ABSTRACT
This chapter identifies an important unclarity regarding the central concept crash and suggests a way to rectify it. The basic intent of the concept crash and its complement converge and their central explanatory role in the Minimalist Program are intuitively clear. There is unclarity here concerning possible distinctions between crashing versus gibberish. It reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky's attractively deductive valuation-transfer analysis. The valuation-transfer analysis entails that there must exist a phase-based cyclic application of transfer. The chapter offers a possible solution to this problem, reanalyzing the relation between uninterpretable features and transfer. It presents a possible modification of a crash-proof aspect of the proposed model. The crash-proof model presented leaves one important question: What now motivates feature-inheritance and cyclic Transfer? The chapter attempts to deduce feature-inheritance and cyclic transfer from independently motivated mechanisms, presented as part of an optimal system.
