SYNTAX

INITIATION TO MINIMALIST PROGRAMME

LEVEL : L3

DR BOHOUSSOU
Course outline

Generalities
1. Genesis of Generative Grammar
2. The different developments of the theory
3. Principles and Parameters
3.1. The X-bar Theory
3.1.1. The notion of categories and heads
3.1.2. Types of projection
3.1.3. The notion of Adjunct
3.2. Theta-Theory
3.3. The Case Theory
3.4. The Linkage Theory
3.5. Barrier Theory (or Boundary Theory)
3.6. Control Theory
3.7. Government Theory
4. The Minimalist Programme
4.1. The derivation operation
4.2. The merge operation
4.3. The Copy Theory of Motion
Conclusion

1
 Generalities
This document is a course support. It is intended for students enrolled in the 3ème year Bachelor's
degree. It aims at introducing students to Generative Grammar (GG). After outlining the history
of the theory, it presents the Principles and Parameters model and introduces the basic elements of
the Minimalist Program. This document is a revision of the seminar The Chomskyan Model of Linguistic
Description: From Principles and Parameters to the Minimalist Program (Bogny 2007).

1. Genesis of Generative Grammar

It is in reaction against the taxonomic character of linguistic studies, in structuralism in general

and in distributionism1 in particular, that the American Noam Chomsky2 developed Generative
Grammar (GG), (a linguistic theory in constant evolution), whose starting point is that language
is innate and belongs to the genetic heritage of the human species. Just as DNA is built from four
elements that combine and permute to "give different information", source of different
characters, language is also made from a small number of units that combine and permute to
generate acceptable structures. The elements do not combine in any way: there are Constraints
that underlie them. These Constraints are universal and in finite number: they form the Universal
Grammar, an integral part of man's biological baggage. The application of these Constraints is
parametric, i.e. it varies from one language or group of languages to another. To construct the
Grammar of a language is to describe how the Constraints are applied. This particular
appreciation of the facts of language is therefore biological. This approach (to language) provides
criteria for evaluating hypotheses. This situation creates conditions for the constant evolution of
the theory. For this reason, research in Generative Science focuses on language acquisition, on
language typology (the variation from one language or group of languages to another) and on
artificial intelligence (i.e. the possibility of representing in machine language the linguistic capacity
of humans).

The goal of Generative Grammar is to account for the Creativity of language that allows the
speaking subject to understand and produce sentences he has never heard before. Chomsky then

1
These schools of linguistics relegate languages to a cultural level. For these linguistic currents, the grammar of a
language is perceived as a set of generalizations made from a corpus
2Noam Avram Chomsky is a disciple of the philosophers West Churchman and Nelson Goodman and the linguist
Zellig Harris.

2
distinguishes performance, or the actual linguistic activity of the speaking subject (equivalent to
Saussurean speech) from competence, or the implicit knowledge of language. What Generative
Grammar describes and explains is linguistic competence, i.e. that finite set of rules that allows
the generation (derivation) of an infinite number of sentences.

According to the GG, Grammar is a set of modules, a system of independent but interacting
subsystems. This conception is abandoned in the last development of the theory (Cf. 3).
Grammar, itself according to the Chomskyan conception, is considered as an independent
module within the human cognitive capacities.

"The cognitive point of view sees behavior and its effects not as an object of study but as a
source of information capable of informing us about the internal mechanisms of the mind and
about the way these mechanisms are implemented in action and interpretation"3 .

What interests the GG is less the study of behavior and its effects than the mechanisms
underlying human thought and action.

2. The different developments of the theory

Grammar is part of the general study of cognition (i.e. human knowledge). Language is thus
studied as a cognitive system internalized in the human brain. The ultimate goal of GG is to
identify the nature of the internalized linguistic system (the I-language) that enables the speaker
to understand his or her native language. This grammatical competence manifests itself not only
through the speaker's intuition about the grammaticality of syntactic structures, but also through
the intuition he or she manifests about the interpretation of data. Since the grammar of a
language is a model of the competence of the ideal speaker, and since this competence is revealed
in the intuition of grammaticality and interpretation, the grammar of any natural language must
be able to describe adequately (descriptive adequacy) the facts (e.g. ambiguous propositions,
agrammatical sentences - see examples (1) and (2))

(1) Students watched the scene from the lawn.

(2) * Nous se ; lavons

As a corollary of the first criterion (the previous one: adequacy of description), such a grammar must
have a universal character, i.e. it must be able to adequately describe any language in the world

3Chomsky, in Pollock 1997, P. XIV.

3
(Indo-European languages as well as Niger-Congo languages, to name only the latter). Third,
such a grammar must be able to explain the facts adequately (explanatory adequacy), i.e. why do
grammars of natural languages have such or such properties?

Example : Why some languages are final head and others (are) initial head (Heads parameter)

Fourth, such a grammar should be as restrictive as possible, i.e. it should not describe anything
other than natural languages.

The fifth condition that a grammar must meet is that it must be learnable in record time in any
language (learnability).

Such a grammar should enable a young child to learn to speak a language in a relatively short
period of time. An efficient linguistic theory is one that tends to elaborate a minimal apparatus
capable of adequately describing the phenomenon of language. It is the search for this
"Minimality" that led Chomsky to launch the Minimalist Program (MP) in 1993! This step is the
culmination of a long "generative wandering" that began in 1957 with the publication of
Syntactic Structures4 . The steps are established as follows: The Standard Theory (1964-1967);
the Extended Standard Theory (1967-1977); the Revised Extended Standard Theory (1977-1979),
the Government and Binding / Principles and Parameters (1980), the Minimalist Program (1993).

In the structure in (3) below, the Accusative feature of Me cannot be checked because it cannot
be interpreted. The operation failed and the structure is therefore rejected...
(3) *Me want to go home.
In phonology, Chomsky founded with Morris Halle, the Standard Phonology by publishing in
1968, at MIT, The Sound Pattern of English (SPE). Autosegmental Phonology, then Optimality
Theory, continued the search for Constraints as an alternative to Rules. Today, Minimalist
Phonology, which is part of the Minimalist Program, continues the development of Generative
Phonology.

4 Published by Mouton in The Hague. In fact, the Standard Theory was "announced" by the publication, in 1965, of
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge (Mass.) : MIT Press.

4
 3. Principles and Parameters

The variability of languages has always been a contradiction to the uniqueness of language and a
challenge to a General Theory (of language), to Universal Grammar. The Principles and Parameters
(P&P) stage is developed to meet this challenge.
The point of view of the Principles and Parameters is that almost all "linguistic knowledge" exhibited
by man is not learned, but rather, is an integral part of the human mind. But then, if any language
knowledge is built into the human mind, it must be valid for all humans and therefore universal.
From this point of view, languages are not as different as we think and the differences are
apparent (word order in the utterance, differences in words, sounds, etc.). Surface differences are
reduced to an abstract parameter of variation in order to reduce the various options observed in
individual grammars. Constraints are imposed on the rule system of natural languages! These
rules are universal principles of grammar which allow for the existence of options for individual
languages: these options are parameters of variation! Each parameter appears as a choice with
two values: one positive and one negative. This universal knowledge, the Universal Grammar, is
made up of Principles (laws) that found the basic architecture of any linguistic system, and of
Parameters that govern the variations that could manifest this architecture.

3.1. The X-bar Theory

This module of the GG accounts for the internal architecture of syntagms. According to this
theory, every phrase is the maximal projection of a head. The phrase is of the same category as its
head: this is the principle of endocentricity (4).

(4) [ [NPD The ][N student ]]

A constituent can only assume a grammatical function if it has reached the maximum projection
level. We denote this maximum projection by XP (x being a variable that can take the value
N(om), V(erb), Adj(ective), Adv(erb), P(reposition) or P(ostposition), etc (5).

(5)

5
Let the variable x be a constituent of level zero; by associating a possible Complement to it, this
constituent is projected to the intermediate level (or level 1) called X' or X-bar (it is moreover
this constituent which gave its name to this module); this constituent of level 1 associated with a
possible Specifier reaches the level of the maximal projection noted XP (X").

Illustration with the example of the student of Cocody

(6)

It should be noted that generative theory admits two types of representation: the tree structure
and the parenthesis. The phrase "the student of Cocody" can correspond to the following
parenthesis:

(7) [NP [D l'] [ [N’N student][PP [Spec PP] [P’ [P de] [NP Cocody ]]]]]

3.1.1. The notion of categories and heads

The different constituents of a phrase are called categories. We distinguish several categories of
constituents. We can mention, among others, the Verb, the Noun, the Adjective, the Adverb, the
Determiner, the Agreement, the Complement, etc. These categories are divided into two groups.
On the one hand, the lexical categories (Verb, Noun, Adjective, etc.) and on the other hand the
functional categories (Determiner, Agreement, Complementor, etc.). These are called functional
because they are not semantically autonomous. These constituents can take two forms. On the
6
one hand, there are full constituents (those with a phonetic realization) and on the other hand,
empty constituents or empty categories or traces (those without phonetic content). In principle,
the presence of empty categories in syntactic structures stems from the Extended Projection
Principle (EPP) and from the non-canonical position of certain constituents in particular
constructions (passive, partial interrogatives, etc.). In all these structures, the relation between the
displaced (anteposed) constituent and an empty category is represented as a chain (all elements of
the chain have the same index).

3.1.2. Types of projection

The X-bar theory is designed with the idea that phrase heads are the prerogative of lexical
categories. Only lexical categories (major categories) can be phrase nuclei i.e. be the object of
maximal projection. Thus in the nominal phrase, the noun is the noun phrase, i.e. the head of
the phrase. Languages whose determiners follow the noun are called initial-head languages and
those whose determiners precede it are called final-head languages. Since Abney (1987), it has
been accepted that all categories (lexical and functional categories) can be subject to maximal
projections. Better still, the author suggests that the noun phrase should be analyzed as a
Determiner Phrase (DP). By adopting the DP hypothesis, the diagram in (6) on page 6 will be
reconfigured as in (8).
(8)

RFP

Spec D'

D NP
L'
Spec N'

N PP
student
Spec P'

P NP
of Cocody

Several other projections are accepted in syntactic theory. We can mention for example the
Inflectional (IP) or Temporal (TP) projection, or the Aspectual (AspP) projection for simple
sentences; the Complementor (CP) projection for interrogatives and embedded sentences, the

7
Genitival (GenP) projection for possessive phrases, the Quantifier (QP) projection for quantifier
phrases, etc.

3.1.3. The notion of Adjunct

Adjuncts are phrase modifiers; they are usually associated with adverbs, adjectives and PPs
(prepositional or postpositional phrases). In the X-Bar structure, Adjuncts can occupy higher
positions. They merge with the maximum projections (IP, CP, VP, etc.). The specification of
Adjuncts depends on the relationship they have with the phrase with which they are associated.

(9)

(a) (b)
XP XP

XP Assistant Assistant XP

Spec X' Spec X'

X Comp X Comp

(c)
XP

Spec X'

X ' Assistant

X Compl

3.2.Theta-Theory

Theta-Theory explains the semantic relationships that are established between argument
constituents and their head. The head assigns a semantic role called a ɵ-role to its argument(s).
The roles assigned by a head are part of the information given in the lexicon in relation to the
lexical item. This theory relies on the biunivocity condition between NPs and semantic roles, the ɵ-

criterion which states that Every NP argument must carry one and only one semantic role and that each
semantic role must be assigned to one and only one NP argument (10).

(10) [He writes an email to [Adou].

8
 Agent Theme Beneficiary
Theta Roles:

Agent : one who (intentionally) does the action expressed by the predicate
Patient person or object affected by the action
Theme : person or object moved or affected by the action
Beneficiary: Entity that benefits from the action.
Goal : entity to which the action is directed
Source : entity from which an object is moved, provenance
Headquarters : seat of a property
Etc.

3.3.The Case Theory

Case is the form taken by a constituent, especially NPs, in the position of argument to assume a
function. This theory assumes that NPs or constituents functioning as such must be marked with
Case, even when it does not manifest itself morphologically (abstract Case). In French and
English, for example, Case is only morphologically marked for pronouns. Any well-formed
sentence obeys the Good Formation Condition called the Case Filter which states that "Any
sentence that contains a non-empty NP, not provided with Case is ill-formed". Lexical heads such as verbs,
pre- or postpositions and functional heads such as I [+finite] are Case assigners. They assign
their Case to an NP they govern. In other words, the Case is assigned to the NP by a head in a
structural relation of government: I (features of Tense, Aspects, Modes and Agreement) assigns
the Nominative to the subject NP; the verb the Accusative (or Objective) Case to the direct complement; the pre- or
postposition, the oblique Case (Dative or Genitive) to the indirect complement (11).
(11) [He writes an email to [Adou].
Nominative Accusative Dative

3.4.The Binding Theory

This module governs the structural relationships between Anaphors (Reflexive and Reciprocal),
Pronouns (Pronominals) and their antecedents in the sentence. Anaphors are subject to
mandatory coreference within a defined syntactic domain called the Governing Category,
according to Principle A of the Linkage. According to Principle B, Pronouns are free of co-
reference in their Governing Category. Referential Expressions (consisting of semantically
autonomous words) are free according to the Binding Principle C.
The phrasal structure in (12) is rejected because it violates Principle B of the Linkage.
(12) * Kofii thei lava

9
Binding is itself defined as a coindexation relationship between two constituents, one of which c-
commands the other: αc-commands β if the first branching node dominant αdominates also (directly or
not)β.
The Governing Category (GC) of an Anaphora or Pronoun(inal) x is the smallest syntactic
category containing x, its governor and a SUBJECT. Besides the nominal subject, SUBJECT
designates either a possessive (in this case, the GC is an NP), or the PRO of infinitive or gerund
propositions i.e. with I non-finite (in this case the GC is the infinitive or gerund proposition), or
the Agreement of propositions with I [+finite].

3.5.The Theory of Barriers (or Boundaries)

This theory is also called the theory of subjacency.

The Barrier Theory governs the locality conditions limiting the distance between an antecedent
(displaced constituent) and an empty category. According to the principle of underpinning which
is the main constraint between an antecedent and its trace(s), the distance between an
antecedent and its trace cannot exceed more than two bounds. The bounds are maximal
projections (notably NPs and CPs).

3.6.The Theory of Control

This module accounts for the distribution and interpretation of PRO, the subject (implied) of
infinitives and gerunds. This theory determines the potential antecedent called the controller of
the PRO element. This element has the features [+Anaphora, + Pronominal]; it is therefore
subject to both Principle A and Principle B of the Linkage.
The control in (13) is mandatory.

(13) a.Akichi allowed Adoui to PROi come

b. Akichii promised Adou to PROi come

The control can be optional or arbitrary (Cf. (14) ).

(14) a. [ PROi/j ] Talking about Linguistics annoys Yaoi (optional)

b. [PRO ] Talking about Linguistics is exhilarating (arbitrary)

10
 3.7.The Theory of Government

The notion of Government can be understood as the relation that a head has with its
complement: αgovernβ ssiα m-command β and no barrier intervenes between α and β. There are two types
of Government: Head Government where the governor is a head and AntecedentGovernment
where the governor is an antecedent.

(15) Government by a head:

A head x governs y if :

(i) x Є {A, N, P, V, Agr, T, Asp}

(ii) x m-order y
(iii) no barrier is involved
(iv) the Principle of Relativized Minimality is respected.

(16) Government by antecedent

x governs by antecedence y if :
(i) x and y are coindicated
(ii) x c-order y
(iii)no barrier is involved.
(iv)The Principle of Relativized Minimality is respected.

The Principle of Relativized Minimality was developed by Rizzi (1990). It states that:
(17) a potential governor cannot be an effective governor if there is another potential or effective
governor of the same type (head or antecedent closer to the governed phrase).

Therefore, there cannot be two governors for one governed.

Traces must be governed cleanly by their antecedent according to the Empty Category Principle
(ECP).
(18) x governs properly y if :
(i) x theta governs y or x governs by antecedence y
(ii) x theta-governs y if x governs y and theta-mark y
(iii)x governs by antecedence y if x governs y and x is coindicated with y.

4. The Minimalist Program

The Principles and Parameters (P&P) were a crucial step in the development of Generative
Grammar because this step discovered universal principles common to the languages of the

11
world. However, this theoretical model is peppered with superfluous and redundant facts. For
this reason, Chomsky(1993, 1995) launched the Minimalist Program in order to minimize the
complex operations observed in the previous model. In the early days of the MP, the levels of
representations are reduced to the minimum necessary (FP and FL), the Principles & Parameters
are eliminated to the maximum. Thus the Merging System replaces the D-Structure and the Spell-
out is proposed as a replacement for the S-Structure. One merges (merge) primitive or already
constructed syntactic items in the same way: it is a binary operation which associates two
elements a and b, and constructs a third one (of the same nature as a or b)... The syntactic
features (or the matrices of syntactic features) must be checked (Checking Theory) in Epel (in
particular in FL and FP) or else the operation fails (Crash). In his most recent work (Chomsky
2000, 2001, 2005), the perception of language has evolved: he suggests that language is a system
optimally configured to interact with two interfaces external to language: the Sensory-Motor (SM)
interface and the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) interface. The SM interface is responsible for
gestures and articulations (speech system) and the CI interface is the thought system. These
systems impose readability conditions on language. In other words, the objects built by language
must be readable by these two systems. Thus, syntactic objects built by the Syntax contain
information interpretable by the semantic component or Logical Form (FL) and information
interpretable by the phonological component or Phonological Form (FP).

4.1.The bypass operation

We call derivation a set of steps/computations intended, in the long run, to produce and route to
the interfaces representations readable by them.

The derivation is said to crash/fail if there is a single uninterpretable line that arrives at the
interfaces. Otherwise it is said to converge. In the early days of the Minimalist Program, three
principles condition the derivation of a syntactic structure, i.e. limit the movement of constituents
according to certain conditions of computational economy:

 The principle of last resort

This principle states that a phrase moves only if it is forced to by the presence of uninterpretable
features. This principle is also called procrastination. According to this principle, movement should
be delayed as long as possible because movement in LF is more economical than open
movement.

 The principle of greed

12
This principle requires that the displacement takes place only to verify the features of the phrase
concerned and of it alone.

 The principle of minimum distance

This principle reduces the range of movement and requires the element to move to the nearest
target.

With the advance of the PM, these principles were abandoned in favour of the condition of
interpretability called Full Interpretability. (19)

(19) Everything that happens at the interfaces must be interpreted.

4.2.The merger operation

The defusion operation replaces the X-Bar theory. It consists in combining syntactic objects
(lexical/grammatical items) to derive a larger structure. The combination is binary. In other
words, syntactic objects (SOs) are merged two by two to create a new syntactic object that
corresponds to the set containing the two original syntactic objects. Let us consider two syntactic
objects X and Y.

(20) Merge (X, Y) or Merge (Y, X) ={X, Y}= Z

Z

X Y

Merge is the only operation required to build syntactic objects. Unary or ternary representations
are outlawed in PM5 . Two types of fusion are allowed: internal fusion and external fusion
(Chomsky 2013, Collins 2016).

4.2.1. External fusion (EF)

This operation consists in combining two elements taken from the lexical sample or numeration
(The numeration is the selection of items available for the fusion). Let X and Y be constituents
belonging to the lexical sample (necessary lexical entries with the exponent of their occurrences).
They represent selected candidates for derivation. Z is the derived item.
(21) Merge (X, Y) ={X,Y}= Z

Z
5
They were already in the Principles and Settings.
X Y 13
Application 1: The student merger, the merchandise, the grade.

As stipulated by the X-Bar theory, the fusion starts with the identification of the nuclei or phrase
heads so that the representation is in accordance with the endocentricity principle.
(22) Illustration:
Easter vacations

Let " Les " be the head of this phrase:

RFP

Spec D'

D NP
The
Spec N'

N PP
Leave
Spec P

P NP
of Easter

Application 2:

Identify the heads of the following phrases:

 Proud of the undergraduate students
 With the chair of my childhood friend's father
 The Railway of Agboville
 Come to the house

4.2.2. Internal merger (IF)

Internal Merge consists in the recombination of two elements (objects) that have already been
associated to derive a new syntactic structure. It is the equivalent of the "displacement" operation
in P&P and in the early days of PM.
(23)
ZP

Xi Z'

Z ti
14
The merger of X and Z' is an internal merger. X was first merged with Z as the complement of Z
before being merged back into the specifier position of ZP.

4.3.The Theory of Motion by copying

In the P&P model, when a component moves, its starting position is occupied by a trace noted t.
The trace theory will be abandoned in the PM with the introduction of the inclusion condition
(24):

(24) No new features are introduced by the computational system during the derivation

Thus traces do not appear in numeration; they are therefore proscribed by the theory. To
compensate for the notion of trace, generativists propose the theory of movement by copy.
According to this theory, when a constituent moves, it leaves a copy at its starting site. This copy
can be phonetically full or empty (of phonetic content). Therefore, moves that result in empty
categories on the starting sites are noted by the symbols <> (strictly lower and strictly higher) or
crossed out (yz). Thus, if we adopt the theory of movement by copying, we obtain the following
configuration in (25):
(25)

ZP

X Z'

Z <X> or X

(26) Illustration in a Kwa language (Mɔ́ ʤukru...)

lɛ́tŋ̀ à
Car Def
"The car"

RFPa.

NP D'
lɛ́ tŋ̀
D NP 15
à lɛ́tŋ̀
Application 3:
Develop the tree structure of the following sentences, identifying the re-fused constituents:

 The house I built fell down

 Which mango did you eat?

Conclusion

This course is essentially basic. The concepts studied are not sufficiently supported. It should be
noted that the Minimalist Program is a growing research program and is still unstable. Several
analytical models have been developed in generative theory. The evolution of the GG is in favor
of a hegemonic role devolved to the Lexicon which provides all the information necessary for the
updating of a (lexical) item. The idiosyncratic properties of an item, whatever it is, are inscribed in
the Lexicon. These properties are manifested in the structure where the item in question is
realized. Why do variations exist between languages? To what necessity do they respond? Are
they interactions between the faculty of language and the other components of the brain? Why is
item shifting inherent to language? Why do phonetic forms have to be linear? While placing the
Minimalist Program in the perspective of the cognitive sciences, Chomsky (2006) leads humans
to question the dimension of their intrinsic power and the quintessence of their being. In short,
how far can the human mind push its knowledge? The Minimalist Program, a program for the
liberation of the mind and thought!

Suggested reading:

Abney , S. Paul, 1987, The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect,
PhD dissertation, MIT.
Adger, David 2003, Core Syntax, a Minimalist Approach, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bogny, Yapo 2007, "The Chomskyan Model of Linguistic Description: From Principles and
Parameters to the Minimalist Program", Available at:
www.ltml.ci/files/notes/seminaire%20bogny%20gg.pdf.
Chomsky, Noam 1957, Syntactic structures, Mouton
Chomsky, Noam 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 1975, Reflections on language, Pantheon, New York.

16
Chomsky, Noam 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa lectures. Foris. Dordrecht
Chomsky, Noam 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 2001, "Derivation by phase" in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken
Hale, a life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 2005 New horizons in the study of language and
the mind, Ed. Stock, trans. of News Horizons in the Study of Language
and Mind, 2000, Cambridge University Press. Translated by Richard
Crevier, revised by Alain Kihm.
Chomsky, Noam 2006, "Three factors in the architecture of the
langage " Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 27(2006), 1-
32Translation from American to French by Anne Reboul, with
with the permission of the author and MIT Press, from the article 'ThreeFactors
in Language Design', Linguistic Inquiry 36(1), 2005,1-22.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of Projection. In Lingua, 130, Special Issue "Core
Ideas and Results in Syntax". 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico,
Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond - studies in
honor of Adriana Belletti, 3-16. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Collins, Chris and Edward Stabler 2016, Formalization of Minimalist Syntax,Syntax
19:1, March 2016, 43-78

Culicover, Peter W. 1997. Principles and parameters: an introduction to

syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, Jean-Yves 1997. Language and cognition: introduction to the program
Minimalist of Generative Grammar; Paris, PUF
Pukas, Genoveva, 2013, Introduction to the Minimalist Program, syntax element
comparative, Peter Lang.

17