Basic Operations

13 - Basic Operations

from Part III - The Realm of Merge

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Winfried Lechner

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This vignette discusses some properties of basic operations, laying special emphasis on the question of which consequences a particular choice of basic operations has on the architecture of the grammar. It argues that certain observations about the correspondence between surface representations and interpretation are incompatible with grammars that assume incremental top-down, left-to-right structure-building. From this, it follows, first, that the set of basic operations should not include incremental mechanisms for creating syntactic representations and, second, that the relation between the grammar and parsing needs to be mediated by bridge laws in the sense of Marr (1982).

Keywords

late Merge anti-reconstruction incremental structure building variable binding bridge laws

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 219 - 231
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abe, J. (2018). Late Merge and phases for anti-c-command requirements. Syntax, 21(2), 91–111.10.1111/synt.12152CrossRef Google Scholar

Bennett, M. (1979). Questions in Montague Grammar. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(1), 1–45.10.1162/002438904322793338CrossRef Google Scholar

Bjorkman, B., & Zeijlstra, H. (2019). Checking up on-agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 527–569.10.1162/ling_a_00319CrossRef Google Scholar

Büring, D. (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802669CrossRef Google Scholar

Chesi, C. (2015). On directionality of phrase structure building. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 65–89.10.1007/s10936-014-9330-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Chesi, C. (ed.). (2016). Studies in Linguistics. Special Issue on Directionality of Phrase Structure Building. CISCL.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71–132). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds,), Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20 (pp. 1–52); reprinted 2004: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Citko, B. (2005). On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 475–496.10.1162/002438905774464331CrossRef Google Scholar

Del Pinal, G., & Nathan, M. J. (2013). There and up again: On the uses and misuses of neuroimaging for psychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 30(4), 233–252.10.1080/02643294.2013.846254CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, variable binding, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 157–196.10.1162/002438999554020CrossRef Google Scholar

Freidin, R. (1986). Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Volume 1 (pp. 151–188). Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4548-7_4CrossRef Google Scholar

Graf, T. (2014). Late Merge as lowering movement in Minimalist grammars. In Asher, N. & Soloviev, S. (eds.), LACL 2014 (pp. 107–121). Springer.Google Scholar

Graf, T., Monette, J., & Zhang, C. (2017). Relative clauses as a benchmark for Minimalist parsing. Journal of Language Modelling, 5(1), 57–106.10.15398/jlm.v5i1.157CrossRef Google Scholar

Haider, H. (2013). Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hunter, T. (2015). Deconstructing Merge and Move to make room for adjunction. Syntax, 18(3), 266–319.10.1111/synt.12033CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (1987). Against the notion SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(2), 354–361.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts].Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (1990). Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Carter, J., Dechaine, R. M., Philip, B., & Sherer, T. (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 20 (pp. 318–332). GLSA.Google Scholar

Lechner, W. (2002). Deriving phrase structure paradoxes by conditions on Merge. In Proceedings of NELS 32 (pp. 287–306). GLSA.Google Scholar

Lechner, W. (2003). Phrase structure paradoxes, movement and ellipsis. In Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (eds.), The Interfaces. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Lechner, W. (2012). Towards a theory of transparent reflexivization. Ms., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. http://users.uoa.gr/~wlechner/Reflexivization%202012.pdf.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. MIT Press; W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, B. J., Bailey, C. J. N., & Davison, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 71–80). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace and World.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRef Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J., & del Pinal, G. (2016). Mapping the mind: Bridge laws and the psycho-neural interface. Synthese, 193(2), 637–657.10.1007/s11229-015-0769-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(1), 37–90.10.1162/002438903763255922CrossRef Google Scholar

Phillips, C., & Lewis, S. (2013). Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 11–47.Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2004). Against bans on lowering. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 453–463.10.1162/0024389041402643CrossRef Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Shan, C. C., & Barker, C. (2006). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(1), 91–134.10.1007/s10988-005-6580-7CrossRef Google Scholar

Sportiche, D. (2019). Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 416–424.10.1162/ling_a_00306CrossRef Google Scholar

Stabler, E. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In Retoré, C. (ed.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (pp. 68–95). Springer.10.1007/BFb0052152CrossRef Google Scholar

Stabler, E. P. (2010). After Government and Binding Theory. In van Benthem, J. F. A. K. & ter Meulen, A. (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 395–414). Elsevier.Google Scholar

Stabler, E. P. J. (2014). Memorization in top-down parsing: Analysis, attention, memory and reanalysis. In Schütze, C. T. & Stockall, L. (eds.), Connectedness: Papers by and for Sarah VanWagenen (pp. 259–273). UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Stanton, J. (2016). Wholesale late merger in A-movement: Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry, 47(1), 89–126.10.1162/LING_a_00205CrossRef Google Scholar

Takahashi, S., & Hulsey, S. (2009). Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A distinction. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 387–426.10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387CrossRef Google Scholar

van Riemsdijk, H., & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Von Stechow, A. (1993). Die Aufgaben der Syntax. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., & Vennemann, T., (eds.), Syntax – Ein zeitgenössisches Handbuch syntaktischer Forschung (pp. 1–88). De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Yatsushiro, K. (2017). Relative clause acquisition in German: The effect of case and agreement. [Talk, CIALT 1, Rethymon, Crete, October 6–8].Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.