ADVANCED SYNTAX (ENG 780)

MINIMALISM IN THE MINIMALIST

PROGRAM (GROUP 14)

by

Abolade Hephzibah Toluwani 206160

Ashamu Precious Ikeade 245085
Ogbonna Solomon Chiduben

Prof. M.T Lamidi

Dr. Akinmurele
INTRODUCTION
The Minimalist Program (MP), introduced by Noam Chomsky in the early 1990s, represents a
significant advancement in the field of syntactic theory, aimed at explaining the structure of
language through the most minimal and efficient principles. The central goal of MP is to uncover
the simplest mechanisms that govern linguistic operations, with minimalism serving as its
guiding ethos. By emphasizing economy in both derivation and representation, MP seeks to
reduce theoretical complexity while maintaining the computational efficiency of language
processing.

This paper examines how the minimalist approach is embedded in MP’s key concepts, such as
economy principles, feature checking, and syntactic movement. It also explores the broader
implications of minimalism within the program, particularly in relation to the cognitive
foundations of human language and the challenges that arise in balancing theoretical simplicity
with empirical adequacy.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM

The Minimalist Program is a linguistic theory introduced by Noam Chomsky in the early 1990s.
It represents an evolution of Chomsky’s earlier generative grammar frameworks, particularly
Government and Binding (GB) theory. The MP aims to explain the structure of human language
using the most economical and efficient principles. Below is a detailed exploration of its
historical development.

The development of the Minimalist Program cannot be separated from Chomsky’s earlier works
in the field of linguistics. Chomsky revolutionized linguistic theory in the 1950s and 1960s by
proposing that humans have an innate Universal Grammar(UG) that guides language acquisition.
This UG theory formed the core of Transformational Generative Grammar, which posited that
languages could be described by a set of transformations applied to underlying structures.

During the 1970s, Chomsky introduced the Extended Standard Theory (EST) and the Revised
Extended Standard Theory (REST), which sought to refine these transformational rules. The
main goal of these theories was to develop an abstract and rule-based understanding of language
structure. Chomsky’s Government and Binding (GB) theory (Chomsky1981) was a major
milestone preceding the Minimalist Program. GB theory introduced principles and parameters as
a way to describe language variation and universality. Principles were general rules applying to
all languages, while parameters were specific settings that could vary from one language to
another. This theory laid the groundwork for later minimalist ideas.

In 1993, Chomsky introduced the Minimalist Program in a paper titled A Minimalist Program
for Linguistic Theory. The MP marked a shift from the complex rule-based systems of earlier
frameworks to a focus on the most fundamental and essential principles that explain language
structure. Chomsky’s goal was to uncover the simplest possible explanation for language a set of
core, universal principles that could account for the diversity of human languages (Chomsky
1993).

The MP is rooted in the idea of "economy of derivation" and "economy of representation." In

simple terms, Chomsky posited that language is structured in the most efficient way possible.
This means that the human language faculty seeks to minimize effort in both generating and
interpreting sentences (Haider 1997)

A major feature of the Minimalist Program is the notion of “Move”, a simplified version of
earlier transformation rules. In the MP, Move refers to moving parts of a sentence around, but
only when it’s necessary to make the sentence grammatically correct or to match how it should
sound or be understood. For example, in the question “What did you see?” the word “what” has
moved to the front of the sentence from its original place (“You saw what?”). This movement
happens because English requires questions to be formed this way (Chomsky 2014).

The MP also introduced the Feature Checking mechanism, the idea is about making sure that
parts of a sentence agree with each other. For example, in the sentence “She is running,” the
subject “She” has to match the verb “is” in number and person (third person singular in this
case). If there’s no agreement, the sentence becomes ungrammatical, like “She are running”.
Furthermore, elements like tense and case are also checked. In a sentence like “The book was
read by John,” “The book” must be in the right grammatical case (nominative) and “John” needs
to match the case required by the preposition “by” (Fong 2014).

Since its introduction, the MP has continued to evolve, with researchers proposing various
modifications and extensions to the original framework. One notable development is Phase
Theory, The Minimalist Program (MP), introduced by Noam Chomsky in 1995. The theory
suggests that syntactic structures ,which is the way sentences are formed, are built step by step in
smaller parts called “phases”. Phases are CP [including tense and force] and vP [having all θ-
roles](. These phases help break down complex sentences into manageable pieces, making it
easier for the brain to process language as while speaking and listening in real-time. This idea
has brought sheds new light into how sentence structure works, especially in terms of how our
minds handle language (Al-Horais 2012).

However, the Minimalist Program (MP) has faced criticism from some linguists (Culicover
1999, Jackendoff 2002, Johnson 1997). Critics argue that it is too abstract and doesn’t always
match real-world languages. They say it focuses too much on idealized grammar systems instead
of the messy, complex ways people actually speak. For example, MP’s emphasis on economy
principles the idea that the human brain prefers the simplest and most efficient sentence
structures has been criticized as being too restrictive. In reality, many languages have
redundancies or patterns that don’t seem efficient according to these principles, which challenges
MP’s ideas about simplicity in language. Linguists like Ray Jackendoff (2002) and Peter
Culicover (1999) argue that the complexity of real language often can’t be fully explained by
minimalist ideas.

Despite these criticisms, the MP has had a big influence on different areas of linguistics and
beyond. Psycholinguistics, the study of how language is understood and produced, has been
shaped by the MP’s ideas. The concept that the brain prefers simple, efficient structures has
impacted how researchers model language processing. For example, Angela Friederici (2011) has
studied how phase-based structures match with brain data, showing that the brain processes
sentences in parts, similar to how he MP suggests. In computational linguistics, the MP has also
been useful. Its principles of simplicity and efficiency have inspired new computer algorithms to
better understand human language. Researchers like Edward Stabler (2011) have used MP’s
minimalist syntax to develop faster, more efficient ways for computers to process language.

Additionally, the MP has influenced research in second language acquisition (SLA). Linguists
have applied MP’s minimalist ideas to see how people learning a second language form
sentences with just a few rules. This is important because learning a second language often
involves building grammar with limited exposure to the language. Researchers like Lydia White
(2003) have studied how these simple structures help learners transfer knowledge from their first
language to their second one.

In summary, the Minimalist Program has brought a major shift in linguistics by focusing on
simplicity, economy, and efficiency in sentence structure. Key concepts like Merge and Phase
Theory continue to influence modern syntax. While some criticize it for being too abstract and
overly focused on idealized efficiency, the MP remains a powerful framework. Its impact
stretches into related fields like psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, and second
language learning, showing its broad significance in understanding human language.

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Minimalism
The term minimalism was first introduced by Chomsky in 1993, with the aim of identifying the
simplest and universal principles that characterize the faculty of language. Chomsky aims to
explain and describe the Universal Grammar is the simplest way that takes Least effort
(Chomsky 1993). The minimalist program in linguistics seeks to uncover the essential principles
underlying the structure of human language. Chomsky (1995) articulates that the goal of this
framework is to identify the simplest and most universal principles that govern language,
emphasizing that the minimalist program aims to understand the properties of natural language
through a limited set of rules and principles (Chomsky, 1995).
Meanwhile, Howard Lasnik, another influential figure in syntax, defines Minimalism as a
theoretical approach to syntax that seeks to explain language using the most economical and
simplest principles, he discussed procrastinate in covert movement which is favored by the
economy condition. The core idea is that language operates under "minimal" computational
mechanisms, with the goal of minimizing the steps and resources involved in generating
grammatically correct sentences (Lasnik, 1999).
Boeckx, Cedric provides further insight into the minimalist framework by noting that it allows
for the derivation of syntactic universals from principles of economy and simplicity. He
emphasizes that the minimalist framework allows the derivation of syntactic universals from
principles of economy and simplicity (Boeckx, 2011). This approach explores how various
syntactic phenomena can be accounted for by a limited set of theoretical constructs.
David Pesetsky contributes to the discussion by highlighting the theoretical motivations behind
minimalism. He claims that minimalism attempts to reduce the complexity of the grammar by
eliminating unnecessary theoretical constructs (Pesetsky, 2000). This idea resonates with the
minimalist ethos of seeking a more streamlined and efficient understanding of language.

Also, The Minimalist Program (MP) investigates the hypothesis that the language faculty
represents an optimal solution to the demands of interface conditions. According to this
hypothesis, the strongest minimalist thesis is that language is designed to be an efficient and
optimal system that meets the requirements imposed on the Faculty of Language (FL) by
external performance systems, such as the conceptual-intentional and sensorimotor systems.
Chomsky (2004) argues that the linguistic expressions generated by the internal language system
(L) must be interpretable and usable by these external systems. This means that the structures
and operations of language are minimal and economical, ensuring that the output is legible to the
external systems, which underscores the minimalist goal of reducing complexity while
maintaining functionality. The MP is “a non-redundant and optimal system in the sense that
particular phenomena are not over-determined by linguistic principles and that linguistic system
is subject to economy restrictions with a least effort flavor” (Hornstein et al 2005).

Finally, Epstein broadens the discussion on the simplest Merge hypothesis and the quest for 3rd
factor reduction of human syntactic cognitive capacity. He asserts that the minimalist program
aims to elucidate the universal principles of language while considering the interplay of
simplicity and functionality of merge (Epstein et al, 2021).

Economy Principles
Economy Principles, first explicitly formulated by Chomsky (1991). These principles form the
cornerstone of MP, which aims to identify the most economical derivation by reducing
computational complexity. Instead of placing constraints on output, the Minimalist program
(MP) offers guidelines on how analyses should be constructed with minimal cost (Weinberg,
1999).

Economy principles, as Hornstein et al. (2005) explain, prioritize “least-effort notions” as natural
sources for grammatical principles, promoting the idea that grammatical derivations should
minimize effort. Motut (2010) further supports this by noting that Chomsky (1991) hypothesizes
that Universal Grammar (UG) is inherently shaped by principles that favor more economical
operations. Chomsky suggests that UG guidelines, although somewhat vague, tend to follow a
“least effort” approach, discouraging unnecessary or superfluous elements in both
representations and derivations.

In the Minimalist framework, economy principles are evaluated at every stage of the derivation
process. This means that structures failing to meet the economy conditions are not generated at
all (Weinberg, 1999). Additionally, as Chomsky (1995) highlights, these principles guide the
selection of derivations by favoring those that require fewer computational resources, thereby
reflecting the natural efficiency of human language processing. These efficiency principles, often
referred to as “economy of derivation” and “economy of representation”, ensure that only the
least costly and simplest syntactic forms are generated, which corresponds with the MP’s goal of
minimizing redundancy in linguistic structure (Chomsky, 1995). By aiming for the least costly
derivations and simpler, more efficient syntactic structures, the MP emphasizes the natural
inclination of human language toward economy and minimal computation. Furthermore, Last
Resort principle dictates that movement is only allowed when there is a formal necessity for it.
This aligns with the broader goal of minimizing computational complexity in the derivation of
syntactic structures (Chomsky, 1993).

The economy principle views movement as a costly operation and therefore only permits it when
required to resolve formal inadequacies, such as issues related to case licensing. For instance, in
the sentence ”Mary is certain t to leave,” “Mary” cannot be case-licensed in its base position,
marked by the trace “t.” To satisfy the requirement for nominative case assignment, “Mary”
moves to the matrix Specifier position (SpecIP), where she receives nominative case (Chomsky,
2000). This movement is considered economical because it is driven by the necessity to assign
case, fulfilling a formal requirement. Once this need is met, further movement is blocked, as any
additional operations would violate the economy principle.
This constraint on movement is illustrated in ungrammatical sentences like:
1. Mary is certain t will leave
2. The belief Mary to be likely t will leave
In these examples, “Mary” remains in her original position without proper case licensing,
rendering the sentences ungrammatical. The necessity for case licensing motivates the movement
of “Mary” to the matrix SpecIP, underscoring how the economy principle only permits
movement when essential for achieving grammaticality (Chomsky, 1995).

The economy principle also applies to other formal features such as agreement and the Extended
Projection Principle (EPP), which requires certain syntactic positions, like SpecIP, to be filled.
Movement is therefore driven by the need to satisfy formal features while adhering to the least
costly derivation possible. According to Lasnik (2003), movement within the MP is constrained
by economy conditions, which prevent operations that do not directly contribute to fulfilling
formal requirements.
Furthermore, the system selects derivations that minimize computational resources while
meeting the demands of the interfaces. Chomsky (2001) argues that movement happens in the
narrow syntax as part of the derivational process, with economy principles guiding the choice of
the most efficient and necessary syntactic operations. Thus, the economy principle is a central
tenet of the MP, ensuring that syntactic movement only occurs when it reduces the computational
burden and fulfills essential grammatical functions.

Finally, The principles of Economy of Derivation and Economy of Representation are central to
the Minimalist Program in syntax, which emphasizes efficiency and simplicity in sentence
formation and structure.
Economy of Derivation
This principle governs the process by which sentences are formed through syntactic
transformations or operations. It advocates that sentences should be generated using the least
number of transformations necessary to satisfy grammatical requirements. The underlying idea is
that the brain follows an efficient path, making the minimal number of moves needed for correct
sentence formation. Earlier syntactic theories involved complex transformations to explain
sentence structures. In contrast, the Minimalist Program proposes that only essential steps are
taken during sentence derivation. The operations involved in sentence creation include:
- Merge: Combines words into phrases, creating basic sentence structures.
- Move: Shifts elements within a sentence to satisfy syntactic rules, such as word order in
questions or declaratives.
For instance, in the question, "What did Mary eat?", the word "what" moves to the front to form
a grammatically correct question. This movement is necessary for the formation of a question,
following the principle of economy—only this essential transformation occurs. In the absence of
a need for question formation, the sentence would remain in its basic form, "Mary ate what." No
unnecessary movements are applied.

Economy of Representation
This principle deals with the structure of a sentence after it has been formed. According to
economy of representation, sentences should be represented with the simplest possible syntactic
structure. Unnecessary components or syntactic layers are avoided unless they are essential for
meaning or fulfilling grammatical constraints.

The structure of a sentence should only include elements that are crucial for the sentence’s well-
formedness, meaning, or agreement. The goal is to minimize superfluous parts of the syntactic
structure. Traditional syntactic theories often included many complex layers or projections in
sentence diagrams, which could lead to redundancy. The Minimalist Program simplifies this by
eliminating any complexity that does not contribute something essential to the sentence.
For example, in the sentence "Mary loves John," the simplest syntactic representation involves
"Mary" as the subject, "loves" as the verb, and "John" as the object. This basic subject-verb-
object structure is sufficient to meet the grammatical rules in English, so there is no need to add
further layers or complexity. Also, in spanish instead of saying "Yo hablo español" (I speak
Spanish), you can just say "Hablo español" because "Hablo" already implies "I." This cuts down
on unnecessary words, making the sentence more economical.

The Minimalist Program contrasts with earlier theories by proposing that the brain generates
sentences with the least cognitive effort possible. By following the principles of economy,
language users efficiently construct and interpret sentences. These principles reflect a broader
trend in linguistics toward understanding the cognitive efficiency underlying language use,
shedding light on how humans produce and comprehend language with minimal resources.

Levels of Representation
In the Minimalist Program (MP), Chomsky introduced a significant simplification of syntactic
theory by reducing the levels of representation to two: Logical Form (LF) and Phonological
Form (PF). LF serves as the interface with the conceptual-intentional system, responsible for
meaning and interpretation, while PF interfaces with the articulatory-perceptual system, handling
the physical expression of language. According to Chomsky (1995:219), all conditions that
govern syntactic structures are evaluated at either LF or PF, reflecting the minimalist emphasis
on economy in grammar.

This shift marked a departure from earlier generative models, particularly Government and
Binding (GB) Theory, which postulated four distinct levels: D-Structure (DS), S-Structure (SS),
Phonetic Form (PF), and Logical Form (LF). In that model, DS was where thematic roles were
assigned, and SS was the output of transformations before moving to the interface levels of PF
and LF. However, under the MP, D-Structure and S-Structure were considered redundant and
unnecessary for explaining the generation of grammatical sentences. The proposal to eliminate
these intermediate levels was driven by the minimalist goal of reducing theoretical complexity
and streamlining the derivational process (Al-Horais 2012)

Several scholars have expanded on this, emphasizing that the MP’s two-interface model reflects
a desire to develop a more economical explanation of language. Lasnik and Uriagereka (2005)
note that eliminating D-Structure and S-Structure allowed the MP to operate under the principle
of least derivational effort, ensuring that only essential syntactic operations are performed. This
reduction in levels highlights the focus on ensuring that each step in the derivation serves a
formal purpose, fitting the minimalist desire for a theory that explains language using as few
resources as possible.

Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann (2005) further discuss that the collapse of D-Structure and S-
Structure into a single syntactic derivation (where structures are directly mapped to LF and PF)
allows for a more flexible and dynamic approach to how syntactic features are checked. In this
model, operations such as Move or Merge directly target features relevant to LF (semantic
interpretation) or PF (phonetic realization), reinforcing the idea that linguistic operations must be
motivated by economy, in line with the Last Resort principle (Hornstrin et al 2005).

By focusing only on the levels that interface with external systems, Chomsky’s MP pursues an
optimal explanation of language, where the derivation of syntactic structures is driven by
efficiency and necessity. This reduction of representational levels is considered one of the most
significant contributions of the MP, aligning it with the broader goal of explaining language in
the most economical and elegant way possible (Chomsky, 2000).

Syntactic Derivation
In the framework of the Minimalist Program (MP), several key concepts related to syntactic
operations have been significantly streamlined and refined compared to the earlier Principles and
Parameters Theory (PPT). This shift reflects a broader emphasis on economy and efficiency in
linguistic derivation, aligning with the minimalist thesis that language is an optimal solution to
interface conditions. Below is a brief discussion the major concepts introduced in the MP and
how they were minimized from PPT, with a focus on operations like Select, Merge, Agree,
Move, and Transfer.

1. The Numeration
In PPT, syntactic operations involved multiple levels of representation, leading to complex
derivational processes. In contrast, the MP introduces the concept of numeration, defined as a set
of lexical items paired with the number of times each item is selected for derivation (Chomsky
1995). This simplification reduces the complexity of how lexical items are accessed and utilized,
requiring that by the end of a derivation, the numeration must be empty and all indices must be
reduced to zero. Failure to achieve this results in a derivation crash (Chomsky 1995). This focus
on numeration allows for a more efficient selection of lexical items, aligning with the minimalist
goal of reducing unnecessary computations.

2. Spell-Out and Interface Conditions

The Minimalist Program (MP) suggests that language operates through a streamlined system
that ensures syntactic structures are compatible with both meaning and pronunciation. This
system is grounded in two crucial interface levels: Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF).
These interfaces represent the final outputs of syntactic derivation before the sentence connects
with other systems in the brain responsible for understanding meaning and producing sound.
Logical Form (LF) refers to the level where a sentence's structure is interpreted semantically
how its meaning is understood. After the syntax generates a sentence, LF ensures that the
structure follows the rules of meaning, ensuring that all elements of the sentence are
semantically interpretable. For example, in the sentence "John wants to leave," LF ensures that
the subject, "John," is interpreted as the one who wants something, and that "to leave" is
understood as John's action. LF ensures that all necessary information is present and logically
sound for the sentence to communicate meaning. Without this, a sentence could become
ambiguous or nonsensical. On the other hand, Phonetic Form (PF) governs how the syntactic
structure of a sentence is converted into phonological representations how the sentence will be
pronounced. PF ensures that the sentence adheres to the sound system of the language, dictating
word order, stress, intonation, and pronunciation. After the syntax constructs a sentence, PF
ensures that the words and phrases are arranged and articulated correctly according to the
language's phonological rules. For instance, in the sentence "He is going to the store," PF
ensures that it is pronounced with the correct stress and intonation patterns. PF also manages
phonological adjustments such as contractions (e.g., "He’s going to the store") or vowel
reduction in unstressed syllables, making the sentence easier to pronounce in everyday speech.
PF also handles cases of ellipsis, where certain parts of a sentence may be left unspoken but
understood from context, as well as intonation, which can change the meaning of a sentence
depending on how it is pronounced.

Meanwhile, Spell-Out marks a crucial point in the derivation process where the syntactic
structure is divided for further processing. It signifies the completion of the purely syntactic
component of the derivation, after which the structure is sent to Phonological Form (PF) for
phonological rules and Logical Form (LF) for semantic interpretation. As Kennedy (2000) notes,
if Spell-Out occurs at the wrong point or delivers incorrect information, the derivation crashes.
This contrasts sharply with PPT, where multiple stages like D-Structure and S-Structure
introduced more complexity in determining the relationship between syntax and its interfaces.
The MP’s emphasis on Spell-Out simplifies the process, allowing for a more direct mapping of
syntactic structures onto their respective interfaces.
Model of Grammar (Chomsky, 1995)
3. Derivational Operations: Select and Merge
The operations of Select and Merge are central to the MP and exemplify the minimalist approach
to syntactic structure-building. Select involves choosing lexical items from the numeration, while
Merge combines two selected items into a single constituent. As described by Zeijlstra (2004),
Merge is a binary operation that creates new structures, reflecting the principle of binary
branching necessary for recursive structure (Hornstein et al. 2005).
In PPT, the process of structure-building was more intricate, involving additional levels that
complicated the relationship between lexical items. In contrast, MP posits that syntactic
structures are formed through a series of costless Merge operations that adhere to economy
principles, allowing phrases and sentences to be built up in a more straightforward manner. This
reduction from multiple operational steps to a small, manageable set of basic operations reflects
the MP’s commitment to simplifying syntax.

4. Agree
The operation of Agree establishes a relationship between two elements based on shared
grammatical features, for example, consider "the," which is a determiner (D). It carries an
uninterpretable selectional feature [N], meaning that it must combine with a noun or noun phrase
(NP) to create a determiner phrase (DP). When "the" merges with a noun phrase, this [N] feature
is deleted, completing the syntactic process. This can be illustrated as:
a. the [D] + book [N] → the book [DP] .
Also, modal verbs like "can" also have selection features. The modal "can" has a selection
feature [V], indicating that it must combine with a verb or verb phrase (VP) to form a valid
structure. For instance:

b. can [V] + swim [V] → can swim [VP].

In the MP, this operation is framed within a minimalist context, where the probe must have
unvalued features and the goal must possess matching, valued features (Kremers, 2003). In PPT,
agreements were often more complex, with multiple conditions affecting their realization. The
MP simplifies this by ensuring that each syntactic dependency is triggered by the presence of
uninterpretable features that must be checked and eliminated before reaching the interface, as
Chomsky (1995) indicates.
This simplification streamlines the process of establishing agreement relations and enables the
derivation to focus on essential operations rather than excessive complexity. Moreover, features
must be valued before reaching the PF and LF, thus promoting a more efficient process of feature
checking.

5. Move
The Move operation in the MP has evolved from earlier frameworks. In PPT, movement was
often conceptualized in a way that allowed for more flexibility and complexity, with various
types of movement needing distinct treatment. However, under the MP, movement is derived
from Merge and is driven by the need to satisfy certain syntactic requirements, such as
morphological properties (Chomsky, 1995).
Chomsky introduced principles like Greed and Procrastinate, which dictate that movement
should only occur if absolutely necessary and should be delayed until the latest possible moment
in the derivation. This focus on minimal movement reduces unnecessary complexity and aligns
with the overall goal of deriving syntactic structures efficiently.
Additionally, the introduction of the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) restricts movement to the
shortest available paths, further enhancing the economy of derivation (Chomsky, 1995).

6. Transfer
Finally, the concept of Transfer represents a significant simplification in the MP. Transfer
involves sending the completed derivation to PF and LF for interpretation. While Chomsky
(2004) initially distinguished Transfer from Spell-Out, later works treat them as synonymous.
This unification allows for a more coherent understanding of how derivations reach their final
forms, emphasizing that syntactic representations should be as simple as possible (Legate, 2002).

In summary, the Minimalist Program represents a fundamental shift in the understanding of

syntactic operations compared to Principles and Parameters Theory. By focusing on a reduced set
of operations Select, Merge, Agree, Move, and Transfer the MP simplifies the derivational
process, aligning with the overarching goals of efficiency and minimalism in linguistic theory.
This streamlining reduces complexity while maintaining the ability to account for the rich variety
of grammatical phenomena observed across languages.

Movement in Minimalism.
The Extended Projection Principle (EPP)
The Extended Projection Principle (EPP), originally introduced by Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986),
plays a critical role in syntactic theory by requiring that certain syntactic positions, specifically
Spec, TP, be filled in a sentence, typically by a subject. The EPP emerged as a response to the
challenges of explaining subject positions across different languages, especially in configurations
where no overt subject appears. Over time, this principle has been refined within the Minimalist
Program (MP) and has come to represent a minimalist strategy that contrasts with the more
complex movement operations of Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT) and Government and
Binding (GB) Theory.

In PPT, movement was often motivated by the need to check features like Case and agreement.
For instance, the movement of a subject to the Spec, TP position was frequently described as
necessary for Case-checking or agreement with the Tense head. Movement was a key feature in
deriving syntactic structures, but it was somewhat costly from a computational perspective due to
the various intermediate steps required. For example, earlier models required separate operations
like Move α and movement to fulfill the Case Filter, involving multiple layers of movement to
ensure grammatical correctness.

EPP as a Minimalist Strategy to Movement

In contrast, the Minimalist Program (MP) reconceptualized the movement of elements in the
syntax by introducing the EPP as a more straightforward mechanism for ensuring that certain
syntactic positions are filled, reducing the need for movement driven by complex feature-
checking operations. In the MP, the EPP is interpreted as an uninterpretable feature on Tense (T)
that requires the Spec, TP position to be filled. This allows for a more efficient syntactic
derivation, where movement is often motivated not by multiple conditions, but by the simple
need to satisfy the EPP requirement that Spec, TP be occupied.

Under the Minimalist framework, the EPP provides a minimalist substitute to the more elaborate
and costly movement operations of PPT. Instead of invoking extensive movement chains to
satisfy multiple grammatical conditions (e.g., Case or agreement), the EPP focuses on the
requirement that a sentence’s structure must have a subject or some element in the Spec, TP
position, simplifying the overall derivation. This leads to a more economical and streamlined
syntactic process. For example, in English, the EPP is satisfied by moving a subject DP to Spec,
TP, which not only checks the Case of the subject but also fulfills the EPP feature of T. In null-
subject languages like Italian, the EPP can be satisfied by moving a finite verb or an expletive
element into Spec, TP, without requiring overt subject movement, further simplifying the
derivation (Holmberg, 2005; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou, 1999).
The Minimalist Economy of EPP
The shift from feature-driven movement in PPT to the minimalist approach of the EPP is a
reflection of the economy principles central to the Minimalist Program. In PPT, movement was
often motivated by multiple interacting features, requiring complex derivations to ensure
grammaticality. However, the EPP in MP reduces these operations by focusing on a single,
uninterpretable feature that needs to be satisfied in each derivation.
In Chomsky’s (1995) formulation, the EPP drives movement not because of the need for Case
checking, but simply because the Spec, TP position must be filled. This simplification allows for
a more economical syntax, where movement occurs only when necessary and driven by a single
formal feature, reducing the overall computational cost. Moreover, this approach also accounts
for cross-linguistic variation, as the exact nature of the EPP feature is parameterized across
languages, providing an adaptable yet efficient mechanism.

Greed and Procrastinate

In the Minimalist Program (MP), two principles Greed and Procrastinate were introduced as
alternatives to the more extensive movement operations characteristic of the Principles and
Parameters Theory (PPT). These principles represent significant shifts in how syntactic
movement is conceptualized and executed, aligning with the MP’s overall goal of economy and
simplicity. Both Greed and Procrastinate address the motivation and timing of movement in a
derivation, offering more efficient ways to handle syntactic dependencies compared to PPT,
which relied heavily on complex feature-checking and multiple levels of movement.

Greed: Movement Only When Necessary

The Greed principle, proposed by Chomsky (1995), posits that movement occurs only when it is
required to satisfy the needs of the moving element itself. In other words, an element moves only
if it must check or eliminate its own unvalued features, such as Case, phi-features, or agreement.
This is a significant departure from PPT, where movement was often driven by external needs,
such as ensuring that the entire syntactic structure was well-formed. Under PPT, elements might
move not only for their own feature-checking but also to fulfill the syntactic requirements of
other parts of the structure. Greed reflects a minimalist emphasis on economy, where syntactic
operations should involve the least amount of movement necessary. According to this principle,
an element moves only for its own benefit typically, to value its uninterpretable features rather
than for broader structural reasons. This contrasts with the Move α operations of PPT, where
movement could be more extensive and not always immediately tied to the needs of the moving
element.
Radford (2004) supports the Greed principle by illustrating it through examples in English
syntax, where subject movement to Spec, TP occurs to satisfy the subject’s need for nominative
case. The subject moves not because of a broader structural requirement, but because it has an
unvalued Case feature that must be checked to avoid the derivation crashing. This movement is
minimal, as it fulfills only the necessary condition for the subject itself, which embodies the
minimalist drive for syntactic efficiency.

Procrastinate: Delaying Movement

The Procrastinate principle further enhances syntactic efficiency by delaying movement until it is
absolutely necessary. In Chomsky (1995), Procrastinate is introduced as a principle that favors
covert movement over overt movement whenever possible. In overt movement, elements move
before Spell-Out (the point at which the structure is sent to the phonological and semantic
components), while covert movement occurs after Spell-Out, affecting only the Logical Form
(LF) component.

Procrastinate implies that if movement can be delayed until after Spell-Out thereby saving
computational resources it should be. This principle aligns with the MP’s goal of minimizing
overt syntactic operations, reserving movement for cases where it cannot be avoided. For
example, in wh-movement, Procrastinate would prefer that movement be postponed until after
Spell-Out if the semantic requirements of the LF component can handle it at that stage, rather
than forcing the movement to occur overtly at an earlier point in the derivation.

Hornstein et al. (2005) argue that Procrastinate reduces unnecessary early movements,
particularly in languages that allow for wh-in-situ (where a wh-word remains in its base position
rather than moving to the front of the sentence). In such languages, Procrastinate ensures that
movement happens at the latest possible point, ensuring that derivations proceed efficiently
without extra syntactic steps. This strategy contrasts with PPT, where overt movement was more
common and needed to occur earlier in the derivation to meet structural conditions.

Greed and Procrastinate as Alternatives to PPT Movement

Greed and Procrastinate offer a minimalist alternative to the movement operations of PPT, where
movement was frequently motivated by external needs (e.g., ensuring well-formed syntactic
structures). In PPT, Move α was a powerful mechanism, and syntactic elements often moved to
satisfy the requirements of other parts of the structure. This process could result in more
movement steps than strictly necessary to meet the needs of individual elements.

In contrast, Greed ensures that movement is motivated solely by the needs of the moving
element, reducing unnecessary operations. If a syntactic element has no unvalued features, it
does not move, reflecting a commitment to minimizing syntactic operations. Similarly,
Procrastinate delays movement until it is required, reducing the burden on early syntactic
computation and allowing more operations to take place covertly, thus reducing the overt
complexity of derivations.

This shift towards minimalist principles aligns with the economy conditions central to the MP,
where derivations must be as efficient as possible. Both Greed and Procrastinate emphasize that
movement should only occur when absolutely necessary and should take the shortest, least costly
route.
EMPIRICAL REVIEW
In this section some papers that reflect minimalism in the minimalist program will be reviewed.
They include;
The paper titled A Critique of the Minimalist Program” by David Johnson and Shalom Lappin
(1997) provides a detailed examination of the MP’s theoretical foundations and critiques its
computational complexity and reliance on global economy conditions. One of the central
critiques raised by Johnson and Lappin is that the MP’s use of global economy conditions, such
as Procrastinate and the Shortest Derivation Principle (SDP), leads to substantial computational
challenges. These principles require selecting the most optimal derivation from a set of possible
derivations, but as the complexity of sentences increases, so too does the number of possible
derivations. This results in exponential growth in computational requirements, making the
process impractical for natural language processing. (Johnson and Lappin 1997). The authors
argue that many of the MP’s global constraints could be replaced by local constraints, which
apply only at specific points in the derivation without requiring a global comparison. For
example, the Procrastinate principle, which prefers covert movement over overt movement,
could be reformulated as a local constraint on movement, eliminating the need for complex
comparisons across derivations. This would not only simplify the theory but also make it more
empirically viable and computationally feasible (Johnson and Lappin 1997).

Jan-Wouter Zwart’s review of The Minimalist Program offers a broader critique of Chomsky’s
MP. Zwart focuses on the program’s treatment of syntactic operations like Merge and Move and
its claim that language operates in an optimal, economical manner. While Zwart acknowledges
that the MP simplifies earlier frameworks like GB by eliminating concepts such as government
and θ-roles, he raises concerns about the lack of empirical support for some of its key
assumptions, particularly those related to overt and covert movement (Zwart 1998). The paper
points out that the MP’s distinction between overt and covert movement remains speculative, as
there is insufficient empirical evidence to fully understand how different languages manage word
order variation through these operations. He also critiques the MP’s introduction of multiple
specifiers, arguing that while this innovation provides more flexibility in sentence structure, it
lacks strong empirical justification. Earlier theories restricted the number of specifiers based on
observed patterns in language, and the shift to allowing multiple specifiers appears to add
complexity without clear empirical motivation (Zwart 1998). Zwart concludes that while the MP
offers a theoretically elegant approach to syntax, its empirical adequacy is still in question,
particularly when it comes to explaining language-specific phenomena like movement and
agreement (Zwart 1998).

Also, Ahmad Reza Lotfi’s paper Movement in Minimalism, revisits one of the core aspects of the
MP movement. The MP posits that movement in syntax is triggered by the need to check strong,
uninterpretable features to ensure that sentences are well-formed at both the Phonological Form
(PF) and Logical Form (LF) levels. However, Lotfi challenges this feature-checking explanation,
arguing that it creates a circular logic: if features exist solely to trigger movement and are erased
after being checked, it raises the question of why such features exist in the first place. As a
result, he proposes an alternative theory called the Pooled Features Hypothesis, which suggests
that instead of checking features through movement, syntactic objects can share formal features
to satisfy economy principles. This proposal aligns with the minimalist goal of reducing
complexity in syntactic structures by emphasizing locality and minimizing unnecessary
operations (Lofti 1999).

In his 1999 paper, On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement,
Howard Lasnik explores how the Minimalist Program (MP) reduces syntactic complexity
compared to earlier models, such as the Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT). Central to this
reduction is the shift from four distinct levels of syntactic representation D-Structure, S-
Structure, Logical Form (LF), and Phonological Form (PF) to only two: LF and PF. This change
aligns with Chomsky’s economy principle, which aims to make syntactic operations more
efficient and less complex by eliminating unnecessary intermediate steps. Analysis reveal that, in
the Minimalist framework, syntax is seen as a single derivation that is evaluated only at the
interface levels LF and PF rather than through the intermediary D-Structure and S-Structure,
which were crucial in PPT. This reduction reflects the MP’s core goal of making the language
faculty a system of minimal computation, where only the most essential operations are
performed.
Furthermore, Studies on wh-in-situ constructions, such as those in Chinese and Japanese, offer
empirical evidence for the Procrastinate principle. In these languages, overt wh-movement is
often avoided, and covert movement occurs at LF to satisfy semantic requirements. Aoun and Li
(2003) demonstrate that in these languages, wh-words typically remain in situ until they need to
move at LF, offering a natural example of the Procrastinate principle in action. Additionally,
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005), in their analysis of verb movement in Germanic languages,
show that movement occurs only when required by the uninterpretable features of the verb, in
line with the Greed principle. In Dutch and German, verbs move to satisfy feature-checking
requirements, but this movement is limited to the cases where it is strictly necessary for the
verb’s own features, rather than for broader syntactic reasons.

Lastly, the paper “From the Origins of Government and Binding to the Current State of
Minimalism” by Alexiadou and Lohndal (2021) posits that minimalism seeks to explain how the
human brain constructs syntactic structures in the most efficient way possible. The paper
emphasizes how the MP simplifies the theoretical apparatus of GB by reducing the number of
syntactic levels and focusing more on the interfaces of Logical Form (LF) (meaning) and
Phonetic Form (PF) (sound), which directly connect syntax to other cognitive functions. Also,
the paper notes that MP aims to explain linguistic universals while accommodating cross-
linguistic variation through the concept of Universal Grammar (UG). This approach contrasts
with earlier transformational grammar models that were rich in theoretical complexity, often
requiring intricate rules and transformations to account for linguistic phenomena. Minimalism,
by contrast, pushes for explanations that rely on simpler mechanisms, such as Merge and Agree,
which ensure that syntactic structures are both interpretable at LF and pronounceable at PF. The
emphasis on minimizing structure and transformations reflects the MP’s attempt to tie language
closer to cognitive efficiency and evolution (Alexiadou 2021).

CONCLUSION
The Minimalist Program (MP) encapsulates a minimalist approach to linguistic theory, focusing
on reducing complexity to its most essential components while preserving the ability to explain
diverse linguistic phenomena. By prioritizing economy in syntactic operations, MP offers a
streamlined model of language that reflects how linguistic structures are derived with minimal
computational effort. Despite facing critiques regarding its abstractness and potential limitations
in addressing the full scope of real-world language data, MP remains a pivotal framework in
syntactic theory. Its emphasis on simplicity, through concepts like economy of derivation and
representation, continues to influence both theoretical linguistics and related fields,
demonstrating the enduring relevance of minimalism in understanding the structure and function
of human language. As research evolves, MP’s minimalist principles will likely remain central to
discussions about the efficiency and design of linguistic systems.
References
Alboiu, G. 2001. The EPP and verb movement in Romanian. Studia Linguistica, 55(1): 1-26.

Al-Horais, N. 2012. Minimalist program and its fundamental improvements in syntactic theory:
Evidence from agreement asymmetry in Standard Arabic.

Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. Parametrizing Agr: Word order, V-movement, and
EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17(3): 491-539.

Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T. 2021. From the origins of Government and Binding to the current
state of Minimalism. In S. Nuttall & C. Coetzee (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 23-51).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boeckx, C. 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Bobaljik, J. D., & Wurmbrand, S. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory, 23(4): 809-865.

Butler, J. 2004. On having arguments and agreement: Sentential argument structure and its
realization. University of Cambridge.

Cagri, I. 2005. Turkish subject position and the EPP. In Proceedings of the 7th Seoul
International Conference on Generative Grammar.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.),
The view from Building 20 (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.

Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155).
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2001. Three factors in language design. Language, 75(1): 1-28.

Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The
borders of language and cognition (pp. 139-161). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2014. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. 2021. A minimalist theory of simplest merge.
Routledge.

Fong, S. 2014. Unification and efficient computation in the minimalist program. In Language
and recursion (pp. 129-138).

Grohmann, K. K. 2006. The scope of the EPP: Explaining subjects and specifiers in syntax. In
M. Everaert, H. van Riemsdijk, R. B. A. dos Santos, & A. M. Weerman (Eds.), The handbook of
syntax (pp. 243-287). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Haider, H. 1997. Economy in syntax is projective economy.

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. 2005. Understanding minimalism. Cambridge,
Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, D., & Lappin, S. 1997. A critique of the minimalist program. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 20: 273-333.
Kremers, J. 2003. Agreement and the syntax of the clause. Linguistic Analysis, 29(1-2): 5-38.

Legate, J. A. 2002. Phases in the minimalist program. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2): 297-314.

Lasnik, H. 1999. On feature strength: Three minimalist approaches to overt movement.

Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2): 197-217.

Lofti, A. R. 1999. Minimalist program revisited: Chomsky’s strength to trigger movement. In

11th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, ESSLLI ’99, Utrecht.

Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. MIT Press.

Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Zwart, J. W. 1998. Review: The minimalist program. Journal of Linguistics, 34: 213-226.