The Minimalist Program in the 2020s

1 - The Minimalist Program in the 2020s

Theory, Methodology, and the Road Ahead

from Part I - The Big Picture

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Evelina Leivada and

Kleanthes K. Grohmann

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 chapter aims to provide an update on the research questions that guide generative linguistics as well as on the methodologies that synthesize the evidential basis of the field, reflecting three crucial dimensions: (i) the importance of having a theory, (ii) the relation between theory and measurements, and (iii) the results this coupling of theory and measurements has produced in the last three decades of generative research. Putting these three dimensions together, the discussion examines the answers that minimalism and the research that was developed on its basis offer with respect to how language works (behavior), through the experimental lens we have on its operation (observables), in the form of a principled approach to what has been measured, why so, and what are the adduced explanations (theory).

Keywords

Universal Grammar (UG)minimalism program theory variation methodology

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 3 - 15

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

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abernathy, M. R., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. (2016). LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters, 116(6), 061102.10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102CrossRef Google Scholar

Belluz, J., & Hoffman, S. (2015). The one chart you need to understand any health study. Vox, January 5. www.vox.com/2015/1/5/7482871/types-of-study-design.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2011). The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In Di Sciullo, A. M. & Boeckx, C. (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (pp. 19–41). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. (2014). No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation. In Santana-LaBarge, R. (ed.), WCCFL 31: Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 46–55). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2012). Syntactic Islands. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022415CrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C., & Leivada, E. (2013). Entangled parametric hierarchies: Problems for an overspecified Universal Grammar. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e72357.10.1371/journal.pone.0072357CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1967). The formal nature of language. In Lenneberg, E. (ed.), Biological Foundations of Language (pp. 397–442). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981a). On the representation of form and function. Linguistic Review, 1, 3–40.10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.3CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981b). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris; De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger.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. (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. (2011). Language and the cognitive science revolution(s). [Lecture, April 8, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada].Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., & Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 506–569). De Gruyter; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506CrossRef Google Scholar

Cummins, R. (2000). “How does it work?” versus “What are the laws?”: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In Keil, F. C. & Wilson, R. A. (eds.), Explanation and Cognition (pp. 117–144). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2930.003.0009CrossRef Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 852.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852CrossRef Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R., Natvig, D., & Putnam, M. T. (2021). Addressing challenges in formal research on moribund heritage languages: A path forward. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 700126.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700126CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–448.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3), 269–318.10.1515/TL.2007.020CrossRef Google Scholar

Feynman, R. (1964). Lectures on the scientific method [Video]. YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY.Google Scholar

Freidin, R. (1997). The Minimalist Program by Noam Chomsky. Language, 73(3), 571–582.10.2307/415885CrossRef Google Scholar

Fried, E. I. (2021). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 31(4), 271–288.10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853461CrossRef Google Scholar

Glanz, K. (2008). Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, S. (1977). The linguist as experimenter. In Eckman, F. R. (ed.), Current Themes in Linguistics: Bilingualism, Experimental Linguistics, and Language Typologies (pp. 125–144). Hemisphere.Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. & Leivada, E. (2020). Reconciling linguistic theories on comparative variation with an evolutionarily plausible language faculty. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., & Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology (pp. 25–42). Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2010). Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 341–365). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2021). General linguistics must be based on universals (or non-conventional aspects of language). Theoretical Linguistics, 47(1–2), 1–31.10.1515/tl-2021-2002CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e12.10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Juzek, T. S., & Häussler, J. (2020). Data convergence in syntactic theory and the role of sentence pairs. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 39(2), 109–147.10.1515/zfs-2020-2008CrossRef Google Scholar

Leivada, E., D’Alessandro, R., & Grohmann, K. K. (2019). Eliciting big data from small, young, or non-standard languages: 10 experimental challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 313.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00313CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leivada, E., & Grohmann, K. K. (eds.) (2026). The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leivada, E., Papadopoulou, E., & Pavlou, N. (2017). Functionally equivalent variants in a non-standard variety and their implications for Universal Grammar: A spontaneous speech corpus. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1260.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01260CrossRef Google Scholar

Linzen, T., & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa, 3(1), 100.Google Scholar

Ludlow, P. (2019). The philosophy of generative linguistics: Best theory criteria. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., & Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax (pp. 521–548). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110540253-019CrossRef Google Scholar

Mendívil-Giró, J. L. (2018). Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 54(4), 859–888.10.1017/S0022226718000166CrossRef Google Scholar

Perkins, L., & Lidz, J. (2021). Eighteen-month-old infants represent nonlocal syntactic dependencies. PNAS, 118(41): e2026469118.10.1073/pnas.2026469118CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects (pp. 64–108). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Poeppel, D. (2012). The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 34–55.10.1080/02643294.2012.710600CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Poeppel, D., & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Cutler, A. (ed.), Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones (pp. 103–118). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rissman, L., & Majid, A. (2019). Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26, 1850–1869.10.3758/s13423-019-01634-5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Roberts, I. (2016). Introduction. In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 1–34). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Schütze, C. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603356CrossRef Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.10.1017/S0022226712000011CrossRef Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). Assessing the reliability of journal data in syntax: Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10, 131–156.10.1016/0885-2014(95)90021-7CrossRef Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2007). What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Commentary on Wunderlich. In Penke, M. & Rosenbach, A. (eds.), What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics? An Introduction (pp. 175–178). John Benjamins.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.