Economy

12 - Economy

from Part II - Issues of Labeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Marc Richards

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 explores the role that Full Interpretation, Last Resort, and Effect on Outcome play in constraining and shaping a trigger-free, non-deterministic computational system in which operations such as Merge and Transfer apply freely, as entertained in Chomsky’s recent work. A “minimax” view of economy emerges which has the potential to account for major properties of clausal syntax, including the basic categories, uninterpretable features, and their patterns of distribution.

Keywords

economy Strong Minimalist Thesis Full Interpretation Last Resort Effect on Outcome Transfer phases minimax

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 202 - 216

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

Adger, D. (2013). A Syntax of Substance. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Allott, N., & Lohndal, T. (2026). Minimalism: Emergence and theoretical foundations. In Leivada, E. & Grohmann, K. K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Al-Mutairi, F. R. (2014). The Minimalist Program: The Nature and Plausibility of Chomsky’s Biolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139649551CrossRef Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., & Richards, M. (2006). True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist Essays (pp. 35–67). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.91.08bibCrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2015). Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 417–454). MIT Press; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). MIT Press; reprinted 1995: MIT 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). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613876CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond, Vol. 3: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (pp. 104–131). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H. M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics (pp. 1–29). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49; reprinted 2005: John Benjamins.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In Domenico, E. D., Hamann, C., & Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond – Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 3–16). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choCrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2019). Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 263–285.10.5565/rev/catjl.287CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 229–261.10.5565/rev/catjl.288CrossRef Google Scholar

Collins, C. (1997). Local Economy. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Collins, C. (2001). Economy conditions in syntax. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp. 45–61). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756416.ch2CrossRef Google Scholar

De Vries, M. (2009). On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics, 3, 344–403.10.5964/bioling.8735CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., Obata, M., & Seely, T. D. (2013). Economy of derivation and representation. In den Dikken, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 487–514). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804571.019CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2014). Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate “phase.” Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 222–239.10.1162/LING_a_00163CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., & Seely, T. D. (2002). Rule application as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Epstein, S. D. & Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 65–89). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch4CrossRef Google Scholar

Fox, D. (2000). Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Frampton, J., & Gutmann, S. (2002). Crash-proof syntax. In Epstein, S. D. & Seely, D. S. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 90–105). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch5CrossRef Google Scholar

Freidin, R., & Vergnaud, J. R. (2001). Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua, 111, 639–666.10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00045-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Fukui, N. (1996). On the nature of economy in language. Cognitive Studies, 3, 51–71.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. (1943). On the simplicity of ideas. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 8(4), 107–121.10.2307/2271052CrossRef Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2013). Three grades of grammatical involvement: Syntax from a minimalist perspective. Mind and Language, 28, 392–420.10.1111/mila.12023CrossRef Google Scholar

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840678CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (2005). Movement and Silence. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179163.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Lappin, S., Levine, R., & Johnson, D. (2000). The structure of unscientific revolutions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 665–671.10.1023/A:1006474128258CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1992). Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2013). Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. & Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle (pp. 95–115). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9701.003.0008CrossRef Google Scholar

Narita, H. (2014). Endocentric Structuring of Projection-Free Syntax. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.218CrossRef Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1995). Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2007). On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2015). Minimalism. In Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A. (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 803–838). De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2019). Problems of “problems of projection”: Breaking a conceptual tie. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 139–152.10.5565/rev/catjl.220CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (2012). Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research. In Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F., & Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change (pp. 320–335). Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659203.003.0017CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198804635.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2015). Leibnizian linguistics. In Gallego, Á. J. & Ott, D. (eds.), 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects (pp. 211–222). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Takita, K., Goto, N., & Shibata, Y. (2016). Labeling through Spell-Out. Linguistic Review, 32(4), 177–198.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (1998). Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (2002). Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. Routledge.Google Scholar

Watumull, J., & Chomsky, N. (2020). Rethinking universality. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., & Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology (pp. 3–24). Language Science Press.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.