The Extended Projection Principle and expletive "there" in English

EPP and "There" construction in English

The question of how humans develop language capabilities has been a question that researchers have grappled with for many years. The question has divided theorist into two ideologically different camps of thought. The first hold that feature movement in sentences is controlled by separate morphological processes. The second holds that the processes are unified and that the "wiring" is already in place when an infant is born. This concept is led by Noam Chomsky and developed into first the EPP and secondly into the Minimalist approach to the EPP. This study addresses many research gaps that can be found in literature on this subject. This study proposes the direction that research into this topic should take to address these gaps in the future and the use of the expletive there as a means to explore this mechanism.

Introduction

The extended Projection Principle (EPP) was first proposed by Chomsky (!981,1982). EPP required that every clause must have a subject in a specific position. A clause must have an entity or object that performs an action. Subjects that form this requirement can come in many forms, as long as they are in the proper position. The purpose of the study is to explore a minimalist approach to the expletive "there" in fulfillment of the EPP.

The subject of the sentence need not be complex, as long as it satisfies the requirements of the EPP. A simple example is the sentence, "Mary wept." This phrase satisfies the requirements of the EPP as it has both a complete subject and a complete predicate. It has an entity that performs an action. This is all that is required according to Chomsky's EPP principle.

Many different types of subjects can fulfill the subject position of the sentence. For instance, nouns and pronouns can fill this position. When the subject is a noun, it is easy to spot. However, the subject of the sentence does not always have to be a concrete object. For instance, in the sentence, "Love is blind," the subject of the sentence is an abstract concept. One may not see "love" as the subject of the sentence at first. However, "love" is a noun in the sentence and fills the requirements of the EPP.

As open can see, the subject of the sentence can be abstract or concrete. However, other types of words can occupy this position. For instance, imperatives can serve, as a subject of the phrase as in the sentence, "Don't do it!" In this case, "Don't" occupies the position before the verb, and therefore serves as the subject of the sentence. Verbal phrases can serve as subjects as well such as "to see the light," "picking peppers" and other similar phrases. As one can see, the subject of a sentence is not always obvious and many types of phrases and objects can satisfy the subject requirements of the EPP. Of these non-concrete examples, "there" is one of the most commonly used phrases in the English language.

Literature Review

Since Chomsky first proposed the theory of EPP, it has been a topic of interest and confusion for linguists. The application of the EPP has changed over the years from its first introduction by Chomsky. One must explore both the original theory and its current application in order to apply it to the topic of this research. The following will explore key literature regarding the EPP with the intention of examining possible hypotheses and theories concerning the future of the topic.

Understanding the EPP

The EPP developed out of the realization that "dummy" subjects often exist in the English language. In the Introduction of this research, many examples of "dummy" subjects were found to exist. In some sentences, the subject position is filled by a pronoun, such as there or it. Of the two, it is easier to understand, because it directly refers to a noun that was referenced previously. It must be defined before one can use it as a direct replacement for a noun. It serves the purpose in the English language of reducing redundancy.

According to Chomsky's minimalist approach, Chomsky strips his original theories of all but the most essential elements (Chomsky, 1995). One of the key concepts that sparked this change is that the EPP is not found universally in all languages. For example, German lacks the EPP (Garcia, 2007). It has also been suggested that null-subject Romance languages such as Spanish, Italian, and European Portuguese also lack the EPP, but the results of these studies have not been conclusive (Garcia, 2007). Additional research on the existence of the EPP in these languages is needed.

When discussing the EPP, what serves as the subject of the sentence is not easily defined by conventional means (Garcia, 2007). This being taken into consideration, one can still find examples of sentences where the subject seems to have been moved to a non-traditional position. For instance, "In the house, were two birds." In this example, the phrase "in the house" does not appear to satisfy the subject of the sentence, even though it is in the traditional subject position. It one were to recast the sentence, it would read, "Two birds were in the house." From this example, it would appear that not only is the subject vague, its position in the sentence can be moved as well. The later minimalist approach was developed in order to account for these position movements (Chomsky, 1995).

This brings us to the expletive there. Pronouns are identifiable by their previous definitions. As with it, she, he or they, we can attach concrete meaning to them through previous definition. However, in the case of there, Chomsky (1998, 1999, 2001) there is an uninterruptible person. In come cases, expletives such as there do not replace the subject, but serve as a placeholder instead. This position by Chomsky is further complicated by Chomsky's claim that the expletive cannot serve as a probe in the sentence. These difficulties and inconsistencies have led to discussions about the validity of EPP and the possibility that it should be dropped as a theory. The following will explore current literature and issues surrounding this controversial topic.

Gaps in the Literature

The literature review examined the EPP in regards to the expletive there. Chomsky's minimalist approach to the EPP theory does not fit all of the cases that one finds in natural language. Attempts to explain the EPP have been largely unsuccessful. The mechanisms of EPP phenomenon are not well-understood, leaving EPP as an unsolved mystery in many cases. The inability to understand the EPP is a key gap in the literature and has been proposed as a possible case for the elimination of it. However, at the present time, no alternative exists. In addition. EPP can be used to explain many cases. Gaining a clear understanding of EPP features will provide essential bases for future research into this elusive area.

It is not the necessity of the need for the presence of a subject in a clause that is of greatest importance, but other features of EPP that are considered the most controversial. When Chomsky attempted to expand the role of EPP features, he began to draw the fierce criticism of his peers. One of the key mysteries in Chomsky's theory involves the case of expletives. The literature review explored expletives such as it and found that many times the identity of the expletive can be derived from the sentences around it. In the case of there, however, the expletive can serve as a non-specified place marker. There can be used to fill in missing attributes of the intended target. The expletive there can be assigned to certain targets and can replace wh-words. For instance, in the sentence, "There the woman sat the cake," there is used to imply a place or location. In this case, there must be accompanied by a non-verbal form of communication in order to be understood.

Under the current rules of predication, the EPP would appear to be a semantic requirement. However, the ability of semantically null elements, such as it and there creates a problem for EPP theorists. In Chomsky's approach to the EPP, it is a result of feature-checking. This suggests that the EPP is a morphological requirement. Lasnik presents another approach to the feature-checking theory proposed by Chomsky. Lasnik's approach presents the filled-specifier approach as an alternative to Chomsky's ideas.

Chomsky proposes that all types of grammatical movement are triggered by a universal mechanism. This represented an attempt to unify previous theories that suggested a different mechanism for the various types of movement such as head movement and a-movement. Since the introduction of the theory, many attempts have been made to explain it. However, this is where the theory opens itself to the greatest criticism. If a single mechanism were responsible for all of the various types of movements that occur in grammar, then a singular mechanism should be apparent. It is the lack of this singular mechanism or the inability to find it that presents the greatest difficulty to Chomsky's theory. The inability to find the mechanism that drives EPP has led to the supposition that EPP may not b the answer to grammatical movement.

In the past, the prevailing thought favored the concept that different mechanisms were responsible for different types of movement. The original EPP supports Chomsky's theory of universal grammar by proposing that a single mechanism is responsible for all of the different types of movement that are seen in the English language. However, this theory left many questions unanswered, such as what triggered the mechanism. Another question that was apparent from the literature, but that was not addressed was how a single mechanism can be responsible for different types of movement.

Chomsky realized that his original version of EPP did not adequately explain the many scenarios that were found in natural language. That was a key reason for Chomsky's revision of the EPP and the development of the minimalist approach. The new revision attempted to retain the core of the original approach. However, it introduced the elements of economy and optimal design as parameters as well. The inability to explain the mechanism and how a single mechanism can produce different results is one of the key gaps that exists in literature on language development.

It is apparent from the literature review that none of the previously examined theories can explain all of the cases that are seen in natural language and different types of movement. Therefore, a new approach to the problem must be taken. Control of the object to be moved is a key mystery that may provide clues as to the development and evolution of EPP and object movement. Examination of expletive, such as there will provide clues as to how these movements occur and possibly, what triggers them. The study will propose that the movement of expletive arguments will be greater for object-control verbs than for subject-control verbs. This suggests that adults will be more likely to change a them that is projected on the object position than one that is projected on the subject position. An examination of the expletive there will provide valuable clues as to the hierarchy and mechanism of such movements.

The proposed research will attempt to discover the direction of attachments by examining the number of there movements associated with object-controlled verbs and those associated with subject-controlled verbs. It may be noted that a verb can be object-controlled in one sentence and subject-controlled in another. This trait depends on usage, rather than the verb itself.

Support for this research stems from studies that examined the difference between spatial vs. object working memory. This research used Position Emission Tomography (PET) imagery to examine whether the brain used a single storage system that functioned as a unit or whether it used different storage buffers for different types of information. This is similar to the questions that were left unanswered by the two groups of linguists: those who propose different mechanisms for different movements and those such as Chomsky who propose that a single mechanism is responsible for all types movement.

The PET imagery study asked participants to perform both spatial and object related tasks. This study found that different working-memory buffers were used for storing spatial as opposed to object information (Smith, Jonides, & Koeppe, 1995). Interestingly, this study took place in the same year that Chomsky decided to revise the original EPP into the minimalist approach. However, it is not known if this study had any impact on this decision.

The division of different working buffer to store spatial vs. object related information suggests that the brain uses different systems to process different categories of information. Although the topic of this study was different from that being proposed in the area of language development, it does represent a key breakthrough that provides a general clue as to how the brain processes different types and categories of information. The difference between locomotive there (a spatially oriented task) and expletive there (an object oriented task) pose similar processing problems as one would expect with the processing of any other type of information.

Results of the PET imagery study have important implications for the future of EPP. If differences are found in the number of object-controlled vs. subject-controlled movements are seen, it would suggest that the processing mechanisms are different. However, if the number of movements in these two categories are similar, it will not necessarily suggest that the mechanism is the same, but it would suggests that they are not processed by the same mechanism, as would be expected if the results supported the EPP model.

Alternatives

The study of language acquisition and the assignment of meaning to expletives will provide clues as to the process of language acquisition. An alternative proposal for the purpose of there in English is that development of the expletive it differs from development of the expletive there. This alternative would suggest that the meaning of the expletive there is not associated with whether it is controlled by an object-controlled verbs than or subject-controlled verbs, but rather by non-verbal clues that provide the recipient of the message clues about its meaning. This introduces the concept that movement of there may be associated with the area of the brain that is responsible for nonverbal language clues. This contrasts with movement of the pronouns it, because movement of it is defined by previous language clues and cannot be derived from non-verbal context of the message.

Another alternative approach to the difficulties associated with the acquisition of expletives is that the development of locative there is different from that of expletive there. We discussed earlier that there occurs in two distinct settings and is used for two different circumstances. Locative there refers to a place or geographic location. This meaning is essentially different from the expletive use of there. Although these two circumstances use the same word, they are different in meaning. This alternative suggests that the brain treats them a two different words with the same spelling and sound, rather than the same word with two different meanings. If this alternative were demonstrated to be the case, it would undermine Chomsky's concept of EPP by suggesting two different mechanisms.

Both of these alternatives are based on the concept that the brain processes different types of information using different mechanisms. However, these alternatives are difficult to test without access to PET scans and other expensive equipment. These alternatives may be an area that can be pursued in the future, but at the present time, they are not feasible. In addition, many research steps exist before these topics can be addressed by the academic community. Therefore, it is suggested that the original alternative be pursued at the current time.

Summary and Conclusion

One of the key questions that remains unanswered in the study of language development is what triggers movement. The theories of Chomsky support that movement occurs and that various types of movement can be observed in natural language. Chomsky proposes that movement is universal for all types of movement. The proposed research suggests that by studying the complexities involves in expletives, the mechanisms of movement and meaning can be better understood. By understanding how many is assigned to the expletive there and locative there, it is hoped that the associations connected with movement can be understood.

It is not expected that the results of this type of study will provide clues as to the exact mechanism that control movement, but it will provide a key clue as to whether future research should move in the direction of locating a single mechanism for the processing of locative vs. expletive language, or whether it should concentrate on locating different mechanisms for different types of movement.

The results of this research of this study will have serious implications for the future of linguistic research. If the results of the study suggest that a single mechanism is responsible for the processing of locomotive there and expletive there, it would not support Chomsky's minimalist approach to EPP, but would suggest a return to theories that suggest different processing mechanism for different types of movement. It seems reasonable that the brain would use differentiated systems universally, rather than using differentiated systems for certain tasks and unified systems for other types of information. Therefore, it is expected that, based on the PET study, that adherence to differentiated processing systems will hold true for the two modes of there as well.

If the results of this study suggest that a differentiated mechanism is responsible for expletive vs. locomotive there, it would not necessarily mean the complete rejection of Chomsky's minimalist EPP theory. It may simply mean that a revision of the concepts is in order. It is possible that some of the rules applied to movement, according to Chomsky's theory, would still be valid and might prove useful in the ability to predict movement, but the portion of the theory regarding a unified processing unit may need to be changed.

One must consider a final possibility of the outcome of this research and an angle that Chomsky might have never considered. It is possible that the mechanism for that initiates and control movement changes and matures as the child acquires language and grows into an adult. It may be that infants have a pre-ordained framework in place that allows them to acquire language quickly. This would account of the rapid language acquisition that was noted by Chomsky. As the child matures, this mechanism may become more differentiated until it resembles two different systems. This is much the same manner in which an infant first learns to major muscle groups and then progresses to develop fine muscle control. It may be that that language development process is similar in that it develops on a macro level and then becomes more refined as it progresses. This h not been suggested by the literature, as many linguists continue to be divided into those that agree with Chomsky and those that do not. However, the development of a general approach to language acquisition that progresses to a more refined approach may hold the key to development of linguistic theory in the future. However, this question is beyond the scope of this research.

An expletive represents a more abstract concept of there than the locomotive there. The locomotive there can be attached to a specific place, particularly if the person points to a certain place. The expletive there serves as a placeholder in the subject position of the clause. However, this can be moved in accordance to whether it is attached to an object-controlled or subject-controlled verb. The purpose of the proposed research is not to explain this mechanism in its entirety, but simply to determine the direction that future research in linguistics might take particularly in response to whether Chomsky's theories should still be considered to be a potential plausible explanation for feature movement in English.

Understanding the mechanism that controls expletive vs. locomotive there represents and exploration of the spatial processing of information vs. The more abstract concept of expletive there. If Chomsky's theories hold true, one would expect both of these types of information to be processed in the same manner. However, if these twp different types of information are processed in a different manner, then it may lend support to Chomsky's critics. For many years, Chomsky's theories were widely accepted. However, as we discovered during the literature review, a number of theorists are now beginning to question his theories. The results of the proposed study will not conclusively confirm nor deny the validity of Chomsky's theories, it will only add to the information that is already available on the topic.

The debate over the acquisition of language has been around for many years. Whether the process involves a unified mechanism to control movement, or whether each type of movement involves different mechanisms divides linguists into two camps. This study suggests that clues to the answer to this question lie in the ability to understand the processing of expletive there vs. locomotive there. The results of these study may help to unify these two theoretical camps in such a manner as to support a compromise that represents a more realistic view of the problem that was presented by either group in the past. This study will enhance our understanding of the importance of expletives in our understanding of the language development process.