In linguistics, the minimalist program is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside generative grammar since the early 1990s, starting with a 1993 paper by Noam Chomsky.

Following Imre Lakatos's distinction, Chomsky presents minimalism as a program, understood as a mode of inquiry that provides a conceptual framework which guides the development of linguistic theory. As such, it is characterized by a broad and diverse range of research directions. For Chomsky, there are two basic minimalist questions — What is language? and Why does it have the properties it has? —  but the answers to these two questions can be framed in any theory.

Conceptual framework

Goals and assumptions
Minimalism is an approach developed with the goal of understanding the nature of language. It models a speaker's knowledge of language as a computational system with one basic operation, namely Merge. Merge combines expressions taken from the lexicon in a successive fashion to generate representations that characterize I-Language, understood to be the internalized intensional knowledge state as represented in individual speakers. By hypothesis, I-language — also called universal grammar — corresponds to the initial state of the human language faculty in individual human development.

Minimalism is reductive in that it aims to identify which aspects of human language — as well the computational system that underlies it — are conceptually necessary. This is sometimes framed as questions relating to  perfect design (Is the design of human language perfect?) and optimal computation (Is the computational system for human language optimal?) According to Chomsky, a human natural language is not optimal when judged based on how it functions, since it often contains ambiguities, garden paths, etc. However, it may be optimal for interaction with the systems that are internal to the mind.

Such questions are informed by a set of background assumptions, some of which date back to the earliest stages of generative grammar:

 Language is a form of cognition. There is a language faculty (FL) that interacts with other cognitive systems; this accounts for why humans acquire language.
 Language is a computational system. The language faculty consists of a computational system (CHL) whose initial state (S0) contains invariant principles and parameters.
 Language acquisition consists of acquiring a lexicon and fixing the parameter values of the target language.
 Language generates an infinite set of expressions given as a sound-meaning pair (π, λ).
 Syntactic computation interfaces with phonology: π corresponds to phonetic form (PF), the interface with the articulatory-perceptual (A-P) performance system, which includes articulatory speech production and acoustic speech perception.
 Syntactic computation interfaces with semantics: λ corresponds to logical form (LF), the interface with the conceptual-intentional (C-I) performance system, which includes conceptual structure and intentionality.
 Syntactic computations are fully interpreted at the relevant interface: (π, λ) are interpreted at the PF and LF interfaces as instructions to the A-P and C-I performance systems.
 Some aspects of language are invariant. In particular, the computational system (i.e. syntax) and LF are invariant.
Some aspects of language show variation. In particular, variation reduces to Saussurean arbitrariness, parameters and the mapping to PF.
The theory of grammar meets the criterion of conceptual necessity; this is the Strong Minimalist Thesis introduced by Chomsky in (2001). Consequently, language is an optimal association of sound with meaning; the language faculty satisfies only the interface conditions imposed by the A-P and C-I performance systems; PF and LF are the only linguistic levels.

Strong minimalist thesis
Minimalism develops the idea that human language ability is optimal in its design and exquisite in its organization, and that its  inner workings conform to a very simple computation. On this view, universal grammar instantiates a perfect design in the sense that it contains only what is necessary. Minimalism further develops the notion of economy, which came to the fore in the early 1990s, though still peripheral to transformational grammar. Economy of derivation requires that movements (i.e., transformations) occur only if necessary, and specifically to satisfy to feature-checking, whereby an interpretable feature is matched with a corresponding uninterpretable feature. (See discussion of feature-checking below.) Economy of representation requires that grammatical structures exist for a purpose. The structure of a sentence should be no larger or more complex than required to satisfy constraints on grammaticality.

Within minimalism, economy — recast in terms of the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT) — has acquired increased importance. The 2016 book entitled Why Only Us — co-authored by Noam Chomsky and Robert Berwick — defines the Strong Minimalist Thesis as follows:

Under the Strong Minimalist Thesis, language is a product of inherited traits as developmentally enhanced through intersubjective communication and social exposure to individual languages (amongst other things). This reduces to a minimum the "innate" component (the genetically inherited component) of the language faculty, which has been criticized over many decades and is separate from the developmental psychology component.

Intrinsic to the syntactic model (e.g. the Y/T-model) is the fact that social and other factors play no role in the computation that takes place in narrow syntax; what Chomsky, Hauser and Fitch refer to as Faculty of Language in the Narrow Sense (FLN), as distinct from Faculty of Language in the Broad Sense (FLB).  Thus, Narrow Syntax only concerns itself with interface requirements, also called  legibility conditions. SMT can be restated as follows: syntax, narrowly defined, is a product of the requirements of the interfaces and nothing else.  This is what is meant by "Language is an optimal solution to legibility conditions". (Chomsky 2001:96)

Interface requirements force deletion of features that are uninterpretable at a particular interface, a necessary consequence of Full Interpretation. A PF object must only consist of features that are interpretable at the articulatory-perceptual (A-P) interface; likewise a LF object must consist of features that are interpretable at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. The presence of an uninterpretable feature at either interface will cause the derivation to crash.

Narrow syntax proceeds as a set of operations — Merge, Move and Agree — carried out upon a numeration (a selection of features, words etc., from the lexicon) with the sole aim of removing all uninterpretable features before being sent via Spell-Out to the A-P and C-I interfaces.  The result of these operations is a hierarchical syntactic structure that captures the relationships between the component features.

Technical innovations
The exploration of minimalist questions has led to several radical changes in the technical apparatus of transformational generative grammatical theory. Some of the most important are:
the elimination of the distinction between deep structure and surface structure in favour of a derivational approach
the elimination of X-bar theory in favour of bare phrase structure (see below)
the elimination of indexation in favour of Move or Agree
the elimination of the notion of government in favour of feature-checking
the idea that feature-checking — which matches interpretable and uninterpretable features, and subsequently deletes the latter — might be responsible for all structure-building operations, including Merge, Move, and Agree (see below)
the idea that syntactic derivations proceed by clearly delineated stages called "phases" (see below)
the specification that there are exactly two points where syntax interacts with other components: a "spell-out" point between syntax and the interface with phonetic form (PF), and an additional point of interaction with logical form (LF)

Basic operations
Early versions of Minimalism posits two basic operations: merge and move. Earlier theories of grammar — as well as early minimalist analyses — treat phrasal and movement dependencies differently than current minimalist analyses. In the latter, Merge and Move are different outputs of a single operation. Merge of two syntactic objects (SOs) is called "external Merge". As for Move, it is defined as an instance of "internal Merge", and involves the re-merge of an already merged SO with another SO. In regards to how Move should be formulated, there continues to be active debate about this, but the differences between current proposals are relatively minute.

More recent versions of minimalism recognize three operations: Merge (i.e. external Merge), Move (i.e. internal Merge), and Agree. The emergence of Agree as a basic operation is related to the mechanism which forces movement, which is mediated by feature-checking.

Merge

In its original formulation, Merge is a function that takes two objects (α and β) and merges them into an unordered set with a label, either α or β. In more recent treatments, the possibility of the derived syntactic object being un-labelled is also considered; this is called "simple Merge" (see Label section).

In the version of Merge which generates a label, the label identifies the properties of the phrase. Merge will always occur between two syntactic objects: a head and a non-head. For example, Merge can combine the two lexical items drink and water to generate drink water. In the Minimalist Program, the phrase is identified with a label. In the case of drink water, the label is drink since the phrase acts as a verb. This can be represented in a typical syntax tree as follows, with the name of the derived syntactic object (SO) determined either by the lexical item (LI) itself, or by the category label of the LI:

Merge can operate on already-built structures; in other words, it is a recursive operation. If Merge were not recursive, then this would predict that only two-word utterances to be grammatical. (This is relevant for child language acquisition, where children are observed to go through a so-called "two-word" stage. This is discussed below in the implications section.) As illustrated in the accompanying tree structure, if a new head (here γ) is merged with a previously formed syntactic object (a phrase, here {α, {α, β} }), the function has the form Merge (γ, {α, {α, β}}) → {γ, {γ, {α, {α, β}}}}. Here, γ is the head, so the output label of the derived syntactic object is γ.

Chomsky's earlier work defines each lexical item as a syntactic object that is associated with both categorical features and selectional features. Features — more precisely formal features — participate in feature-checking, which takes as input two expressions that share the same feature, and checks them off against each other in a certain domain. In some but not all versions of minimalism, projection of selectional features proceeds via feature-checking, as required by locality of selection:

Selection as projection: As illustrated in the bare phrase structure tree for the sentence The girl ate the food; a notable feature is the absence of distinct labels (see Labels below). Relative to Merge, the selectional features of a lexical item determine how it participates in Merge:
  eat The Lexical Item eat is a transitive verb, and so assigns two theta-roles (Agent, Theme). Theta-roles can be represented as D-features on V — VD,D — and these D features force the verb to merge with two DPs. As illustrated in the tree, the first application of Merge generates the Verb-Complement sequence (ate the food), with the DP the food in complement position. The second application of Merge generates the equivalent of a Specifier-VP sequence (the girl ate the food), with the DP the girl in specifier position.
 PAST The Lexical Item for "past tense" is represented as the feature. Tense requires the presence of a DP subject and a verb; this is notated as TD,V. (Or more precisely as TEPP:D.NOM,V. The "EPP" notation stands for "extended projection principle" feature, NOM stands for "nominative case".) Tense first merges with a V-projection, and the output then combines the DP subject the girl, which, in some sense, merges twice: once within the V-projection, and once within the T-projection. (See discussion of Move below.)
C∅ The Lexical Item for clause-typing is a phonologically null C∅. By hypothesis, all sentences are clauses (CPs), so the root clause The girl ate the food is analyzed as CP. Given the assumption that all phrases are headed (endocentric), CP must be headed by C. C selects TP, notated as CT.Feature-checking: When a feature is "checked", it is removed.

 Merge(V,DP) checks of one of the D features of V. We see this on the intermediate V projection, where the complement position is realized by the DP the food. This D-feature is then "checked" and we can see one of the D features is removed at the intermediate V-projection. Merge(V,DP) applies a second time, and the maximal V in the tree has no D features because at this stage of the derivation both D features have been "checked". Specifically, the D feature of the intermediate V-projection is "checked" by the DP the girl in the specifier position of V.
 Merge(T,VP) checks off the V-feature of T; Merge(T,DP) checks off the D-feature of T.
 Merge(C,TP) checks off the T-feature of C.Locality of Selection (LOS) is a principle that forces selectional features to participate in feature checking. LOS states that a selected element must combine with the head that selects it either as complement or specifier. Selection is local in the sense that there is a maximum distance that can occur between a head and what it selects: selection must be satisfied with the projection of the head.

 Move
Move arises via "internal Merge".Movement as feature-checking: The original formulation of the Extended projection principle states that clauses must contain a subject in the specifier position of spec TP/IP. In the tree above, there is an EPP feature. This is a strong feature which forces re-Merge — which is also called internal merge — of the DP the girl. The EPP feature in the tree above is a subscript to the T head, which indicates that T needs a subject in its specifier position. This causes the movement of <the girl> to the specifier position of T.

 Beyond basic operations

 Label
A substantial body of literature in the minimalist tradition focuses on how a phrase receives a proper label. The debate about labeling reflects the deeper aspirations of the Minimalist Program, which is to remove all redundant elements in favour of the simplest analysis possible. While earlier proposals focus on how to distinguish adjunction from substitution via labeling, more recent proposals attempt to eliminate labeling altogether, but they have not been universally accepted.Adjunction and substitution: Chomsky's 1995 monograph entitled The Minimalist Program outlines two methods of forming structure: adjunction and substitution. The standard properties  of segments, categories, adjuncts, and specifiers are easily constructed. In the general form of a structured tree for adjunction and substitution, α is an adjunct to X, and α is substituted into SPEC, X position. α can raise to aim for the Xmax position, and it builds a new position that can either be adjoined to [Y-X] or is SPEC, X, in which it is termed the 'target'. At the bottom of the tree, the minimal domain includes SPEC Y and Z along with a new position formed by the raising of α which is either contained within Z, or is Z.Adjunction: Before the introduction of Bare Phrase Structure, adjuncts did not alter information about bar-level, category information, or the target's (located in the adjoined structure) head. An example of adjunction using the X-bar theory notation is given below for the sentence Lucy bought the purse yesterday. Observe that the adverbial modifier yesterday is sister to VP and dominated by VP. Thus, the addition of the modifier does not change information about the bar-level: in this case the maximal projection VP. In the minimalist program, adjuncts are argued to exhibit a different, perhaps more simplified, structure. Chomsky (1995) proposes that adjunction forms a two-segment object/category consisting of: (i)  the head of a label; (ii) a different label from the head of the label. The label L is not considered a term in the structure that is formed because it is not identical to the head S, but it is derived from it in an irrelevant way. If α adjoins to S, and S projects, then the structure that results is L = {<H(S), H(S)>,{α,S}}, where the entire structure is replaced with the head S, as well as what the structure contains. The head is what projects, so it can itself be the label or can determine the label irrelevantly. A notable property of the new account developed in Bare Phrase Structure is that the properties of the head are no longer preserved in adjunction structures, as the attachment of an adjunct to a particular XP following adjunction is non-maximal, as shown in the figure below that illustrates adjunction in BPS.  It is also worth noting that such an account is applicable to XP's that are related to multiple adjunction.

AdjunctionDEFINITION: <H(S), H (S)>, where Label = {<H(S), H(S)>,{α,S}} (S = head)

Substitution forms a new category consisting of a head (H), which is the label, and an element being projected. Some ambiguities may arise if the features raising, in this case α, contain the entire head and the head is also XMAX.
SubstitutionDEFINITION: Label = {H(S), {α,S}).
Labeling algorithm (LA): Merge is a function that takes two objects (α and β) and merges them into an unordered set with a label (either α or β), where the label indicates the kind of phrase that is built via merge. But this labeling technique is too unrestricted since the input labels make incorrect predictions about which lexical categories can merge with each other.  Consequently, a different mechanism is needed to generate the correct output label for each application of Merge in order to account for how lexical categories combine; this mechanism is referred to as the Labeling Algorithm (LA) .

 Labeling via selection and agreement. In a series of articles, Chomsky has proposed that labels are determined by a labeling algorithm which operates after syntactic structures have been built. This mechanism departs from previous version of generative grammar in that the labels of a phrase are now determined endocentrically. There are a number of proposals that have been hypothesized to explain the exact nature of the labeling algorithm. In earlier discussions, Chomsky hypothesizes that determining the label of a set-theoretic object (α, β) depends on either semantic selection or agreement holding between α and β. Although this formulation of the LA is consistent with the basic principles  of X-bar theory, reference to external relations like semantic selection and agreement are at odds with the goal of developing a parsimonious account.
Labeling Algorithm (version 1): The output of Merge (α, β) is labeled by α if:
(a) α selects β as its semantic argument, or
(b) α agrees with β, meaning, β is led to α because of Spec-head agreement (feature checking) (Chomsky 1995b;2000)

 Labeling via external and internal Merge. Proposed by Chomsky in 2008, in this version of LA, clause (a) means that the output of Merge(V, DP) would be labelled V because V is a Lexical Item. And clause (b) means that if a syntactic object is re-introduced into the derivation via internal Merge — at it is when a subject DP moves to Spec,TP — then the output of Merge(DP,T) would be labelled T. However, this version of LA uses a disjunctive definition of labelling, one for external Merge (clause a), and one for internal merge (clause b).
Labeling Algorithm (version 2): The output of Merge (α, β) is labeled by α if
(a) α is a Lexical Item (LI), or
(b) β is internally merged to α (Chomsky 2008: 145)

 Labeling via prominence. Chomsky (2013) suggests an even simpler LA based on the notion of "prominence". In this version of the LA, the label is independently determined bu whichever properties of UG (universal grammar) allow us to identify a "prominent Lexical Item.  Due to this revision, it becomes questionable whether Merge plays any role at all in labelling/projection, since it is now redundant.
Labeling Algorithm (version 3): The label/head of an SO (syntactic object) Σ is the most prominent Lexical Item within Σ. (Chomsky 2013)

 Labeling via set formation: Further simplification is given in Chomsky (2000), where  Merge is simplified to an elementary set-formation operation, meaning that syntactic objects (SOs) are no longer associated with non-terminal nodes, like projections. Labels are now only the syntactically relevant "head" of a phrase that are determined independently by the LA. With this theory, labeling leaves bare phrase structure (BPS) completely projection-free.

Labeling Algorithm (version 4): Merge(α, β) =  {α, β}.

Recently, the suitability of a labeling algorithm has been questioned, as syntacticians have identified a number of limitations associated with what Chomsky has proposed. It has been argued that two kinds of phrases pose a problem. The labeling algorithm proposes that labelling occurs via minimal search, a process where a single lexical item within a phrasal structure acts as a head and provides the label for the phrase. It has been noted that minimal search cannot account for the following two possibilities:

1. {H, H} where both constituents are lexical items.

2. {XP, YP} where neither constituent is a lexical item.

In each of these cases, there is no lexical item acting as a prominent element (i.e. a head). Given this, it is not possible through minimal search to extract a label for the phrase. While Chomsky has proposed solutions for these cases, it has been argued that the fact that such cases are problematic suggests that the labeling algorithm violates the tenets of the minimalist program, as it departs from conceptual necessity.

Other linguistic phenomena that create instances where Chomsky's labeling algorithm cannot assign labels include predicate fronting, embedded topicalization, scrambling (free movement of constituents), stacked structures (which involve multiple specifiers).

Given these criticisms of Chomsky's labeling algorithm, it has been recently argued that the labeling algorithm theory should be eliminated altogether and replaced by another labeling mechanism. The Symmetry Principle has been identified as one such mechanism, as it provides an account of labeling that assigns the correct labels even when phrases are derived through complex linguistic phenomena.

Agree
Starting in the early 2000s, attention turned from feature-checking as a condition on movement to feature-checking as a condition on agreement. This line of inquiry was initiated in Chomsky (2000), and formulated as follows:

Agree: α can agree with β if and only if:
(a) α carries at least one unvalued and uninterpretable feature and
β carries a matching interpretable and valued feature
(b) α c-commands β
(c) β is the closest goal to α
(d) β bears an unvalued uninterpretable feature (from Zeijlstra 2012)

Many recent analyses assume that Agree is a basic operation, on par with Merge and Move. This is currently a very active area of research, and there remain numerous open questions:

 Is Agree a primitive operation?
 What is the "direction" of the Agree relation: does it apply top-down, bottom-up, or both?
 Is Agree a syntactic operation, a post-syntactic operation that applies at PF, or both?
 Is the Agree relation restricted to certain feature types?
 Is the Agree relation subject to locality restrictions?
 Which phenomena are best modelled by the Agree relation?
 Is the Agree relation conditioned by other factors, or does it apply freely?
 How does Agree interact with other operations such as Merge and Label?

Co-indexation as feature checking: co-indexation markers such as {k, m, o, etc.}

Derivation by phase

A phase is a syntactic domain first hypothesized by Noam Chomsky in 1998. It is a domain where all derivational processes operate and where all features are checked. A phase consists of a phase head and a phase domain. Once any derivation reaches a phase and all the features are checked, the phase domain is sent to transfer and becomes invisible to further computations. The literature shows  three trends relative to what is generally considered to be a phase:

 All CPs and some vPs  are phases: Chomsky originally proposed that CP and vP in transitive and unergative verbs constitute phases. This was proposed based on the phrases showing strong phase effects discussed  above.
 A specified set of phrases are phases: CP, DP (based on  parallels between DP and CP), all vPs, TP (in some languagess)
 Every phrase is a phase, with moved constituents cycling through all intermediate phrase edges.

Strong phases: CP and vP
A simple sentence can be decomposed into two phases, CP and vP. Chomsky considers CP and vP to be strong phases because of their  propositional content, as well as their interaction with movement and reconstruction.

Propositional content: CP and vP are both propositional units, but for different reasons. CP is considered a propositional unit because it is a full clause that has tense and force: example (1) shows that the complementizer that in the CP phase conditions finiteness (here past tense) and force (here, affirmative) of the subordinate clause. vP is considered a propositional unit because all the theta roles are assigned in vP: in (2) the verb ate in the vP phase assigns the Theme theta role to the DP the cake and the Agent theta-role to the DP Mary.
 (1) John said [CP that Mary will eat the cake ].

 (2) [CP Mary [vP <Mary> ate the cake ].

Movement: CP and vP  can be the focus of pseudo-cleft movement, showing that CP and vP  form syntactic units: this is shown in (3) for the CP constituent that John is bringing the dessert, and in (4) for the vP constituent arrive tomorrow.
 (3) a.  Mary said [CP that John is bringing the dessert].
     b.  What Mary said was [CP that John is bringing the dessert].

 (4) a. Alice will [vP arrive tomorrow].
     b. What Alice will do is [vP arrive tomorrow].
Reconstruction. When a moved constituent is interpreted in its original position to satisfy binding principles, this is called reconstruction. Evidence from reconstruction is consistent with the claim that the moved phrase stops at the left edge of CP and vP phases.

 Reconstruction at left edge of CP phase: In (5), the reflexive himself  can be understood as being co-referential with either John or Fred, where co-reference is indicated by co-indexation. However, the constituent that contains himself, namely the sentence-initial phrase [which picture of himself], is not c-commanded by either John or Fred, as is required by Principle A of the Binding Theory. The fact that co-indexation of himself with either one of John or Fred is possible is taken as evidence that the constituent containing the reflexive, namely [which picture of himself] has moved through a reconstruction site — here the left edge of the lower CP phrase — from where it can satisfy Principle A of the Binding Theory relative to the DP John.
Reconstruction at left edge of vP phase: In (6), bound variable anaphora requires that the pronoun he must be c-commanded by every student, but Condition C of the Binding Theory requires that the R-expression Mary be free. However, these requirements cannot be satisfied by the sentence-initial constituent that contains both he and Mary, namely the phrase [which of the papers that he gave Mary]. The fact that the sentence is nevertheless well-formed is taken to indicate that this phrase must have moved through a reconstruction site first, from where it is interpreted. The left edge of the vP phase is the only position where these binding requirements could be satisfied: (i) every student c-commands the pronoun he; (ii) Mary is free from any c-commanding DP.
 (5) a. [Which picture of himselfk] did Johnk think ___ Fredj liked __?
     b. [Which picture of himselfj] did Johnk think ___ Fredj liked __?

 (6) [Which of the papers that hek gave Maryj] did every studentk  __ ask herj to read __ carefully?

Phase edge
Chomsky theorized that syntactic operations must obey the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) which essentially requires that movement be from the left-edge of a phase. The PIC has been variously formulated in the literature. The Extended Projection Principle feature that is on the heads of phases triggers the intermediate movement steps to phase edges.

 Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)

 Movement of a constituent out of a phase is (in the general case) only permitted if the constituent has first moved to the left edge of the phase (XP).

 The edge of a head X is defined as the residue outside of X', in either specifier of X and adjuncts to XP.

English successive cyclic wh-movement obeys the PIC. Sentence (7) has two phases: vP and CP. Relative to the application of movement, who moves from the (lower) vP phase to the (higher) CP phase in two steps:

Step 1: who moves from the complement position of VP to the left edge of vP, and the EPP feature of the verb forces movement of who to the edge of vP.
 Step 2: who  moves from the left edge of the lower vP phase to the specifier of the (higher) CP phase.

 (7)  [CP Who did you [vP see who]]?

Medumba wh-movement

Another example of PIC can be observed when analyzing A'-agreement in Medumba. A'-agreement is a term used for the morphological reflex of A'-movement of an XP. In Medumba, when the moved phrase reaches a phase edge, a high low tonal melody is added to the head of the complement of the phase head. Since, A'-agreement in Medumba requires movement, the presence of agreement on the complements of phase heads shows that the wh-word  moves to the edges of phases and obeys PIC.

Example:

The sentence (2a) has a high low tone on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense ʤʉ̀n, therefore is grammatical.

(2a) [CP á wʉ́ Wàtɛ̀t nɔ́ɔ̀ʔ [vP ⁿ-ʤʉ́ʉ̀n á?]]

'Who did Watat see?'

The sentence (2b) does not have a high low tone on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense ʤʉ̀n, therefore is not grammatical.

(2b) *[CP á wʉ́ Wàtɛ̀t nɔ́ʔ [vP ⁿ-ʤʉ́n á?]]

*'Who did Watat see?'

To generate the grammatical sentence (2a), the wh-phrase á wʉ́ moves from the vP phase to the CP phase. To obey PIC, this movement must take two steps since the wh-phrase needs to move to the edge of the vP phase in order to move out of the lower phase.

 Step 1: First, the wh-phrase moves from the complement of VP to the edge of the vP phase to avoid violating PIC. In this position, the agreement is expressed on the verb ʤʉ̀n and surfaces as a high low (HL) tone melody (ⁿ-ʤʉ́ʉ̀n). The agreement is expressed on the verb which is the head of the complement of the v phase head.

 Step 2: Now that it is at the edge of the vP phase, the wh-phrase is able to leave the vP phase and move to the Spec-C position of the CP phase. Agreement is expressed on the tense nɔ́ʔ as a high low tone melody (nɔ́ɔ̀ʔ). The tense which agreement is expressed on is the head of the complement of the C phase head

One can confirm that A' agreement only occurs with movement by examining sentences where the wh-phrase does not move. In sentence (2c) below, one can observe that there is no high low tone melody on the verb nɔ́ʔ and tense fá since the wh-word does not move to the edge of the vP and CP phase.

(2c) [m-ɛ́n nɔ́ʔ fá bɔ̀ á wʉ́ á]

'The child gave the bag to who?'

Cycle
The spell-out of a string is assumed to be cyclic, but there is no consensus about how to implement this. Some analyses adopt an iterative spell-out algorithm, with spell-out applying after each application of Merge. Other analyses adopt an opportunistic algorithm, where spell-out applies only if it must. And yet others adopt a wait-til-the-end algorithm, with spell-out occurring only at the end of the derivation.

There is no consensus about the cyclicality of the Agree relation: it is sometimes treated as cyclic, sometimes as a-cyclic, and sometimes as counter-cyclic.

Implications

Connections to other models

Principles and parameters
From a theoretical standpoint, and in the context of generative grammar, the Minimalist Program is an outgrowth of the principles and parameters (P&P) model, considered to be the ultimate standard theoretical model that generative linguistics developed from the early 1980s through to the early 1990s. The Principles and Parameters model posits a fixed set of principles (held to be valid for all human languages) that — when combined with settings for a finite set of parameters — could describe the properties that characterize the language competence that a child eventually attains. One aim of the Minimalist Program is to ascertain how much of the Principles and Parameters model can be taken to result from the hypothethesized optimal and computationally efficient design of the human language faculty. In turn, some aspects of the  Principles and Parameters model provide technical tools and foundational concepts that inform the broad outlines of the Minimalist Program.

X-bar Theory
X-bar theory — first introduced in Chomsky (1970) and elaborated in Jackendoff (1977) among other works — was a major milestone in the history of the development of generative grammar. It contains the following postulates:
 Each phrase has a head (endocentric) and it projects to a larger phrase.
 Heads are feature complexes that consist of a primitive feature.
 The general X-bar schema in (1) is a property of Universal Grammar (UG):
 (1) X' → X...
     X″ → [Spec, X'] X'
In the chapter Phrase Structure of The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Naoki Fukui determined three kinds of syntactic relationships, (1) Dominance : the hierarchical categorization of the lexical items and constituents of the structure, (2) Labeling : the syntactic category of each constituent and (3) Linear order (or Precedence) : the left-to-right order of the constituents (essentially the existence of the X-bar schemata). Whereas X-bar theory was composed of the three relationships, bare phrase structure only encodes the first two relationships. Claims 1 and 2 have almost completely withstood their original forms through grammatical theory development, unlike Claim 3, which has not. Claim 1 will be eliminated later on in favour of projection-less nodes.

In 1980, the Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach took place which marked the emergence of different theories that stray from rule-based grammars/rules, and have instead been replaced with multiple segments of UG such as X-bar theory, Case theory, etc. During this time, PS rules disappeared because they have proved to be redundant since they recap what is in the lexicon. Transformational rules have survived with a few amendments to how they are expressed. For complex traditional rules, they do not need to be defined and they can be dwindled to a general schema called Move-α - which means things can be moved anywhere. The only two sub-theories that withstood time within P&P is X-bar theory and Move-α. Of the fundamental properties mentioned above, X-bar theory accounts for hierarchical structure and endocentricity, while Move-α accounts for unboundedness and non-local dependencies. A few years later, an effort was made to merge X-bar theory with Move-a by suggesting that structures are built from the bottom going up (using adjunction or substitution depending on the target structure):
 Features are discharged as soon as a head projects. This follows from the idea that phrases are endocentric (headed): the head is the obligatory component of a phrasal constituent and projects its essential features.
There is no X-bar schema, and no requirements for maximal projection to be specified as bar levels. This is a consequence of the claim that features discharged by projection of the head.
 At any given bar level, iteration is possible. This is based on the idea that phrase structure composition is infinite.
 Adjunction is responsible for movement and structure-building. This is based on the idea that transformational operations are fundamental.
 Projections are closed by agreement. This based on the idea that in some languages (Japanese), phrases do not close and elements can be added to keep expanding it. (This is not the case in English.)
X bar theory had a number of weaknesses and was replaced by Bare Phrase Structure, but some X-bar theory notions were borrowed by BPS. Labeling in Bar Phrase structure specifically was adapted from conventions of X-bar theory however, in order to get the "barest" phrase structures there are some dissimilarities. BPS differs from X-bar theory in the following ways:
 BPS is explicitly derivational. That is, it is built from the bottom up, bit by bit. In contrast, X-bar theory is representational—a structure for a given construction is built in one fell swoop, and lexical items are inserted into the structure.
 BPS does not have a preconceived phrasal structure, while in X-bar theory every phrase has a specifier, a head, and a complement.
 BPS permits only binary branching, while X-bar theory permits both binary and unary branching.
 BPS does not distinguish between a "head" and a "terminal", while some versions of X-bar theory require such a distinction.
 BPS incorporates features into their structure, such as Xmax and Xmin, while X-bar theory contains levels, such as XP, X', X
BPS accounts cross-linguistically as maximal projections can be perceived at an XP level or a X' level, whereas X-bar Theory only perceives XP as the maximal projection.

The main reasoning behind the transition from X-bar theory to BPS is the following:
 Eliminating the notion of non-branching domination
 Eliminating the necessity of bar-level projections
The examples below show the progression of syntax structure from X-bar theory (the theory preceding BPS), to specifier-less structure. BPS satisfies the principles of UG using at minimum two interfaces such as 'conceptual-intentional and sensorimotor systems' or a third condition not specific to language but still satisfying the conditions put forth by the interface.

Functionalism

In linguistics, there are differing approaches taken to explore the basis of language: two of these approaches are formalism and functionalism. It has been argued that the formalist approach can be characterized by the belief that rules governing syntax can be analyzed independently from things such as meaning and discourse. In other words, according to formalists, syntax is an independent system (referred to as the autonomy of syntax). By contrast, functionalists believe that syntax is determined largely by the communicative function that it serves. Therefore, syntax is not kept separate from things such as meaning and discourse.

Under functionalism, there is a belief that language evolved alongside other cognitive abilities, and that these cognitive abilities must be understood in order to understand language. In Chomsky's theories prior to MP, he had been interested exclusively in formalism, and had believed that language could be isolated from other cognitive abilities. However, with the introduction of MP, Chomsky considers aspects of cognition (e.g. the conceptual-intentional (CI) system and the sensory motor (SM) system) to be linked to language. Rather than arguing that syntax is a specialized model which excludes other systems, under MP, Chomsky considers the roles of cognition, production, and articulation in formulating language. Given that these cognitive systems are considered in an account of language under MP, it has been argued that in contrast to Chomsky's previous theories, MP is consistent with functionalism.

Dependency grammar
There is a trend in minimalism that shifts from constituency-based to dependency-based structures. Minimalism falls under the dependency grammar umbrella by virtue of adopting bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax.

 bare phrase structure: merge does away with non-branching nodes and bar levels, which are replaced by minimal projections (XMIN) and maximal projections (XMAX):
 a minimal projection does not dominate other lexical items or categories
 a maximal projection is unable to project any higher.
 label-less trees: to simplify phrase structures, Noam Chomsky argues that the labels of the category are unnecessary, and therefore do not need to be included, leading to what is now known as label-less trees. In lieu of a specific category in the projection, the lexical item that is classified as a head become its own label.
 specifier-less syntax: the generalization of Abney's (1987) DP hypothesis gives rise to the development of specifier-less syntax. Lexical items that would have been analyzed as a specifier in earlier versions of X-bar theory — e.g. Determiners were introduced in [Spec,N]; Auxiliaries were introduced in [Spec,V] — become the heads of their own phrases. For example, D introduces NP as a complement; T introduces VP as a complement.

First language (L1) acquisition
As discussed by Helen Goodluck and Nina Kazanin in their 2020 paper, certain aspects of the Minimalist Program provide insightful accounts for first language (L1) acquisition by children.

 Two-word stage: Merge is the operation where two syntactic elements are brought together and combined to form a constituent. The head of the pair determines the constituent's label, but the element that becomes the head depends on the language. English is a left-headed language, such that the element on the left is the head; Japanese is a right-headed language, such that the element on the right is the head. Merge (a critical operation in MP) can account for the patterns of word-combination, and more specifically word-order, observed in children's' first language acquisition. In first language acquisition, it has been observed that young children combine two words in ways that are consistent with either the head-initial or head-final pattern of the language they are learning. Children learning English produce "pivot" words (e.g. see) before "open" words (e.g. shoe), which is consistent with the head-initial pattern of English, whereas children learning Japanese produce "open" words before "pivot" words.
 Emergence of headed combinations: Within the minimalist program, Bare Phrase Structure, described in detail above, accounts for children's first language acquisition better than earlier theories of phrase structure building, such as X-Bar Theory. This is because, under Bare Phrase structure, children do not need to account for the intermediate layers of structure that appear in X-Bar Theory. The account of first language acquisition provided under Bare Phrase Structure is simpler than that provided under X-Bar Theory. In particular, children typically progress from (unordered) conjunctions to headed combinations. This trajectory can be modelled as a progression from symmetric Merge (where the output label output of the derived syntactic object is indeterminate) to asymmetric Merge (where the output label of the derived syntactic object is determinate; i.e. endocentric/headed).

Criticisms
In the late 1990s, David E. Johnson and Shalom Lappin published the first detailed critiques of Chomsky's minimalist program. This technical work was followed by a lively debate with proponents of minimalism on the scientific status of the program. The original article provoked several replies and two further rounds of replies and counter-replies in subsequent issues of the same journal.

Lappin et al. argue that the minimalist program is a radical departure from earlier Chomskyan linguistic practice that is not motivated by any new empirical discoveries, but rather by a general appeal to perfection, which is both empirically unmotivated and so vague as to be unfalsifiable. They compare the adoption of this paradigm by linguistic researchers to other historical paradigm shifts in natural sciences and conclude that of the minimalist program has been an "unscientific revolution", driven primarily by Chomsky's authority in linguistics. The several replies to the article in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Volume 18 number 4 (2000) make a number of different defenses of the minimalist program. Some claim that it is not in fact revolutionary or not in fact widely adopted, while others agree with Lappin and Johnson on these points, but defend the vagueness of its formulation as not problematic in light of its status as a research program rather than a theory (see above).

Prakash Mondal has published a book-length critique of the Minimalist model of grammar, arguing that there are a number of contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes within the formal structure of the system. In particular, his critique examines the consequences of adopting some rather innocuous and widespread assumptions or axioms about the nature of language as adopted in the Minimalist model of the language faculty.

Developments in the minimalist program have also been critiqued by Hubert Haider, who has argued that minimalist studies routinely fail to follow scientific rigour. In particular, data compatible with hypotheses are filed under confirmation whereas crucial counter-evidence is largely ignored or shielded off by making ad hoc auxiliary assumptions. Moreover, the supporting data are biased towards SVO languages and are often based on the linguist's introspection rather attempts to gather data in an unbiased manner by experimental means. Haider further refers to the appeal to an authority figure in the field, with dedicated followers taking the core premises of minimalism for granted as if they were established facts.

Further reading

Much research has been devoted to the study of the consequences that arise when minimalist questions are formulated. The lists below, which are not exhaustive, are given in reverse chronological order.

Works by Noam Chomsky

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG From Below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans Martin Gärtner, 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. "A minimalist program for linguistic theory". In Hale, Kenneth L. and S. Jay Keyser, eds. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1–52.

Works on minimalism and its applications

 Citko, Barbara and Martina Gračanin-Yuksek. 2020. Merge: Binarity in (Multidominant) Syntax.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Smith, Peter W., Johannes Mursell, and Katharina Hartmann (eds.) 2020. Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. Berlin: Language Science Press. ISBN 978-3-96110-214-3 (Digital). doi:10.5281/zenodo.3528036
Cipriani, Enrico. 2019. Semantics in Generative Grammar. A Critical Survey. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 42, 2, pp. 134–85 doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00033.cip
Stroik, Thomas. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Boeckx, Cedric (ed). 2006. Minimalist Essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Epstein, Samuel David, and Seely, T. Daniel (eds). 2002. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2001. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Martin, Roger, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds). 2000. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Epstein, Samuel David, and Hornstein, Norbert (eds). 1999. Working Minimalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
 Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. An Economy Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
 Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-Logical Form: a Radically Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Textbooks on minimalism
 Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press
 Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Bošković, Željko and Howard Lasnik (eds). 2006. Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
 Cook, Vivian J. and Newson, Mark. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
 Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 Lasnik, Howard, Juan Uriagereka, Cedric Boeckx. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell
 Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason. An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
 Webelhuth, Gert (ed.). 1995. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Wiley-Blackwell

See also
 Biolinguistics
 c-command
 Generative grammar
 Generative linguistics
 Government and binding theory
 Labels
 Merge
 Principles and parameters
 Transformational generative grammar
 X-bar theory

References

Syntactic theories
Generative syntax
Grammar frameworks
Noam Chomsky
Syntactic transformation

Minimalist program


Le Palais des López, aussi appelé Palais du gouvernement ou Palais présidentiel (en espagnol : Palacio de los López, Palacio de Gobierno ou Palacio Presidencial), est le bâtiment servant de siège à la présidence de la République du Paraguay et du pouvoir exécutif du gouvernement paraguayen. Il s'agit de l'un des bâtiments les plus emblématiques de la capitale paraguayenne, Asunción. Au niveau architectural, il est construit dans un style néoclassique avec une certaine influence palladienne.

Le palais est déclaré Trésor du patrimoine culturel matériel d'Asunción, à l'occasion de l'élection d'Asunción comme capitale américaine de la culture en 2009.

Riverain du fleuve Paraguay, le bâtiment se situe au centre de la ville, sis sur la rue Paraguayo Independiente, entre les rues Ayolas et O'Leary.

Histoire
Propriétaire du terrain où se trouve le palais par héritage, Francisco Solano López embauche, après avoir voyagé à travers l'Europe, plusieurs architectes, ingénieurs et autres techniciens, qui ont participé à la construction de différents édifices dans le pays. Il cherche alors à faire bâtir sa résidence privée, dont les plans sont, de l'avis de certains historiens, déjà réalisés avant son retour au Paraguay depuis l'Europe. La construction débute en 1857, alors que son père Carlos Antonio López est toujours au pouvoir.

Les matériaux pour la construction du palais proviennent de divers endroits au pays : des pierres des carrières d'Emboscada et d'Altos, du bois de Ñeembucú et Yaguarón, des briques de Tacumbú et des pièces de fonte d'Ybycuí, entre autres.

En 1867, époque de la guerre de la Triple-Alliance, le Palais des López était presque terminé, bien que les détails manquaient pour son achèvement. L'ornementation était constituée de statuettes de bronze, de meubles importés de Paris et de grands miroirs décorés pour les salons.

Le déclenchement de la guerre de la Triple Alliance force Solano López à quitter la capitale pour Ñeembucú. Il n'habite donc jamais dans son palais. En 1869, l'escouade brésilienne-argentine bombarde la ville et endommage le palais. Les forces alliées pillent le palais, dont les ornements et les meubles sont confisqués et emmenés au Brésil. Pendant les sept années que les Alliés occupent Asunción, le palais sert de quartier général aux forces brésiliennes. Après qu'ils l'aient abandonné, le bâtiment reste dans un état d'abandon durant plusieurs années.

C'est sous le gouvernement de Juan Gualberto González que débutent les travaux de restauration du palais, qui durent deux ans. Cependant, González est déposé par un coup d'État en 1894 et n'a pu jamais habiter le palais. Son successeur, Marcos Morínigo, ne tient pas au pouvoir très longtemps non plus et ne vit donc pas dans le bâtiment. Ce n'est qu'avec l'arrivée de Juan Bautista Egusquiza en 1894 que le Palais des López devient le siège du gouvernement. C'est aussi, jusqu'au milieu du XX siècle, la résidence du président de la République et de sa famille.

Jusqu'en 1949, le bureau du président se trouve au dernier étage de l'immeuble. Cette année-là, le président Felipe Molas López, éprouvant des difficultés à monter les escaliers, décide de déplacer le bureau au rez-de-chaussée. Au fil du temps, d'autres aménagements sont modifiés en fonction des besoins de l'administration gouvernementale. Tout au long de son règne de 35 ans, le général Alfredo Stroessner dirige le pays depuis ce bâtiment.

À l'heure actuelle, le palais est équipé d'un éclairage nocturne spectaculaire et sa couleur d'origine a été réinstallée, offrant une belle vue depuis le front fluvial d'Asunción.

Notes et références

Gouvernement du Paraguay
Monument au Paraguay
Paraguay

Palais des López


Die N590 war von 1933 bis 1973 eine französische Nationalstraße, die in zwei Teilen zwischen der N589 westlich vom Zentrum von Le Puy-en-Velay und Arpajon-sur-Cère verlief. Ihre Gesamtlänge betrug 169 Kilometer.

Weblinks
 Route nationale française auf WikiSara, eine Auflistung aller Nationalstraßen (französisch)

590

Route nationale 590


Nove Plavnice također znane i kao naselje Križevačka cesta prema glavnoj prometnici je četvrt, koja se nalazi u zapadnom dijelu grada Bjelovara. Četvrt se prostire istočno od naselja Klokočevac, južno od četvrti Hrgovljani, zapadno od riječice Plavnice te sjeverno od naselja Stare Plavnice.

Četvrt je pretežito stambene namjene s određenim komercionalnim objektima prostireni uz Križevačku cestu. Unutar četvrti također se nalazi župna crkva Sv. Ane.

Bjelovar

Nove Plavnice


El marquesado de Almarza es un título nobiliario español de carácter hereditario que fue concedido por real despacho el 22 de abril de 1686 por el rey Carlos II en favor de Gaspar de Guzmán y Anaya Toledo y Rengifo, diputado a Cortes, señor de Almarza en Soria, y II vizconde de Arauzo. Con la conceción del título, se canceló el vizcondado de Arauzo que había sido dado al padre del primer marqués, José de Guzmán Rengifo (m. Salamanca, 1686). Sobre el vizcondado de Arauzo, la rehabilitación fue solicitada por Esperanza de Aguilera y Pérez de Herrasti y Francisco de Aguilera y Pérez de Herrasti,  hijos del XVII marqués de Flores Dávila.
Tras la muerte sin sucesión del tercer marqués, el título pasó a manos del marquesado de Cerralbo, cuya dignidad gozan en la actualidad, y su archivo histórico se encuentra depositado en la Sección de Nobleza del Archivo Histórico Nacional.

Su denominación hace referencia al municipio de Almarza, en la provincia de Soria, en la comunidad autónoma de Castilla y León.

Titulares

Historia de los marqueses de Almarza
 Gaspar de Guzmán y Anaya Toledo y Rengifo, I marqués de Almarza, señor de Almarza, lugar que había pertenecido a los Rengifo, y  II vizconde de Arauzo.
 Le sucedió su hijo:

 Ignacio Antonio de Guzmán y Zúñiga Alarcón y Toledo (m. 1733), II marqués de Almarza y VII marqués de Flores Dávila.
 Le sucedió su tío:

 Juan Antonio  Bernabé de Guzmán y Anaya, III marqués de Almarza, VIII marqués de Flores Dávila y caballero de la orden de Santiago.
 Casó con Juana Dupuy, noble, natural de Cerdeña, sin descendencia. Le sucedió su sobrino nieto:

 Vicente de Moctezuma Nieto de Silva y Guzmán (Salamanca, ¿?-Madrid, 19 de mayo de 1752), IV marqués de Almarza, IX marqués de Cerralbo, V conde de Alba de Yeltes, y X marqués de Flores Dávila, hijo de Isabel María Nieto de Silva Pacheco y Guzmán, VIII marquesa de Cerralbo y de Francisco Moctezuma Torres Carvajal.
 Contrajo matrimonio con Antonia de Vera y Quiñones, sin descendencia. Le sucedió su hermana:

 María Manuela de Moctezuma Pacheco Nieto de Silva y Guzmán (c. 1722-Salamanca, 6 de junio de 1787), V marquesa de Almarza, VI condesa de Alba de Yeltes, X marquesa de Cerralbo, grande de España, XI marquesa de Flores Dávila, y condesa de Villalobos.
 Contrajo matrimonio con su primo hermano, Francisco Ventura de Orense Moctezuma, IV vizconde de Amaya, hijo de Juan Manuel Orense del Castillo, III vizconde de Amaya, y de María Isabel de Moctezuma, I marquesa de la Liseda. Sucedió su hijo:

 Francisco Ventura de Orense y Moctezuma (m. 1789), VI marqués de Almarza, XI marqués de Cerralbo, VIII conde de Villalobos y IV vizconde de Amaya.
 Casó el 4 de octubre de 1774, en Valencia, con María Luisa de la Cerda y Cernesio. Sin descendencia, Le sucedió su primo.

 Manuel Vicente de Aguilera y Moctezuma (Salamanca, 2 de junio de 1741-2 de noviembre de 1795), VII marqués de Almarza, IV conde de Casasola del Campo, XII marqués de Cerralbo, grande de España, IX conde de Villalobos, XII marqués de Flores Dávila, conde de Alba de Yeltes y caballero de la Orden de Carlos III.
 Casó en Madrid el 2 de febrero de 1760 con María Cayetana de Galarza y Brizuela (1741-1806), V condesa de Fuenrubia y III condesa de la Oliva de Gaytán, hija de Fernando José de Galarza y Suárez de Toledo, II conde la Oliva de Gaytán, y de María Manuela de Brizuela y Velasco, condesa de Foncalada y de Fuenrubia. Le sucedió su hijo:

 Manuel Isidoro de Aguilera Moctezuma-Pacheco y Galarza (1762-1802), VIII marqués de Almarza, V conde de Casasola del Campo, VII conde de Alba de Yeltes, IV conde de Fuenrubia, XIII marqués de Cerralbo, XIII marqués de Flores Dávila, X conde de Villalobos, VIII conde de Foncalada, caballero de la Orden de Montesa y sumiller de Corps del futuro rey Fernando VII.
 Casó el 22 de abril de 1780 con María Josefa Joaquina de Contreras y Vargas Machuca (Madrid, 27 de junio de 1765-Madrid, 3 de enero de 1826), VI marquesa de Campo Fuerte, VII condesa de Alcudia, grande de España y camarera de la reina María Josefa Amalia de Sajonia. Sucedió su hijo:

 Manuel de Aguilera y Contreras (Madrid, 1784-1807), IX marqués de Almarza, XII conde de Villalobos, XIV marqués de Cerralbo, grande de España. VI conde de Casasola del Campo y IX conde de Foncalada. Sin descendencia, sucedió su hermano.

 Fernando de Aguilera y Contreras (Madrid, 20 de agosto de 1784-Madrid, 2 de mayo de 1838), X marqués de Almarza, VII conde de Casasola del Campo, VII marqués de Campo Fuerte, VIII conde de Alba de Yeltes, VI conde de Fuenrubia, XV marqués de Cerralbo, VIII conde de Alcudia, XIV marqués de Flores Dávila, XIII conde de Villalobos, V conde de la Oliva de Gaytán, X conde de Foncalada, grande de España, embajador extraordinario en Sajonia (1819), presidente del Consejo de las Órdenes Militares, caballero de la Orden del Toisón de Oro, de la Orden de Alcántara, Gran Cruz de Carlos III y prócer del reino.
 El 26 de diciembre de 1807 casó en Madrid con María de las Angustias Fernández de Córdoba y Pacheco, hija de Manuel Antonio Fernández de Córdoba y Pimentel, VIII marqués de Mancera, grande de España de primera clase, marqués de Malpica, de marqués de Montalbo, y de Povar, y de María Teresa del Carmen Pacheco y Fernández de Velasco, V duquesa de Arión, grande de España. Sin descendencia, le sucedió su hermano:

 José de Aguilera y Contreras (Madrid, 23 de septiembre de 1787-Madrid, 25 de diciembre de 1872), XI marqués de Almarza, VIII conde de Casasola del Campo, VIII marqués de Campo Fuerte, IX conde de Alba de Yeltes, XVI marqués de Cerralbo, XV marqués de Flores Dávila, VII conde de Fuenrubia, VI conde de la Oliva del Gaytán, IX conde de Alcudia, XI conde de Foncalada, XIV conde de Villalobos, dos veces grande de España, alférez mayor de Burgos, Ciudad Rodrigo y Aranda de Duero, caballero veinticuatro de Salamanca y Granada y gentilhombre grande de España con ejercicio y servidumbre de la reina Isabel II de España.
 Contrajo matrimonio el 11 de abril de 1815, en Córdoba, con Francisca Valentina Becerril e Hinojosa. En 1875, le sucedió su nieto, hijo de  Francisco de Asís de Aguilera y Becerril (1817-1867), conde de Villalobos, y de Luisa de Gamboa y López:

 Enrique de Aguilera y Gamboa (Madrid, 8 de julio de 1845-Madrid, 27 de agosto de 1922), XII marqués de Almarza, XVII marqués de Cerralbo, IX marqués de Campo Fuerte, X conde de Alcudia, XII conde de Foncalada, XVI conde de Villalobos.  Fue miembro del partido carlista, coleccionista y arqueólogo.  A su muerte, legó su palacio y colecciones (actualmente, el Museo Cerralbo en Madrid) al Estado.
 Contrajo matrimonio con Inocencia Serrano y Cerver, sin descendencia.  Le sucedió su sobrino nieto en 1927:

 Manuel de Aguilera y Ligués (7 de marzo de 1904-1 de julio de 1977), XIII marqués de Almarza, XVIII marqués de Cerralbo, XII conde de Alcudia, dos veces grande de España y XVIII marqués de Flores Dávila. Era hijo de Manuel de Aguilera y Pérez de Herrasti, XVII marqués de Flores Dávila, y de su esposa Carmen de Ligués y Bález.
Sin descendencia, le sucedió su primo hermano en 1980.

 Fernando de Aguilera y Abárzuza (Jaén, 9 de junio de 1920-Madrid, 9 de junio de 1980), XIV marqués de Almarza, XI conde de Fuenrubia en 1950, XIX marqués de Cerralbo, y VI marqués de Cúllar de Baza. Era hijo de Fernando de Aguilera y Pérez de Herrasti, XII conde de Fuenrubia, y de su esposa María Teresa Abárzuza y Robles, marquesa de Cúllar de Baza.
 Contrajo matrimonio con Pilar Narváez y Coello de Portugal (n. Madrid, 29 de noviembre de 1925), hija de Luis Narváez de Ulloa, marqués de Oquendo, caballero de la orden de Alcántara y maestrante de Granada, y de Margarita Coello de Portugal y Bermúdez de Castro. Le sucedió su hijo en 1982:

 Fernando de Aguilera y Narváez (n. Madrid, 1 de enero de 1952), XV marqués de Almarza, XX marqués de Cerralbo, conde de Villalobos y VII marqués de Cúllar de Baza.
 Contrajo matrimonio en primeras nupcias el 9 de julio de 1979 con María Luisa Tovar y Gallego y en segundas en Madrid en 18 de mayo de 2002 con Dolores Cavero y Martínez de Campos, VI condesa de Santovenia, hija de Íñigo Cavero, barón de Carondelet, y de su esposa Belén Martínez de Campos y Carulla.

Referencias

Bibliografía

Almarza
Almarza
Marquesados creados por Carlos II

Marquesado de Almarza


Taguig (), officially the City of Taguig (), is a 1st class highly urbanized city in Metro Manila, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 886,722 people. Located in the northwestern shores of Laguna de Bay, the city is known for Bonifacio Global City, one of the leading financial centers of the Philippines. Originally a fishing village during the Spanish and American colonial periods, it experienced rapid growth when former military reservations were converted by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) into mixed-use planned communities. Taguig became a highly urbanized city with the passage of Republic Act No. 8487 in 2004.

The city is located in the southeastern portion of Metro Manila and bordered by Pasig and Pateros to the north,  Makati and Mandaluyong to the northwest, Pasay and Parañaque to the west, Taytay, Rizal to the northeast and Muntinlupa to the south.

Etymology
The original farmer-fishermen of the area, about 800 in number, were good at threshing rice after harvest. Hence, they were referred to as "mga taga-giik" (Tagalog for "rice thresher") and the settlement as "pook ng mga taga-giik" (). Spanish friar Fray Alonso de Alvarado, together with conquistador Ruy López de Villalobos who crossed the Pasig River to reach the city's present site in 1571, found "taga-giik" difficult to pronounce. "Tagui-ig" was later shortened to its current form "Taguig".

History

Early history
Before the Spaniards came, Taguig was a part of Namayan and Tondo ruled by Lakandula. There were also accounts that Chinese settlements were once present in the area as revealed by the recent archaeological diggings of various artifacts like cups, plates and other utensils, which bear Chinese characters. This was believed to have originated from China's Ming dynasty.

Spanish colonial era
Taguig was one of the earliest known territories to have been Christianized when the Spaniards succeeded in subjugating mainland Luzon through the Legazpi expedition in 1571. Between the years 1582 and 1583, Taguig was part of the encomienda of Tondo headed by an alcalde mayor, Captain Vergara. It was in 1587 when Taguig was established as a separate "pueblo" (town) of the then province of Tondo (later renamed Manila). Captain Juan Basi was its Kapitan from 1587 to 1588. According to records, Taguig had nine barrios then, namely: Bagumbayan, Bambang, Hagonoy, Palingon, Santa Ana, Tipas, Tuktukan, Ususan, and Wawa. Santa Ana was then the municipal center (poblacion) of Taguig. Records show that Tipas had once petitioned to become an independent town but was denied by the Spanish government.

During that time, Taguig was accessible via the Pasig River, which was connected to two large bodies of water, Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay. The population then was estimated to be 800 tributes. The town produced more than enough rice for consumption but had less sugar cane to mill. The men lived through fishing while women wove cotton cloth and "sawali" from bamboo strips. The people of Taguig were known to have resisted both Spanish and American colonial rule. During that early period of Spanish colonization. Don Juan Basi, "Kapitan" of Taguig from 1587 to 1588, took part in the Tondo Conspiracy, an attempt to overthrow the Spanish government which failed. Basi was exiled for two years as punishment. When the Katipunan was on its early years, many from Taguig became followers and later joined the uprising. The people of Taguig also joined the revolutionary government of General Emilio Aguinaldo on August 6, 1898.

American colonial era
During the American occupation, they struggled against the forces of General Wheaton under the command of General Pio del Pilar. It was recorded that on February 6, 1899, Filipino forces including Taguig "revolutionarios" dislodged an American position in the hills of Taguig, now a portion of Pateros and Fort Bonifacio. They were defeated eventually by the Americans with superiority in the armaments and training. Taguig finally fell to the contingent of the First Washington Volunteer Infantry led by Col. Wholly.

The defeat of the Filipinos after two years of struggle against the American forces subsequently subjected the Philippines to another system of governance. On August 14, 1898, United States occupied the islands and established a military government with General Wesley Meritt as the First Military Governor. He exercised legislative powers until September 1, 1900. At the start of American occupation, Taguig was proclaimed as an independent municipality with the promulgation of General Order No. 4 on March 29, 1900. The town was subsequently incorporated to the newly created province of Rizal when the Philippine Commission promulgated Act No. 137 on June 11, 1901. On October 12, 1903, Taguig, Muntinlupa and Pateros were merged by the virtue of Act. No. 942 with Pateros hosting the seat of the municipal government. The merger did not last long as a month later Muntinlupa was segregated from it and made part of Biñan when Act. No. 1008 was enacted on November 25, 1903. However, it was returned to Taguig on March 22, 1905, with the promulgation Act No. 1308. Eventually, Pateros separated from Taguig by January 1, 1909 and Muntinlupa was granted an independent municipality status on December 17, 1917.

It was also during the American Colonial Period that the United States government acquired a  property of Taguig for military purposes. This large piece of land, which had a TCT dated 1902, was turned into a camp that became known as Fort William McKinley, named after the 25th president of the U.S. who was responsible for the American colonization of the Philippines.

Japanese occupation
When the Japanese occupied the Philippines in 1942, Fort McKinley was taken over by the Japanese Imperial Army. They occupied the military camp until the end of World War II in 1945.

Philippine independence
After the Philippines gained its political independence from the United States on July 4, 1946, the US surrendered the Republic of the Philippines all right of possession, jurisdiction, supervision and control over the Philippine territory except the use of the military bases. On May 14, 1949, Fort William McKinley was turned over to the Philippine government by virtue of the US Embassy Note No. 0570. Fort McKinley was made the permanent headquarters of the Philippine Army in 1957 and was subsequently renamed Fort Bonifacio after the Father of the Philippine Revolution against Spain, Andres Bonifacio.

The Martial Law era
When Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under martial law in 1972, Taguig, which contained Fort Bonifacio, became the host of two detention centers full of political prisoners - the Maximum Security Unit where Senators Jose W. Diokno and Benigno Aquino Jr. were detained. and the Ipil Reception Center (sometimes called the Ipil Detention Center). A third facility, the Youth Rehabilitation Center (YRC), was still treated as part of Fort Bonifacio but was later turned into the Makati City Jail.  These detention centers became infamous for the numerous human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship, including warrantless detention and torture.

Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. and Senator Jose Diokno were Marcos' first martial law prisoners, arrested just before midnight on September 22, 1972, and at 1 AM on September 23, 1972, respectively. They were eventually imprisoned in Fort Bonifacio at the Maximum Security Unit separate from Ipil and YRC. They stayed there until Marcos moved them to an even higher security facility in Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva Ecija on March 12, 1973.

Ipil was the largest prison facility for political prisoners during martial law. Among the prisoners held there were some of the country's leading academics, creative writers, journalists, and historians including Butch Dalisay, Ricky Lee, Bienvenido Lumbera, Jo Ann Maglipon, Ninotchka Rosca, Zeus Salazar, and William Henry Scott. After Fort Bonifacio was privatized, the area in which Ipil was located became the area near S&R Membership Shopping and MC Home Depot, near 32nd Street and 8th Avenue in Bonifacio Global City.

In 1974, the name of the Taguig's political subdivisions was changed from "barrios" to "barangays" following the nationwide implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP) under Presidential Decree No. 557. The IRP increased Taguig's administrative divisions to 18 barangays, namely, Bagong Tanyag, Bagumbayan, Bambang, Calzada, Hagonoy, Ibayo-Tipas, Ligid-Tipas, Lower Bicutan, Maharlika, Napindan, Palingon, Signal Village, Santa Ana, Tuktukan, Upper Bicutan, Ususan, Wawa, and Western Bicutan.

On November 7, 1975, Taguig seceded from the province of Rizal to become part of the newly formed the National Capital Region through Presidential Decree No. 824.

Cityhood

In 1998, a law was enacted, pushing for the cityhood of Taguig. The resulting plebiscite on April 25 showed that the citizens were against the cityhood. A recent petition to the Supreme Court sought a recount of the plebiscite and on February 19, 2004, the Supreme Court ordered the Commission on Elections to conduct a recount. The recount showed that the residents did want the municipality of Taguig to become a city (21,105 'yes' and 19,460 'no'). Subsequently, Taguig became a city on December 8, 2004.

Contemporary history

In 2008, the City Council created 10 new barangays by virtue of City Ordinance Nos. 24–27, 57–61, 67–69, and 78, Series of 2008, carving them out from the initial 18 barangays. Hence, in December 2008, after a successful plebiscite, the numbers of barangays in the city increased from 10 to 28 barangays. The 10 newly created barangays were Central Bicutan, New Lower Bicutan, Fort Bonifacio, Katuparan, North Signal Village, South Signal Village, South Daanghari, North Daanghari, Pinagsama, San Miguel, and Tanyag.

In 2011, during 424th foundation day, Mayor Lani Cayetano takes pride in calling the city a "ProbinSyudad" because it is the only remaining city in Metro Manila which has the amenities of a highly urbanized city, yet has the feel and relaxing atmosphere of a province plus its people exude the values and etiquette of the provincial natives, what with its more than  of lakeshore, with farmers, fishermen, old churches, a historic lighthouse, and with people whose virtue of pagtutulungan is still very much alive.

A new, "state-of-the-art" 17-storey Taguig City Hall is currently being built in Barangay Ususan along Cayetano Boulevard. It will replace the current city hall in Barangay Tuktukan that was built in 1959 and was renovated thrice.

Taguig won the territorial dispute with Makati on April 2022, which was ruled with finality a year later on April 2023. The city will gain 10 barangays from Makati, adding an estimated 300,000 people to its population.

Geography

Taguig is located on the northwestern shores of Laguna de Bay, the largest lake in the Philippines. Taguig River, a tributary of the Pasig River, runs through the northern half of the city, while the Napindan River, another tributary of Pasig, forms the natural border between Taguig in Pasig. A relatively small area of the city called Ibayo Napindan is located north of the river, adjoining the disputed territories between Pasig, Taguig and Taytay in Rizal Province. The city has an area of . Considering its de jure territory that includes the Embo barangays previously from Makati, it borders Mandaluyong to the northwest as well and would have a total area of .

Barangays
The city is politically subdivided into 28 barangays: Bagumbayan, Bambang, Calzada, Central Bicutan, Central Signal Village, Fort Bonifacio, Hagonoy, Ibayo Tipas, Katuparan, Ligid Tipas, Lower Bicutan, Maharlika Village, Napindan, New Lower Bicutan, North Daang Hari, North Signal Village, Palingon Tipas, Pinagsama, San Miguel, Santa Ana, South Daang Hari, South Signal Village, Tanyag, Tuktukan, Ususan, Upper Bicutan, Wawa, and Western Bicutan. An additional 10 barangays are integrated within the city: Cembo, South Cembo, Comembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Pembo, Rizal, and Pitogo, while the status of Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside are still unclear as it overlaps the territory of Fort Bonifacio, all of which formerly forms the Embo areas and eastern Makati. However, Taguig is already exercising its jurisdiction with the offering of the city's programs and services over the affected areas. The status of barangays Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside from Makati are still unclear as they overlap barangays Fort Bonifacio, Pinagsama, Western Bicutan, and Ususan, respectively. The city is also divided into two legislative districts: the 1st district, which also includes the Municipality of Pateros for representation in the Congress, and 2nd district.

 Parts of Hagonoy became under the jurisdiction of a new barangay San Miguel
 Lower Bicutan was divided into two, the other one to be known as Barangay New Lower Bicutan
 Signal Village was divided into four barangays, Central Signal Village (originating barangay), Katuparan, North Signal Village, and South Signal Village.
 Bagong Tanyag was divided into three barangays, North Daang Hari, South Daang Hari, and Tanyag proper (originating barangay)
 Parts of Upper Bicutan became under the jurisdiction of a new barangay Central Bicutan
 Western Bicutan was divided into three barangays, Fort Bonifacio, Pinagsama and Western Bicutan (originating barangay)

Territorial disputes

Taguig, Makati and Pateros have fought over the jurisdiction of Fort Bonifacio and nearby places. In 2003, the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that Fort Bonifacio and Pinagsama Village belongs to Taguig. In 2011, the Pasig RTC also ruled that the Embo barangays (Cembo, South Cembo, East Rembo, West Rembo, Comembo, Pembo), as well as Rizal and Pitogo, are part of Taguig since they were formerly part of the military reservation. Pateros also claims the "embo" barangays, parts of Taguig and Fort Bonifacio, but the municipality's petition were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals stopped Taguig from exercising jurisdiction in the said areas in 2013. On 2017, the Court of Appeals upheld its final decision that Fort Bonifacio belongs to Taguig; it was later upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022. The Supreme Court junked the motion for reconsideration that was filed by the Makati city government to override the court's earlier decision, siding with Taguig a year later.

As a result of the ruling, the following Makati barangays are transferred to Taguig:

In addition, Taguig is also involved in a dispute with Pasig and Taytay, Rizal over a large area which covers Ibayo Napindan in Napindan, barangay Pinagbuhatan in Pasig, and Lupang Arendra area in Taytay.

Demographics

According to the 2020 census, the population of the city was 886,722 (excluding the Embo barangays that would be transferred to Taguig's de jure jurisdiction in 2023), making it the seventh most populous city in the Philippines, and the fourth most populous city in Luzon.

Should the Embo barangays be included in the population count of Taguig, the population of the city would be 1,223,595 as of the 2020 census. It would make it the fifth most populous city in the Philippines, surpassing Zamboanga City and Cebu City.

Housing

The city is known for being the location of Fort Bonifacio Tenement (FB Tenement or Tenement), which is known for its central basketball court known as Tenement Court which often serves as a medium for murals and exhibitions.

Climate
The climate of Taguig is characterized by two types of season: dry season from November to April, and wet season from May to October. Rainfall is less evenly distributed.

Economy

Taguig's center of trade and commerce are at the Bonifacio Global City, Uptown district, McKinley Hill and McKinley West, and Arca South, which replaced the old Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI) complex. The Philippine Stock Exchange main office and trading floor is located in Taguig.

Despite the rapid urbanization of Taguig, aquaculture and fishing still exist in the city as it is located by Laguna de Bay.

Government

Local government

Like other cities in the Philippines, Taguig is governed by a mayor and vice mayor who are elected to three-year terms. The mayor is the executive head and leads the city's departments in executing the city ordinances and improving public services. The city mayor is restricted to three consecutive terms, totaling nine years, although a mayor can be elected again after an interruption of one term. The vice mayor heads a legislative council consisting of 18 members: 8 councilors from the 1st district, 8 councilors from the 2nd district, the president of the Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Council) Federation as sectoral representative of the youth, and the president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) as barangay sectoral representative. The council is in charge of creating the city's policies in the form of ordinances and resolutions.

Seal of Taguig City

The current seal of Taguig, adopted in 2019, incorporates the colors of the Philippine flag; blue, red, white and yellow. The buildings symbolize the city's transformative growth and continued progress, the heart echoes the "I Love Taguig" motto, the sun represents bright future and warmth, the waves depict water and life, paying homage to the fishing livelihood of Taguigeños, and the rice grains describe the city's etymology (from taga-giik or rice thresher in Tagalog), the 28 grains represent the 28 barangays of Taguig at the time of its adoptation.

City officials

The incumbent mayor is Lani Cayetano. Arvin Alit, a former councilor, is the city's incumbent vice mayor. The current district representatives of the city are Ricardo "Ading" Cruz Jr. for 1st district and Amparo Maria "Pammy" Zamora for 2nd district.

Education

Taguig City is home to several prestigious international schools which provide international education to Metro Manila residents, such as the British School Manila, Everest Academy Manila, International School Manila, and Manila Japanese School, which are all located in the University Parkway of Bonifacio Global City. The Chinese International School Manila, Enderun Colleges, and Korean International School Philippines are in the nearby area of McKinley Hill, while The Beacon School is located along the nearby Chino Roces Avenue.

The Taguig City University is the prime university run and managed by the city. Established in 2004 through Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2004 (enacted September 6, 2004, Municipal Government of Taguig. The university main campus is located inside the Taguig City Hall of Justice Compound.

Other schools in Fort Bonifacio are the STI College Global City, Global City Innovative College, Leaders International Christian School of Manila (Christian-based curriculum), Victory Leadership Institute, and MGC-New Life Christian Academy.

Two of the top state universities are also in Taguig—the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, and the Technological University of the Philippines. Both universities are located within the city in Central Bicutan and Western Bicutan.

The University of Santo Tomas in 2015 offered an offsite Masters in Business Administration (MBA) class of its Graduate School at the PCCI Building at McKinley Hill. Also at McKiney Hill, De La Salle University also has a microcampus that houses the Dr. Andrew L. Tan Data Science Institute (ALTDSI) research group and Dr. Andrew L. Tan Data Center and Computing Facility since 2023.

In 2016, the University of the Philippines inaugurated its campus in Bonifacio Global City for its law programs. Following that year in 2017, the De La Salle University opened its Rufino Campus at Bonifacio Global City's University Parkway Drive that is the new home to its College of Law.

Enderun Colleges, an affiliate of Les Roches International School of Hotel Management-Switzerland is an undergraduate college and management school in the Philippines that offers a full range of bachelor's degree and non-degree courses in the fields of international hospitality management and business administration. Likewise, the Meridian International College (MINT), a tertiary educational institution of arts, business and technology are both located in McKinley Hill, Barangay Pinagsama, Taguig City.

Taguig City University, the city's local state university located in Central Bicutan, began operations in November 2006.

The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) was established through the enactment of "Technical Education and Skills Development Act of 1994", which was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos. This Act aims to encourage the full participation of and mobilize the industry, labor, local government units, and technical-vocational institutions in the skills development of the country's human resource. The TESDA complex and facilities are located at the East Service Road of the South Luzon Expressway in Taguig.

The Philippine Public Safety College in Fort Bonifacio is an educational institution offering undergraduate and graduate programs for the training, human resource development, and continuing education of police, fire and jail personnel.

Taguig has two Islamic educational institutions located in Maharlika Village—the Maharlika Bandara-Inged Integrated School and the Maharlika Village Islamic Madrasa.

Other notable schools in Taguig include the city's Science High Schools Taguig Science High School in Barangay San Miguel, Senator Renato "Compañero" Cayetano Memorial Science and Technology High School in Ususan, Taguig National High School, a state-owned secondary institution in New Lower Bicutan, Western Bicutan National High School, a public national high school situated in both Bareangays Western Bicutan and Pinagsama, the Catholic Church-owned Colegio de Santa Ana (formerly Santa Ana Parochial School), The Fisher Valley College, a Christian school in Hagonoy and Pinagsama and Saint Francis of Assisi College System, a Catholic school in Bagumbayan.

In addition, the University of Makati, which is owned and operated by the City Government of Makati and is situated in Barangay West Rembo, is in the territory of Taguig by virtue of the Supreme Court decision transferring the former Embo barangays of Makati to Taguig. 13 other public schools of Makati are also located in such area.

Taguig is set to become the new "university city" of Metro Manila as new campuses of University of the Philippines Professional Schools and De La Salle University are located in Bonifacio Global City.

Notable personalities

Dante Tiñga, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Daryl Borja Ruiz, also known as Skusta Clee, ExB rapper, singer-songwriter
Rene Cayetano, former Senator
Felix Y. Manalo, Iglesia Ni Cristo Preacher
Lino Cayetano, TV/movie director, former Congressman, Mayor
Jamalul Kiram III, claimant to throne of Sultanate of Sulu
Ervic Vijandre, actor
Precious Lara Quigaman, actress and Miss International 2005 titleholder
Lance Lucido, Filipino child actor
Rene Facunla Humpshire a.k.a. Ate Glow, Filipino Actor/Commediane/Impersonator
Lucita Soriano, actress
Laureana Franco, humanitarian, catechist and sainthood candidate

Groups
Taguig Renegade Drum and Lyre Corps, 3-time National Drum and Lyre champion

International relations

Diplomatic missions
Countries that have set up permanent missions or offices in the city include:

Sister cities

Asia

  Bacolod, Negros Occidental
  Goyang, South Korea
  Himamaylan, Negros Occidental
  Iloilo City, Iloilo
  Tabaco, Albay
  Vigan, Ilocos Sur

Australia

  Blacktown, Australia

Notes

References

External links

Official Website of Taguig City
 [ Philippine Standard Geographic Code]
Think Big Taguig - Official Lifestyle Website
Official Facebook page of City of Taguig
Taguig City General Information

Cities in Metro Manila
Populated places established in 1587
1587 establishments in the Philippines
Populated places on the Pasig River
Populated places on Laguna de Bay
Highly urbanized cities in the Philippines

Taguig


An Carex salina in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Göran Wahlenberg. An Carex salina in nahilalakip ha genus nga Carex, ngan familia nga Cyperaceae.

Subspecies

Ini nga species ginbahin ha masunod nga subspecies:

 C. s. pseudofilipendula
 C. s. salina

Mga kasarigan

Carex

Carex salina


Despot je prezime poznate hrvatske obitelji podrijetlom iz Zaostroga. Stariju povijest ove obitelji kroz rodoslovlje možemo promatrati do početka druge polovice 18. st. kada se spominje Pavao Despot 1756. godine.

Obitelj su obilježila tri značajna hrvatska pjesnika i intelektualca kroz tri zasebne generacije. Oni su fra Ivan Despot, Ilija Despot i Pavao Despot.

Izvori

Hrvatska prezimena

Despot (prezime)


L'attentat à la bombe de Kaspiisk de 1996 est survenu le  lorsque des terroristes tchétchènes ont fait exploser un immeuble à Kaspiisk, au Daghestan, en Russie, tuant 68 personnes.

Attentat
L'attentat a détruit un immeuble d'appartements de neuf étages, faisant 68 morts, dont 21 enfants. La cible de l'attentat est soupçonnée d'être les gardes-frontières russes qui vivaient à l'intérieur avec leurs familles.

Selon le commandant des garde-frontières de la région du Caucase, au moins deux bombes contenant plus de 25 kilos de TNT ont été utilisées pour faire exploser le bâtiment ou habitait 130 personnes.

Les responsables n'ont jamais été identifiés.

Réactions
Boris Eltsine a décrété une journée de deuil national en réponse à l'attentat.

Notes et références

Novembre 1996
1996 en Russie
Terrorisme en 1996
Attentat en Russie
Histoire du Daghestan
Explosion en 1996

Attentat à la bombe de Kaspiisk de 1996


Okazionalizam je filozofska teorija o uzročnosti koja kaže da stvorene tvari ne mogu biti učinkoviti uzroci događaja. Umjesto toga, uzima se da je sve događaje izravno izazvao Bog. (Srodna teorija, koja se naziva "povremenom uzročno-posljedičnom povezanošću", također poriče vezu učinkovite uzročno-posljedične veze između svjetovnih događaja, ali se može razlikovati u pogledu identiteta istinskog uzroka koji ih zamjenjuje.) Teorija kaže da iluzija učinkovite uzročnosti između svjetovnih događaja proizlazi iz Božjeg uzrokovanja jednog događaja za drugim. Međutim, ne postoji potrebna veza između njih dvoje: nije da prvi događaj uzrokuje da Bog uzrokuje drugi događaj: nego Bog prvo uzrokuje jedan, a zatim uzrokuje drugi.

Autor ove teorije je Nicolasa Malebranche. Po njemu, dok su um i tijelo različite supstance, uzroci (mentalni ili fizikalni) su povezani sa svojim učincima činom Božje intervencije na svaku posebni događaj.

Izvori

Filozofija

Okazionalizam


Zawedde "Zawe" Ashton (Hackney, Londres; 25 de julio de 1984) es una actriz y dramaturga británica. Es más conocida por interpretar a Imani en Gone Too Far! y a Bianca en St. Trinian's 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold.

Primeros años
Ashton asistió a la Escuela de Teatro Anna Scher y al National Youth Theatre, graduándose finalmente de la escuela de teatro de la Universidad Metropolitana de Mánchester.

Carrera

Como actriz
Ashton comenzó a actuar a la edad de seis años. Sus trabajos televisivos incluyen las series Holby City, EastEnders, The Bill, NCS: Manhunt, Casualty, The Crust y Misfits. Sus créditos teatrales incluyen Rhinoceros, The Arsonists, Gone Too Far! (Royal Court), Othello (Globe Theatre) y La Jaula (con la Nuffield Theatre Company, de Southampton).

En 2011, interpretó a Elizabeth Falls en el film Blitz y más tarde apareció en la cinta St. Trinian's II: The Legend of Fritton's Gold.

En mayo de 2010, fue reconocida como uno de los 55 rostros del futuro por la revista Nylon.

En 2011 comenzó a trabajar en la comedia televisiva Fresh Meat, interpretando el rol de Vod.

Ashton protagonizó el film Dreams of a Life, lanzado en el Reino Unido el 16 de diciembre de 2011.

Como escritora
Ashton comenzó a participar en la poesía slam a la edad de diecisiete años, y ganó el campeonato London Poetry Slam Championship de Londres en el año 2000. Durante el año 2006, fue escritora residente en el Contact Theatre en Mánchester. Su primera obra, Harm's Way, fue nominada para el Premio Verity Bargate en 2007, y se estrenó en The Lowry en 2008 como parte de la nueva temporada de escritura del National Youth Theatre. Más adelante, trabajó para el Bush Theatre y para la Compañía de Teatro Clean Break.

Ashton fue nombrada como una de las estrellas de la pantalla internacional del mañana en el año 2009.

Vida privada

Desde 2019 mantiene una relación con el actor Tom Hiddleston. Se comprometieron en marzo de 2022. En junio de 2022 se hizo público que iban a ser padres. En octubre de 2022 se confirmó el nacimiento de su primer hijo, un niño.

Filmografía

Televisión

Cine

Referencias

Enlaces externos

Dramaturgas de Inglaterra
Dramaturgos de Inglaterra del siglo XXI
Escritoras de Inglaterra
Actrices de cine de Inglaterra
Actrices infantiles de Inglaterra
Actrices de televisión de Inglaterra
Actrices de Londres
Alumnado de la Universidad Metropolitana de Mánchester
Inglesas del siglo XXI

Zawe Ashton


Sami Khedira (fæddur 4. apríl 1987) er þýskur fyrrum knattspyrnumaður. Hann var hluti af heimsmeistaraliði Þjóðverja á HM 2014.

Titlar
Stuttgart
Bundesliga: 2006-07
Real Madrid
La Liga: 2011-12
Spænski Konungsbikarinn (Copa del Rey):  2010–11, 2013–14
Meistaradeild Evrópu:2013-14
Evrópski ofurbikarinn: 2014
HM Félagsliða: 2014
Juventus
Serie A: 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20
Coppa Italia: 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18
Supercoppa Italiana:: 2018

Þýskaland: Gull, HM 2014

Tenglar
https://www.sami-khedira.com/
https://www.fussballdaten.de/person/sami-khedira/

Þýskir knattspyrnumenn

Sami Khedira


John Héctor Worden (4 de febrero de 1885 - 6 de mayo de 1916) fue el primer piloto aviador descendiente de nativos norte-americanos y mercenario en la Revolución Mexicana.

Biografía
Fue el primer piloto que contrató el gobierno mexicano para volar en misiones de reconocimiento y bombardeo para el ejército. Worden era descendiente de los indios cherokees, nació en White Plains, New York, el 4 de febrero de 1885, estudió en una escuela para indios en Carlysle, Pensilvania. En un viaje que hizo a Francia en la primavera de 1911, se enroló en la escuela de aviación Blériot en Pau, Francia. Después que estrelló un avión dejó la escuela si haber obtenido su licencia, por no poder pagar los daños del avión. Al fin el 14 de noviembre de 1911 obtuvo su licencia de piloto. A su regreso a los Estados Unidos ingresó en el equipo de la Moisant Internacional Aviatiors, de los hermanos Alfredo y Juan Moisant. Esta empresa tenía un circo aéreo que viajaba por todo el país, y una escuela de pilotos en Long Island, Nueva York.

Al año siguiente, Worden fue comisionado por la Mosaint, para llevar 2 de los 6 aviones, comprados por el gobierno mexicano, que pasaron a formar parte de la división del Norte al mando del general Victoriano Huerta, en su campaña contra Orozco. El 31 de julio de 1912 llegaron a Torreón, John Héctor Worden y el piloto Francisco Álvarez, junto dos aeroplanos Moissant - Blériot, para ser utilizados para la campaña contra los orozquistas.

Los aviones que llegaron a Torreón de los Estados Unidos en ferrocarril, eran monoplanos, versión americana del Blériot XI, con pequeñas diferencias con respecto al original. Con una longitud de 8 metros, el fuselaje del Blériot XI estaba construido con madera de roble y cuerdas de piano.

El 1 de agosto se efectuaron en Torreón las primeras pruebas de los aeroplanos, uno de los aparatos, que tenía una fuerza de cincuenta caballos, fue pilotado J. H. Worden, pero las pruebas no dieron buenos resultados. Las maniobras se efectuaron en las primeras horas de la mañana, buscando el mejor ambiente, pero el primer intento el aparato se elevó alrededor de doce metros, por espacio de tres minutos, para recorrer dos kilómetros y caer al suelo. Se dijo que el "aterrizaje" fue intencional pero que el terreno en que se hizo resultó inapropiado para ello. Pasados algunos minutos se emprendió otro vuelo casi al ras del suelo y el aparato cayó de frente, hundiéndose la hélice en la tierra.

Dos días más tarde, después de laboriosos preparativos llevadas a cabo por la dirección del capitán de ingenieros Osorio Mondragón, se efectuaron con éxito las pruebas de aviación. Del parque Atlético entre Torreón y Gómez Palacio, a las 6:30 a.m. Héctor Worden, pilotando un avión Blériot XI, realizó un vuelo de treinta y un minutos. Se elevó a 1 200 pies e hizo evoluciones que le valieron aplausos. Después el piloto Francisco Álvarez intento subir, viéndose precisado a "aterrizar" aproximadamente a cuarenta metros del punto de partida, por una racha de viento. La comisión militar encargada por el gobierno para recibir los aparatos se retiró satisfecha.

El domingo 4 de agosto se realizaron otras pruebas de vuelo, gran parte de la población lagunera se reunió en el Parque Atlético de Gómez Palacio, para ver las pruebas de aviación que se llevarían a cabo. Toda la mañana los tranvías eléctricos que unían a Torreón, Gómez Palacio y Lerdo estuvieron transportando personas al parque. Allí los aviadores Héctor Worden, y Francisco Álvarez, hicieron pruebas para ver si dichos aparatos serían de utilidad para hacer los servicios de exploración en los campos donde operaban las fuerzas rebeldes, objetivos para el que fueron adquiridos.

El capitán Vázquez Shafino, ayudante del presidente de la república que vino expresamente a presenciar las pruebas, quedó muy satisfecho de las maniobras que efectuaron los aviadores, al hacer una evolución, tropezó con los cables del tranvía y el aparato se vino a tierra. El piloto salió indemne del accidente pero las encontradas corrientes de aire motivaron la suspensión del ejercicio.

Cuando Worden regresó a los Estados Unidos publicó un artículo en la revista "Aircraft" sobre la aplicación del avión en las acciones militares. En dicho relato, publicado en 1912, Worden se muestra sumamente complaciente y no hace referencias de carácter personal, al margen de que ésta fuera muy pobre, pero sí enumera una serie de posibilidades enfatizando el hecho de que sus apreciaciones provienen de haber participado en una guerra de verdad.

Pronosticó que el avión terminaría siendo un arma de primer orden por reunir una serie de grandes ventajas si se le sabía sacar provecho. Pone ejemplos prácticos para cada una de esas aplicaciones y asegura que el ataque en Rellanos (lanzamiento de una locomotora cargada de dinamita contra un tren federal) no hubiera tenido éxito de haberse contado con la ayuda de un aeroplano de observación que hubiera ido delante del tren militar. Worden termina su relato así: "La opinión absoluta del autor es que en el futuro el aeroplano no sólo será un valioso bien para un ejército, sino una necesidad absoluta".

En los Estados Unidos, Worden continuó volando y el 5 de mayo de 1916, durante una exhibición en una feria regional en Texas, sufrió un ataque cardíaco a dos mil pies de altura y murió antes de llegar al suelo. Aunque la máquina quedó desecha, los controles estaban intactos y el examen médico reveló que su muerte no había sido a consecuencia del golpe.

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Air Warfare: an International Encyclopedia: M-Z eBook.

 LA FUERZA AÉREA MEXICANA Y SU ORIGEN EN LA REGIÓN LAGUNERA

 Batallas en el Desierto

 John H. Worden Early Aviators

Nacidos en el estado de Nueva York
Aviadores de México
Militares de la Revolución mexicana
Fallecidos en Texas

John Héctor Worden