Extended projection principle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:13, 14 May 2011

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is a linguistic hypothesis about the obligatoriness of subjects. It was proposed by Noam Chomsky as an addendum to the Projection principle (which it has outlived significantly).^[1] The basic idea of the EPP is that clauses must contain an NP in the subject position (i.e. in the specifier of TP or IP, or in the specifier of VP in languages in which subjects don't raise to TP/IP such as Welsh).

Most verbs require meaningful subjects -- for example, "kick" in "Tom kicked the ball" takes the subject "Tom". However, other verbs do not require (and in fact, do not permit) meaningful subjects -- for example, one can say "it rains" but not "the sky rains". The EPP states that regardless of whether the main predicate assigns a meaningful theta role to a subject, a subject must be present syntactically. As a result, verbs which do not assign external theta roles will appear with subjects that are either dummy pronouns (e.g. expletive "it," "there"), or ones which have been moved into subject position from a lower position (e.g. subject of an embedded clause).

Examples which have been proposed to be the result of expletive subject insertion in accordance with the EPP:

It seemed that John would never calm down.
It ( rains | snows | hails | etc. ) frequently in Quebec.
There seems to be a problem with the radiator.

Notice that in all of these the overt subject has no referential reading.

In languages that allow pro-drop (such as Spanish or Italian), the empty category PRO can fulfill the requirement of the EPP.

McCloskey (1996) proposed that there is one group of languages that lacks the EPP: the VSO languages (like Irish), which appear not only to lack expletives, but also to lack movement operations triggered by the EPP.^[2]

In his dialogue De ente, Plato states that there cannot be a sentence without a noun [subject] and a verb. Aristotle teaches the same in Peri hermeneias 2: 'Thus, a verb without a subject will mean nothing'. -El Brocense, 1587. This is an early formulation of Chomsky's Extended Projection Principle.^{[dubious – discuss]}

References

^ Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. MIT Press. p. 10.
^ McCloskey, James (1996). "Subjects and subject positions in Irish." In Robert D. Borsley and Ian G. Roberts (eds.), The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective, pp. 241-283. Cambridge University Press.

[1] Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. MIT Press. p. 10.

[2] McCloskey, James (1996). "Subjects and subject positions in Irish." In Robert D. Borsley and Ian G. Roberts (eds.), The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective, pp. 241-283. Cambridge University Press.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+The '''Extended Projection Principle''' (EPP) is a  [[Linguistics|linguistic]] hypothesis about the obligatoriness of subjects.  It was proposed by [[Noam Chomsky]] as an addendum to the [[Projection principle]] (which it has outlived significantly).<ref>{{cite book
-{{Unreferenced|date=December 2009}}
+| last       = Chomsky
-The '''Extended Projection Principle''' (EPP) is a  [[Linguistics|linguistic]] hypothesis about the obligatoriness of subjects.  It was proposed by [[Noam Chomsky]] as an addendum to the [[Projection principle]] (which it has outlived significantly) in his book "Lectures on Government and Binding".  The basic idea of the EPP is that, in the languages in which the EPP is operative, clauses must contain an NP in the subject position (i.e. in the specifier of TP or IP, or in SpecVP in languages in which subjects don't raise to TP/IP such as Welsh).
+| first      = Noam
+| authorlink = Noam Chomsky
+| title     = Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding
+| year      = 1982
+| publisher = MIT Press
+| page      = 10
+}}</ref>  The basic idea of the EPP is that clauses must contain an [[noun phrase|NP]] in the subject position (i.e. in the [[specifier]] of [[tense phrase|TP]] or [[inflectional phrase|IP]], or in the specifier of [[verb phrase|VP]] in languages in which subjects don't raise to TP/IP such as [[Welsh language|Welsh]]).
+Most verbs require meaningful subjects -- for example, "kick" in "Tom kicked the ball" takes the subject "Tom".  However, other verbs do not require (and in fact, do not permit) meaningful subjects -- for example, one can say "it rains" but not "the sky rains".  The EPP states that regardless of whether the main predicate assigns a meaningful [[theta role]] to a subject, a subject must be present syntactically.  As a result, verbs which do not assign external theta roles will appear with subjects that are either [[dummy pronoun]]s (e.g. expletive "it," "there"), or ones which have been moved into subject position from a lower position (e.g. subject of an embedded clause).
-The EPP has been used extensively to describe sentences where the phonetic subject is a [[dummy pronoun]] like "it" or "there."  These words are often inserted into subject position when the main verb (or other predicate) of the sentence doesn't assign an "external" (i.e. subject position) [[theta role]].  Although they are vastly outnumbered by verbs which require meaningful subjects (cf. "kick" in "Tom kicked the ball"), many verbs do not.
+Examples which have been proposed to be the result of expletive subject insertion in accordance with the EPP:
-The EPP states that no matter whether the main predicate assigns a meaningful [[Theta role]] to a subject, a subject must be present nonetheless.  As a result, verbs which do not assign external theta roles will appear with subjects that are either meaningless (e.g. expletive "it," "there"), or ones which have been moved into subject position from a lower position (e.g. subject of an embedded clause).
-Examples which have been said to be the result of expletive subject insertion by the EPP:
 #It seemed that John would never calm down.
@@ Line 12: / Line 17: @@
 #There seems to be a problem with the radiator.
-Notice that in all of these the overt subject has no "referential" reading.  This is not the case with the instances of "it" and "there" in examples 1-2 (below), in which the main verb assigns an external theta role:
+Notice that in all of these the overt subject has no ''referential'' reading.
+In languages that allow [[pro-drop]] (such as Spanish or Italian), the empty category [[PRO_(linguistics)|PRO]] can fulfill the requirement of the EPP.
-#I went to pick my car up, but the mechanic said that '''it''' wasn't ready.
-#'''There''' would be a nice place to put the Rembrandt (said while pointing to a spot on the wall).
+McCloskey (1996) proposed that there is one group of languages that lacks the EPP: the [[Verb Subject Object|VSO]] languages (like Irish), which appear not only to lack expletives, but also to lack movement operations triggered by the EPP.<ref>McCloskey, James (1996).  "Subjects and subject positions in Irish."  In Robert D. Borsley and Ian G. Roberts (eds.), ''The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective'', pp. 241-283.  Cambridge University Press.</ref>
-In his dialogue ''De ente'', Plato states that there cannot be a sentence without a noun [subject] and a verb. [...] Aristotle teaches the same in ''Peri hermeneias 2'' : 'Thus, a verb without a subject will mean nothing'." -El Brocense, 1587. This is an early formulation of Chomsky's Extended Projection Principle.
+In his dialogue ''De ente'', Plato states that there cannot be a sentence without a noun [subject] and a verb.  Aristotle teaches the same in ''Peri hermeneias 2'': 'Thus, a verb without a subject will mean nothing'. -El Brocense, 1587. This is an early formulation of Chomsky's Extended Projection Principle.{{Dubious}}
-In languages that allow [[pro-drop]] (such as Spanish or Italian), the empty category [[PRO_(linguistics)|pro]] can fulfill the requirement of the EPP.
+==References==
-McCloskey (1996) proposed that there is one group of languages that lacks the EPP; the VSO languages (like Irish), which appear to not only lack expletives, but lack movement operations triggered by the EPP.
+{{Reflist}}
 [[Category:Linguistics]]