**Title: The Importance of Good**

In our daily lives, the concept of "good" holds significant value.

Good can refer to many things, such as good behavior, good character, and good deeds.

When we exhibit good behavior, we are showing respect and kindness to those around us. This can lead to better relationships and a more harmonious society.

Good character is also essential. It includes qualities like honesty, integrity, and responsibility. People with good character are trusted and respected by others.

Performing good deeds, such as helping the needy or volunteering in the community, not only benefits those who receive the help but also gives us a sense of fulfillment and purpose.

In conclusion, the importance of good cannot be overstated. It is the foundation of a happy and successful life. We should all strive to be good in our actions, character, and deeds, and make the world a better place.

Writing a review for this book is rather like penning a review for a National Park or a meal prepared by your mom. It simply doesn't seem appropriate.

I don't imply that the book, in terms of both its content and presentation, is flawless or untouchable. Chomsky's writing is challenging yet structured. Why one would choose endnotes over footnotes in a work not to be judged aesthetically is beyond my comprehension. Similar to most of Chomsky's works, I can't fathom how anyone could approach this without some form of background or pedagogical accompanying text. Despite its intention of introducing a new proposal, it is not an introductory text. The first chapter, a review of Principles and Parameters, exemplifies this well. It is, in a sense, both skippable for the experienced syntactician and entirely unhelpful for the novice.

In any event, I'll utilize this "review" space for my notes on the text. This book is essential reading. Going through and experiencing the theoretical history and revisions that lead to the current day Minimalist theorizing is more crucial than the technical or concrete solutions Chomsky reaches.

One aspect that stood out to me in Chapter 4 is that it is now clearer to me just how much "anti-Chomskyans" (using that specific polemic term) are off the mark in a certain regard - Chomsky is not laying down some kind of gospel for weak-willed linguists to adhere to. Regrettably, there is a great deal of unhelpful, ad hominem discourse in linguistics regarding how MP syntacticians are merely "Chomsky's followers" and following "Chomskyan dogma," which simply wastes everyone's energy. Anyone who spends any time with this book will understand, whether sympathetic to the actual content of the Minimalist Program or not, that Chomsky is in good faith attempting to discover something new. For instance:

Regarding his own proposal, "It is far from obvious that language should be like the Minimalist Program at all, which is just a research program" (p. 203).

The MP posits that word order is not part of the computational system, being merely a consequence of the fact that we have to articulate language in real-time. This implies that "word order" is, at best, of secondary importance in "syntax." This is a significant conceptual departure from other syntactic frameworks (and even pre-MP transformational grammar), and causes numerous issues in introductory graduate syntax courses. Chomsky does note: "these tacit assumptions [that linearity is a mere surface/PF effect] are far from innocent (p. 202)... assuming that UG settles the matter is hardly an innocuous step (p. 244)."

And he concludes the book with precisely the kind of positive spirit that all syntacticians should possess: "[it is not unreasonable] to press [the MP] to the limits to see what can be discovered." (p. 349)

This is a rather rough and difficult read.

The theory that emerges from this book is truly a significant force, and for that reason, it earns two stars instead of zero.

I operate within a roughly minimalist syntax.

Chomsky's writing, however, is positively agonizing.

Moreover, the current work being carried out in minimalist syntax has less connection to the theoretical points contended in the book than one might anticipate.

Any linguist who works within this tradition should definitely read the book, as it is essential.

Nevertheless, if you are like me, don't necessarily expect to have a pleasant experience.

It's important to note that while the theory has its merits, the presentation and its relation to current work make it a challenging read for many.

Nonetheless, for those in the field, it remains a crucial text that cannot be ignored.

Despite the difficulties, one can still gain valuable insights from delving into this book.

However, it's not a read that one would undertake for pure enjoyment.

Rather, it's a necessary step for those seeking to understand the evolution and development of minimalist syntax.

I do not recommend the Portuguese translation. The fact that the translator maintained the abbreviations of the terms in English even though they had been translated into their already accepted equivalents at the time causes a huge confusion in its reading, considering that the book itself is already quite heavy and complicated. However, it is an excellent source for those who study linguistics and, mainly, it is even a quite accessible source for any type of work related to syntax and semantics. I do not give 4* just because of the translation.

The Portuguese translation has a significant flaw in that it fails to properly handle the abbreviations. This oversight leads to a great deal of confusion for the reader, especially since the book's content is already complex. Despite this drawback, the book remains a valuable resource for linguistics students. It offers useful insights into syntax and semantics and is relatively accessible compared to other works in the field. Nevertheless, the poor translation prevents it from receiving a higher rating.

Titanic work.

Despite some contrary comments, this book is filled with a vast amount of relevant and incisive material. It chronicles and critiques the work conducted from the Government-Binding framework of the late 70s and 80s to the standard framework of linguistic inquiry that has evolved from the early and modest transformative-generative formalisms in Syntactic Structures to Minimalism. Minimalism is driven by a general principle of economy, stripping down notions of 'deep structure' and polishing everything to a mirror shine.

In many ways, the core assumptions haven't changed significantly since the early days of the Markov chain grammars, but the power of the minimalist formalism continues to impress. As a student using these theories, I found it extremely useful and full of theoretical directions for my own projects. One former professor summed up the minimalist experience and its impact for linguists elegantly: 'it used to be that work was rather straightforward and predictable until Chomsky (and various others) came in and broke everything'.

However, this isn't a perfect score for two reasons. First, Chomsky has abandoned sufficient philosophical engagement and development within the scientific inquiry of linguistics itself, being more dogmatic here and making the logical structure more austere than his earlier writings. Second, the structure of the chapters is a serious problem. Paired with Chomsky's cold approach, it makes for an unwelcoming read. People unfamiliar with concepts like unaccusatives, c-command, non-finite clauses, or theta marking, or not already clued in to the practice of transformative-generative grammar formalisms, may be better off reading Aspects and maybe Adger's Core Syntax instead.

The chapters are ordered in a way that Chomsky goes from problem to problem and framework to constraint, lacking a coherent sense of flow until arguably the last chapter. It acts as both a history of syntactic theories and a criticism, with the grand narrative being the case for a'minimalist' and 'perfect' representation of the cognitive mechanisms that derive utterances in human languages. As a result, keeping track of the various examples and developments is difficult, especially when chapters are referenced in advance or retroactively.

For these reasons, I only recommend this book to determined students. Unless you are really interested in the mechanics and apex of Chomsky's formalism, you may be better off contributing to Adger's personal pockets and reading Aspects and Syntactic Structures.

I'm not making any remarks about the theory. Instead, I'm focusing on the writing aspect.

The book presents itself as a comprehensive overview of the Minimalist Program. However, in reality, it presupposes that the reader has received an education in formal linguistics.

David Adger's "Core Syntax", on the other hand, serves as a far superior introduction. It provides a more accessible and engaging entry point into the subject matter.

With its clear explanations and well-structured content, "Core Syntax" is better suited for those who are new to the field or looking for a more beginner-friendly resource.

In contrast, the other book may prove to be too challenging and overwhelming for readers without a solid background in formal linguistics.

Overall, when it comes to choosing an introduction to the Minimalist Program, David Adger's "Core Syntax" is the clear winner.

Great ideas indeed! However, when it comes to Chomsky's writing style, it leaves much to be desired.

His works are often filled with complex sentences and technical jargon, making it difficult for the average reader to fully understand his profound thoughts.

Despite the brilliance of his ideas, the convoluted nature of his writing can act as a barrier, preventing his message from reaching a wider audience.

Perhaps if he were to simplify his language and present his ideas in a more accessible manner, his influence could be even greater.

Nonetheless, his contributions to the fields of linguistics and philosophy cannot be ignored, and his ideas continue to inspire and challenge scholars and thinkers around the world.

Chosmky is truly an extraordinary figure.

He holds the world record for a rather unique and astonishing feat.

That is, he has the remarkable ability to reject ideas that he himself introduced.

It's as if those ideas never even came from him in the first place.

And what's even more astonishing is that he acts like nothing happened.

He goes about his business with a nonchalant attitude, as if the rejection of his own ideas is the most natural thing in the world.

This behavior has left many people scratching their heads and wondering how he can be so inconsistent.

Some may even question his credibility and reliability.

However, Chosmky seems unfazed by the confusion and criticism.

He continues to operate in his own mysterious way, maintaining his record for rejecting his own ideas and acting like nothing happened.

Perhaps there is more to his actions than meets the eye, and only time will tell the true story behind his strange behavior.

This book is an extremely rough read.

I found myself constantly referring to outside notes and explanations just to make sense of it.

I truly feel that Chomsky is the one person at present whose thoughts, theories, or whatever it may be, that I am really emotionally invested in understanding.

So, I really made a great effort to get through this book.

However, the writing in it is truly incredibly opaque and painful.

It seems as if the author故意made it difficult for the readers to understand the content.

The language used is so complex and convoluted that it requires a great deal of mental effort to decipher.

Despite my best efforts, I still found myself struggling to keep up with the author's train of thought.

Overall, this book has been a very frustrating experience for me.