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.

Details

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 subcategorisation 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.

In 1982, Noam Chomsky proposed the extended projection principle as an addendum to the projection principle.^[1]

Locality of Selection

Locality of Selection states that properties of lexical items must be satisfied locally within their domain (Sportiche 2014: 147). The local domain is characterized by being the smallest XP with a subject (WP).

In a local domain there are three main levels. The head (X) of the local domain is at the bottom which projects up to and X bar level (X') and then to the phrasal level (XP). Each head can select for a complement. The X bar level can select for a specifier and the XP level can select for an adjunct. This makes up the basic structure of a local domain.

This generic syntax tree is a good representation of a local domain.

ZP is a complement/sister to the head X.
WP is a specifier to X’
YP is an adjunct to XP

Another important thing to keep in mind when looking at locality of selection is the language which is being analyzed. X-bar theory derives a hierarchical vertical structure where XP dominates X’ and X’ dominates X. But the linearity in which complements, specifiers and adjuncts attach can be changed based on the language. Head-initial languages will have the head precede the complement, like in English. Head-final languages, like Japanese and Korean, have the head following the complement. In this way, X-bar theory allows for variation across languages with some having an SOV (subject, object, verb) order while others have an SVO order.

Extended Projection Principle

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is satisfied when the highest Tense Phrase contains a subject (Sportiche 2014: 215).

Before the EPP can be satisfied, you must ensure that LOS is satisfied. Once all of the projection principles of LOS are satisfied, EPP is activated when there is movement from one part of the tree to another. This movement allows for the TP to contain a subject.

When generating a tree we must first ensure that all areas of the LOS are correctly projected. This is the tree we would generate in order to ensure that LOS has been satisfied. However in this tree the EPP is not satisfied as there is no subject present in the TP position.

In order to fulfill the EPP we must move the DP phrase into spec TP, to allow for the subject to be filled. In doing this we would alter the sentence making it John will Run. EPP would then be satisfied as Lucy would be in the subject position of the TP.

References

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

^[1]

This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

^ Dominique., Sportiche,. An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Koopman, Hilda Judith,, Stabler, Edward P.,. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 9781118470473. OCLC 842337755.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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

[2] Dominique., Sportiche,. An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Koopman, Hilda Judith,, Stabler, Edward P.,. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 9781118470473. OCLC 842337755.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[1]