The Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory: Which is the Most Optimal? Wh-Elements as a Case Study



Abstract Views
125

Downloads
52

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jan 30, 2023
Published Mar 5, 2023
10.24018/ejlang.2023.2.2.72

Abstract viewed = 125 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This study analyzes wh-questions from the perspective of the theories of the Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory. We look at specific wh-constructions, including the gap strategy, the in-situ strategy, multiple wh-questions, and relativized wh-questions. This paper shows both the similarities and differences between OT and MP in analyzing wh-elements. One crucial difference is that OT solves the problem of optionality and clearly tackles some aspects of the syntax-pragmatics interface.

Keywords: Moroccan Arabic optimality theory pragmatics Focus the minimalist program wh-elements

References

  1. Al-Oshari, W. N., & Al-Shar’abi, T. M. (2016). Wh-movement in Taizi Arabic: An optimality theory account. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 4(2), 158–163.
     Google Scholar
  2. Announi, I. (2019). Wh-elements in Moroccan Arabic: A minimalist approach [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ibn Tofail University.
     Google Scholar
  3. Announi, I. (2021). The problem of word order and verbal movement in Moroccan Arabic. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(4), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.4.6.
     Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract Q- morpheme. Foundations of Language, 6(2), 197–219.
     Google Scholar
  5. Broekhuis, H., & Woolford, E. (2013). Minimalism and optimality theory. In M. D. Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 122–161). Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  6. Btoosh, M. A. (2010). Wh-movement in Standard Arabic: An optimality-theoretic account. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-010-0001-y.
     Google Scholar
  7. Cheng, L. (1997). On the typology of wh-questions. New York & London: Garland.
     Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1955a). Logical syntax and semantics: their linguistic relevance. Language, 31(1). 36–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/410891.
     Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Blaisdell.
     Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
     Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka, & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2001a). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language (pp. 1–52). The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655.
     Google Scholar
  15. El-Touny, K. (2011A). Question formation between the minimalist program and optimality theory (Publication No. 109) [Doctoral dissertation, Ain Shams University]. Rutgers.
     Google Scholar
  16. El-Touny, K. (2011b). Optionality in Cairene Arabic wh-questions between the Minimalist program and Optimality theory (Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers). https://doi.org/10.7282/t3v123f1.
     Google Scholar
  17. Faraj, S. (2018). The syntax of wh-movement in Modern Standard Arabic. Journal of the Faculty of Languages, 1(17), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.56592/flj.v1i17.29.
     Google Scholar
  18. Gad, R. F. (2011). A syntactic study of wh-movement in Egyptian Arabic within the minimalist program (Publication No. 540560) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds]. White Rose eTheses Online.
     Google Scholar
  19. Grimshaw, J. (1995). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3), 373–422.
     Google Scholar
  20. Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  21. Keer, E. (1999). Som and optimality theory [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/323.
     Google Scholar
  22. Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W.
     Google Scholar
  23. Krapova, I, & G. Cinque. (2008). On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting. In G. Zybatow, L. Szucsich, U. Junghanns, & R. Meyer (Eds.), Formal description of Slavic languages: The fifth conference (pp. 318–336). Peter Lang.
     Google Scholar
  24. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.
     Google Scholar
  25. Larson, R. (1990). Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4). 589–632.
     Google Scholar
  26. Legendre, G, Wilson, C, Smolensky, P, Homer, K, & Raymond, W. (1995). Optimality and wh-Extraction. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh-Dickie, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory (pp. 607–634). GSLA.
     Google Scholar
  27. Liao, W, & Wang, Y. (2009). Multiple wh-construction and its interpretations in Chinese. In A. Shardl, M. Walkow, & M. Abdurrahman (Eds.), The proceedings of NELS 38(2) (pp. 63–74). GLSA Publications.
     Google Scholar
  28. McCarthy, J. J. (2002). A thematic guide to optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  29. McCarthy, J. J. (2008). Doing optimality theory: applying theory to data. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  30. Müller, G. (2001). Optionality in optimality-theoretic syntax. In L. Cheng, & R. Sybesma (Eds.), The second glot international state-of-the-article book (pp. 289–321). Berlin.
     Google Scholar
  31. Musabhien, M. (2008). Case, agreement, and movement in Arabic: A minimalist approach [Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University]. Newcastle University eTheses.
     Google Scholar
  32. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In E. J. Reuland, & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of indefiniteness (pp. 98–129). The MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  33. Pesetsky, D. (1997). Optimality theory and syntax: movement and pronunciation. In D. Archangeli, & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality theory: an overview (pp. 134–170). Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  34. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  35. Radford, A. (2004). English syntax: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  36. Samek-Lodovici, V. (1998). OT-Interaction between focus and canonical word order: Deriving the crosslinguistic typology of structural contrastive focus [Unpublished Manuscript]. University College London.
     Google Scholar
  37. Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). Optimality theory and the minimalist program. In H. Broekhuis & R. Vogel (Eds.), Optimality theory and minimalism: A possible convergence? Linguistics in Potsdam 25 (pp. 77-97). Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
     Google Scholar
  38. Zavitnevich-Beaulac, O. (2005). On wh-movement and the nature of wh-phrases - case re-examined. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2(3), 75–100.
     Google Scholar
  39. Zeijlstra, H. (2012). There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review, 29(3), 491–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0017.
     Google Scholar