanish!does!not!have!a!VI!to!Spell=Out!both!Manner!and!Motion,!those!two! primitives!would!not!be!allowed!to!be!put!together,!thus!accounting!for!the!lack! of!resultative!and!PathKofKMotion!constructions!(see!Mateu,!2000a,!b).,Of!course,! one!has!to!distinguish!yet!“uncoined”,words!(any!neologism,!for!example)!from! impossible, words.! Uncoined! words! may! be! formed! in! the! (l=)syntax! if! the! intention!of!the!speaker,!already!in!the!form!of!a!Relational!Semantic!Structure! (RSS,!see!Mateu,!2000a,!b),!requires!so,!and!a!vocabulary!item!may!be!created!ad, hoc!following!the!regular!morphological!rules!of!the!language!in!question!to!be! inserted! post=syntactically.! For! example,! we! can! imagine! a! location! verb! [to! table],! but! there! is! no! way! of! forming! [to! wind]! if! [wind]! is! the! external! argument,!as!in![the!wind!blows].!If!we!have!a!root,!it!should!be!matched!with!a! phonological!exponent!as!soon!as!possible!(Pesetsky’s!Earliness,Principle),!and!if! one!considers!that!all!unergative!Vs!are!actually!transitive!with!conflation!(Hale! &!Keyser,!2002),!procrastinate!conflation!of!the!“complement”!of!the!eventive! node! to! wait! until! the! “external! argument”! of! the! causative! node! is! merged! would! violate! not! a! syntactic! principle,! but! a! very! basic! computational! efficiency!desideratum.!Let!us!assume!that!we!have![XP!ZP![X’![X0]!YP]]!and!X0!is! defective,!either!phonologically!or!semantically.!If!we!consider!the!diachronic! dimension! of! the! derivation,! as! soon! as! we! have! [X’! [X0]! YP],! following! the! Earliness,Principle,!the!conflation!process!must!occur.!There!is!no!need!(and,!what! is!more,!it!would!be!an!anti=economical!option)!to!wait!until!ZP!is!merged.!In! the! derivation! of! words,! for! example! (which! are! no! different! from! the! derivation!of!sentences),!we!should!take!into!account:! a) Conservation!Principle! b) Morpheme!Formation!Constraint! c) Routinized!neurological!connections! Let! us! consider! a! derivation! from! the! very! beginning:! the! semantic= pragmatic! “global, plan”! (Bernárdez,! 1982).! I! assume,! not! innocently,! that! that! intention!is!"ʺembodied"ʺ!in!a!Relational!Semantic!Structure,!which!is!formed!by! merging!generic, concepts!in!a!pre=syntactic!conceptual!module,!say,!C=I1.!Note! the!fact!that,!if!conceptual!addresses!can!be!freely!combined!in!both!Boeckx'ʹs! and!our!model!just!because!of!their!common!format,!there!is!nothing!principled! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 3!J.L.!Stamboni,!p.c.!His!view,!however,!differs!from!ours!in!a!number!of!points.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 26! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! that!can!ban!Merge!of!generic!concepts,!as!they!also!share!"ʺformat"ʺ.!This!RSS!is! not!manipulable!by!FL,!as!generic!concepts!are,!as!we!have!said!in!other!works,! not! linguistic! entities,! semantically, underspecified,! and! therefore,! LF=defective! (Panagiotidis,! 2009,! 2010).! The! information!conveyed! by! the! RSS! must! be! carried! along! the! derivation! because! of!(a),! and! so! generic! concepts! are! instantiated!as!linguistically!manipulable!units,!which!we!will!refer!to!as!“roots”! (and! that! are! equivalent! to! Boeckx'ʹs! conceptual, addresses).! Now,! we! have! linguistic! entities,! but! pre=categorial! linguistic! entities,! therefore,! interface= defective.!The! difference! with! concepts! in! this! respect! is! that! concepts! are! a= categorial,!that!is,!they!cannot!(and!need!not)!bear!a!category.!Category!is!not! needed!in!the!syntax!(or!at!least!not!if!we!consider!that!Merge!applies!freely! and!syntax!is!blind),!but!it!is!needed!in!order!to!build!an!explicature!in!the!post= syntactic! instance! of! C=I.! Pre=categoriality! means! that! roots! have! the! "ʺinner! potentiality"ʺ! to! be! verbs! or! nouns,! by! virtue! of! their! quantum, categorial, dimension.! Can! we! say! that! certain! roots! are! more! likely! to! collapse! to! one! state!or!the!other?!No,!we!cannot!do!so!in!a!Radically!Minimalist!framework,!as! it! would! be! an! unprincipled! statement.! We!must! solve! it! otherwise.! Let! us! consider!the!case!of!CAT.!Is!it!possible!to!form!a!verbal!morpheme!(that!is,!a! syntactic!terminal!node)!to!which!a!phonological!piece!/kæt/!corresponds?!Yes,! if! the! underlying! construal! has! [CAT]! (the! generic! concept)! in! a! legitimate! position.!We!cannot!form!a!verb![V!cat]!from!a!semantic!construal!where!CAT!is! on!Spec=R!(the!causative!node),!since!we!would!be!conflating!the!Spec!into!a! Head,!and!such!an!operation!would!require!many!stipulations.!This!verb!would! be!an! impossible, word.! If! [CAT]! is!on!Compl=r,! for! example,! we! could!form! a! locatum,/,location!verb![V!cat]!(for!example,!"ʺto!cat!a!mouse"ʺ,!meaning![CAUSE! [GO![[mouse]![TO]![cat]]]]!in!Mateu'ʹs!terms),!and!that!would!merely!be!a!yet! uncoined, word,!but! perfectly! possible,! and! “parseable”.! The!Morpheme, Formation, Constraint! does! not! help! when! the! morpheme! has! been! formed! according! to! “long=known! principles! of! syntax”! (think! of! GB’s! principles,! for! example).! However,!routinized, neurological, connections!do.!Bear!in!mind!that!only!Merge! comes!“for!free”!(by!conceptual!necessity),!the!"ʺlexicon"ʺ!(by!which!we!mean!the! inventory,of, phonological, pieces,! a! purely! socio=historical! product),!is! learned.! Learning! is! a! process! of! adjustment! of! neurological! connections,!and! when! recurrent!neurological!flows!(to!use!a!metaphor)!are!routinized,!the!connection! is!made!quicker,!almost!automatic!(in!a!Fodorian!way).! As! a! provisional! conclusion,! I! will! say! that! the, operation!Merge, may, be, blind,,but,the,mindKbrain,is,certainly,not.!Interface!conditions!(which!mediate!in! the! communication! between! mental! faculties)! reject! any! malformed! representation!when!it!reaches!the!interface!levels,!since!my!theory!is!restrictive.! !
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 27! Diego!Krivochen! 1.2.!Hornstein!&!Pietroski!(2009)! These!authors!take!Merge!to!be!a!composite!operation,!made!up!of!(a)! Concatenate!and!(b)!Label.!The!first!operation!merely!puts!two!things!together,! be!them!simple!or!complex!(without!any!implications!for!linearization!purposes,! apparently),!and!the!second!operation,!applied!to!the!results!of!the!first,!leaves! that!complex!{α,!β}!as!a!single!unit!for!the!purposes!of!further!operations!(thus! avoiding!generation! of! syntactic! objects!=SO=!like! {α,! β,! γ},! which!would!not! yield!a!linguistic!expression),!the!label!indicating!which!is!the!head!of!the!new! syntactic! object,! taking! that! every! symbolic! hierarchical! structure! is,! in! fact,! endocentric.!Concatenate!operates!only!on!“atoms”!(whichever!their!nature),!SOs! that!are!already!labeled!and!are!therefore!considered!atomic!for!the!effect!of!a! new!concatenation.!,The!label!operation!must!take!the!(categorial)!features!of!one! of!the!elements!and!project!them!so!that!the!result!of!the!operation!is!that!the! label! is! either! α! or! β.! Hornstein! &! Pietroski! postulate! that,! apparently,! concatenate! is! an! ancient! operation,! available! in! animal! cognition! as! well! as! human!cognition,!in!their!own!words,!concatenation,is, an,instruction,to,conjoin, monadic, concepts,! and! nothing! else.! This! can! be! seen! as! a! deviation! from! the! point!of!view!exposed!in!Hauser,!Chomsky!and!Fitch!(2002),!to!whom!recursion! (the!core!characteristic!of!Merge)!is!an!exclusive!feature!of!FLN,!and!thus!not! available!in!non=human!systems.!Hornstein!&!Pietroski!find!a!“semantic,correlate”! of!concatenate,!to!account!for!compositional!meaning,!that!is,!the!meaning!of!the! whole!depending!on!the!meaning!of!the!parts!and!the!relations!between!them.!I! do! not! understand! why! it! is! necessary! for! them! to! distinguish! these! two! instantiations!of!a!combinatory!operation,!but!my!objection!will!be!clear!only! when!I!have!already!exposed!my!own!view.! In! the! same! way! they! have! decomposed! (external)! merge,! they! decompose!move,(i.e,!internal!merge).!The!whole!sketch!would!look!like!this:! (3) Move!=![Merge![Copy]]! Merge!=![Label![Concatenate]]!! The! label! operation! is! said! to! have! roots! in! EST,! resembling! rewriting! rules.! In! this! framework,! labeling! is! taken! as! “interpreting! as…”! Thus,! simplifying!on!behalf!of!clarity,! (4) VP!→!V,!NP! Amounts!to!saying!“the!node!VP!must!be!interpreted,as!composed!by!V! and!NP”.!The!dynamics!of!merge!would!work!the!other!way!around,!we!first! concatenate,{V,!NP}!and!then!label!the!construction!as!a!VP.!However,!we!are!not! told!how!this!labeling!algorithm!is!working,!that!is,!it!is!not!made!explicit.!As!a! consequence,!there!is!no!principled!reason!why!{V,!NP}!should!be!labeled!VP! (or!simply!V!in!a!BPS!framework)!and!not!NP,!apart!from!mere!intuition!or! intra=theoretic!stipulation.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 28! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! 1.3.!Boeckx!(2006,!2009,!2010)! Boeckx’s!proposal!also!involves!decomposing!Merge!into!operations!that,! separately! considered,! might! be! available! in! other! mental! domains! than! language,! but! together! they! are! apparently! unique! to! the! Language! Faculty.! According!to!Boeckx,!endocentricity!in!hierarchical!structures!is!very!language= specific!(or,!put!in!different!words,!part!of!FLN),!and!is!made!possible!by!two! different!operations:! a) Concatenate!(or!Basic,Grouping)! b) Copy! These!operations!are!presented!by!Boeckx!as!an!instance!of!what!Gould! (2002)!called!Umbildung,!that!is,!recombination,!using!things!already!available!in! separate!biological!systems!to!form!something!new.!These!ancient!operations! taken!separately!can!be!said!to!be!part!of!FLB!as!they!are!used!in!other!faculties,! but!combined!they!characterize!and!define!FLN.!Contrary!to!what!some!have! said,!concatenation!does!not!entail!linear!order,!but!simply!“putting!two!things! together”!(whatever!these!things!turn!out!to!be,!as!long!as!they!share!“format”).! The! copying! operation! is! a! bit! more! complex,! as! it! entails! giving! the! newly! formed!structure!the!character!of!one!of!its!components,!or,!what!is!equivalent,! establishing!which!its!head!is.!If!we!do!this,!we!can!use!the!whole!structure! (complex!as!it!might!be)!as!a!unit!for!the!purposes!of!new!combination.!! Combination! is! neither! determined! in! any! way! by! nor! sensible! to! the! nature!of!the!elements!that!it!combines,!for!if!it!were,!then!it!could!never!be! regarded!as!an!operation!available!in!multiple!faculties.!Copying,!however,!is!of! a!more!obscure!nature,!since!it!must!have!some!access!to!the!categorial!features! or!equivalent!(in!the!case!of!language)!of!the!elements!it!manipulates!in!order!to! copy!them!and!label!the!new!structure.!This!can!be!implied!from!the!fact!that! the!result!of!merging!X!and!Y!is!not!a!new!structure!Z,!but!either!X!or!Y.!In! order!to!do!this,!the!system!must!see!something!to!copy;!the!first!thing!that! comes! to! our! mind! would! be! categorial! features,! as! I! have! already! said.! The! results!of!these!operations!are!hierarchical,endocentric,binaryKbranched,structures,! which!are,!in!his!view,!unique!to!human!language.! The! nature! of! the! combined! elements! is! also! discussed.! Boeckx! (2010)! makes!a!distinction!between!concepts!and!conceptual,addresses,!which!is!parallel! to!that!made!in!Krivochen!(2010d)!between!generic,concepts,and!roots.!Concepts! are!not!linguistic!entities!but!more!abstract!elements!which!I!take!to!be!carrying! some!sort!of!!“meaning”,!and!as!such,!they!may!be!shared!with!other!species!as! they!are!accessed!by!other!faculties!apart!from!FL,!like!the!visual!module!(see! discussion! in! Krivochen,! 2010d).! Conceptual, addresses,! on! the! other! hand,! are! (pre=syntactic)! linguistic! entities! which! “point! to”! concepts! (or! convey! instructions!to!“activate”!concepts),!and!they!are!freely!merged!because!they! share!a!common,format,!not!because!there!is!a!feature!like!Chomsky’s!EF!that!is!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 35! Diego!Krivochen! features!to!fill!the!gap,!for!example,![do]!(related!with!the!Transitional! node! in! RSS)! cannot! replace! just! a! spatial! domain! (i.e.,! PP),! but! there! must!be!some![EVENT]!primitive!in!the!elided!structure.!A!label=based! ellipsis!would!work!for!a!constructivist!theory,!but!that!is!not!our!aim.! Even! if! I! am! mistaken! in! this! point! (and! I! probably! am),! the! basic! argument!is!always!the!same.! 4) Prosodic,domains:!prosodic!domains!are!seen!in!non=generativist!theories! (like!David!Brazil’s!1997)!as!tone!units,!delimited!by!the!occurrence!of!all! the!features!of!intonation!(pitch!level,!pitch!movement!and!prominence).! Although!these!theories!fail!to!provide!an!explanation!of!the!phenomena! involved! and! are! of! no! scientific! interest! since! they! are! actually! unrestricted! theories! (there! is! no! possible! “malformation”,! but! every! unexpected! choice! is! regarded! as! an! “exploitation! of! the! system”! according! to! the! speaker’s! intentions),! the! door! is! certainly! open! for! alternatives.!Chomsky!has!said!that!CPs!and!v*Ps!are!both!of!semantic! and!phonological!relative!independency,!but!that!is!not!clear!at!all,!either! from! the! explanatory! point! of! view! (why! those! projections! and! not! others?)!or!from!the!descriptive!point!of!view!(a!tone!unit!can!ignore!an! allegedly!phase!boundary,!as!in!/P!i!WANT!them!to!GO/,!where!the!v*P! phase!does!not!constitute!a!tone!unit!in!its!own!right).! 5) Argument, structure:! I! have! not! much! to! add! to! what! I! have! said! in! Krivochen!(2010c),!but!I!can!raise!the!bet!by!saying!that!there!is!no!such! concept! as! A=structure,! since! it! would! constitute! an! unprincipled! complication!of!the!theory.!Let!us!assume!that!the!architecture!outlined! in!Krivochen!(2010b)!is!on!the!right!track.!If!that!is!so,!then!we!start!from! a! RSS! built! with! radically! underspecified! generic, concepts! obeying! the! intention!of!the!relevant!mind10,!and!following!the!conservation,principle! (see! below)! all! the! way! through! the! derivation! in! all! relevant! levels,! instantiating!the! information!in!such!a! way!that!it!can! be!read!by!the! level!in!question,!but!information,cannot,be,lost,in,the,process.!A!radically! minimalist!theory,!with!a!stronger!componential!character!than!Hale!&! Keyser’s! can! thus! dispense, with, the, concept, of, argument, structure,! whose! encoding! terms! (a! feature?! A! structural! template?)! represent! a! serious! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 10!This!“intention”!is!something!yet!mysterious,!since,!as!it!is!pre=linguistic,!it! should!be!formulated!in!non=linguistic!terms,!with!which!one!would!be!admitting!that! there! is! thought! without! language! –but! not! without! Merge=,! quite! a! strong! claim.! Bernárdez!(1982)!has!used!the!term!“global!plan”!to!refer!to!this!kind!of!intention,!a! purely!pragmatic!object!after!which!semantics!and! syntax!are!shaped.!I! will!not! go! deeper!into!this!in!this!paper,!but!leave!it!to!future!research.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 36! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! problem.! All! we! have! is! a! bare! phrase! structure! and! an! explicature! constructed!with!the!information!provided!by!the!syntax.! 6) Incorporation:!this!process!remains!quite!unclear,!especially!after!Hale!&! Kayser’s!(2002)!analysis!of!conflation!as!a!distinct!operation.!According!to! their!characterization,!incorporation!is!a!movement!operation!that!depends! on! government,! and! thus! incorporation! from! a! Spec=! to! the! immediate! governing!head!is!possible.!Incorporation!leaves!a!trace!/copy,!and!the! relations!must!obey!the!ECP!(and!so!on).!In!a!radically!minimalist!theory,! there!is!no!place!for!these!kinds!of!processes,!which!rely!on!a!stipulative! relation!(government,!in!this!case).!Conflation,!on!the!other!hand,!is!not!a! movement!operation,!but!it!is!concomitant!of!Merge.!It!involves!only!the! copying!of!the!p=signature!of!the!strict!complement!of!a!given!head!when! this! head! is! phonologically! defective! (i.e.,! an! affix! or! null).! However,! even!Hale!&!Keyser!resort!to!labels!in!their!account,!as!Merge!(according! to!them)!creates!labels!given!the!fact!that!“the,label,of,a,syntactic,object,X,is, the, feature, set, [F,H],, where, [F,H], is, the, entire, complement, of, phonological,, morphological,,syntactic,and,semantic,features,of,H,,the,head,of,X”!(Hale!&! Kayser,! 2002).! Their! label, identification! rule! is! not! as! arbitrary! as! Chomsky’s,!but!it!is!equally!dispensable!in!my!model.!If!conflation!is!an! operation! on! p=signatures! (therefore,! a! PF! operation,! since! a! phonologically!defective!node!represents!no!problem!to!syntax),!there!is! no!conceptual!need!to!resort!to!labels!at!all.! 7) Endocentricity:! even! though! labeling! is! the! way! of! signaling! endocentricity,!and!here!we!agree!with!Gallego,!I!have!said!that!syntax! does! not! care! about! endocentricity! (it! is! an! “epiphenomenon”,! as! Chomsky!says),!and!labels!are!not!relevant!to!syntax!either!(but!to!the!C= I! component),! so! there! is! no! much! left! to! be! said! at! this! point! of! the! argumentation.! 8) Adjuncts,vs.,Complements:!the!first!question!to!be!addressed!would!be!if! the!asymmetry!actually!exists,!and,!if!it!does,!in!what!terms!(for!example,! minimally! required! vs.! not! minimally! required,! which! has! been! the! traditional!opposition).!The!theory!of!adjunction!is!intimately!related!to! the!concept!of!A=structure,!so!its!current!status!is!totally!unclear!to!me.! All! I! can! say! as! a! provisional! answer! to! the! problem! is! that! all! the! information!that!we!find!in!the!explicature!level!(predicates,!arguments,! “adjuncts”,! etc)! is! already! present! from! the! very! beginning! of! the! process,!due!to!the!conservation,principle.!Information!is!neither!created! nor!destroyed!(or!erased),!but!only!transformed,!as!we!will!see!below.! Besides,!if!we!are!working!with!radically!bare!structure,!in!which!there! are! no, heads, in, the, syntax,! there! is! no! point! in! talking! about! a! Complement=Adjunct! distinction,! since! all! we! have! is! Free! Merge,! all!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 37! Diego!Krivochen! other! fine=graded! differences! being! made! in! the! explicature=building! process.,The!“adjunction”!structure!with!an!unergative!verb!presented!in! Gallego! (2010:! 27),! where! the! “main! clause”! is! the! figure! and! the! “adjunct”!is!the!ground,!is!an!option!that!is!worth!considering,!although! it!works!only!in!a!very!limited!number!of!cases,!namely,!those!in!which! there! is! a! spatial! relation! involved.! Logical! relations,! subspecified! additive!items!(coordinations!that!really!work!as!subordinations!in!the! semantic!level)!and!other!types!of!so=called!“adjuncts”!are!not!so!easy!to! represent.!Gallego’s!representation!is!as!follows!(adapted!to!RSS!terms):! (11) ! ! 1.1.1.,Monotonic,Merge,and,Generalized,Transformations, At!this!point,!once!I!have!presented!my!theory!of!Merge,!I!must!address! a!problem!that!was!first!expressed!in!minimalist!terms!by!Uriagereka!(1999),! namely,!monotonic,merge!and!parallel,derivations.!He!speaks!of!monotonic!merge! when!we!apply!the!operation!successively,!forming!what!he!calls!a!“command! unit”,!such!as!(17)!below:! (12) !! ! Here,! we! have! no! points! of! symmetry! (i.e.,! symmetric! c=command! between! two! terminal! nodes),! so! this! structure! can! be! linearized! by! LCA.! However,!for!this!system!to!work!optimally,!we!must!accept!two!conditions:! a) β!must!not!be!complex! b) γ!(or!the!rightmost!terminal!in!the!structure)!must!be!phonologically! null,!like!a!trace.!! The!second!condition!is!the!most!difficult!to!solve,!and!no!satisfactory! answer!has!been!given!to!it!that!we!know!of.!Therefore,!I!will!address!(a),!as!it!is! 22 is that all the information that we find in the explicature level (predicates, DUJXPHQWV³DGMXQFWV´HWFLVDOUHDG\SUHVHQWIURPWKHYHU\beginning of the process, due to the conservation principle . Information is neither created nor destroyed (or erased), but only transformed, as we will see below. Besides, if we are working with radically bare structure, in which there are no heads in the syntax , there is no point in talking about a Complement-Adjunct distinction, since all we have is Free Merge, all other fine-graded differences being made in the explicaturebuilding process. The ³adjunction´ structure with an unergative verb presented in Gallego (2010: 27)ZKHUHWKH³PDLQFODXVH´LVWKH figure DQGWKH³DGMXQFW´LVWKH ground , is an option that is worth considering, although it works only in a very limited number of cases, namely, those in which there is a spatial relation involved. Logical relations, subspecified additive items (coordinations that really work as subordinations in the semantic level) and other types of so-FDOOHG³adjuncts´ are not so easy to represent. *DOOHJR¶VUHSUHVHQWDWLRQLVDVIROORZVDGDSWHG to RSS terms): 16) 2.4.1 Monotonic Merge and Generalized Transformations: At this point, once we have presented our theory of Merge, we must address a problem that was first expressed in minimalist terms by Uriagereka (1999), namely, m onotonic m erge and parallel derivations . We speak of monotonic merge when we apply the operation successively, forming what Uriagereka caOOVD³FRPPDQGXQLW´VXFKDV) below: r v *P r [AT] in DP Mary works Washington 23 20) Here, we have no points of symmetry (i.e., symmetric c-command between two terminal nodes), so this structure can be linearized by LCA. However, for this system to work optimally, we must posit two conditions: a) ȕPXVWQRWEHFRPSOH[ b) ȖRUWKHULJKWPRVWWHUPLQDOLQWKHVWUXFWXUHPXVWEHSKRQRORJLFDOO\QXOOOLNHD trace. The second condition is the most difficult to solve, and no satisfactory answer has been given to it that we know of. Therefore, we will address (a), as it is not certain that (b) holds under Radical Minimalism12 whereas (a) directly concerns our theory of Merge. ,IȕLVFRPSOH[WKLVLV^ȕ^ȕȘ``WKHQWKHUHZRXOGEHV\PPHWULFDOF-FRPPDQGEHWZHHQȕ DQGĮLQWKHIROORZLQJFRQILJXUDWLRQ 21) 12 If there is no movement, then we must assume that a null node is inserted there, à la De Belder & Van Craenenbroeck (2011). We believe that such a theoretical resource only complicates the system substantively, and we will therefore dismiss this kind of solutions unless they prove not only inevitable but also optimal. At this point, we do not even assume LCA as correct, which is an obvious move if one takes into account that we are trying to de-construct minimalism in order to keep only what is conceptually necessary and what can be proven principled (i.e., interface-required). Į Į ȕ Ȗ Į Į Ȗ Į ȕ Ș ȕ Ȗ ij Į Ș Ȝ
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 38! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! not! certain! that! (b)! holds! under! Radical! Minimalism11!whereas! (a)! directly! concerns!my!theory!of!Merge.! If!β!is!complex,!this!is,!{β,!{β,!η}},!then!there!would!be!symmetrical!c= command!between!β!and!α!in!the!following!configuration:! (13) !! ! There!we!have!two!command!units,!each!assembled!by!monotonic,merge! simultaneously! in! separate! derivational! spaces! (or! sequentially! in! the! same! derivational!space,!an!option!that!seems!to!have!more!biological!plausibility,! see!Krivochen!2010d).!So!far,!so!good.!The!problem!is!that!the!system!has!to!be! able!to!merge!complex!units,!whole!trees.12!I!have!said,!following!Boeckx!(2010)! that!Merge!is!actually!Merge,α,!a!free!unbounded!operation!that!merges!two! objects!that!share!format.!Now,!I!would!like!to!go!deeper!into!that.!We!must! distinguish!two!kinds!of!formats:! a) Ontological!format! b) Structural!format! Ontological! format! refers! to! the, nature, of! the! entities! involved.! For! example,!Merge!can!apply!(“ergatively”,!as!nobody!/!nothing!“applies!Merge”! agentively)! conceptual, addresses! (i.e.,! roots)! because! they! are! all! linguistic! instantiations!of!generic!concepts.!With!ontological,format!I!want!to!acknowledge! the! fact! that! a! root! and! a! generic! concept! cannot! merge,! for! example.! It! is! specially!useful!if!we!want!to!explain!in!simple!terms!why!Merge!cannot!apply! cross=modularly:! ontological! format! is! part! of! the! legibility! conditions! of! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 11!If!there!is!no!movement,!then!we!must!assume!that!a!null!node!is!inserted! there,! à! la! De! Belder! &! Van! Craenenbroeck! (2011).! I! believe! that! such! a! theoretical! resource!only!complicates!the!system!substantively,!and!we!will!therefore!dismiss!this! kind!of!solutions!unless!they!prove!not!only!inevitable!but!also!optimal.!At!this!point,!I! do!not!even!assume!LCA!as!correct,!which!is!an!obvious!move!if!one!takes!into!account! that! we! are! trying! to! de=construct! minimalism! in! order! to! keep! only! what! is! conceptually!necessary!and!what!can!be!proven!principled!(i.e.,!interface=required).!! 12!I!am!not!making!reference!to!Specs=!and!Adjuncts,!since!those!notions!have! no!place!in!my!theory,!but!I!am!mainly!thinking!about!Distributed!Morphology!and,! most!of!all,!Nanosyntax.! 23 20) Here, we have no points of symmetry (i.e., symmetric c-command between two terminal nodes), so this structure can be linearized by LCA. However, for this system to work optimally, we must posit two conditions: a) ȕPXVWQRWEHFRPSOH[ b) ȖRUWKHULJKWPRVWWHUPLQDOLQWKHVWUXFWXUHPXVWEHSKRQRORJLFDOO\QXOOOLNHD trace. The second condition is the most difficult to solve, and no satisfactory answer has been given to it that we know of. Therefore, we will address (a), as it is not certain that (b) holds under Radical Minimalism12 whereas (a) directly concerns our theory of Merge. ,IȕLVFRPSOH[WKLVLV^ȕ^ȕȘ``WKHQWKHUHZRXOGEHV\PPHWULFDOF-FRPPDQGEHWZHHQȕ DQGĮLQWKHIROORZLQJFRQILJXUDWLRQ 21) 12 If there is no movement, then we must assume that a null node is inserted there, à la De Belder & Van Craenenbroeck (2011). We believe that such a theoretical resource only complicates the system substantively, and we will therefore dismiss this kind of solutions unless they prove not only inevitable but also optimal. At this point, we do not even assume LCA as correct, which is an obvious move if one takes into account that we are trying to de-construct minimalism in order to keep only what is conceptually necessary and what can be proven principled (i.e., interface-required). Į Į ȕ Ȗ Į Į Ȗ Į ȕ Ș ȕ Ȗ ij Į Ș Ȝ
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 39! Diego!Krivochen! individual!modules.!Both!roots!and!procedural!nodes!convey!(interpretable,!if! the! note! is! needed)! semantic! information.! As! “bundles”! of! dimensions,! they! have!the!same!ontology.!The!conceptual!/!procedural!character!is!determined!in, the, interpretative, interface,! it! is! of! no! relevance! to! syntax,! which! is! purely! generative.! Free! combination! is! thus! possible.! Any! other! option! has! to! be! explained,and,justified!in!principled!terms.! Structural!format,!on!the!other!hand,!refers!to!the!way!in!which!elements! are!organized.!If!what!I!have!said!so!far!is!correct,!then!only!binary=branched! hierarchical! structures! are! allowed! in! human! mind.! The! arguments! are! conceptual! rather! than! empirical,! and! I! have! already! reviewed! them:! Merge! optimally!operates!with!the!smallest!non=trivial!number!of!objects.!Needless!to! say,!given!the!fact!that!ontological,format,is,a,necessary,condition,for,Merge,to,apply! (principled! because! of! interface! conditions,! whatever! module! we! want! to! consider),! the! resultant! structures! will! always! consist! on! formally! identical! objects.13!Taking! all! this! into! account,! I! complete! Boeckx’s! characterization! of! Merge!and!say!that!Merge!is!a,conceptually,necessary,operation,that,applies,to,the, smallest,number,of,elements,sharing,(ontological,or,structural),format.! Given!this!characterization,!I!have!a!straightforward!way!of!accounting! for! “generalized! transformations”,! a! recently! resurrected! operation! from! the! very!early!stages!of!Generative!Grammar.!From!my!point!of!view,!a!generalized! transformation!is!nothing!more!than!Merge,applied,to,structurally,identical,objects.! The!difference!between!“monotonic!Merge”!and!“Generalized!transformations”! is!the!format!that!is!relevant:!ontological,format!is!relevant!to!monotonic!merge,! whereas!structural,format!is!relevant!to!generalized!transformations.! Let!us!review!what!has!been!said!so!far,!in!a!very!schematic!way:! Possibilities,for,Merge:, i. Merge!(α,!β),!α!≠!β!–but!α!and!β!share!ontological!or!structural! format=!Distinct,binary,Merge,(Boeckx,!2010)! ii. Merge!(α,!β),!α!=!β!Self,Merge,(Adger,!2011)! iii. Merge!(α,!β,!γ…),!α!≠!β!≠!γ!Unrestricted,distinct,Merge! Let!us!consider!the!following:! (14) ,NS,Merge!(α,!β,!γ)!=!{α,!β,!γ}! In!the! Narrow!Syntax,!everything! would!be!fine,! since! Merge!is!blind! and! NS! is! not' an' interpretative' component.! But,! in! the! interface,! problems! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 13!This!is!not!trivial!if!the!reader!is!thinking!about!the!possibility!of!merging! structurally! identical! elements! from! different! modules! (which! is! obviously! undesirable).!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 40! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! would!arise.!Let!us!assume!that!α!=!√!and!β!and!γ!are!procedural!categories,!say,! D!and!T!respectively.! (15) ,CKI2!Label!{√,!D,!T}!=!??! Having!two!procedural!categories!results!in!crash!at!the!explicature!level,! there!is!no!way!of!labeling!a!structure!where!two!elements!could!“guide”!the! interpretation! in! different! directions.! The! same! happens! if! the! numbers! are! changed,!say,!two!roots!and!one!procedural!category:!even!if!we!think!that!one! root! may! be! “categorized”! (which! is! not! a! viable! option! at! all! from! our! perspective),! there! would! still! be! an! uninterpretable! element,! namely,! an! uncategorized! root,! uninterpretable! in! LF! because! of! semantic! underspecification.!Binary=distinct!Merge,!then,!is!interface=required,!no!special! conditions!imposed!over!Merge!itself.!In!any!of!the!cases,!it!must!be!said,!the! application! of! Merge! involving! Ø! (e.g.,! {α,! Ø})! is! equal! to! Self=Merge! for! interface!purposes,!thus!being!rejected!in!my!proposal.! 2.5!A!note!on!Collins!(2002)! Collins!also!attempted!to!eliminate!labels!as!they!were!conceived!of!and! make!use!of!label=free!trees!like!my!(11)!above,!doing!away!with!Chomsky’s! labeling!algorithm.!No!operation!can!make!reference!to!“maximal!projections”! or! “intermediate! projections”,! since! those! terms! only! have! sense! within! traditional! X=bar! theory.! Collins’! argument! is! that,! even! though! lexical! categories!may!have!“categorial!labels”!like!N,!V,!A,!P,!those!categorial!features! do, not, project,! and! therefore,! there! are! no! VPs,! NPs! or! anything! like! it.! He! focuses!on!four!areas!on!which!labels!are!apparently!used:! • X=bar!Theory! • Selection!(in!terms!of!subcategorization)! • Minimal!Link!Condition! • PF!interface! According!to!him,!all!reference!to!labels!can!be!dispensed!with!if!we!take! into! account! four! “syntactic! relations”! that! can! hold! between! lexical! items,! malformations!being!mainly!a!matter!of!Minimality:! • Theta!(X,!Y):!X!assigns!a!theta!role!to!Y! • EPP!(X,!Y):!X!satisfies!the!EPP!feature!of!Y! • Agree!(X,!Y):!X!matches!Y,!and!Y!values!X! • Subcat!(X,!Y):!X!subcategorizes!for!Y! Even!though!I!agree!with!his!intention,!I!must!say!that!Collins’!solution! does! not! seem! right! to! me.! His! model! can! be! proved! wrong! if! one! can! demonstrate!that!those!operations!either!do!not!exist!or!are!not!syntactic.!Theta! roles! have! been! deeply! analyzed! in! Krivochen! (2010c)! they! are! semantic! functions!that!are!read!in!the!explicature!level!from!the!information!that!the!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 41! Diego!Krivochen! syntax!provides:!case,!structural!position!(both!in!RSS!and!“narrow!syntactic”! representation)! and! materialization.! There! is! no! such! thing! as! theta! role! assignment!in!the!syntax!(or!theta!features,!as!Hornstein!(2003)!suggests),!since! they!are!not,relevant,to,syntactic,computations,!but!only!to!the!construction!of!the! explicature,!a!full!propositional!form.! As!regards!EPP,!it!has!been!eliminated!in!various!ways.!Some!take!it!as! an!inherited!version!of!C´s![EF]!in!T,!but!I!think!that!that!is!quite!a!circular! argument,!since!EF!is!as!stipulative!as!the!EPP.!I!prefer!to!stick!to!the!idea!that! Spec=TP!is!a!position!that!conveys!only!“themeness”!in!informative!terms,!given! that!structural!position!is!meaningful!in!the!explicature!level.!If!this!is!so,!then! those!nominal!expressions!that!are!themes,will!rise!to!that!position,!which!is,!as!I! argued!in!Krivochen!(2011),!semantically,transparent,!as!no!particular!inference!is! related!to!it.!! I!have!already!dispensed!with!Agree!as!an!operation,!resorting!instead!to! licensing! (see! Krivochen,! 2010c! and! the! discussion! below).! Dimensions! are! licensed! in! an! element! only! if! it! is! in! a! local! relation! with! an! appropriate! procedural/functional! head.! That! local! relation! can! be! described! in! terms! of! phasehood!or!Minimal,Configuration,(Rizzi,!2004),!where!H!and!XP!are!in!an!MC! only! if! there! is! no! “potential! governor”! between! H! and! XP.! My! theory! of! quantum! dimensions! attempts! to! simplify! the! whole! agreement! system,! so! I! will!leave!the!topic!for!the!time!being.! Subcategorization!is!the!most!difficult!element!to!justify!in!a!(radically)! minimalist!framework,!since!it!has!to!be!encoded!in!a!feature!which!not!only! will! add! complexity! to! the! representation! but! also! impose! a! stipulative! restriction! on! Merge.! Merge! would! be! an! operation! quite! analogous! to! GB’s! satisfy,! because! theories! with! subcategorization! frames! are! strongly! constructivist,!and!their!aim!is!to!generate!only!legible!structures!by!imposing! constraints!to!the!phrase!formation!operations.! I!have!thus!analyzed!different!views!on!the!labeling!process,!and!tried!to! prove! that! there! is! no! algorithm! whatsoever! to! resort! to! in! a! radically! minimalist! framework,! only! the! dynamics! of! unbounded! Merge! and! the! interface!conditions.! 2.!Agree!and!Transfer! Transfer!is!the!operation!that!takes!a!given!piece!of!information!and!sends! it!to!another!module!or!faculty.!The!transfer!to!the!A=P/!SM!component!is!what! used! to! be! called! SpellKOut,! or! vocabulary, insertion! in! a! DM! framework.! In! a! massively,modular!mind,!Transfer!is!essential!in!the!interaction!between!modules.! In!Krivochen!(2010d)!we!have!differentiated!transfer!from!transduction,!taking! the!former!to!be!the!transmission!of!legible!information!from!one!module!to!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 42! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! another,! and! the! latter! to! be! the! translation! of! information! coming! from! the! phenomenological,world!to!a!given!vertical,faculty,!in!Fodor’s!terms.!In!that!paper!I! also!said!that!as!soon!as!a!fully!interpretable!object!(in!terms!of!the!interface! levels,!whatever!these!are)!is!assembled!in!a!given!level,!it!is!transferred,!thus! leading!us!to!a!non=stipulative!definition!of!phase:! (16) ,P,is,a,phase'in'LX'(a!given!module!or!level)!iff,it,is,the,minimal'term'fully'interpretable'in' LX+1!(i.e.,!the!module!it!has!to!present!information!to)',, This! definition! is! dynamic! and! presupposes! a! strongly! componential! architecture,!in!which!the!components!can,“peer!into”!the!transferring!module! to!see!if!a!fully!interpretable!structure!has!been!assembled.!No!look,back,problem! arises,!since!I!do!not!have!a!module!looking!into!its,own!past!derivational!steps,! but!a!module!X!(LX+1!in!our!definition)!analyzing!structured!objects!assembled! in!module!Y!(LX)!according!to!its!own!legibility!conditions.!Information!is!taken! to!be!carried!in!the!form!of!features!(Chomsky,!1995),!be!them!phonological,! semantic!or!syntactic.!These!features!are,!according!to!Uriagereka’s!definition,! “valued!dimensions”!of!the!form![+/=!D],!being!D!a!given!dimension!and!two! possible!values,!+!and!=.!That!is!the!canonical!representation!of!features!and!the! one! we! will! use! for! the! purposes! of! the! present! discussion14.! Within! the! Minimalist!framework,!features!were!fundamentally!divided!(Chomsky,!1995)! in! interpretable! and! uninterpretable! on! the! one! hand! and! valued! and! unvalued, (when!entering!the!derivation)!on!the!other.!A!feature!was!not!(un)interpretable! per, se,! but! depending! on! the! category! it! was! part! of15.! The! logics! were! the! following:!if!a!feature!F!makes!a!semantic,contribution!in!a!LI,!it!is!interpretable!in! that! LI.! Thus,! [φ=features]! were! uninterpretable! in! T,! but! interpretable! in! nominals! since! [person! /! number! /! gender]! are! (allegedly)! semantically! interpretable!in!DPs,!and!it!is!the!verb!that!agrees!with!the!noun,!and!not!the! other! way! around.! Of! course! that! reasoning! is! wrong,! since! (a)! there! is! no! definition!of!“semantic!contribution”,!and!(b)!if!by!“semantic!contribution”!we! take!“contribution!to!the!explicature”!(decoding,and!referent,assignment),!we!are! in! serious! trouble! since! φ=features! in! nominals,! for! example,! are! sometimes! tricky,!like!in!the!case!of!pluralia,tantum.!Realizing!this!mistake,!Chomsky!(1999)! changes!the!angle!and!entertains!the!idea!that!uninterpretable!features!enter!the! derivation! unvalued! from! the! lexicon.! In! his! view,! syntax! only! cares! about! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 14!For!details,!see!Adger!(2008)!and!Adger!&!Sevenoius!(2010).! 15!We!must!now!address!a!reviewer’s!comment:!“(…)!in,fact,Case,was/is,precisely, such,a,feature,,i.e.,one,with,no,interpretable,counterpart!(…)”.!This!is!actually!a!point!in! favor!of!our!proposal:!if!a!feature!has!no!interpretable!counterpart!(within!the!theory),! then!why!positing!it!at!all?!Uninterpretability!makes!sense!(if!it!does)!only!if!there!is!a! concomitant! notion! of! interpretability.! If! a! feature! has! no! interpretable! counterpart,! then,!it!is!not!“uninterpretable”,!just!superfluous.!!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 43! Diego!Krivochen! valuation,! not! interpretability.! However,! we! also! find! problems! with! this! proposal.!To!begin!with,!the!stipulative!character!of!the!assignment!of!valued! and! unvalued! features! to! different! categories! is! maintained.! Besides,! it! is! a! clearly!syntacticocentric!solution,!with!no!attention!drawn!to!the!interface!levels! and!interpretability!in!the!external!systems.!Unvalued!features!must!be!valued! by!agree!between!a!probe,and!a!goal!in!order!to!assure!convergence.!Once!valued,! the!uninterpretable!features!are!eliminated,!by!means!of!erasure.!Interpretable! information,! on! the! other! hand,! is! conserved,! since! it! makes! a! “semantic! contribution”,! whatever! that! means.! Lasnik,! Uriagereka! &! Boeckx! (2005)! borrow!Conservation,Principle!from!physics,!and!state!the!following!law:! (17) 1st!Conservation!Law!(Lasnik,!Uriagereka!&!Boeckx’s!version):! All!information!in!a!syntactic!derivation!comes!from!the!lexicon!and!interpretable! lexical!information!cannot!be!destroyed.! The! problem! with! this! law! is! that! it! makes! use! of! lexical! information! taken! from! a! pre=syntactic! and! monolithic! lexicon,! which! is! the! norm! in! orthodox! Minimalism,! but! with! which! we! will! not! work.! However,! keep! in! mind!the!spirit!of!the!principle,!since!I!will!try!to!“recycle”!it!later.!They!go! further! away,! positing! a! second! conservation! rule,! applying! to! interpretable, structures16:! (18) 2nd!Conservation!Law:! Interpretable,structural,units,created,in,a,syntactic,derivation,cannot,be,altered.! Given! our! definition! of! phase,, we! can! understand! what! they! mean! by! “interpretable! structural! units”,! in! fact,! one! could! easily! replace! that! in! our! definition!without!any!significant!loss!of!meaning.!But!we!will!try!to!introduce! a!radical!change!in!the!way!derivations!are!seen.!For!that!purpose,!we!modify!a! bit!the!conservation!laws!to!fit!our!presentational!purposes:! (19) Conservation,Principle!(first,!our!formulation):! a) Interpretable!information!cannot!be!eliminated,!it!must!go!all=the=way!through!the! derivation! b) Uninterpretable!information!is!“viral”!to!the!system!and!must!thus!be!eliminated!by! Agree! In!this!formulation!I!expect!to!be!covering!and!summarizing!the!meaning! that! both! Chomsky! and! Lasnik! et.! al.! wanted! to! convey! (“viral”! theory! of! uninterpretable!features!is!Uriagereka’s).! After!having!presented!all!this!information,!there!is!still!a!basic!question! to! be! addressed:! what! is! really! the! difference! between! interpretable! and! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 16!This!principle!is!reminiscent!of!Edmond’s!Structure,Preserving,Hypothesis,!but! the!mention!of!interpretability!gives!it!a!more!“minimalist!flavor”.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 44! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! uninterpretable!features?!Or,!to!be!a!bit!more!radical:!are!there!uninterpretable, features!at!all?!Notice!that!the!difference!between!interpretable=uninterpretable,! although!subsumed!to!that!between!valued!and!unvalued,!is!still!there!at!the! very! core! of! the! theory,! and! is! taken! as! a! primitive,! with! no! explanation! whatsoever.!If!syntax!only!cares!about!putting!things!together,!why!should!it! bother!about!valuation!and!so!on?!After!all,!feature,valuation,is,an,operation,that, only, makes, sense, taking, convergence, at, the, interface, levels, into, account,, but, in, the, syntax, proper, (or! “narrow! syntax”)! it, is, perfectly, superfluous,! since! nothing! “converges”!or!“crashes”!in!the!syntax.! What! we! propose! regarding! all! so=called! "ʺuninterpretable! features"ʺ! is! that! they! do' not' exist' at' all,! especially! considering! the! proposal! made! in! Chomsky!(1999)!that!uninterpretability!is!concomitant!to!unvaluation.!That!would! be!the!strong!(and!optimal)!thesis.!Instead!of!a!number!of!features!(number!that! has!increased!over!the!years)!which!enter!the!derivation!valued!or!unvalued! depending! on! the! category! they! compose,! we! have! a! minimal! number! of! quantum'dimensions'conveying!semantic!(conceptual!or!procedural)!meaning,! which!adopt!one!value!or!another!in!a!local,relation!with!a!proper!procedural! head,! namely,! a! Minimal, Configuration, (Rizzi,! 2004).! Let! us! analyze! what! we! mean!by!quantum,dimensions.!Chomsky’s!feature!valuation!process!needs:! a) A!probe,!an!unvalued!dimension!in!a!(functional)!head! b) A!goal,!the!same!dimension!but!valued!in!a!c=commanded!head17! We!see!a!redundancy!here,!since!we!will!depart!from!the!claim!that!there! is!no!need!for!the!same!dimension!to!be!in!two!heads!just!for!the!sake!of!feature! valuation,! the! arguments! in! favor! of! these! operations! become! cyclical18.! My! argument!seeks!to!eliminate!Agree!both!as!a!relation!and!as!an!operation.!If!the! system! is! really! “free”,! as! Boeckx! (2010)! claims,! then! there! cannot! be! any! “Agree”!operation!as!currently!formulated!since!it!would!imply!a!complication! for! the! theory! and! a! restriction! for! the! possible! relations! between! elements! (namely,!relations!are!limited!to!those!between!probe!and!goal).!A!constructivist! theory!needs!Agree!in!order!to!establish!the!“right”!(i.e.,!convergent)!relations! between!elements,! but! in! our! theory,! based! on!licensing,! such! a! restriction! is! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 17!The!relation!is!always!head=head,!even!if!we!say!that!T!matches!features!with! a! DP,! it! is! really! matching! features! with! D,! and! all! subsequent! operations! (e.g.,! movement)!apply!to!the!smallest!term!that!assures!convergence,!namely,!the!whole!DP.! 18!If! we! take! an! architecture! like! the! one! outlined! in! Krivochen! (2010b),! we! would!first!have!a!“fully!interpretable”!RSS!and!then!we!would!add!(un=interpretable)! features!that!would!be!later!on!valuated!by!Agree!and!erased!from!the!computation! (see!Epstein!&!Seeley,!2002,!for!a!discussion!on!this!specific!point).!That!is,!for!us,!a! redundant! (and! stipulative)! computation,! and! plainly! inadmissible! in! a! Radically! Minimalist!theory.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 51! Diego!Krivochen! functional! head! to! merge! when! we! already! have! a! head! that! can! make! the! quantum!dimension!collapse.!Second,!because!of!Minimality:!different!types!of! informational! domains! are! like! different! perspectives! for! measurement,! they! make! the! dimension! collapse! to! one! state! or! the! other.! The! difference! with! physics!here!is!that!there!is!a!correlation!between!the!information!carried!by!the! functional!head!and!the!state!it!licenses.!Notice!also!that!it!would!make!no!sense! to!talk!about!“VP”!or!anything!like!that,!since!VP!presupposes!a!root!already! categorized,!and!I!posit!that!category,!like!Case,!is!a!quantum!dimension!and! that!it!collapses!in!a!local!relation!with!a!procedural!head,!as!we!will!see!below.! The! collapsing! of! quantum! dimensions! can! be! taken! as! a! possible! justification!for!certain!instances!of!movement:!a!quantum!dimension!in!its!ψ= state!is!not!legible!by!the!interface!levels,!as!we!have!said.!Let!us!suppose!that! we!have!a!SO![X]!with!two!quantum!dimensions,![PX]!and![QX].!We!have!said! that!there!is!a!correlation!between!the!information!that!a!certain!head!carries! and! the! dimensions! it! can! license,! not! because! of! a! syntactic! constraint,! but! because!of!interface!conditions:!if!a!procedural!node!carries!spatial!information,! and!makes!a!definiteness!dimension!collapse,!the!result!will!be!a!crash!in!the! explicature!level,!since!that!node!=P,!for!the!sake!of!clarity=!is!related!with!the! Dative!/!Locative!sphere!(Krivochen,!2010c),!but!not!with!definiteness!or!so.!A! certain!object!must!have!all,of,its,quantum,dimensions,collapsed!by!the!time!it!is! transferred,!or,!better!explained,!a,certain,object,will,be,transferred,if,and,only,if,it, has, all, of, its, quantum, dimensions, collapsed,! so! if! in! the! merge! position! not! all! dimensions!have!collapsed!because!of!the!characteristics!of!the!nearest!head,! the!element!must!look!for!a!procedural!head!that!can!license!that!dimension! prior,to,Transfer.!It!is!possible!that!Movement!(understood!as!“remerge”!of!the! relevant!object!in!the!relevant!position,!not!as!actual!displacement,!as!in!GB)!of! [X]! applies! as! a! last, resort! to! create! a! structural! configuration! where! its! dimensions!can!collapse!while!respecting!Minimality,!when!the!derivation!has! reached!a!point!in!which!there!is!an!intermediate!element!blocking!the!minimal! configuration! required! for! licensing! /! collapsing! quantum! dimensions! in! the! smallest,unit,leading!to!convergence.!This!“movement”!would!be!very!much!like! Grohmann’s! (2003,! 2004)! intraKclausal, movement,! it! goes! upwards! to! the! immediately,“dominant”,informational,domain.,The!relevant!syntactic!object!would! not!need! to! stop! in! each! available! position,!but!only! on! those! that,! once! the! relevant!head!is!merged,!can!collapse!the!quantum!dimension,!as!the!derivation! proceeds!in,real,time!and!no!object!can!“see”!what!will!be!merged!later!on.!This! is!why!we!have!locality:!although!it!can!be!argued!that!it!would!be!simpler!to! wait!until!the!whole!derivation!is!completed!and!just!move!the!element!to!its! final!position,!that!would!imply!maintaining!a!larger!structure!in!the!working! memory,!which!is!far!from!optimal.!Movement!applies!as!soon!as!it!can!(i.e.,!as! soon! as! a! new! informational! domain! is! created! and! we! have! therefore! new!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 52! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! heads!that!can!enter!in!a!licensing!relation!with!the!object!in!question),!waiting! would! imply! departing! from! the! best! option,! which! has! to! be! justified! independently.! AntiKlocality! derives! from! the! fact! that! each! informational! domain!has!the!procedural!features!to!make!a!certain!dimension!collapse,!but! not! other,! so! intra=domain! movement! would! be! trivial,! with! no! effect! in! the! interface.!If!this!is!correct,!then!we!will!have!found!a!way!of!making!movement! a!principled!operation,!since!there!is!no!stipulation!in!its!motivation!(as!there!is! if! a! feature! like! EPP! is! posited),! only! the! dynamics! of! Merge! (internal! and! external)! in! interaction! with! the! interface! requirements.! The! possibility! is! currently! under! research,! since! it! is! possible! that! quantum, driven, movement! applies!in!the!C=I1=syntax!interface!to!reorganize!elements!of!the!RSS!if!needed! to!create!appropriate!configurations!for!collapse.! 2.1!Necessary!Dimensions?! It!is!important!to!the!analysis!of!Transfer!to!try!to!determine!exactly!the! number! and! nature! of! the! dimensions! we! are! dealing! with,! since! “full! interpretability”!means!that!all!quantum!dimensions!have!collapsed!in!a!local! relation! with! a! functional! node.! We! cannot! do! away! with! [Case],! since! it! is! important!to!C=I!in!the!construction!of!the!explicature!and!the!interpretation!of! semantic! functions! (i.e.,! so=called! “theta! roles”,! see! Krivochen,! 2010c).! Case! arises!from!a!structural!configuration!which!is!built!respecting!the!Conservation, Principle,!therefore,!it!may!be!a!key!clue!for!LF!to!interpret!the!relation!between! two!nodes,!a!conceptual!and!a!procedural!one.!Case!alone!means!nothing,!but!it! is!a!clue!for!parsing,!and!this!justifies!its!permanence!in!my!system,!for!the!time! being.! The!same!happens,!apparently,! with! dimensions! like! [definiteness]! (or! the!procedural!dimension!one!assigns!D):!a!definite!DP!is!fully!interpretable! by!Relevance!Theory'ʹs!inferential!component!(i.e.,!C=I)!and!can!undergo!referent, assignment!(and!is!therefore!a!phase,!transferred!as!soon!as!it!can),!an!indefinite! DP!cannot!in!the!usual!cases,!and!it!must!wait!until!TP,!AspP!and!ModP!are! merged!and!all!the!relevant!dimensions!have!been!licensed!in!the!phase,level.! Therefore,! this! dimension! seems! relevant! to! determine! transfer! point,! and! cannot!be!dispensed!with,!along!with! T,! Asp! and! Mod,! of! course.! T! gives! a! (caused!or!uncaused)!generic!event!reference,!Asp!expresses!the!decision!of!the! speaker! as! regards! presenting! the! already! delimited! event! as! perfective! or! imperfective.!Mod,!in!turn,!represents!the!attitude!of!the!speaker!towards!the! proposition,!in!basic!terms!of!realis!/!irrealis.!In!Bally’s!terms,!the!dictum!(i.e.,! the!proposition),would!include!AspP!and!its!domain,!to!which!a!“truth!value”!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 53! Diego!Krivochen! can!be!assigned,!and!ModP!would!be!the!equivalent!to!the!modus,!which!is!out! of!the!scope!of!truth!evaluation!in!logical!terms22.!! Now,!the!presence!of!the!primitive!dimensions![CAUSE],![EVENT]!and! [LOCATION]!in!the!syntax!must!be!justified,!which!seem!to!have!been!carried! from! earlier! stages,! if! we! follow! the! architecture! we! have! proposed! in! Krivochen!(2010b,!d).!In!order!to!do!this,!I!will!reformulate!the!conservation! principle,!now!that!I!have!dispensed!with!features!as!they!were!traditionally! conceived!and!any!attempt!of!“valuation”!process:! (27) !Conservation,Principle!(revised!formulation):! Dimensions!cannot!be!eliminated,!but!they!must!be!instantiated!in!such!a!way!that! they!can!be!read!by!the!relevant!level!so!that!the!information!they!convey!is!preserved.! 2.2!Categories!and!categorizers! The!aforementioned!dimensions!are!the!skeleton!of!the!RSS,!built!in!the! pre=syntactic!instance!of!C=I.!These!dimensions!relate!conceptual!elements,!and! the!whole!RSS!is!not!linguistic,!as!we!hope!to!have!demonstrated!in!Krivochen! (2010d),!but!meaningful.!RSSs!are!used!to!structure!thought,!and!there!is!access! to!C=I!without!any!participation!of!FL.!For!example,!when!we!see,a!certain!event! taking!place!in!the!phenomenological!world,!we!organize!the!participants!and! the! relations! in! terms! of! a! RSS! which! can! be! unaccusative,! unergative! or! (di)transitive!(see!Mateu,!2000a,!b),!there!is!direct!transference!from!the!visual! faculty!to!C=I.!The!dimensions,!then,!are!not,linguistic,!and!therefore!cannot!be! read!directly!by! FL! but! after! an! interface! level,!in!which! the! instantiation! of! generic!concepts!into!roots!takes!place.!We!have!taken!that!interface!to!be!DM’s! A! List,! which! contains! roots! and! quantum, dimensions.! Roots! are! severely! semantically, underspecified! and! pre=categorial,! so! they! must! be! “assigned! a! category”! (this! terminology! will! be! reviewed! below)! to! generate! an! LF! legitimate! representation23 .! In! Krivochen! (2010b,! d)! we! have! posited! the! existence!of!a!categorizer!c!comprising!three!dimensions,![Cause],![Event]!and! [Entity]!(following!a!tendency!that!started!in!Marantz,!1997!and!can!be!tracked! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 22!In! RT,! the! LF! that! the! syntax! generates! as! output! is! incapable! of! being! assigned!a!truth!value,!since!it!is!an!incomplete!propositional!form!(with!referential! expressions,!vague!elements,!etc.).!A!fully=fledged!explicature,!on!the!contrary,!can!be! truth=evaluated.!That!is!the!concept!we!are!appealing!to!here,!without!commitment!to! one!or!other!theory!of!truth.! 23!This!is!consistent!with!DM’s!“Categorization!Assumption”,!which!bans!“bare”! (i.e.,!uncategorized)!roots!in!the!derivation,!but,!as!the!reader!will!see,!it!is!not!the!same,! and!the!theoretical!implications!we!draw!are!quite!different.!We!are!not!invoking!any! principle! or! filter! (which! would! be! stipulative),! only! bare! output! conditions! in! the! semantic!component.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 54! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! up!to!Panagiotidis,!2010!and!even!more!recent!works).!That!categorizer,!once! merged! with! the! relevant! root,! determined! the! category! depending! on! the! combination!of!the!values!of!the!dimensions.!For!example,!an!unergative!verb! was!(l=syntactically)!composed!by!a!root!merged!with!a!c![+!Cause]![+!Event]![=! Entity]24.!However,!I!can!simplify!this!scenario!with!the!framework!outlined!in! this! paper.! I! will! take! all! roots! to! carry! these! dimensions! as! quantum! dimensions.!Roots,!as!such,!in!isolation,!would!still!be!semantically,underspecified! and!thus!“uninterpretable”!(in!the!sense!that!they!would!make!no!contribution! to!the! explicature)! in! C=I!(Panagiotidis,! 2009,! 2010),! but!as' linguistic' entities' they'must'have'the'inner'potentiality'of'collapsing'to'a'certain'category,!if!not,! there! would! be! nothing! to! justify! the! distinction! between! roots! and! generic, concepts!(or!conceptual,addresses!and!concepts,!in!Boeckx’s!terms).!Remember!that! all!we!have!to!care!about!is!verbs!and!nouns,!since!Ps!are!functional!(that!is,!not! associated!with!a!lexical!root,!following!the!lines!outlined!in!Krivochen!2010a)! and! Adj.! and! Adv.! are! both! result! of! a! conflation! process! (Mateu,! 2000a,! b),! differing! only! in! the! type! of! elements! they! modify.! How! do! we! make! these! dimensions! collapse?! The! answer! is! already! predictable:! by! merging! a! functional!head.!Suppose!we!have!a!root!with!the!quantum!dimensions!in!the! ψ=state.!As!such,!it!cannot!be!manipulated!by!FL,!because!it!amounts!to!saying! that!it!has!no!category,!for!practical!purposes.!We!introduce!that!root!in!the! working!area!and!the!functional!category!it!merges!with!makes!the!quantum! dimension!collapse!to!one!of!the!possible!states,!namely,!noun,!derived,nominal, (from!caused!and!uncaused!verbs),!caused,verb,!uncaused,verb.!We!have,!then,!a! categorizer=less! architecture,! which! is! clearly! simpler! than! a! system! that! requires!them,!and!we!do!not!have!to!make!big!changes!to!the!model!outlined! in!previous!papers,!all!we!have!to!do!is!put!the!dimensions!that!c!comprised! within!the!root!itself.!However,!the!reader!may!remember!that!in!earlier!works! we!have!strongly!argued!against!categorizer=less!systems,!with!the!following! argument:!there! is! no! way!of!avoiding!the! generation! of! bundles!of!features! (morphemes!in!classic!DM)!that!will!collapse!in!the!interfaces,!terminal!nodes!to! which! no! vocabulary! item! could! correspond,! taking! as! valid! that! Merge! is! unbounded!and!freely!applied.!That!is,!there!is!no!(principled)!way!of!avoiding! overgeneration,! which! in! turn! results! in! a! computational! overload! in! the! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 24!Unergative!verbs!and!transitive! verbs!share!the!categorizer! values,! but!we! have!to!take!into!account!that!unergative!verbs!are!really!transitive!with!a!conflated! nominal! element! and! that! superficial! monotransitivity! is! really! ditransitivity! with! a! conflated!argument!(as!in![shelve]!or![saddle]).!These!transitive!verbs!are!formed!by! adding!a![Cause]!relation!to!an!unaccusative!structure!(thus!yielding!a![vP![VP![PP]]]! structure),!so!that!there!would!really!be!only!two!fundamental!RSSs!(and,!therefore,! two!ways!of!conceptualizing!the!world):!the!unergative!(caused,!without!spatial!relation)! and!the!unaccusative!(uncaused,!with!spatial!relation).!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 55! Diego!Krivochen! interface!levels!as!the!number!of!possibilities!of!combination!is!enormous!even! with!a!relatively!small!“lexical!array”.!Even!though!I!stick!to!that!objection!in!a! standard! system! (i.e.,! orthodox! minimalism),! my! use! of! the! Conservation, Principle! helps! us! have! a! non=stipulative! way! of! restricting! Merge! and! thus! invalidate!the!objection.!If!the!information!has!to!be!preserved!allKtheKwayKdown! the! derivational! path! (from! the! pre=syntactic! instance! of! C=I! to! the! external! systems! that! receive! the! syntactic! derivation! as! input)! because! of! the! Conservation,Principle,!then!only!that!merger!of!a!root!with!a!functional!category! that! results! in! the! maintenance! of! information! will! be! allowed! by! principle.! Thus,! if! we! start! with! a! pragmatic! global! plan! (in! Bernárdez’s! terms)! that! “shapes”!a!RSS!like!the!following!(using!Mateu’s!“labels”):! (28) ! ! We!would!be!conceptually!generating!a!location,V,!namely,![shelve].!In! order!to!preserve!the!information,!we!have!to!merge!the!root!that!instantiates! the!complex,generic,concept!√SHEL=!with!an![eventive]!node,!a![cause]!primitive, and! then! Time,! Asp! and! Mod! to! have! a! fully=fledged! proposition! including! dictum, and! modus.! In! that! merger,! the! structural! configuration! for! “category! identification”25!in! LF! is! created,! and! the! derivation! converges.! To! make! a! generalization,!a!“verb”!would!arise!from!the!following!configuration:! (29) [Time…α…√]! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 25!I!use!the!term!“category!identification”!as!parallel!to!“label!identification”,!as! both! are! only! relevant! in! the! explicature!level.! In! the! syntax,! therefore,! there! is! no! “category! creation”! in! the! sense! that! an! a=categorial! element! is! somehow! given!a! category!(for!example,!by!merging!it!with!a!FC!or!a!categorizer),!as!much!as!there!is!no! “label!creation”,!as!argumented!by!Gallego!(2010).!The!idea!is!that!the!“category”!is! interpreted!from!a!configurational!relation.! 46 36) We would be conceptually generating a location V, namely, [shelve]. In order to preserve the information, we have to merge the root that instantiates the co m plex generic concept ¥6+(/- with an [eventive] node, a [cause] primitive and then Time, Asp and Mod to have a fully-fledged proposition including dictu m and m odus . In that merger, the structural FRQILJXUDWLRQIRU³FDWHJRU\LGHQWLILFDWLRQ´26 in LF is created, and the derivation converges. 7RPDNHDJHQHUDOL]DWLRQD³YHUE´ZRXOGDULVHIURPWKHIROORZLQJFRQILJXUDWLRQ 37) >7LPH«Į«¥@ Being >Į@DQ;QXPEHURIQRQ-intervenient nodes for categorization purposes, like {cause} or {event}, which can appear in nominal structures as well (for example, in derived nominals). Categorization, then, would depend on a local relation with a procedural head 26 We use the term ³FDWHJRU\ identification ´DVSDUDOOHOWR³ODEHOLGHQWLILFDWLRQ´DVERWK are only relevant in WKHH[SOLFDWXUHOHYHO,QWKHV\QWD[WKHUHIRUHWKHUHLVQR³FDWHJRU\FUHDWLRQ´LQWKHVHQVHWKDWDQD-categorial element is somehow given a category (for example, by merging it with a FC or a categorizer), as much as WKHUHLVQR³ODEHOFUHDWLRQ´DVDUJXPHQWHGE\*DOOHJR 7KHLGHDLVWKDWWKH³FDWHJRU\´LVLQWHUSUHWHG from a configurational relation. T r r [GO] [the book] [shelf] [TO] R R [CAUSE] [Initiator]
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 56! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! Being! [α]! an! X! number! of! non=intervenient! nodes! for! categorization! purposes,! like! {cause}! or! {event},! which! can! appear! in! nominal! structures! as! well!(for!example,!in!derived!nominals).!Categorization,!then,!would!depend!on! a!local!relation!with!a!procedural!head!whose!distribution!is!specified!enough! to!determine!an!unambiguous!interpretation!from!the!structure!that!reaches!the! interface!level.!My!claim!is!that!T!is!to!V!what!D!is!to!N,!any!root!under!the! domain!of!D!(in!a!minimal!configuration)!will!be!interpreted!as!a!N.! 2.3!Radical!Theory! (30) Roots!do!not!have!dimensions!whatsoever.!Configuration!is!enough!for!C=I2!to! determine!the!“perspective”!to!be!taken!over!the!semantic!substance.! Local!relation![X…√]!is!enough!to!create!“categorial!interpretations”!of! roots,!therefore,!there!is!no!need!to!posit!quantum!categorial!dimensions.!This! depends!on!the!relation!procedural,category!–!perspective,on,the,root!being!one=to= one,!as!it!seems.!The!same!happens!with!Case!(and,!incidentally,!theta=roles):! NOMINATIVE:!read, off, from! a! {Time,! {D}}! local! relation,! and! interpreted, thematically, (in! the! explicature! building! process,! see! Sperber! &! Wilson,! 2003)!as!Agent!/!Force!! ACCUSATIVE:!read, off, from! a! {Cause,! {D}}! local! relation,! and! interpreted, thematically,as!Theme,!the!object!(Figure)!located!in!/!moving!towards,!etc.! a!Ground!! DATIVE:!read,off,from!a!{P,!{D}}!local!relation,!and!interpreted,thematically,as! Location,!the!Ground!in!Talmy’s!terms.! This!is!currently!under!investigation,!but!could!lead!to!a!much!simpler! categorization!system!than!current!proposals!(XSM,!DM).! I!may!be!accused!in!this!point!of!abandoning!restrictivism!and!arguing!in! favor! of! a! constructivist, theory! that! only! generates! convergent! derivations! (a! “bad”! version! of! crashKproof26).! However,! this! is! not! so,! because! I! am! not! proposing!any! specific! syntactic! filter! or! principle! that! restricts!Merge!in!the! working!area!(like!s=/c=selection!or!subcategorization!frames,!for!example),!but! invoking! a! much! more! basic! principle! of! physical! systems! that! assures! the! conservation!of!information!throughout!the!derivation.!Syntax!remains!the!free! unbounded!mechanism!of!recursive!combinatory!that!it!has!always!been,!but! we!all!have!to!bear!in!mind!that,!as,part,of,the,natural,world,,it,is,subjected,to,the, same, constraints, and, principles, as, any, other, physical, system! and! it, is, not, totally, independent,but,restricted,by,interface,conditions.! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 26!Michael!Putnam,!p.c.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 57! Diego!Krivochen! 3.!Conclusion:!a!brief!summary!of!Radical!Minimalism! In! this! section! I! would! like! to! list! some! basic! tenets! of! Radical! Minimalism!(some!of!which!are!shared!with!the!traditional!Chomskyan!view),! to!give!it!a!more!formal!presentation!and!start!outlining!the!model!that!we!will,! hopefully,! expand! in! future! papers.! Our! basic! assumptions,! and! some! conclusions!we!have!drawn!from!them!are:! 1) Language!is!part!of!the!“natural!world”;!therefore,!it!is!fundamentally!a! physical!system.! 2) As!a!consequence!of!1,!it!shares!the!basic!properties!of!physical!systems! and!the!same!principles!can!be!applied!(uncertainty,!SE,!the!Conservation, Principle,! locality,! etc.),! the! only! difference! being! the! properties! of! the! elements!that!are!manipulated!in!the!relevant!system.!! 3) The!operations!are!taken!to!be!very!basic,!simple!and!universal,!as!well! as!the!constraints!upon!them,!which!are!determined!by!the!interaction! with!other!systems,!not!by!stipulative!intra=theoretical!filters.! 4) 2!and!3!can!be!summarized!as!follows:! (30),Strong,Radically,Minimalist,thesis,(SRMT):, All!differences!between!physical!systems!are!“superficial”!and!rely!only!on!the! characteristics! of! their! basic! units! [i.e.,! the! elements! that! are! manipulated],! which! require!minimal!adjustments!in!the!formulation!of!operations!and!constraints![that!is,! only!notational!issues].!At!a!principled!level,!all!physical!systems!are!identical,!make! use!of!the!same!operations!and!respond!to!the!same!principles.! 5) From! SRMT,! we! can! follow! the! regularities! that! have! been! found! regarding! the! structure! of! each! faculty! in! the! context! of! a! massively! modular!mind!(Katz!&!Pesetsky’s,!2011!“Identity,Thesis”!as!an!example),! as!well!as!the!parallels!existing!between!subpersonal!systems!(i.e.,!mental! faculties)!and!other!biological!/!physical!systems!(see!Uriagereka,!1998! for!some!examples!and!references).!! Let!us!take!as!the!last!example!EST!phrase!structure!rules,!which!were! rewriting,rules.!They!were!abandoned!because!of!two!reasons,!only!one!of!which! was!clear!at!that!time:!there!were!redundancies!between!the!information!they! conveyed! and! the! information! present! in! the! lexicon! and! because! rewriting! rules! could! tell! us! nothing! specific! about! language,! since! the! patterns! they! generate!can!be!found!in!many!domains!of!the!natural!world!(Uriagereka,!1998).! We!can!generate!VPs!as!well!as!Fibonacci!sequences,!or!describe!fractal!patterns.! That!was!seen!as!a!reason!to!abandon!PSR,!but!I!see!it!as!a!supporting!argument! for! our! hypothesis:! regularities! indicate! that! we! are! dealing! with! physical! systems!(as!defined!above)!that!are!all!part!of!the!same!physical!universe!(or! “natural!world”,!as!is!more!common!to!say!in!Generative!Grammar),!which,!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 58! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! optimally,!should!be!regulated!by!a!small!set!of!general!principles!and!allow!a! small!set!of!universal!operations!(like!Merge)!to!be!performed.! REFERENCES! Adger,!D.!2008.!A,Minimalist,Theory,of,Feature,Structure.,lingBuzz/000583! Adger,!D.!&!P.!Sevenoius.!2010.!Features,in,Minimalist,Syntax.!lingBuzz/000825! Bernárdez,!E.!.1982.!Introducción,a,la,Lingüística,del,Texto.!Madrid,!Epasa=Calpe.! Boeckx,! C.! .2006.! Linguistic, Minimalism:, Origins,, Concepts,, Methods, and, Aims.! OUP.! Boeckx,! C.! .2009.! The, Nature, of, Merge., Consequences, for, Language,, Mind, and, Biology.! In! Piatelli! Palmarini! et.! al.! “Of! Minds! and! Language”.! Oxford,! OUP.! Boeckx,!C.!.2010.!Defeating,Lexicocentrism.!lingBuzz/001130! Bong=Kim,!S.!.2010.!Is,the,EPP,Feature,Really,Necessary?,No!!lingBuzz/001165! Bosque,! I.! y! Gutiérrez! Rexach,! J..2008.! Fundamentos, de, sintaxis, formal! Madrid,! Akal.! Brazil,!D.!.1997.!The,Communicative,Value,of,Intonation,in,English.!CUP.! Carston,! R.! .1998.! The, Relationship, between, Generative, Grammar, and, (RelevanceK theoretic),Pragmatics.!University!College,!London.! Chomsky,!N.:!.1965.!Aspectos,de,la,teoría,de,la,sintaxis!Barcelona,!Gedisa!.1999..! Chomsky,!N.:!.1981.!Lectures,on,Government,and,Binding,!Dordrecht,!Foris.! Chomsky,! N.:! .1982.! La, nueva, sintaxis., Teoría, de, la, rección, y, el, ligamiento.! Barcelona,!Paidós!.1988.! Chomsky,!N.:!.1994.!Bare,Phrase,Structure.!In!Webelhuth!(ed.)!Government,and, Binding,Theory,and,the,Minimalist,Program.!Oxford,!Blackwell.! Chomsky,!N.:!.1995.!The,Minimalist,Program!Cambridge,!MA.!MIT!press.! Chomsky,!N.:,.1998.!Minimalist,Inquiries.,The,Framework.!MIT!Occasional!Papers! in!Linguistics!15.! Chomsky,!N.:!!.1999.!Derivation,by,Phase.!MIT!Occasional!Papers!in!Linguistics! 18.! Chomsky,!N.:!.2002.!Indagaciones,minimalistas.,In!Chomsky,!Catalá,!Piera,!et.!al.! (eds.).!“El!lenguaje!y!la!mente!humana”.!Barcelona,!Ariel.! Chomsky,! N.:! .2004.! Beyond, Explanatory, Adequacy.! In! Belleti,(ed.)! “Structures! and!Beyond”,!Oxford,!OUP.! Chomsky,!N.:!!.2005a.!On,Phases.!Ms.!MIT.! Chomsky,!N.:!.2005b.!Three,Factors,in,Language,Design.!Linguistic!Inquiry!Vol.!36! n°!1.!MIT!press.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 59! Diego!Krivochen! Chomsky,!N.:!.2007.!Approaching,UG,from,below.!Ms.!MIT.! Chomsky,!N.:!.2009.!Opening,Remarks.!In!Piatelli!Palmarini!et.!al.!“Of!Minds!and! Language”.!Oxford,!OUP.! Collins,! C.! .2002.! Eliminating, Labels.! In! “Derivation! and! Explanation! in! the! Minimalist!Program”,!ed.!S.D.!Epstein!&!T.D.!Seeley.!Oxford:!Blackwell.! Comrie,!B.!.1976.!Aspect.!Cambridge,!CUP.! Comrie,!B.!.1985.!Tense.,Cambridge,!CUP.! De! Belder,! M.! &! Van! Craenenbroeck! .2011.! How, to, Merge, a, Root.! LingBuzz! 001226.! De!Lancey,!S.!.2001.!Lectures,on,Functional,Syntax.,University!of!Oregon.! Embick,!D.!&!R.!Noyer!.2004.!Distributed,Morphology,and,the,SyntaxKMorphology, Interface.!Draft:!25/10/2004!! Epstein,!S.!.1999.!UnKPrincipled,Syntax,and,the,Derivation,of,Syntactic,Relations.!In! “Working! Minimalism”,! S.! Epstein,! and! N.! Hornstein,! eds.! Cambridge,! MA.!MIT!Press.! Epstein,!S.!&!T.!Seeley!.2000.!SPECKifying, the,GF,Subject:, Eliminating, AKChains, and,the,EPP,within,a,Derivational,Model.!University!of!Michigan.! Epstein,!S.!&!T.!Seeley!.2002.!Rule,Applications,as,Cycles,in,a,Level,Free,Syntax.!In! “Derivation!and!Explanation!in!the!Minimalist!Program”,!ed.!S.D.!Epstein! &!T.D.!Seeley,!65=89.!Oxford:!Blackwell.! Escandell!Vidal,!M.V.!.2006.!Introducción,a,la,Pragmática.!Barcelona,!Ariel.! Escandell!Vidal,!M.V.!&!Leonetti,!M.!.2000.,!Categorías,conceptuales,y,semántica, procedimental.!In!“Cien!años!de!investigación!semántica:!de!Michél!Bréal!a! la!actualidad”!Tomo!I,!Madrid,!Ediciones!clásicas,!363=378.! Gallego,!A.!.2007.!Phase,Theory,and,Parametric,Variation.!PhD!Thesis,!Universitat! Autónoma!de!Barcelona.! Gallego,!A.!.2010.!Phase,Theory.!Amsterdam,!John!Benjamins.! Gould,!S.!J.!.2002.!The,Structure,of,Evolutionary,Theory.!The!Belknap!of!Harvard! University!Press,!Cambridge,!MA!&!London.! Grice,! H.! P.! .1975., Lógica, y, conversación,! in! Valdés! Villanueva,! Luis! Ml.! (Comp.)!.1991.!“En!búsqueda!del!significado”.!Madrid,!Tecnos.! Grohmann,!K.!K.!.2003.!“Prolific!Domains.!On!the!Anti=Locality!of!Movement! Dependencies”.!Amsterdam:!John!Benjamins.! Grohmann,!K.!K.!.2004.!Prolific,Domains,in,the,Computational,System.!In!Actas!de! JEL!2004:!Domains.!Nantes:!AAI,!211=216.! Hale,!K.!&!J.!Keyser!.1993.!On,Argument,Structure,and,the,Lexical,Expression,of, Syntactic, Relations., In! Hale! &! Keyser! “The! View! from! Building! 20”.! Cambridge,!Mass.!MIT!Press.!
! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.2,!2011,!20=62! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989=8525! 60! An!introduction!to!Radical!Minimalism!I! Hale,!K.!&!J.!Keyser!.1997a..!On,the,Complex,Nature,of,Simple,Predicators.!In!A.! Alsina,!J.!Bresnan!&!P.!Sells!(eds.),!“Complex!Predicates”.!Stanford:!CSLI! Publications.! Hale,!K.!&!J.!Keyser!.1997b.!The,Basic,Elements,of,Argument,Structure.!Ms.!MIT.! Hale,!K.!&!J.!Keyser!.2002.!Conflation.!Ms.!MIT.! Hauser,!Chomsky!&!Finch!.2002.!The,faculty,of,Language:,What,is,It,,Who,Has,It, and,How,did,It,Evolve?,In!“Science”,!298.!November,!2002.! Heisenberg,!W.!.1999.!Physics,and,Philosophy,!New!York:!Prometheus!Books! Hendrick,!R.!.2003.!Minimalist,Syntax.!Oxford,!Blackwell.! Hinzen,!W.! .2009.! Hierarchy,, Merge, and, Truth.! In! Piatelli! Palmarini! et.! al.! “Of! Minds!and!Language”.!Oxford,!OUP.! Huang,!C.=T.!J.!.1982.!Logical,Relations,in,Chinese,and,the,Theory,of,Grammar,!PhD! thesis,!MIT.! Hornstein,!N.!&!P.!Pietroski!.2009.!Basic,Operations:,Minimal,SyntaxKSemantics.!In! “Catalan!Journal!of!Linguistics”!n°8! Jackendoff,!R.!.1997.!The,Architecture,of,the,Language,Faculty.!Cambridge,!Mass.! MIT!Press.!!! Jackendoff,!R.!&!F.!Lerdahl!.2004.!The,Capacity,for,Music:,What,Is,It,,and,What´s, Special,About,It?,In!Cognition,!2004.! Katz,! J.! &! D.! Pesetsky! .2011.! The, Identity, Thesis, between, Language, and, Music.! Downloaded! from! http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/KP_paper_music_v 2! Kayne,!R.!.1994.!The,Antisymmetry,of,Syntax.!Cambridge,!Mass.!MIT!Press.! Krivochen,! D.! .2010a.! Referencialidad, y, Definitud, en, D.! Un, análisis, desde, la, convergencia,entre,el,Programa,Minimalista,y,la,Teoría,de,la,Relevancia.!UNLP.! Unpublished.! Krivochen,!D.!.2010b.!Algunas,notas,sobre,fases.!UNLP.!Presented!at!I!Jornadas!de! Jóvenes!Investigadores,!UBA,!Argentina.! Krivochen,!D.!.2010c.!θKTheory,Revisited.,UNLP.!LingBuzz!001240.! Krivochen,!D.!.2010d.!Prolegómenos,a,una,teoría,de,la,mente.!UNLP.!Unpublished.! Krivochen,!D.!.2011.!On,the,Syntax,of,Raising,Verbs.!UNLP.!Unpublished.! Krivochen,!D.!.forthcoming.!Unified,Syntax.!Ms.!! Lasnik,! H;! J.! Uriagereka! &! C.! Boeckx! .2005.! A, Course, in, Minimalist, Syntax.! Oxford,!Blackwell.! Leonetti,! M.! y! Escandell,! M.! V.! .2004.! Semántica, conceptual,, semántica, procedimental,! en! Actas! del! V! congreso! de! Lingüística! General,! Madrid,! Arco.!!