Syntactic Strength. A Minimalist Gradient Harmonic Grammar Approach

• Applicant: Professor Dr. Gereon Müller
• Subject Area: General and Comparative Linguistics, Experimental Linguistics, Typology, Non-European Languages
• Term: since 2026
• Project identifier: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 577007200

A widespread assumption in Principles & Parameters and Minimalist approaches to syntax is that functional categories can be strong or weak, thereby licensing or blocking certain operations (verb movement, pro-drop, scrambling, labelling, etc.). However, it has so far remained unclear how strength can be modelled in syntactic theory (a diacritic-based approach is conceptually dubious, and empirically problematic since a binary classification of strength does not suffice). In view of this, the present project will grab the bull by the horns and pursue the hypothesis that strength of syntactic items is directly identified with numerical weight, as suggested by Paul Smolensky for phonology in recent work on Gradient Harmonic Grammar, a version of Optimality Theory (with Haj Ross' work on Squishy Grammar as a predecssor in the 70s). By combining this approach with the strictly derivational optimality-theoretic approach independently developed by Fabian Heck and myself in order to systematically cover repair (last resort) phenomena and effects of preference principles (like Merge over Move) in Minimalist Syntax, a model of grammar emerges that can integrate strength with minimalist (feature-driven, phase-based) derivations: Minimalist Gradient Harmonic Grammar. More generally, the project will try to give principled answers to six overarching research questions: (Q1) Can the concept of syntactic strength be motivated empirically? (Hypothesis: yes.) (Q2) How is syntactic strength to be modelled in grammatical theory? (Hypothesis: via numerical weights in Minimalist Gradient Harmonic Grammar.) (Q3) What kinds of syntactic objects are associated with strength? (Hypothesis: all items that constraints or operations can refer to: features, categories, phrases, and dependencies.) (Q4) Can syntactic objects have more than one kind of strength? (Hypothesis: no.) (Q5) Is strength arbitrarily assigned to syntactic objects, or are there general restrictions? (Hypothesis: syntactic hierarchy is relevant for primitive items; frequency is relevant for dependencies.) (Q6) Is strength an invariant property of syntactic objects, or can it change in the derivation (as suggested both by Smolensky and by Chomsky)? (Hypothesis: strength is a permanent property of syntactic items.) Based on empirical evidence from German and pertinent phenomena from other languages, the project will address these questions by detailed investigations of five different domains where syntactic strength has been argued to play a role: (D1) strength and morphology (verb movement, pro-drop); (D2) strength and movement (extraction asymmetries: ECP effects, barriers, improper movement); (D3) strength and frequency (extraction from NP, differential object marking, idioms); (D4) strength and implicit arguments (passive (-like) constructions); and (D5) strength and cartography.

• DFG Programme: Research Grants