In this chapter, we have used a system of category labels based on the bar notation which has been

widely adopted since the 1970s. Within this framework, a sentence like I will survive has the structure
below

The bar notation used in (66) posits that there are three different levels of projection:
(i) heads (also called minimal projections) like the T/tense auxiliary will; (ii) intermediate
projections like the T-bar will survive; and (iii) maximal projections like the TP I will survive.
According to Chomsky (1999, p. 2), however, this system violates the inclusiveness condition, a UG
principle.
Inclusiveness Condition
No new information can be introduced in the course of the syntactic
computation

When the word will is taken out of the lexicon, its lexical entry specifies that it has a set of properties
which include the grammatical properties represented by the category label T in . But the tree in tells
us that when will is merged with its complement survive, the resulting string will survive belongs to
the category T-bar – in other words, it is an intermediate projection of will.

Likewise, the tree also tells us that the larger string I will survive is a TP. In other words, it is the
maximal projection of will. But this information about intermediate and maximal projections is not
part of the lexical entry for will, and hence must be added in the course of the syntactic computation.

One way to avoid the violation is this principle is through the removal of all information regarding
projection levels from trees, resulting in a structure like this
What our revised tree says is that will, will survive and I will survive are all projections of the tense
auxiliary will and hence are all tense expressions.

Simply by looking at the positions they occupy in the tree, we can tell that will is the minimal
projection of will, that will survive is an intermediate projection of will and that I will survive is the
maximal projection of will.
Since the information about projection levels in the bar notation is redundant, Chomsky reasons, such
information should not be represented in the system of category labels used in tree diagrams: after all,
the goal of Minimalism is to reduce theoretical apparatus to the minimum which is conceptually
necessary.
If it turns out that categorial information, like information about what kind of thing an item is, can be
expressed in terms of grammatical features, then a second possibility is that category labels like those
in can be completely replaced by sets of features, opening up the possibility of developing a theory of
bare phrase structure.

of I will survive to be represented in terms of an unlabelled tree diagram like

the one below
However, we will still use traditional labelled trees and the bar notation to show how things are put
together.