Scribd
Upload
3K views2 pages

Projection Principle

The Projection Principle proposed by Noam Chomsky stipulates that the syntactic properties of phrases must be projected from the lexical properties of the words that comprise them. For example, the verb "strangle" requires a direct object, so the sentence "Fabio strangled" would be ill-formed according to this principle. The Extended Projection Principle further specifies that clauses must contain a subject, even if the verb does not assign a theta role to it, to account for sentences with expletive subjects like "it rains". Together, these principles link syntactic structure to lexical properties without requiring separate phrase structure rules.

Uploaded by

Rozi Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
3K views2 pages

Projection Principle

The Projection Principle proposed by Noam Chomsky stipulates that the syntactic properties of phrases must be projected from the lexical properties of the words that comprise them. For example, the verb "strangle" requires a direct object, so the sentence "Fabio strangled" would be ill-formed according to this principle. The Extended Projection Principle further specifies that clauses must contain a subject, even if the verb does not assign a theta role to it, to account for sentences with expletive subjects like "it rains". Together, these principles link syntactic structure to lexical properties without requiring separate phrase structure rules.

Uploaded by

Rozi Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Projection Principle

The Projection Principle is a stipulation proposed by Noam Chomsky as part of the Phrase
Structure Component of Generative-Transformational Grammar. The projection principle is used in
the derivation of phrases under the auspices of the Principles and Parameters theory. Under the
Projection Principle, the properties of lexical items must be preserved while generating the phrase
structure of a sentence. The Principle, as formulated by Chomsky in Knowledge of Language: Its
Nature, Origin and Use (1986), states that "lexical structure must be represented categorically at
every syntactic level" (Chomsky 1986: 84). Chomsky further defined the projection principle as
"representations at each level of syntax (MF, D, S) are projected from the lexicon in that they
observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items." For example, the verb strangle, apart from
the subject, has an obligatory argument, its object, which must appear in the sentence. The
following subcategorization frame for the verb strangle specifies its properties; the underlined gap for
the location of the verb is followed by the noun phrase (NP):
strangle Verb, [__ NP]
It is out of this frame that a sentence like the following can be generated:
Fabio strangled Prince Jamal.
A sentence without the object, in violation of the verb's subcategorization frame and the
Projection Principle, would be ill-formed:
Fabio strangled.

Before the Projection Principle was proposed, phrase structures were generated in separation from
the properties of lexical entries. These were hypothesized to enter the slots in pre-generated
structures waiting to be filled by the lexical material. According to more recent theories, phrase
structures are not generated by phrase structure rules, but are 'projected' from the lexical entries.
The Projection Principle therefore obviates the need for phrase structure rules in the generative
component.

Extended Projection Principle


The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is a linguistic hypothesis about the subjects. It was
proposed by Noam as an addendum to the Projection principle.[1] The basic idea of the EPP is that
clauses must contain a NP or DP 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 subjectsfor 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 which comes after the verbs like
seem, appear etc. ).
Examples which have been proposed to be the result of expletive subject insertion in accordance
with the EPP:
1. It seemed that John would never calm down.
2. It (rains | snows | hails | etc.) frequently in Quebec.

3. 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 (not to be
confused with Big 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.

You might also like