Quantifier Interaction in GB and Minimalism (II)

Abstract

In this chapter the Minimalist programme which is proposed in Chomsky (1993) is examined according to Hornstein (1995) where the assumptions underlying the programme are surveyed and LF phenomena are discussed. We have seen in chapter 1 that various levels of grammatical representation are postulated in GB theory, DS, SS, PF, and LF. In Minimalist Programme it is only the two levels, PF and LF, which interface with other systems of module of language, the Perceptual-Articulatory (PA) system and Conceptual-Intentional (CI) system respectively. PF-representations are derived by PF operations and LF-representations by LF operations, after Spellout, the point at which overt syntactic structures are derived and the derivation splits, and then are input to PA system and CI system respectively. Accordingly, any effect of well-formed condition in GB theory is to meet on output representations at these two levels. Specifically, effects of the theta criterion, locality conditions on overt movement, case theory, and the binding theory are all required to meet at LF. This elimination of DS and SS in Minimalism is closely related with reformulation of movement. LF representations are derived via successive application of movement operations; overt movement before Spellout and covert movement after Spellout. In Minimalist Programme movement is assumed to be triggered only by morphological requirement: all morphological features must be checked in the appropriate functional projections in the course of derivation to meet the principle of full interpretation (PFI), strong features at Spellout, weak features after spell out. The PFI requires that all features which do not directly concern to interpretations at PA system/CI system must have been checked and charged off at LF/PF. This suggests elimination of A′-movement which is characteristic of LF operations in GB, QR and WH-raising, on the reason that such adjunction operations are not morphologically driven with no specific landing site except that it can adjoin to any maximal projection as in May (1985). On the other hand, A′-movement in the syntax, WH-movement, is licensed: firstly it is morphologically driven to move to Spec CP, although it is an A′-position, to have its Q-features checked, and secondly it can be treated as a substitution operation rather than adjunction