(image source: University of Maryland)
The Faculty of Language, Derivation, and Explanation
1. Introduction: Minimalism as an Intellectual Turning Point
This post grows out of a YouTube interview at the Oxford University Linguistics Society during Trinity Term 2021 by Professor Norbert Hornstein of the University of Maryland. The occasion was not merely ceremonial. It marked a moment of reflection within generative linguistics on three decades of work conducted under the banner of the Minimalist Program. Rather than offering a technical survey of particular analyses, Hornstein’s discussion addressed a deeper set of questions: what minimalism is, why it emerged, and what kind of scientific project it represents.
The aim of the present post is to expand, systematize, and intellectually organize those ideas into a coherent account suitable for students, researchers, and theorists seeking to understand minimalism as a research program rather than a doctrinal position. Minimalism is not treated here as a finished theory, nor as a collection of technical tricks, but as an explanatory stance toward the human language faculty. The guiding question throughout is simple but demanding: why does language have the properties it has, and not others?
2. The Generative Project and the Nature of Linguistic Inquiry
Generative linguistics, from its inception in the mid-twentieth century, has been concerned with the human capacity for language. This concern has always had two intertwined dimensions. On the one hand, there is the individual capacity of a speaker to produce and understand a particular language or dialect. On the other, there is a more abstract and biologically grounded capacity that enables humans to acquire any natural language given appropriate exposure.
The generative project takes the second capacity as its primary object of explanation. Linguistic theory does not merely catalogue languages; it seeks to characterize the universal cognitive endowment that makes language acquisition possible. This endowment has traditionally been called Universal Grammar. Importantly, Universal Grammar is not a grammar of any particular language. It is a theory of the space of possible human grammars.
Understanding this meta-capacity requires detailed study of individual grammars. Early generative work therefore focused on fine-grained analyses of specific constructions in specific languages, not as ends in themselves, but as windows into the underlying universal system.
3. From Early Generative Grammar to Universal Grammar
Between the 1960s and the early 1970s, generative linguistics concentrated on uncovering the structural properties of individual languages. Researchers investigated phenomena such as relative clause formation, question formation, passivization, and word order variation. These studies established that grammars are highly structured systems governed by abstract principles rather than surface patterns.
By the mid-1970s, attention increasingly shifted toward cross-linguistic generalization. Linguists sought to explain why languages vary in some ways but not others, and why certain grammatical patterns recur across unrelated languages. This led to the development of explicit theories of Universal Grammar.
Government and Binding theory represented a culmination of this phase. It offered a modular view of the language faculty, proposing distinct subsystems responsible for case assignment, binding relations, movement constraints, and levels of representation such as Logical Form and Phonetic Form. GB theory provided a rich descriptive apparatus that enabled productive research in acquisition, processing, and typology.
4. Government and Binding as a Necessary Precondition
Minimalism did not arise in opposition to Government and Binding theory. On the contrary, it presupposed its achievements. GB provided a sufficiently articulated picture of the language faculty to make a new kind of question intelligible. Once linguists had a plausible inventory of grammatical principles, it became possible to ask why those principles exist at all.
Hornstein emphasizes that this historical sequence was unavoidable. One cannot ask why the faculty of language has certain properties until one has identified those properties with reasonable confidence. GB thus serves as the empirical and conceptual foundation upon which minimalism builds.
5. The Minimalist Turn: From Description to Explanation
The Minimalist Program reframes the goals of generative linguistics. Instead of asking what the principles of Universal Grammar are, it asks why Universal Grammar should take that particular form. Explanation, in this sense, involves reducing apparent complexity by deriving grammatical laws from more general principles.
Minimalism treats the faculty of language as a biological object. Like other biological systems, it is expected to exhibit economy, efficiency, and simplicity. The central hypothesis is that the language faculty is optimally designed given the constraints imposed by cognition, computation, and evolution.
This shift does not eliminate the study of individual grammars. Rather, it situates such studies within a broader explanatory framework. Individual grammars remain essential data points, but the ultimate target of explanation is the universal system that makes them possible.
6. Language as a Cognitive and Biological Novelty
A recurring theme in minimalist thought is the idea that the faculty of language is a uniquely human cognitive innovation. It enables the generation of an unbounded number of structured, meaningful expressions from finite means. This property distinguishes language from other animal communication systems.
Minimalist inquiry therefore intersects with evolutionary biology. The question becomes how such a system could have arisen in the human lineage. Hornstein suggests that the answer likely involves a minimal evolutionary change layered on top of preexisting cognitive capacities shared with other species.
These capacities include hierarchical organization, memory systems subject to interference, and general computational preferences such as minimizing derivational complexity. The task of minimalism is to identify what additional linguistic ingredients are required to transform these general capacities into a full-fledged language faculty.
7. Derivations, Representations, and Theoretical Neutrality
One long-standing debate in syntactic theory concerns whether grammars are fundamentally derivational or representational. Derivational approaches model syntax as a sequence of operations, while representational approaches emphasize static structural descriptions.
Hornstein argues that this debate has no clear empirical resolution. Many phenomena can be captured in either framework, and theoretical preference often reflects methodological taste rather than decisive evidence. From a minimalist perspective, the more important issue is explanatory adequacy: which approach better derives grammatical properties from general principles.
Certain arguments, such as the preference for merge over move, appear to favor derivational models, but even these are not definitive. Minimalism therefore remains open to multiple formal implementations.
8. Atoms and Operations: What Syntax Is Made Of
All linguistic theories posit basic units and rules of combination. Language must be recursive, allowing finite resources to generate infinite expressions. The main disagreement concerns what counts as an atomic unit.
Lexicalist approaches treat morphemes as atoms. Distributed Morphology, by contrast, decomposes words into roots and functional heads, with lexical insertion occurring late in the derivation. This view aligns naturally with derivational syntax, as many operations manipulate abstract functional material.
Hornstein remains deliberately noncommittal on this issue for many explanatory purposes. What matters most are the generalizations that hold regardless of how atoms are ultimately characterized.
9. Minimalism as a Research Program
Minimalism is best understood not as a single theory but as a research program. It consists of a guiding question, a methodological stance, and a commitment to explanatory depth. Over the past three decades, this program has generated multiple competing theories, including phase theory, labeling theory, and workspace-based models.
This diversity is a sign of intellectual vitality rather than conceptual confusion. Different minimalist theories explore different answers to the same underlying question, refining our understanding of what explanation in linguistics should look like.
10. Merge and the Architecture of Grammar
One of minimalism’s most influential proposals is the Merge operation. Merge is defined as a simple operation that takes two syntactic objects and combines them into a new set. It does not impose linear order or alter the internal properties of its inputs.
Despite its simplicity, Merge has remarkable explanatory power. It accounts for hierarchical structure, displacement phenomena, c-command relations, and the distinction between arguments and adjuncts. Many properties previously stipulated in GB theory emerge naturally from Merge-based derivations.
11. Limits of Merge and the Need for Additional Operations
While Merge explains much, it does not explain everything. Phenomena such as agreement, binding, and certain locality constraints appear to require additional mechanisms. Probe-goal agreement is one such operation, establishing dependencies across hierarchical structures.
The existence of such operations raises questions about how minimal the language faculty really is. Minimalism does not deny complexity; it seeks to explain why complexity arises where it does.
12. Persistent Problems: Islands and the ECP
Some of the most challenging problems in syntactic theory remain unresolved. Island constraints and the Empty Category Principle continue to resist reduction to more general principles. Hornstein suggests that progress may require rethinking foundational assumptions rather than adding technical machinery.
13. Minimalism Across Frameworks
Although closely associated with Chomsky, minimalism is not framework-specific. Its core explanatory question can be pursued within other formalisms, including LFG, HPSG, and GPSG. What unites these efforts is a commitment to understanding why the language faculty has its particular shape.
14. Conclusion: Asking the Next Question
Minimalism represents a maturation of the generative project. It does not abandon earlier insights but builds upon them, pushing inquiry toward deeper explanatory goals. By treating language as a biological object shaped by general cognitive and computational constraints, minimalism reframes what it means to explain grammar.
The ultimate value of the Minimalist Program lies not in any particular proposal, but in its insistence on asking the next question. Why this system? Why these laws? Why this form of recursion? These questions ensure that generative linguistics remains a living scientific enterprise rather than a closed theoretical doctrine.
