Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program

By Sam Epstein, T. D. Seely. 2002

441 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory (2007, background): “Adopting this into a phase-based system would lead to the conclusion that every phrase is a phase (see Epstein and Seely 2002 for a similar conclusion reached on independent grounds, more precisely, the nature of SpellOut), which is probably the simplest hypothesis, since then we do not have to…”
Deriving the Edge: What’s in a Phase? (2011, background): “Secondly, it yields a natural simultaneity of operations at the phase level (something which was previously an awkward stipulation and extension to the probe/locus cycle; cf. Collins 2002 on the latter).”
Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis (2014, background): “…have explicitly or implicitly argued that phasehood is actually not picky: every phrase counts as a phase (for relevant discussion, see, e.g., Manzini 1994, Bo'ković 2002, Epstein and Seely 2002, Boeckx 2003, 2007, Fox and Lasnik 2003, Boeckx and Grohmann 2007, Lahne 2008, Müller 2010, 2011).”
Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. (2004, unknown): “…function of φ -features may be sketched as follows: In feature based syntax, where labelling and X’-theoretic conventions are dispensed with (Collins 2002; cf. Chomsky 2002:151), an argument is not a ‘position’ or a ‘DP’, but a set of relationally interpreted features (typically matched…”