The Introduction outlines the book’s six chapters. Chapter 1 presents the theoretical foundations of Generative Grammar and discusses the ‘prehistory’ of the concept of parameter in the late seventies and early eighties up to the formulation of the Principles and Parameters model of the Government and Binding (GB) framework. Chapter 2 examines the individual formulation of the main parameters that were proposed during that period, summarizing many of the central empirical concerns of research in the 1980s. Chapter 3 traces the development of the concept of parameter in early Minimalism, focusing on the debate over macro- vs. microparameters, the main criticisms raised against the parametric approach, and the latter’s subsequent reformulation within recent hierarchical models. Chapter 4 returns to the parameters of the GB Theory and evaluates their status in current generative theory. Chapter 5 is devoted specifically to the head-complement parameter, whose history arguably embodies the development of the parametric approach to linguistic variation. Chapter 6 draws the conclusions of the historical review conducted in the previous chapters and critically reconsiders the notion of parameter.

Chapter 12 looks at the abolition movement, primarily as it targets prisons but also with respect to its stance on the police. As a foil, the chapter reacts to an article entitled The Dangerous Few: Taking Seriously Prison Abolition and Its Skeptics, in which Thomas Frampton proffers several reasons why those who want to abolish prisons should not budge from their position even for offenders who are considered dangerous. This chapter rebuts each of these reasons. In the process of doing so, it demonstrates why a criminal law “minimalist” approach to prisons is preferable to abolition, not just when dealing with the dangerous few but also as a means of protecting the nondangerous many. It argues that a minimalist regime patterned on preventive justice precepts can radically reduce reliance on prisons and on the police, without the loss in crime prevention capacity and legitimacy that is likely to come with abolition.

Chapter 6 draws the conclusions of the historical review conducted in the previous chapters and critically reconsiders the notion of parameter, reevaluating both its role in Generative Grammar and its theoretical status. First, concerning Linearization parameters like the ones responsible for overt vs. covert wh-movement and head directionality, it is argued that linguistic variation can be attributed to PF-interface conditions having a disambiguating effect on a specific set of syntactic representations which cannot meet bare output conditions. Second, considering Roberts’s (2019) reformulation of argument-drop, verb movement, and V2 as instances of head movement, it is argued that Chomsky’s (2021a) extra-syntactic account of head movement suggests the possibility of developing a unified theory overcoming the duality between the ‘syntactic parameters’ accounting for the emergence of null arguments and verb movement on one side and Linearization parameters on the other. Lastly, the possibility that variation can arise in the narrow syntax is also considered, followed by some final remarks on the latest views on parametric variation in connection with current minimalist assumptions.

Chapter 3 focuses on the debate about the concept of parameter which took place during the first decade of the twenty-first century. The first two positions discussed are Kayne’s (2000, 2005) microparametric approach and Baker’s (2001, 2008) macroparametric approach. These two approaches are then confronted with Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) criticism. Finally, two lines of linguistic inquiry which are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the notion of parameter are presented, namely Roberts and Holmberg’s (2010) hierarchical parametric model and Longobardi’s and his collaborators’ Parametric Comparison Method (PCM). On the one hand, Roberts and Holmberg’s (2010) model overcomes the limitations of micro- and macroparameters by combining a lexically based, microparametric view of linguistic variation with the idea that parametric variation is an emergent property of the interaction of Universal Grammar, primary linguistic data, and third factor considerations. On the other hand, the unprecedented results achieved by the PCM in establishing the genealogical relations among languages on the basis of syntactic comparison arguably attest to the validity of the parametric model.

Chapter 4 aims at evaluating the classical parameters of GB Theory from today’s point of view. The first parameters discussed are those concerning S′-deletion, Subjacency, long distance anaphora, the Projection Principle, and nominative Case assignment, which are shown either to refer to obsolete theoretical concepts or to be reducible to other, more basic theories. Then, the discussion turns to those parameters whose epistemological status is still being upheld in Minimalism, that is, those concerning null subject, V-to-T and V-to-C movement, polysynthesis, and overt vs. covert wh-movement, by looking at their respective minimalist reformulations. What emerges from this investigation is that, strikingly, the only traditional parameters here reviewed which still enjoy an independent theoretical status are those which in Chapter 2 have been labeled as Spellout parameters. Moreover, the overt vs. covert wh-movement parameter could well be an exception in this sense. In fact, assuming Richards N. (2010) or an equivalent PF-based account is on the right track, wh-movement pertains to the A-P interface.

This chapter advocates an ethic of “symmetric interpretation” as a solution to the challenges outlined in Chapter 1. To prevent undue politicization of constitutional law, judges should favor, when possible, constitutional understandings that are “symmetric” in the sense of conferring valuable protections across both sides of the nation’s major political and ideological divides. By the same token, they should disfavor understandings that frame constitutional law as a matter of zero-sum competition between rival partisan visions. Favoring symmetric understandings in this sense will not always be possible. When it is possible, however, favoring symmetry may provide a point of common orientation for judges with differing policy preferences and interpretive outlooks. Reflecting this approach's inherent appeal, an inchoate preference for symmetry is already evident in judges’ opinions, oral argument questions, and reasoning.

In this final chapter, we take on an issue that perhaps precedes all the others: how and why did language evolve? Linguistic theory has recently pivoted to amass considerable research on these questions. As we’ve seen over and over in the book, simpler structures have been posited across frameworks to account for the need to explain how language evolved. However, in this book, we’ve seen many distinct approaches to understand human language. A view of language evolution that permits the pluralism of the book would be consistent with the broad approach of this work. Therefore, in this chapter, I want to turn the minimalist research agenda on its head with an alternative thesis: natural language is a complex system and its emergence is likely to have been prompted by multiple interacting factors. First, we assess the current state of the art in biolinguistics and the strong saltation claim that goes with it. Then, we challenge the assumptions that’ve resulted in the saltation picture of language evolution on evolutionary grounds. Lastly, a radical approach to language evolution in terms of complexity science is proffered based on a unique connection with systems biology.

Syntax is perhaps one of the most successful projects in the history of theoretical linguistics. It’s also garnered the most philosophical attention. Thus, this chapter focuses on syntactic metatheory. It surveys a number of prominent frameworks from minimalism to construction grammar, dependency grammar, lexical functional grammar and head-driven phrase structure grammar.The main aim is to find a common argument structure and strategy across diverse theoretical positions. In the tradition of recent work on scientific modelling in the philosophy of science, the approach that’s adopted in this chapter works from a bottom-up review of the cross-framework literature. I’ll make a case for a general explanatory strategy or scientific project at the core of linguistic syntax. The core idea is that this general scientific strategy is relatively stable across syntactic frameworks. In other words, the chapter aims to address the question of what minimalism, dependency grammar, radical construction grammar, head-driven phrase structure grammar, and lexical functional grammar have in common. The answer is a general formal strategy that focuses on rules in creating structural units, captures recursive phenomena, and, most importantly, treats syntactic information as explanatorily autonomous from other systems.

Bernstein’s fame, reputation, and personality have for the most part been seen as excessive and problematic. This perception militated from the start against his position in time, place, and tradition as a serious composer being influential or even accepted. Yet from the golden moment of opportunity for American composers in which he grew to adulthood to his barely noticed final works, he was following a diligent route of creative output that may yet bear fruit at greater distance from the man himself, though it would be difficult to claim that, taken as a whole, it has yet done so.

In Chapter 2, I develop and defend an account of human rights as universalist and minimalist. First, I characterize rights as universal, protecting all people universally and absent any qualifying characteristic. Second, I argue that the human right to subsistence is a basic human right. I argue that without enjoying the substance of the human right to subsistence, we will neither be able to enjoy the substance of any other, non-basic right nor pursue any other ends, moral, or non-moral. And third, in response to critics who believe that the universality of human rights entails remaking the world in our image (i.e., maximalism), I develop a minimalist account of human rights. According to minimalism about human rights, human rights should enable us to live minimally decent and autonomous lives. On these terms, human rights aim to protect people from the worst rather than to promote the best.

We need better economic ideas that encourage moderation in our consumption while tackling the underlying constraints of neo-liberal economics in sustaining life on Earth and solving the global inequality crisis. Minimalism and self-sufficiency declutter consumption practices and respect the limits of the living planet.

This chapter examines the music created by Hans-Joachim Roedelius, Dieter Moebius, and Michael Rother, under the band names Cluster and Harmonia. It makes the case that this music exists in a different relation to post-war Germany than that of Kraftwerk or Neu. Cluster/Harmonia created music deeply informed by the rural setting in which the musicians worked; in doing so, they engaged with one of the archetypal signifiers of German identity – the German landscape. The improvisatory nature of their work both allowed them to respond directly to the influence of their environment, but also created a template that proved very influential – not least on the work of Brian Eno (who collaborated with them in the mid-1970s).

In a seminal contribution, Paul Grice took what he called the ‘total signification of an utterance’ (i.e. the complete content someone communicates by a linguistic signal) and divided it in two, distinguishing between ‘what the speaker says’ versus ‘what the speaker implies’. However, recent developments have served to throw doubt on Grice’s taxonomy, with both sides of his divide coming under fire. I examine these challenges to Grice’s framework, but argue that they do not show that Grice’s notion of implicature is ill-founded, nor that his ’favoured sense’ of what is said is unnecessary. What they do serve to highlight is a peculiar tension in Grice’s original account. For it seems Grice merged two distinct features when defining what the speaker says versus what the speaker implicates: the idea of a content dictated by word meaning and structure alone, on the one hand, and the idea of an asserted or directly expressed proposition on the other. Yet once we resolve this tension it is possible to deliver an account of the total signification of an utterance which is both (fairly) faithful to Grice’s original account and which is able to do a great deal of explanatory work.

Chapter 1 provides some background on the shift in emphasis from Universal Grammar (UG) to third factors and gives a description of selected third factors, e.g. the Inclusiveness Condition and the Extension Condition. The main emphasis is on the Labeling Algorithm and the Principle of Determinacy. Generative models focus on the faculty of language as represented in the mind/brain. UG is the “system of principles, conditions, and rules” that all languages share through biological necessity. However, although UG received a lot of attention, recently principles “grounded in physical law” and the general “capacity to acquire knowledge” have been emphasized more. This chapter also introduces two main reasons of language change that are responsible for the linguistic cycle: those caused by economy and those by innovation.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of a number of theoretical proposals that have been put forward in the literature to account for language variation. It elaborates on models that combine formal generative theorizing and quantitative sociolinguistic methodology, in line with current minimalist analyses (Adger & Smith 2005; Sessarego & Gutiérrez-Rexach 2011; Sessarego 2014a). This chapter also stresses the importance of embracing a perspective of mutual complementation – rather than mutual exclusion – between these two fields, especially when the varieties under study consist of stigmatized vernaculars, for which it may be hard to obtain reliable grammaticality judgments and that may be characterized by high levels of inter- and intra-speaker speech variability (Cornips & Poletto 2005).

In this paper I first worry that Rorty’s attack on various conceptions of “the world” has an alarming tendency to veer from opposition to the kind of realism that he associates with various philosophers, such as Plato, Descartes, or even Kant, into skepticism about ordinary activities including those of observing things and referring to them. I try to uncover the roots of this slide in various semantic doctrines, and explore the distinction between minimalist or deflationist theories of truth, and any wider, and less plausible general doctrine of semantic minimalism.