Some Notes on Scrambling in the German Mittelfeld, VPand X-bar TheoryCraig Thiersch, U. Tilburg & U. K�oln(DRAFT COPY: April, 1985, U.Conn., Storrs. REVISIONS: 22 March, 22August, & 15 Sept, 1986)1 IntroductionThis paper1 deals with several related issues syntax, which an examination of the behaviorof variant word-orders in German may help to clarify:1. The �rst is the issue of so-called con�gurationality: do the constituents of a particularlanguage really have a heirarchical sub-structure, or are the major constituents \ at"(i.e., all sisters of the head of the head)? For example,ARTICULATED: A" FLAT: A"/ \ /|\C A' / | \/ \ C B AB A2. A separate issue which is sometimes con ated with con�gurationality is \scrambling";that is, \free" as opposed to \�xed" word-order. It is generally assumed that freedomof word-order is correlated with, if not a direct consequence of, at structure. Thisis not a priori the case. There have been proposals in the literature which associate at structure with �xed word order (Travis, 1984) as well as articulated structurewith scrambling (Saito, 1983). What is the proper analysis of scrambling? Should thealternate word orders be generated through the phrase structure rules (by assigningmorphological case randomly), or by movement? If the latter, should this \movement"leave an empty category in the sense of Government/Binding Theory? If so, what isits status?3. Another issue which really should be separated into two issues, is the so-called \VPproblem": do all languages have a \VP"? There are really two questions here: (1)whether any constituent exists (that is, whether a given string in fact forms a con-stituent or not), and (2) what the X-bar theory status of such a constituent is (e.g.,whether or not it is a maximal projection).1This is basically a reprint of the original draft with minor corrections; hence some of this re ects \pre-Barriers" thinking and is being printed for \historical interest", as some of the concepts argued for havesince become rather widely accepted, or irrelevant due to the integration of functional category projectionsinto X-bar theory. A preliminary version of the �rst part was published as Thiersch (1982). Much of theargumentation (corrected and updated) in the middle has since appeared in Kolb & Thiersch (1991); thearguments about Vorfeldbesetzung x 4.3 and ergatives (unaccusatives) in x 7 have not. The material on theEnglish auxiliary system was expanded in Thiersch (1991).1

4. Another issue is the proper analysis of languages in which the the position of theverb alternates: is this to be accounted for by alternate PS-rules? Movement? Ifthe verb is \moved", should it leave a \trace" { i.e., an empty category in the senseof Government-Binding Theory, which must obey certain constraints such as beingproperly governed, etc. (cf. item 2, above)? This is, by the way, a relatively theory-independent question: the GPSG analysis of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion in Englishpresented by Gazdar/Sag/Pullum (1982) uses a metarule [their number (40), p.608]:(1) SAI: < [Vh+FIN+AUX iV[�] : : : ] > ) < [V[+INV]V V[�] : : : ] >(semantics omitted) which does not create a slash/category, rather than one such astheir Topicalization rule [p.603]:(2) < 13, [V � V/�], . . .>which does. A similar question arises in this framework: is verb-displacement to behandled like NP displacement or not?5. Finally, what is the proper analysis of the verbal auxiliary system? Is it heirarchical orlinear? Is G/B Theory \INFL" to be interpreted as a PS node { that is, as the headof its own projection, like a \lexical" category such as NOUN or VERB?2 Some distributional arguments for the structure ofthe English verbal system.What follows is a summary of some of the arguments which have been adduced for the con-stituent structure of the English verbal system. Most of these are old and appear in theliterature, hence the presentation is only perfunctory. A discussion of some arguments isfound in Akmajian/Steele/Wasow (1979), and a critique of the former plus a good bibli-ography is in Gazdar/Sag/Pullum (1982). It is important to note that many of these arearguments for the constituent-hood of a verb-phrase without a tensed verb; e.g., a participlewith its objects or a non-tensed form of an auxiliary verb with the material which follows.2.1 Evidence for the main VP:2.1.1 Pronominalization.Assuming that pronominal elements can \replace" constituents, but not non-constituent sub-parts of a constituent, as in(3) The cover of the book is green.(4) It is green.(5) * It of the book is green.we could look for a pronominal element which replaces the purported constituent. Englishin fact has such an element, \so":(6) Sam left the party early, and Hilda did so, too. (\so" = `leave the party early')(7) Fred might be baking cookies, and Jill could be doing so, too. (\so" = `bake cookies')2

(When used in post-subject positon, this always appears with a form of the verb \do",which carries the tense or other in ectional ending. In traditional analyses, such as Lasnik(1981) based on Chomsky (1957), the \do" is inserted whenever the in ectional element isstranded.) There is, of course, no pronominal element in English which replaces subject andverb while leaving the remaining material:(8) * Fred baked some cookies and `glarph' cake.2.1.2 Phrasal co-ordination.It is generally assumed that phrases which can be conjoined with so-called \normal" into-nation are constituents,2 and usually of similar types:(9) Sam cooked the dinner and cleaned up afterwards.(10) ** The butler prepared a and cook served the stew.(11) * They arrested and Frank questioned the burgler.(Sentence (11) is, of course, OK with \Right-node-raising" intonation, indicating non-phrasalco-ordination: \The police arrested, and Frank questioned, the burgler." Cf. x 2.1.4, below)2.1.3 Topicalization.If, in general, only a constituent can be topicalized, than the following is evidence ofconsituent-hood:(12) Sam should have been tending the baby, and tending the baby he was!Note that this tests only the VP proper (in English{but see below for German and Englishpassives)3 :(13) * . . . , and been tending the baby he might have.2.1.4 \Right-node-raising".While it has been observed that the conjuncts in this construction often fail (rather badly)to be constituents:(14) He drove the car through and broke the plate-glass window.4it is often assumed (not without some controversy) that the material dislocated to the rightforms a constituent. Hence,(15) Fred sometimes has, and Sam always has, reported the discrepancies.would indicate that \reported ... discrepancies" is a constituent.2References (& discussion?) here to TNH's article and appropriate chapter above or below.3There seems to be some disagreement about whether this is entirely out for all speakers.If not, so much the better! Check Britisch authors like Hudson...4Example from Bill Woods, class lecture, from newspaper article.3

2.2 Tests for the constituency of AUX-P's:[ Nearly all the arguments intended to be here are presented in Thiersch (1991)and elsewhere, and being more or less standard by now, hence are omitted. CT-- 1996 ]This suggests that the constituent structure of \John might have been visiting Sue" is:(16) [S John [A might [B have [C been [D visiting Sue]]]]]where the consituents A-D are projections of the respective verbs.3 German: some basic structures and terminology.Since most of the information in this section is discussed extensively in the literature, thereader unfamiliar with the terms and structures reviewed below is referred to the bibliographyin Appendix I for arguments and justi�cations.5The German main clause has the following structure, referenced by \traditional" philo-logical terminology, illustrated by a main clause (Hauptsatz):Den Hund | hat | er gestern abend | gesehen | im Park.the dog | has | he yesterday evening | seen | in-the park.VORFELD | V-2 | MITTELFELD | KODA | NACHFELDIf we think of this in terms of, say, extended-standard theory with traces, then the analysisof the main clause (excluding the NACHFELD) often given in the generative literature (andwhich seems well motivated by distributional evidence of the sort in x 2.1{2.2 above) issomething on the order of:(17) [A [den Hund]i [B hatj [S er ei gestern abend gesehen ej ]]]That is, the basic \S" is verb-�nal, the the verb second positon and the Vorfeld are derivedby \movement". As noted above, that the verb leaves a trace, ej , is not uncontroversial.fCf.(18) a. Er soll gestern den Hund geschlagen haben.b. Gestern soll er den Hund geschlagen haben.c. Den Hund soll er gestern geschlagen haben.These were intended for here but never included; see reference later. gFINISH THIS SECTION LATER? [No, this is all standard, just give summary andassumptions. CT, 1996]4 Some suggestive German data.What can we gather by trying to use these distributional arguments in German? Not all ofthem may be applicable, and others may yield puzzling results:5Apparently Appendix I doesn't exist; the References attached here seem intended for thebody of the article... CK! 4

4.1 Pronominalization.This is somewhat more di�cult in German than in English, as the element used varies withspeaker/dialect, as well as the position in which it may occur. (cf. English examples with\so" in x 2.1.1 and 2.2(.2)6 above) 7 One can use, variously, \das" (that) or \es" (it). Somenot too unreasonable examples follow:(19) FritzFritz hathas anto HeidiHeidi Blumen owers geschickt,sent undand KarlKarl hathas esit auchtoo`Fritz sent owers to Heidi,and Karl did so, too'ALTERNATIVELY: . . . , und Karl hat das auch.OR: . . . , und das hat Karl auch.[Add more examples here?]As in English, the \das"/\es" cannot replace the subject and verb (with some marked ex-ceptions, discussed below).84.2 Coordination.The verb and its direct objects (or other complements) can, not surprisingly, be conjoinedas phrasal conjunction:(20) Erhe sagte,said da�thatHeidiHeidi diethe Katzecat gestreicheltpetted undand denthe Hunddog getretenkicked hattehad`He said that Heidi had petted the cat and kicked the dog'However, since German is a quasi \free word-order" language, in that the order of argu-ments in the Mittelfeld is relatively free (at least for many speakers, as noted above in x 3),the accusative object can appear before the nominative subject in the Mittelfeld for thesespeakers under the appropriate conditions:(21) Weilbecause denFritz(acc.) Fritzan einold alterbum Penner(nom.) getretenkicked hat,has, . . .. . .`Because an old bum has kicked Fritz, . . . 'Unfortunately the following is acceptable for these speakers:(22) Weil den Fritz ein alter Penner getreten. . . undand eina jungeryoung Punkerpunkie(nom.) geschlagenhithat,has, . . .Super�cially, the structure seems to be:(23) Weil den Fritz [[ein alter Penner getreten] und [ein junger Punker geschlagen]] hat,. . .6i.e., Thiersch (1991): Chapter 11 of ``Jan Model''7This is of course true of all the examples below, since the syntax of standard German is in uenced bythe speaker's native dialect to an extent which it is not in English.8Cinque comment: use these examples later as argument for `haben' assigning case (in x case, p.29)5

and it is not immediately evident how we might subsume this case under \Right-Node-Raising". Thus it seems that we cannot use phrasal conjunction directly as evidence toresolve the constituency of argument plus verb. (Cf. discussion below [and various publi-cations of Tilman H�ohle])4.3 Vorfeldbesetzung.[This should actually be a major section of its own,as it contains the body of the scrambling arguments.]The data from the Vorfeld, although at �rst glance problematic, suggests, as it turns out,a solution to the problem. Recall that under normal circumstances the Vorfeld can be �lledwith only one constituent.9 Now what are the possibilities for moving various combinationsof constituents into the Vorfeld? From a structure corresponding to the subordinate clause(24) HeidiHeidi meint,thinks da�that erhe gesternyesterday denthe Hunddog geschlagenhit habenhave sollshall`Heidi thinks that he was reported to have hit the dog yesterday.'we can front various constituents (with appropriate intonation!). Recall examples (18a{c)repeated here:(18) a. Er soll gestern den Hund geschlagen haben.b. Gestern soll er den Hund geschlagen haben.c. Den Hund soll er gestern geschlagen haben.More importantly, what combinations can we have of the direct object with the verb (pastparticiple), corresponding to (12) above, and auxiliaries, corresponding to (&00)10? In orderto make plausible sentences, we need to change the examples slightly:(25) PARTICIPLE ALONE:Geschlagen hat er den Hund schon gestern!(26) DIRECT OBJECT PLUS PARTICIPLE:Den Hund geschlagen hat er schon gestern!(27) DIRECT OBJECT, PARTICIPLE, & AUXILIARY VERB:Den Hund geschlagen haben soll der Fritz!Rather marked, but good for some speakers are also:(28) ?? Geschlagen soll er den Hund haben!(29) ?? Den Hund geschlagen soll er schon gestern haben!It should be noted that even for these speakers the following is impossible11 :(30) ** Haben soll er den Hund geschlagen!Note that so far this is roughly in consonance with a phrase structure like that suggested bythat proposed for the English Aux system (cf. diagr. II above):(31) [ er [A [B [C [NP den Hund] geschlagen ] haben ] soll ]]9Put in M.v.d.Velde's discussion of alleged counter-examples to the Vorfeld being a single constituenthere? Cf. reference in bibliography.10I.e., the examples that were to appear in x 2.2.11Thanks to Tilman H�ohle for the data (28){(30). Cf. discussion of a possible explanation below in x 5.16

That is, we can front the NP, constituent C, or constituent B. In addition, we can frontthe single lexical item `geschlagen' although not `haben', a point to which we will returnbelow. We of course cannot front constituent A, since the main clause is a V-2 clause andthe `soll' has \already" been fronted to the V-2 position, a point to which we also returnbelow. Unfortunately, there is a seeming counter-example to this, namely, sentences of theform:(32) Geschlagen haben soll er den Hund schon gestern!in which the two verbs are fronted together. Let us put this aside as a \puzzle" which weneed to return to below, and concentrate on which of the arguments of the verbal participlecan be fronted with it. As is well known, the nominative subject (with certain notoriousexceptions to which we also return below) can never be fronted with the participle, eventhough it can occur string adjacent to the participle, as noted above12:(33) Wahrscheinlich hat den Hund dein SOHN getreten. (Emphatic stress on SOHN)(34) **Dein Sohn getreten hat den Hund. (Impossible under all intonations)This seems \at �rst glance" to suggest that the direct object and the participle (forexample) form a constituent while the subject and participle do not, even though they maybe string adjacent. However, (a) the data are somewhat more complex, and (b) simplystating this does not explain why it should be so: that is, how does the subject \get next tothe verbal participle", e.g. in (21), apparently without forming a constituent with it?Regarding point (a), let us note what happens in some other cases: with certain verbswhich have a dative object, such as `helfen', that object can be fronted freely together withthe participle:13:(35) Demthe Patientenpatient(dat.) geholfenhelped hathas diethe Krankenschwesternurse nichtnot`The nurse hasn't helped the patient.'In three place predicates such as `geben', we �nd the following pattern:(36) Eina Buchbook(acc.) gegebengiven hathas erhe jedemevery Kindchild(dat.)`He gave every child a book.' [CT: FIND BETTER EXAMPLE?](37) Demthe Madchengirl(dat.) einena Kusskiss(acc.) gebengive wolltewanted erhe nichtnot`He didn't want to give the girl a kiss.' (geben = in�nitive)12Note that this corresponds the the focus possibilities. Summarize in this footnote and/or refer to f00g ?13Note here that although the sentence seems at �rst glance to have no \source" corresponding to anacceptable Mitteldfeld construction, since \*Die Krankenschwester hat nicht dem Patienten geholfen" is notpossible, that in fact the `nicht' can precede the direct object in constructions where it takes scope over thedirect object and verbal participle:(1) Fritz hat nicht den Hund getreten, sondern die Katze geschlagen.F. has not the dog kicked, but the cat beaten`What Fritz did was not to kick the dog, but to hit the cat.'Observation due to Irene Heim, pers. comm. Cinque: says this footnote not clear until he readlater discussion. Probably because it deals with Hubert Haiders objection to the analysis, whichis not discussed until later; cf. p. 42, examples (173)ff.7

(38) ?? Denthe Kindernchildren(dat.) gegebengiven hathas erhe nichtsnothing(acc.)`He didn't give the children anything.'The accusative object and participle can front, the dative and accusative together with theparticiple can front, while the fronting of the dative alone with the participle is somewhatspeaker (dialectally?) variable, although by no means as totally unacceptable as nominativeplus participle as in (34) above. (As usual, native speakers are encouraged to �nd exampleswhich are more felicitous in their idiolect, and experiment with intonation).Lastly, there are some verbs which allow fronting of a nominative plus participle, as inthe now notorious example14:(39) Fehlermistakes(nom.) unterlaufenunderrun sindare meinemmy Lehrerteacher(dat.) nienever`My teacher has never made mistakes.'These are the so-called ergative verbs and form a small class: we come back to the conditionsunder which fronting is possilbe below.Regarding point (b) above, we �rst need to ask, what are the logical possibilities forgenerating the alternate word orders in the Mittelfeld. As noted in the introduction, wewould like to separate out all the parameters: that is, we can have base-generated \ at"structures with alternate \word-order" as well as \articulated" structures with alternativeword order, by simply assigning case randomly to a structure as in I and II below:BASE GENERATED STRUCTURES:I. Flat II.Articulated SS / \/ | \ / \/ | \ / / \/ | \ / / \NP NP V NP NP VNom Acc Nom AccAcc Nom Acc NomAlternatively, we can generate the alternations by movement from either at or articulatedbase structures to which Case has \already" been assigned in a particular linear order (as inI) or heirarchical order (as in II) in a variety of ways: if we consider Nom-Acc to be the basicorder, then we could move the Nominative NP to the right or the Accusative NP to the left,from either of these structures, i.e., Chomsky-adjoining the moved constituent; or we couldhave the phrase structure rules generate extra NP nodes, and then movement would then bystructure preserving. These a priori possibilities are illustrated schematically below:14Refer again to conclusions from focus chapter [i.e., discussion of T.N. H�ohle's suggestions] here.8

III. FLAT STRUCTURE, LEFT ADJUNCTIONS/ \/ \/ \NP SAcc / | \/\ / | \. / | \. NP NP V. Nom e. .. . . . . .IV. FLAT STRUCTURE, RIGHT ADJUNCTION <fill in tree later>V. ARTICULATED STRUCTURE, LEFT ADJUNCTION \label{structV}S/ \/ \/ \/ SNP / \Acc / \/\ / \. NP VP?. Nom / \. / \. t V. . Acc. . . . .VI. ARTICULATED STRUCTURE, RIGHT ADJUNCTION [Fill in later]VII. ARTICULATED STRUCTURE, LEFT STRUCTURE-PRESERVING [ditto]VIII. ARTICULATED STRUCTURE, RIGHT STRUCTURE-PRESERVING [ditto]We now want to ask which of the structures might o�er a clue as to what is going onwith the fronted elements in the data above, assuming that we would like, if possible, topreserve the hypothesis that they form a constituent (i.e., that the Vorfeld contains only oneconstituent).In the at, base-generated structure (I) the arguments of the verb form no constituentat all with it (by de�nition) and there is no structural di�erence between nominative andaccusative, so we can leave this out of consideration. In (II), and the rightward movementcases in general (IV, VI, and VIII), the strings which are generated under these assumptionshave the nominative together with the verb and look, if anything, as though they would bestructures more amenable to the nominative fronting with the verb instead of less. Thereforelet us look at the leftward movement cases; in particular (V), repeated below as (40). Here itlooks as though the constituent available for fronting, the S-node labled (�) in the diagram,contains a trace of the Accusative NP, which is no longer C-commanded by its antecedent9

after (�) is moved to the Vorfeld.15(40) = V. S/ \/ \/ \/ S <--(\alpha)NP / \| Acc / \den Hund / \NP VP?| Nom / \dein Sohn / \t VAcc getretenOne might ask whether it is in fact the \improperly bound" trace tAcc which is responsibile forthe extreme unacceptability of sentences in which the nominative subject of a transitive verbhas been fronted with the verbal participle. Unfortunately, this cannot be the explanation.We can see this by comparing these structures with the cases in which (for three placepredicates), the dative has been fronted with the participle, such as in example (38) above.If we are consistent in our analysis of \scrambling" by movement as in (40 = V.) above,then the scrambled structure for the dative cases, illustrated in (41) below, would be thesame as the one for the nomative plus verb cases in (40) above, and the fronted constituent(�) would in both cases contain the trace of the Accusative NP t(Acc) which would thenC-command its antecedent:(41) VP?/ \/ \/ \/ VP? <--(\alpha)NP / \| Acc / \nichts / \NP V'?| Dat / \den Kindern / \t VAcc gegebenBut the judgements on these sentences are at most \??", as noted above, and vary accordingto the pragmatics, intonation as well as idiosyncratically by speaker (from \einwandfrei" =perfectly acceptable, to \fraglich" = questionable), but in no case \**", like (34). Hence astructural explanation based on the t(Acc) is dubious. In addition, if we assume that the15In various formulations of G/B theory, the \anaphor" is no longer locally bound, violating condition Aof the binding theory. Discuss this brie y here?(i.e., if the movement in (40) is A-movement, the trace needs to be local bound; if it'sA-bar movement, it only needs to be properly governed. There has been much discussion of thisissue in the literature w.r.t. scrambling since this was written ...)10

passive in English also leaves a trace,16 then it can presumaby also occur in this con�guration:topicalized sentences like the following abound in the literature, with no stars:(42) They said he was arrested, and arrested he was.(43) . . . , and watched by the FBI he was.(44) Criticized by his boss, John has never been!which presumably have the structure (simpli�ed):(45) [[ Criticized ei by his boss]A [ Johni [ has never been eA ]]]In addition, in terms of Government/Binding theory, it is not surprising that these sentences,even though they contain a trace which seems to be improperly bound, are relatively ac-ceptable: the trace t(i) is properly governed by the verb `criticized', and hence ought to beacceptable, depending on how the conditions licensing empty categories are formulated.17Thus it seems that we need to look elsewhere for an explanation. In fact we don't need tolook far: we simply need to note that the phrase structures given in (40), etc., are incomplete.What we need to note is that the tensed verb is of course never moved with the NP in theseconstructions, it is the verbal PARTICIPLE; the tensed verb is in the \verb-second" position.Hence the base structure is one with a participle or in�nitive main verb plus one or moreauxiliary verbs, as in examples (24) through (29) and with an underlying structure like thatin (31). If we assume the base structure in (46), and that \scrambling" is leftward movementas in (V), then we have the structure in (47) \after" scrambling, but \before" the frontingto the Vorfeld18:(46) D-STRUCTURE (where the indices on the verbal projections indicate the verb whichthe constituent is a projection of):16Refer here to later discussion of the di�erence in the empty categories alleged in the above construction(A-bar bound) and in English passive (A-bound).17Provide discussion of Proper Government; e.g., references to some recent de�nitions such as Aoun &Sportiche (1982/83) or Davis (1984), herself summarizing, [her numbering]:(3) GovernmentA governs B in the con�guration[. . . B . . . A . . . B . . . ] i�(a) A = X(0), (and AGR, if X = INFL); and(b) where Q is a maximal projection, Q dominates Bi� Q dominates A.cf. however discussion in later footnote 21 below.18Note here that it is simply easier to phrase the discussion in terms of ordered movements, withoutimplying that something actually has \moved" instead of being base generated and co-indexed with anempty category.11

(etc.)\ \ \ S/ \/ \/ \/ V'(i)NP / \| Nom / \dein Sohn / \V'(j) V(i)/ \ hat/ \NP V(j)| Acc |den Hund getreten(47) STRUCTURE \AFTER" MOVEMENT OF NP(acc) and V(i):?/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \V(i) S| / \hat / \/ \/ S <--(\alpha)NP / \| Acc / \den Hund / \NP V'(i)| Nom / \dein Sohn / \V'(j) V(i)/ \ |/ \ eNP V(j)| Acc |e getretenNote that at this point, which represents the structure in the Mittelfeld and Koda of a sen-tence like \Hat den Hund dein SOHN getreten?", the only constituent available for \move-ment" to the Vorfeld is the S marked (�), which dominates both the trace of the AccusativeNP as well as the trace (empty category) left by the movement of the tensed verb. We needto ask if this empty category to obeys principles similar to those obeyed by other emptycategories; for example, we could require that it be \properly" governed in some sense of12

\properly". For example, in a normal sentence, it would be \Antecedent Governed" (cf.footnote 17) by the lexical verb which has been fronted; however, if the consituent S(�) isfronted to before the tensed verb, then THIS trace, [V(i) e], is not C-commanded by itsantecedent, [V(i) hat], and hence it cannot be antecedent governed.19 If something like thisis correct, then precisely these sentences should be completely unacceptable.5 Further considerationsAssuming then that the analysis presented above (movement to the left) is the correct accountof scrambling, we need to ask what it will buy us in terms of solving outstanding problems,and what new problems it creates.5.1 Fronting of several verbs into the Vorfeld.Recall that if we assume a phrase structure like that in (31), repeated below:(31) [ er [A [B [C [NP den Hund] geschlagen ] haben ] soll ]]then while most of the frontings to the Vorfeld are constituents, the sentence (32), repeatedbelow, seemed to be an exception, as `geschlagen haben' is not a constituent in (31):(48) Geschlagen haben soll er den Hund schon gestern!However, if scrambling is movement to the left (and move-� is optional), then there seemsnothing to prevent us from scrambling `den Hund' in (31) \vacuously" and adjoining it tothe VP as in (49) below instead of to S as in (47) above20:19fwas this Footnote 12 ??g [Cinque comments]: \. . . or must exclude combination of [C [C [C hat ][I=V . . . ]]] and Aoun/Sportiche de�nition of Government." The original text had considered lexical govern-ment; but this perhaps runs afoul if we de�ne government as A/S do, so that the subject is properly governed(by INFL, or as revised later, by the tense feature). In the long note in the GLOW paper, we (i.e., H-P.Kolb and I) considered di�erent kinds of constituents with empty heads and it is not at all clear yet whatthe proper de�nition should be for these categories; in any case, the con�guration is quite di�erent for animproperly preposed consituent with an empty V�n and the subject:Subject: [INFL NP [INFL INFL ]]S with empty V: [COMP [S . . . ei ] [COMP hat [S NP(acc.) [S e ]]]]One should discuss here the various proposals of Koopman & Travis.20[Or den Hund could move even higher { Cinque]13

(49) V'(k)/ \/ \/ \/ V(k)V'(i) |/ \ soll/ \/ \NP V'(i) <--(\alpha)| Acc / \den Hund / \V'(j) V(i)/\ / \ |. / \ haben. NP V(j). | Acc |. e geschlagenBut from this structure we could front the node (�) to the Vorfeld: it will not containthe ungoverned trace of the tensed verb `soll', contains exactly the required string, and thetrace of the accusative NP is governed by the verbal participle `geschlagen'. This seemsunobjectionable as a solution, although a possible problem with it is discussed in Chap. 00below. (This probably refers to the discussion of (173)ff. as noted above.)Note that there is still one unresolved problem with the Vorfeldbesetzung. Recall thatwhile in a clause like(50) . . . , da� Fritz den Hund geschlagen haben soll.that we can move the verb `geschlagen' to the Vorfeld alone for some speakers (perhapsmarginally), but not the verb `haben' (cf. examples(28) and (30), repeated here)21:(28) ? Geschlagen soll er den Hund haben!(30) * Haben soll er den Hund geschlagen!If we view the Vorfeld in sentence (32) as consisting of the node � in structure (49), then itis a projection of V(i):(51) [Vi [V eNP(acc:) geschlagen] haben]But suppose the phrase structure (X-bar theory) requires that the element in the V-2 positionis the head of a projection and that its \complement" and \speci�er" are both (maximal)projections:21Cinque notes same true in Italian. His examples:[Preso freddo] deve avere .[Avere preso freddo] deve .but * [Avere] deve preso freddo.Check examples! Cinque asks, am I suggesting that only maximal projections \move" to the Vorfeld;answer, yes. An apparent problem with the data seems, in fact, not to be; see next footnote! [Probablyrefers to section 5.1.1.] 14

(52) Q"/ \/ \X" Q'/ \/ \Q Y"where Q is the position of the tensed verb in verb-second constructions. (See secton VIbelow for a justi�cation of this in a more detailed discussion of X-bar theory and the notion\maximal".) Then it follows that the `geschlagen' in sentence (28) { as well as in (25) {must have the structure(53) [Vj eNP geschlagen ]just like `geschlagen haben' in (32)/(49); and hence the `haben' in (30) could NOT be alexical item, but must also be a (probably maximal) projection:(54) [Vi e? haben]But there is no element `?' of which e(?) in (54) could be the trace. The only candidate isV'(j); but verb projections, unlike NP projects do not scramble in the Mittelfeld:(55) * Gestern soll [den Hund geschlagen]i der Fritz ei haben.Hence there is no possible constituent [ e haben] available to occupy the Vorfeld.5.1.1 An apparent problem:[NB: This was a long footnote, added after the body of the paper was written.An apparent problem seems at �rst to be sentences like(56) ?K�onnen soll er die Geige spielen, nicht nur wollen!where the fronted \auxiliary" is a modal. These are quite good for many speakers, withproper contrastive intonation, as opposed to those with, say, `haben', which are impossible.Note however, that just exactly in these cases, the \scrambled" V-projection in the Mittelfeldis relatively acceptable:(57) ? Er meint, da� sie (die) Geige spielen schon seit langem kann!cf.(58) * . . . , da� er den Hund geschlagen schon seit langem hat.Aside from questions of whether `(die) Geige spielen' is quasi-incorporated into the verb(like `radfahren'), the judgements on the Vorfeld cases seem to parallel the possibility ofscrambling in the Mittelfeld, hence lending support to this analysis.The question arises why the cases with participle are so much worse than those with thein�nitive; H.-P. Kolb suggests that the solution follows from the analysis presented below inwhich the in�nitive form of the verb, but not the past-participle, assigns Case to its object;cf. section VI.B, paragraph following example (112). The foregoing argument is particularlyinterestesting, since other linguists have tried to �nd a solution for this set of \exotic" data:why one can topicalize the `bottom' verb `geschlagen' but none of the other tenseless verbs.Some more recent attempts to explain this have of course involved tinkering with the notion15

of government; e.g. since the trace of the tensed verbs seems to need to be properly governedin some sense, then presumably each of the verbs in a sequence like (59) below governs theone to its left:(59) . . . , weilbecause HansHans denthe Hunddog geschlagenbeaten habenhave sollshould`. . . , because Hans was reported to have beaten the dog.'(Government: `soll' lexically governs `haben' and `haben' governs `geschlagen'.)If the verb `soll' is in V-2 position it presumably antecedent-governs its trace. (Seediscussion in text of paper). But if one tries to work out the details of why `geschlagen'can be topicalized, but `haben' cannot, in terms of government, it either fails or becomesbaroquely complicated. For example, one might suggest that although the lexical item`haben' is \strong" enough to govern the position of `geschlagen' and hence allow it to beextracted from this position, as in (28), the trace of the tensed verb is not strong enoughto properly govern the `haben', and hence it cannot be extracted, as in (30); but this failsprecisely in (56). Furthermore, `geschlagen' can be extracted in sentences like(60) Geschlagen hat er den Hund!(61) Structure: [ e1 geschlagen]2 [ hat3 [er [ [den Hund]1 e2 ] e3 ] ]where the trace e3 of the tensed verb `hat' governs the trace of e2 of `geschlagen' (or the con-stituent consisting of `geschlagen' plus the trace e1 of `den Hund'). Hence proper governmentdoesn't seem to be the right method here.(end of long footnote)But as we can see from the previous section, in general these data follow trivially from theanalysis presented in the body of the paper and the X-bar theory which is presented in thenext section. Notice that one doesn't have to assume anything radical about X-bar theory toget this to follow: just that the head of a constituent must be a lexical item, and its satellites(complements, adjuncts, and speci�ers) must be projections, never lexical items.5.2 Ergative verbs.These cases follow directly: recall that these verbs exceptionally allow the nominative NPtogether with the participle in the Vorfeld, as in (39), repeated below:(39) Fehlermistakes(nom.) unterlaufenunderrun sindare meinemmy Lehrerteacher(dat.) nienever`My teacher has never made mistakes'These of course (as shown by the focus data in Chap.00,f00g22 ) have the unmarked orderNP(Dat) > NP(Nom), and hence a plausible phrase structure might be22Was to have been compiled from my notes, Lenerz, H�ohle, etc.16

(62) V'(j)/ \/ \/ \V'(i) V(j)/ \ |/ \ sind/ \NP V'(i) <--(\alpha)| Dat / \meinem Lehrer / \NP V(i)| Nom unterlaufenFehlerBut then there is no reason at all why the constituent (�) should not appear in the Vorfeld,and it does. This of course raises many questions, which have been discussed in the literatureand to which we return in a later chapter23:(a) How can the NP(Nom) get its case from the verb V(j)? Note that it does not get itfrom V(i), since for those speakers who accept these embedded in the A.C.I. construction,`Fehler' receives the case assigned by the matrix verb, for example, accusative:(63) Weilbecause erhe seinemhis Lehrerteacher(dat.) einena schwerenserious Fehlermistake(acc.) unterlaufenoccur sah,saw, . . .`Because he saw his teacher make a serious mistake, . . . '(b) Is there an empty subject of the verb `sind' in (39)/(62)? Cf. Sa�r (1984).5.3 Parasitic Gaps.Another claim which has been made in the literature, is that there are no parasitic gaps inGerman.24 That is, sentences of the type found in English(64) [Which book]i did you read ei before putting ei on the shelf.(where the second e(i) is the PG) are unacceptable in German:(65) [Welcheswhich Buch]ibook hasthave duyou eitrace gelesen,read ohnewithout eipg zur�uckzubringen?bringing-backIt was noticed by several authors that there are, in fact, unexplained object gaps in German(and Dutch), as in(66) ? [Wen]iwhom hathas diethe Polizeipolice ohnewithout eipg anzutastentouching eitr verhaftet?arrested?But these were widely believed not to be PGs [cf. Huybregts & van Riemsdijk (1985),among others], since the gap between `ohne' and `anzutasten' could also occur when thedirect object occured in the Mittelfeld and was not a question-word binding an A-bar trace:(67) ? [Die Polizei]i hat den Fritz ohne ei anzutasten verhaftet23Cf. Den Besten (1981) for a more detailed discussion and a proposal for case-marking.24(Cf. Haider, 1984) De�ne parasitic gaps here and comment brie y on their theoretical signi�cance?17

However, if we assume the above account of scrambling, then in fact `den Fritz' has beenscrambled away from its base position; cf.(68) Die Polizei hat ohnewithout diethe Frauenwomen zuto verletzenwound den Fritz verhaftet`The police have arrested Fritz without wounding the women.'and hence in (67), there should be a trace of `den Fritz' between `anzutasten' and `verhaftet'as (68) suggested:(69) Die Polizei hat den Fritzi ohne ei anzutasten ei verhaftet.But is this an A-trace or an A/bar-trace? Assuming that the rightmost trace is in argumentposition, then it must be an A/bar-trace by default, and hence can license a parasitic gap.25[Note this lends additional plausibility to the analysis of scrambling in-voked in the previous sections...]6 What is a projection of what?We now want to ask two important questions:(a) What is the status of the Vorfeld? Is it \moved", or is it generated in place andcoindexed with an empty category in the Mittelfeld?(b) What is the categorial status of the nodes? We have been vague on this point uptil now, either labling them with conventional lables, or leaving the node lables blank.(Those readers familiar with recent Government/Binding literature may be wondering,for example, where INFL is.) Let us begin by considering the second question.6.1 ProjectionsOne of the major trends recently is to \derive" the PS rules from more general principles,namely those of \X-bar theory". Just as language speci�c transformations were discarded infavor of a \single" rule, Move-�, the overgeneration of which was constrained by universalor parametrizable principles, it has been suggested that the PS-rules also be derived frommore general considerations. (Cf. Stowell 1981)A second consideration, one which has not been as fully exploited as it might be, is thatthe nodes are not atomic symbols, but are feature bundles. While this is an old idea, ithas not been explored in depth until recently. Such features as N and V have been quitegenerally assumed; e.g., Noun = [+N, �V], Adjective = [+N, +V]. (Although cf. Jackendo�(1974,1977) for an alternative suggestion.) More recently, some attempts have been madeto reevaluate the syntactic feature system, e.g. Reuland (1985), Tappe (1985).I would like in the following to exploit this idea even further: There is still a conceptualresidue of categories as atomic entities, even though this is at variance with the notion of cat-egories as feature bundles. Just as not all languages have the same inventory of \phonemes",and the phonemes cross-classify language-internally due to their being composed of features,we might expect the same to be true of syntactic categories. For example, it is an old obser-vation that the verbal past-participle seems to share some characteristics with \true" (i.e.,tensed) verbs, and some with \true" adjectives. (Cf. Chomsky 1981, p.00 for a discussion ofhow this might be accounted for.)25Cf. Bennis & Hoekstra (1984) and Koster (1984) for a more detailed discussion.18

First however, let us consider the representation of \bar-level". It has often been assumedthat the bar-levels represent a schematic representation of PS rules: e.g.,(70) Xn ! (Spec,X) Xn�1 (Compl,X)is, roughly, an abbreviation for a set of rules where X can be some category, X0 is the lexicalhead, each of the subconstituents X1, X2, X3, etc. is a \projection" of the head sharing someof its features, and the projection for which n takes on the highest value is the \maximal"projection. It is often also assumed that the maximal value of n is 2, and that actually theformat is(71) Xm ! . . . Xn . . .where m is greater than or equal to n, since the \1" level seems to be recursive. (Cf. Radford1981 and Lightfoot 1981) For example, in the NP[= N2], \the student of physics with longhair from chicago",(72) N^2/ \/ \/ N^1/ / \/ / \/ / \/ / \/ N^1 \/ / \ \/ / \ \/ / \ \/ N^1 \ \/ / \ \ \/ / \ \ \Det N^0 PP PP PP| | / \ / \ / \the student of physics with long hair from chicagothe intermediate nodes, N1, seem to lack any particular de�ning characteristics, other thanbeing the site of `one' pronominalization, scope interpretation, etc., in which they all takepart.26What seems to be important to \know", is where the top and bottom of a projection are,i.e., where it stops and starts: the lexical item, or head, and the maximal projection, whichcan then be embedded in another projection.27Hence if we assume that the \levels" of a projection are features, we might assume thatthere are two, [max] and [min], and that the N2 is [+max,�min] and the N1 is [�max, +min],while the N0 is [�max, �min]. This has some interesting consequences.First, however, let us look at the constituent structure of verbal projections and nounprojections a bit more carefully, beginning with the verb. The satellites of a verb gener-ally divide into two classes, those which subcategorize the verb (complements) and thosewhich are optional adjuncts. For example, if we try to apply SO-pronominalization as a con-stituent test in the same way that ONE-pronominalization is used as a justi�cation for the26Refer to discussion in, e.g., Radford (1981), Travis (1984), etc. and give examples to support the pointhere.27Note that only top and bottom necessary in Binding Theory and Bounding theory in G/B for example.19

structure in (72) (cf. arguments cited in FN: [i.e., the sections on auxiliary andVP structure]), then the following con�guration of data suggests that we have a similarcon�guration to that in the NP :28(73) Fred ate breakfast in the kitchen, but Susan did so in the parlor.(74) * Fred ate breakfast, and Sam did so lunch.29(75) Susan put the cookies in the refrigerator before lunch, and Sam did so after lunch.(\so" = `put the cookies in the refrigerator')(76) * Susan put the cookies in the refrigerator and Sam did so in the closet.30Add more examples to text? -- such as:(77) Hart won the election in New Hampshire, but he couldn't do so in New York.(78) Celia left before the party started, and Harold did so after it began.31(79) Pat gave Richard $5000 for his birthday, and Henry did so for Christmas.(80) * June gave Harriet a bracelet, and Sally did so a necklace.(81) John believed that Al was a fool because of the scandal, but Fred did so all along(82) * John believed that Al was a fool, but Fred did so that he was smart.(83) Heinz turns his radio o� after lunch because of his wife's complaints, but Fritzdoes so because of his neighbor's.32[Also add topicalization data here?] These and similar arguments suggest a two-tiered heirarchy for the verb phrase, which could be re ected by explicit phrase structurerules33 such as the following:34(84) V^1 --> (Adv') V^1 (X^2)V^1 --> V^0 (N^2) (X^2)Similarly, if we write out explicitly the PS rules which would generate NPs such as (71)above, we have a schemata roughly like35(85) N^2 --> (Det) N^1N^1 --> (Adj') N^1 (X^2)N^1 --> N^0 (N^2) (X^2)28Discuss Travis's critique and arguments for 1-tier here? Note that (1) her arguments for \ at" structureleave out some of the data, and (2) replacing the constituent by the lexical government relation may just saysomething about the ontological status of the notion constituent, and the two may be notational variants.29Cinque: this and (79) might be irrelevantly * because of DO not getting Case; this doesn't a�ect otherexamples, however.30Starred unless the intended reading is \Sam put the cookies in the refrigerator while he [and the refrig-erator] were in the closet.31Illustrates status of `so'32'so' = `turn his radio o� after lunch'; illustrates that the adjuncts may themselves be recursively SO-pronominalzed with the verb and its arguments.33Note that writing explicit PS rules here and in the text that follows has no theoretical signi�cance otherthat to summarize the constituant structure compactly. As noted above, the point is to eliminate explicitphrase structure rules by invoking principles from other components of the grammmar; for example, thelexical speci�cation of V0 in the second rule determines which of the optional constituents is present, andthat the N2 is \�rst" is determined by the mechanism for assigning Case, which assigns it directly only tothis position. Cf. the literature for details of various proposals.34The symbolAdv' is only intended to indicate that the preverbal adjuncts (and prenominal adjuncts,Adj',below) are not full maximal constituent. The theoretical explanation for this fact remains undiscovered.35This is not the structure for NP advocated later, where it is suggested that the Det is the head of thephrase and takes a maximal N-projection as a complement. cf. FN ?, and &1 below.20

where Adj' is some sort of reduced adjective phrase.36 Note the second line is recursive,the others not. This is the bare skeleton of the NP. Do any of these positions have speci�cfunctions, or are they all just adjuncts? The X2s in the second rule seem to have a di�erentstatus from those (i.e., N2) in the third rule, just as in the rules (84) for the verbal projection.That is, the latter are the arguments which subcategorize the head: e.g., arguments of thehead N0.37 Note the following contrasts, which suggest that the last two \rules" or tiers ofNP structure do indeed correspond to those of the VP:38(86) Sam saw the man with a stovepipe hat, and Fred saw the one with a bowler.(87) *? Sam witnissed the destruction of Dresden, and Fred saw the one of Warsaw.Note that there is a curious gap in the paradigm: namely, we have three tiers for theNP rules in (85), but only two for the VP in (84). The problem is with the constituentlabled \Det". The Adj' and Adv' positions seem to be fully parallel, as noted in FN{ above,hence we need to ask more about the \Det" position. (We will return later to the questionof whether there is really just one constituent here.) What can occur here? Surely thisposition, unlike Adj', can be occupied by a full maximal projection, as examples like thefollowing indicate:(88) The man who I met yesterday's hat was in the foyer.(89) Structure: [NP(1)Nom: [NP(2)Poss the man who I met yesterday] hat]In addition to having semantic functions like \possession", this position can also be occupiedby what would be the \external" argument of the verb (i.e., the subject),39 as in(90) John's speech about Chile . . .Suppose we then assume, as has often been done in the linguistic literature (although theproposal has fallen out of favor lately), that the missing \rule" or tier in (84) is(91) V2 ! (X2) V136Refer to the details of prenominal AdjP & AdvP in footnote 34, above.37Note that I have indicated the �rst argument of N0 and V0 as being of category N; this is obscured inEnglish, as the verb may assign Case directly to this position and hence it can be occupied by a N, whereasa N0 \cannot" assign case directly to this position, but is only indirectly assigned to the complement NP bythe dummy preposition \of": [These were originally in text as (85)--(87)](1) They destroyed the city.The destruction of the city . . .In other languages, this Case may be assigned directly; for example,(2) Diethe Zerst�orungdestruction derthe Stadtcity(gen.) . . .(3) Diethe Redespeech desthe Bundeskanzlerschancellor(gen.)There are two explanations which have been suggested for English: one is that there is a \default rule" whichinserts the \of"; the other is that the \of" is the Case which a NP assigns. I will assume the latter withoutargument here, and explore the consequences below in the section on case-assignment.38Note that the judgements with NP ONE-pronominalization are not as sharp as those for SO-pronominalization with verbs, and also seem to be idiosyncratically speaker-dependent. Note discussionsof this in the literature, and issue caveat that one has to exercise extreme care in eliciting judgements onthese, because there are many very similar constructions which however have di�erent properties. <IS THISFOOTNOTE NECESSARY? -CT> [Cinque says yes!]39Note that this sense of \external" is di�erent from, for example, Williams' use of the term. Cf. Section00, below for discussion. 21

and that the �rst rule in (85) should be revised to read(92) N2 ! (X2) N1so that the two schemata are entirely parallel, and explore the consequences of this.40! fIn the following, X2, e.g. superscript 2, has been replaced by X or X", X1 by X orX', and X0 by X for all categories.gLet us refer to these positions in the subsequent discussion by the following convention:in the structure(93) Q"/ \/ \X" Q'/ \/ \Q' Y'/ \/ \Q Z"we will call the constituents in position X Speci�ers, Y Adjuncts, and Z Complements, towhich no theoretical status about their functions will be assumed; the terms simply are ashort-hand for the position in the tree. We will want to re�ne this later, but for the moment,let us assume that \Complement" simply means \sister of the head" etc. That is, the termswith capital letters refer to the structural positions while the terms with lower case lettersrefer to the typical \functions" of the positions.41First of all it should be noted that there are other similarities between the Speci�erpositions of N and V. For example, while the Adjuncts (the Ys in the second tier) areall truly optional (independent of the head), the presence of the top Xs and bottom Zsdepends on the lexical head. For the Complement Xs (typically arguments of the predicatecorresponding to the lexical head), this is uncontroversial, but for the top (Speci�er) position,this is obscured by some idiosyncracies of English, namely that the subject (which we are nowsuggesting is the `Speci�er') of the verb seems to be obligatory, in the sense of its presencebeing independent of the lexical properties of the verb. As we have seen above, this is, atleast super�cially, not true for German. Class III verbs42 have obligatorily \missing" (i.e.,phonetically unrealized) subjects. What this means in terms of theory is precisely what isat issue.43 That is, is there a universally present obligatory subject position, which if not40Josef: Do you really mean Speci�er is Maximal Projection? Nice data from German:(1) Dem Franz sein Hut und dem Willi sein Schal(2) Dem Franz sein Hund und Schal(3) Dem Franz sein, und der Helene ihr, Vaterfck. RNR intonation! - CTg(4) Structure: [Det dem Fritz [Det [Det sein] Hut ]] ?See also discussion below.41The structural notion is probably the wrong one, as one can see from the discussion below in x 7[originally file PROBLERG.SCRIPT.A]), but let us assume it temporarily for the sake of exposition.42This refers to the discussion in Thiersch (1978) and elsewere about various verbs such asimpersonals and passives which have no nominative subject.43For example, whether a V-projectioncan take a subject directly, or whether it is in some sense \mediated"by INFL, a projection of tense and agreement features. See discussion below.22

present phonetically, is nevertheless present in all other levels of representation and �lled byan empty category, or is it simply \not there" when not licensed by the lexical head of itsconstruction. (Assuming the framework scetched above.)Note that both language internally as well as cross-linguistically the presence of the Spec-i�er position is in fact lexically determined: for example, a proper noun in English idiosyn-cratically cannot take a de�nite determiner except under marked circumstances, whereas asingular common noun must:(94) * John invited the Fred to the party.(95) * Sam saw guest that he knew at the party.We can see that this is idiosyncratic by looking at other languages, where this is not true;for example, Bavarian44, where a proper noun is UNgrammatical without a determiner, orRussian where NO noun has a determiner. Clearly there is some principle at work here,as we would not expect to �nd a language in which, say, proper nouns had determinersbut common nouns did not; rather we are claiming that whatever (probably \semantic")principle is at work here is idiosyncratically paramentrizable, and depends on the subclassof N; i.e., Det can subcategorize N. Note that the presence or absence (phonetically) of thespeci�er of N also depends upon whether the noun is singular or plural, again both languageinternally as well as cross-linguistically idiosyncratically. Drawing the appropriate parallels,we note that the same is true of verbs: language internally, as shown in Chap. 00, 00,and noted above, the Class III verbs are obligatorily subjectless in German. In Italian, thesubject of all verbs may be phonetically absent .45Finally, parallel to the singular/plural distinction in NPs, we note that the presence orabsence of the subject (Speci�er) of the verb is contingent on its in ection as well: whetheror not it is, for example, tensed:(96) John knows that Fred left.(97) * John knows Fred to leave.==========================================================\&1 The above argumentation needs to be revised in lightof the suggestion below that the Det is the head of ``NP'',taking an N-max complement!===========================================================So far this is just suggestive; it remains to be shown that (1) the positions can be justi�edor \licensed" appropriately, and (2) that arguments for having the logical subject of a verb,unlike that of a noun, be an \external" argument can be either rejected, or translated intothis framework. There have of course been principles suggested in the literature which`license' the presence of the subject of a sentence, in terms of, for example, Case assignment.We will suggest below that nothing is lost if these are reformulated in a more general wayin this framework, perhaps to categories other than V.Let us return for a moment to the general schemata for N and V projections, repeatedhere:(98) N" --> (X") N'N' --> (Adj') N' (X")N' --> N (N") (X")44and Portuguese45[Cinque notes:] Except for the dialects noted in Rizzi (1982)!23

(99) V" --> (X") V'V' --> (Adv') V' (X")V' --> V (N") (X")Note that if we adhere to the features suggested above, then these can be collapsed as asingle \rule":(100) [ �F, �min] ! ([ �F, +max]) [ �F, �max] ([ F, +max])(where �, �, are variables standing for + or �)(disregarding the Adj' and Adv' for the moment) This is to be interpreted roughly like aphonological rule, although of course it is not really a rule in the usual sense, and simply asummary of the schemata in (98) and (99), and abbreviates some of the current theoreticalassumptions about X-bar theory. The \rule" states that any category with the features [�F]and the feature [�min] may be rewritten as a string consisting of a node with the features[�F] and the feature [�max], plus an (optional) sister with the feature [+max]. Note thatthis is in some sense a \de�nition" of the features [max] and [min]. The features [�F] andthe features [ F] are in general arbitrary in the case of adjuncts, and in the case of speci�ersare determined by the head; i.e.,(101) � F = f(�F)where `f' is some function. In this sense the head \licenses" the speci�er and complementby determining the minimal set of features which the constituent in that place must match,but not adjuncts. Some questions to which we will want to return below are:(a) Does this indicate consistent binary branching? Some data seem to suggest that, ifthere are two complements, as with the verbs `put' or `give' that we don't in fact havebinary branching, although there have been proposals to the contrary in the literature(cf. Kayne 1984).(b) Is the heirarchical position of the speci�er vs. the complementizer important? Why?(c) What does this mean for the status of the node \VP"?(d) How and why does the head control just the speci�ers and the complements?(e) What is the status of [+max] constituents with respect to, for example, Binding Theory(in the G/B sense)?(f) How are in ectional morphemes to be treated?(g) How are Case and theta-role (as understood in various formulations of G/B) assigned?Let us begin with some examples to make the above assumptions clearer. What wouldthe structure of the sentences \John beat the dog" and \John was beating the dog" be (forexample, at D-structure)? Contrary to what is often tacitly assumed, \beat the dog" and\beating the dog" would not, in fact, have the same structure (i.e., \VP"):24

(102) a. V[+�n]NJohn V[+�n]V0 [+�n]beat Nthe dog�� @@�� @@ b. V[+�n]NJohn V[+�n]V0 [+ger]beatingV0 [+�n]was V[+ger]Nthe dog�� @@�� @@�� @@Note that in the second case there are two verbal projections, one of V[+ger] = `beating', andthe other of V[+�n] = `was'. Note that the apparent inconsistency in the \bar" notation(i.e., that V directly dominates V) is really not inconsistent, if the bar conventions arereinterpreted as features in the manner suggested by \rule" (100). Hence the superscripts 0{2 or bars/apostrophes, are simply informal abbreviations for the feature content. V[+�n] hasthe features [+max, �min] and V[+�n] has [�max, +min], which is a possibile realizationof (100).To make this clearer, note that all the \rule" says, is that the complement of a headmust have the feature [+max]. So if [�F] are the features for a verb, then the complement,[ F], might be a set of noun features, but it must include the feature [+max]. If it happensto have the feature [�min], then the \rule" allows expansion again as another projectionof the head, which now must include the feature [�max], and its complement or adjunctmust include the feature [+max]. The feature [min] for the head is not speci�ed by the rule,so if it were [+min], then the projection would stop and its sister would be (by de�nition)the complement. On the other hand, one could \choose" [�min] and continue, having asmany or as few tiers as necessary as required. This also means, of course, that we couldhave chosen a complement (necessarily [+max]) which happens to have the feature [+min],as for example in (102b) above, where the node dominating `John' is actually both: [+max,+min]; i.e., a lexical item �lling a maximal argument position.46;47Returning to the structures in (102a) and (102b), note that this means there are twomaximal projections in (102b), but only one in (102a). However, the two maximal projectionsin (102b) have a di�erent status: if we assume for the moment that verbs are [+V], thenthe projection of `beating', V(i), is indeed maximal (by de�nition), but it is a projection ofthe features [+V, �Tense, . . . ] while the node V(j) is a projection of [+V, +Tense]. Hencethey can have di�erent status with respect to locality conditions such as subjacency, bindingtheory, etc. Thus what one might `mean' by INFL is that bundle of features which includes,for example, [+Tense]; but it need not be separated from a verb in a separate projection.Notice this makes the realization of INFL consistent with that of other in ectional mor-phemes: in a sentence like \John might have been beating the dogs", there are are, by a46[Cinque notes:] Proper nouns probably not [+max,+min] as opposed to (certain) pronouns, but ratherN"-N'-N: cf. \The Fred that we knew. . . " vs. \*The they that we knew. . . "47[This FN needs to be rewritten! Business about Complement not clear, also [+max]feature.] Note that this allows us to reformulate the solution to the non-fronting of `haben' discussedin section V.A of chap.00: If `haben' in the Vorfeld were [+max, +min], then it would be a lexical itemoccupying the entire Complement position of `soll', and hence could have no Complement itself, in particular`den Hund geschlagen' would attach to nothing; i.e. it would be the complement of nothing, and hencereceive no interpretation. If `haben' were [�max, +min], then it would be the head of a projection; but byhypothesis, the Vorfeld is a Speci�er (in the above sense) and hence cannot simultaneously be the lexicalhead. If it were [�min] then it would be a branching node by de�nition (100), and would have to have thestructure [ e haben]. [Josef: expresses confusion about the Vorfeld being Speci�er; he equates Speci�er withSUBJECT; explain somewhere that Subject is Spec(V), but the Vorfeld is Spec(C)?25

not unreasonable account (cf. x 2.1{2.2 above), four constituents which are the projectionsof each auxiliary verb; if we are to treat INFL as having its own projection, then to beconsistent there ought to be 8 projections (for \ING", \EN", \INF" . . . ), to say nothingof the nominal in ections. There seems to be no need for this; most probably, assumingthat INFL is literally a node is the residue of the analysis of the English auxiliary systemin Chomsky (1957) and subsequent re�nements; we want to ask below (a) if these e�ects(e.g., do-support) aren't better accounted for by other mechanisms which we have at ourdisposal, and (b) if the e�ects of INFL in G/B theory really rely crucially on its being theHEAD of a projection of its own. It seems not unreasonable to hope that only true lexi-cal items have projections, a point which has interesting consequences for the structure ofGerman sentences, and the role of what has sometimes been called COMP in the generativeliterature.6.2 Licensing the argument positions.If each of the verbal projections in `John might have been beating the dogs' is \maximal",then why do they not have \subjects", i.e., speci�ers, except for `might'? The reason oftengiven in the literature can be translated into this framework; if we assume that (in English)the features which assign Case to the complement of a verb assign it to the right, and[+tense] or the equivalent assigns its Case (nominative) left, then in a sentences like (102a)and (102b) above, repeated here as (103):(103) a. John beat the dog.b. John was beating the dog.the verb `beat' assigns its direct object case (e.g., accusative) to the right in both cases; butin (103a), the verb is [+tense] and hence can assign the subject case, nominative, to the left,licensing this positon and allowing it to be assigned the thematic role of subject.In (103b) however, the verb `beating' is [�tense] and hence cannot assign nominativecase to its left. Thus the projection ends with the structure(104) [V[+max] [V[+min] beating] [N[+max] the dog]]]since no speci�er is licensed and therefore there is no \subject". In the next projection,however, `was' is [+tense] and can assign nominative case, licensing the speci�er position,but has no theta role of its own to assign.48Its lexical speci�cation includes a complement of, say, [+V, +ING], which is ful�lledby (104) above. Since this is however, is an open predicate, and the function (meaning)verb `be' is to link the nominative NP to the open argument in its complement, the NP`John' is assigned to the \dangling" argument position. (See more detailed discussion of themechanics of this below.)We will want to consider the conditions under which this assignment can take place ingreater detail and explore their consequences, but �rst a few words about the interpretationof the positions. Above I had de�ned for convenience the terms \Speci�er", etc. with capitalletters to mean structural positions. Let us now consider the typical \semantic" functions\speci�er", \adjunct" and \complement" (with small letters, to keep the functional notionsdistinct from the phrase structural ones) and ask in how far they correspond.48This is not precisely accurate: as has been noted in the literature, the subject receives a \compound"theta role composed of the \theta role" of the subject argument position of the main verb, plus whateverthe adjuncts (modi�ers of the verb), auxiliary verbs, and idiomatic readings triggered by the direct objectof the main verb contribute. We will ignore this temporarily and return to this point below.26

If we adopt the rough semantic notion that all lexical heads are predicates with arguments(or perhaps operators, a point to which we return later), then we can assume that words inthe �rst column have the argument positions indicated in the second column:(105) see SEE(x, y)disappear DISAPPEAR(x)give GIVE(x, y, z)on ON(x, y)with WITH(x, y)red RED(x)proud PROUD(x, y)fireman FIREMAN(x)Note that there are examples above from all four major classes. How are the argumentpositions linked? Let us assume that every projection [+max] of a lexical item also has asemantic position, or pointer, which is its \referent" (henceforth `R', to borrow a term fromE.Williams); in the case of, for example, a noun phrase used as an argument, this is obvious,and the usual usage; in the case of a verb projection, this would be interpreted as the \event"described by the verb. (Cf. Davidson, 1966, and discussion in Higgenbotham, 1985)Now the di�erence between \speci�er", \adjunct" and \complement" (now in the func-tional sense!) as they are often interpreted in the literature seems to have to do with themanner in which their (empty) argument positions, if any, are linked. Hence \complements"either �ll argument positions of the head directly, (that is, their \R" is linked directly toan argument position of the head) or the head or they supply an open predicate which thehead (perhaps supplying some semantic content of its own, as noted in FN:00 above) linksto the \R" of the speci�er (i.e. the speci�er �lls the argument position in the compoundpredicate.) The \adjuncts" however, are all open predicates, whose open argument is linked(or \identi�ed") by default to the \R" of the head. For example, if we take the preposition`on', then it licenses its object by assigning it Case, and in the phrase \on the table" the R of`the table' is assigned to y in ON(x,y). The other argument position, x, however, cannot belinked in the prepositional phrase, as prepositions, being [�tense] cannot assign nominativecase, and hence a Speci�er (\subject") NP position is not licensed. Hence \on the table"remains an open predicate; if it is embedded under the copula `be' like \beating the dog"above, its dangling argument is bound by the copula to the R of `the book' in \The book ison the table." If it is embedded in a the NP \the book . . . " as an adjunct, then its emptyargument is bound to the R of the head by default; in informal logical notation,(106) \the R1 such that BOOK(R1) & (for the R2 such that TABLE(R2), ON(R1,R2) )"(See Higgenbotham (1984) for a more complete discussion of the linking of various types ofadjuncts to the referent of NPs.)49Similarly, in a V projection, the R of the complement is linked to (or more accurately,identi�ed with) an argument position of the verb in the obvious way; e.g. `beat' in (103a)or `beating' in (103b) above. If the head requires an open predicate as its Complement,then the dangling argument position is linked to the R of the subject; e.g., `was' in (103b)above. (In a NP, of course, this is direct; in a verbal projection, since verbs in ect for mood,tense, aspect, etc., this component is added the interpretation of the main predicate: forexample, if the top verb is [+tense], then the whole forms an assertion.) In \John ate thecake with a spoon", the x of WITH(x,y) is linked to the R of EAT. All of this is hopefully49Cinque: this holds for subcategorizedPPs; what about non-subcategorizedPPs? CT: they are Adjuncts;cf. discussion below. 27

uncontroversial, and simply makes some assumptions more explicit so we can refer to thembelow.Some more interesting cases follow. We might well ask, for example, if some of thecommonly assumed structures are in fact correct. In a sentence like \John believed Fred tohave left", a not uncommon assumption is that \Fred to have left" is base-generated as an S,and \becomes" an S by \S-deletion". What would this mean, translated into the frameworksketched above? We might suppose, since we have suggested that heads may determinethe categorial status of their complements, that `believe', among other things, may haveN[+max] and V[+max] complements.50 This means the structure of the sentence is(107) . . . [V believed [V [V to have left]]](where the superscripts are interpreted as features!)51Without commenting on the exact status of the `to', note that \Fred" is the speci�er ofsome maximal projection of a verb, just as in \Fred has left". However, since this projectionis [�tense], it receives no Case, and hence the position would not normally be licensed (astandard G/B assumption). If we assume, however, that `believe' has both accusative Caseto assign, as well as a theta-role of direct object, as in \John believes the story," whereassignment works normally, then what happens here? Clearly the theta-role of direct objectis assigned to the R of the V; but since a verbal projection cannot take Case, we now havethe inverse situation to the one described above; instead of a \dangling" argument position(or \theta-role", to be more precise), we have a dangling Case. The usual assumption isthat this constituent is in some sense transparent, so that the Case may be assigned to anempty position in the complement. (The details of this vary according to theory, we willmake a more speci�c proposal below. Hence the NP position receives Case from `believe',the theta-role from \to have left", and the structure is grammatical and receives the correctinterpretation.Can we extend this to some other cases? For example, an old observation is that verbslike `put' are causatives, in that their interpretation is something like the following: \Johnput the book on the table" = John caused X, where X is the state of the book being on thetable." Recall that under normal circumstances, the structure(108) [Pthebook [P [P on ] [the table] ]]is impossible by itself. Either the string \the book on the table" must be an NP, or apredication operator like the copula must be present to license a NP position by assigningit Nominative case, and linking it to the argument position (i.e., predicating \ON (x, [thetable]) of book. But if this structure is embedded as the complement of `put', then, assuming`put' as a direct object theta-role (roughly, \CAUSE-THROUGH-MOVING(x,y)" where yis the direct object, i.e., the Complement of `put'), and in addition a CASE to assign, thenthe P" (= P-max) cannot receive Case, but does receive the theta-role; its speci�er receivesCase exactly as in the `believe' case above and is licensed as a position, and therefore canreceive its theta-role directly from the head.52While this is intuitively applealing, several empirical problems come to mind immediately;if this is a constituent, why can it not be topicalized? e.g.,50It of course can have C[+max] complements as well, as in \John believed that Fred had left." We willreturn to the status of these directly below.51Cinque: wouldn't you take `to' to be an indication of INFL/TNS, heading a projection of its own? CT:yes, `to' projects; add this to discussion!52Josef asks do you mean a small clause analysis like Kayne, Gueron, Jayaseelan; or Williams-style predi-cation. CT: more like the former! where's Stowell in J's list? Ref's??28

(109) My sister, nobody likes!but(110) * The book on the table, John put!Apparently, the explanation ought to have to do with the assignment of case, which isprevented from going down into a constituent to its speci�er if strict C-command (and/orstring adjacency?) is not observed, for example, since the same is true in the `believe'-case:(111) * Fred to have left, John believed!(Cf. footnote 6.2 below for a more complete discussion.) This suggests that perhaps con-joined structures such as(112) They put the chairs in the cellar and the books in the library.are directly possible as constituent coordination rather than, for example, as cases of \gap-ping".53An even more interesting case is that of the past-participle: it is often assumed that the\passive" morphology absorbs the case-assigning properties of the verb, and hence the objectmust \move" to subject position in order to receive case, as required by the principles ofG/B theory. A peculiarity of this, which has often been noted, is that if the assignment ofaccusative case by verbs were to work in a parallel fashion to the assignment of nominativecase, i.e. [�tense] morphological forms \prevent" the verb from assigning nominative case,we might expect EN to prevent the verb from assigning accusative case in general. Butunlike other in ectional morphemes, such as PRESENT and PAST, which are distinct forsome verbs and indistinguishable when realized on other verbs (\John put[Pres] vs. \Johnput[Past] . . . "), the PASSIVE and PAST PARTICIPLE forms are identical for all verbs inEnglish, German and several other languages.If they are in fact the same morpheme (i.e., have the same properties) then the passive(i.e. failure to assign case) is a function of two things: the verbal morphology, and theauxiliary verb under which it is embedded. In the active (past perfect) cases, these aretypically auxiliaries related to case assigning verbs, such as `have', `haben', `avoir' etc.; inthe case of passive, the auxiliaries are related to verbs which typically don't assign accusativecase to their complements, such as `be', `werden', `sein', `etre'. Suppose we assume that ENin general does not assign case to its complement. How does the object get case in \John hasbeaten the dog"? Let us assume that it works by the same mechanism described above; thatis, `beaten' assigns case to neither its Speci�er nor its Complement positions; but the `has'has a dangling accusative Case, which is assigned to the Complement of `beaten', licensingthe position, and allowing it to take its theta role in situ.54 Note that we need also to assumethat there is some ordering of the arguments with respect to their being linked: the \internal"(in Williams' sense) before the \external". (This is crucial in the example below.) In thecase of \was beaten NP", neither the verb `beaten' nor the copula assign accusative case.Hence the position is not licensed; but since the copula expects an unsaturated predicate itcan link its speci�er to the open argument position, just as in the examples above. Note thatthis explains a curious con�guration of data: the Adjuncts of NP can be almost any maximalprojection with an open argument position, and it is linked to the R of the noun(-phrase)by default:53One can only speculate what this means for the analysis of the notorious dative (indirect object) caseslike \John gave Mary the book and Sheila the records." Cf. Kayne (1984) for a proposal along these linesfor the double-object constructions.54Cf. Cinque's suggestion in footnote 8, p. 5 about `haben' assigning Case here.29

(113) the man [with the hat] P-maxa student [sick of the exams] A-maxa man [to fix the sink] V-maxthe cat [which Fred saw] C-max(see {00} below)(An Adjunct of course can't be an N-max, since these positions are not assigned Case.)55However, there is an odd contrast; we have(114) The boy beating the dog is Fred.(115) The boy beaten by the police was Fred.not the parallel(116) * The boy beaten the dog was Fred.That is, the [+V, +EN, +max] can have only the passive interpretation. This follows directlyfrom the account given above, since the NP position after `beaten' is not licensed, and hencecannot be �lled directly. If the ordering of linking of arguments is as suggested above (i.e.,\internal" or direct object �rst), then the direct object argument position of `beaten' mustbe linked to the R of `boy'.Material from footnote 34[Too long to put in footnote? -ct] Note that if the story about case assignment iscorrect, then when case is not assigned directly to a constituent NP, but rather to theconstituent which contains the target NP, there is a signi�cant subject/object assymetry;for example, we might say that for the case to percolate down (descend upon) an embeddedNP, strict C-command (and/or adjacency) is required for subjects (i.e., Speci�er position),since we have(117) [V[+max] kicked the dog]i , Fred never has eiwhere `the dog' is gets Case from `has' under the proposal outlined in the in the body ofthepaper, but not(118) * [V[+max] Fred to have left]i , he doesn't believe eior(119) * [P[+max] the book on the table]i, John never put eiNote that we need something like this distinction independently of these cases because of con-structions like the following: in an embedded A.C.I. construction (exceptional case-marking),the logical subject of the embedded clause gets its case from the matrix verb; e.g., acc. ordative:55There is an apparent exception: \The discussion yesterday about the schedule". We need however tosay something in general about nominal adverbs, e.g. German \den 15. Juni". Josef: V-max adjunct in(113) is strange. If you abandon the idea that purpose clauses are S-bar's with WH-movement into COMP,the you could have a V-max like the following:* a man [V to �x the sink] 30

(120) Weilbecause Fritzthe [denboy(acc.) Jungenthe dassong Liedsing singen]heard h�orte, . . .`because Fritz heard the boy sing the song,. . . '(121) Weil Fritz demthe Jungenboy(dat) Kuchencakes backenbake half,helpedAlthough the bracketed strings are presumably constituents, they are impossible in theVorfeld (for most speakers, although marginally OK for some56):(122) *? Den Jungen ein Lied singen h�orte Fritz nicht!However, consider the case of ergative verbs like `unterlaufen' (discussed above in Chap. 00,00), where the NP in direct-object position clearly gets its (Nominative or other) Case fromthe matrix verb:(123) Weilbecause [meinemmy(dat.) Lehrerteacher [Fehlermistakes(nom.) unterlaufen]]under-run sind,are . . .`Because my teacher has made mistakes,. . . 'When further embedded, `Fehler' gets whatever case the matrix verb assigns (e.g. accusativeunder `sehen'=\to see"), hence the nominative is clearly coming from the auxiliary (+Tense,INFL or whatever) not from `unterlaufen'. But these are OK in the Vorfeld:(124) Fehler unterlaufen sind meinem Lehrer nie. (nie = `never')So here, unlike in example (122), the Case can be assigned by the matrix verb (i.e., theauxiliary `sind') in spite of lack of C-command.End of material from footnote 34Another objection to the alleged constituent status of the string \the book on the table"in \Fred put the book on the table" is that there is no pro-word which refers to this string:e.g.,(125) * `What' did John put?(126) * `Where' did John put?(127) * John put `glarph'/`there'.(Where these are immaginary pro-forms.) But it isn't clear what the (accidental) gap of apro-form means; there are other constituents, such as S (which we have been calling V orV-max), which cannot normally be pronominalized:(128) * Fred believed [S that [S[+pron:] `glarph' ]]Note in a sentence like \John believed it", the `it' stands for an S, not an S. (Cf. next sectionfor the status of S.)Finally, there is a problem posed by the possibility of adverbs being interposed inthese constructions (note from EDB): as in \John put the book reluctantly into the paper-shredder". However, it's important to compare the cases:(129) John ate the cake slowly in the kitchen.(130) John put the book reluctantly into the paper-shredder.56This has to be rethought; too many speakers �nd (122) good! E.g., Ingo St�ohr, Hap, Josef (who saysalso Koster/May in their Lanuage article??) 31

(131) John believed Fred sincerely to be a genius.Some people �nd the last one appreciably worse than the other two, others have only agradation from (129) to (131). Note that if we are correct in assuming that the subject ofa sentence is the Speci�er of V-max, then the position between the Speci�er and Head is infact a perfectly normal place for adverbs:(132) [V[+max] John reluctantly [V killed the cat]]the peculiarity in (130) and (131) being that the adverbs are required to be interpreted asmodifying the matrix predicate. It's not clear that the di�erence in acceptability re ects anymore than this, and that the problem with (131) is that, \Fred to be a genius" being a V-projection, is a possible \host" for the adverb and so it is incorrectly interpreted (parsed) asmodifying the lower verb; whereas a P-projection cannot usually be modi�ed in the relevantsense by a manner adverb of this sort, and so the identi�cation of \reluctantly" with the P\into" is never made.7 The structure of the COMP-projection.Having sketched the outline of the projections of other lexical items, such as nouns, verbs,prepositions, etc., and suggested that their structure is fairly rigidly constrained by (1) the\max/min" constraints of the projection rule (100) on p.24, and (2) the way in which theComplements, Adjuncts, and Speci�ers are linked to argument positions and `R's, let us turnto the projections in which an S, i.e. [+V, +max, +tense], may be embedded, namely, thecomplementizer. It is usually assumed that the structure of a sentence with a complementizeris(133) S'/ \COMP S| /___\thatand that WH-movement is \adjunction to COMP", i.e.(134) S'/ \/ \COMP S/ \ / \/ \ /_______\[+WH] COMP e/\ . [+WH]. .. . . . . . . .This is at variance with the most versions of X-bar theory for several reasons. If we assumethat S is really `INFL[+max]' (or [+V, +Tense, +max] as was suggested above), then whatis S? It cannot, by hypothesis, be a further projection of the verb, since S is alreadymaximal. A suggestion often made (cf. Pesetsky 1982, and others) is that it is a projectionof COMP, which is a consistent interpretation, since one would expect that `that' and othercomplementizers, being lexical items, ought to have their own projections. But then it is not32

clear (a) how the interpretation of the [+WH] item is related to this kind of structure; (b)in the cases where `that' is \deleted" it looks as if the [+WH] item is the `Head' of COMP,surely an incoherent notion with regard to the X-bar theory, since the [+WH] item is clearlynot a lexical item, but probably a maximal projection:(135) [On which table] did you �nd the book?This is particularly disturbing in the case of relative clauses, where the fronted WH-item, amaximal constituent, is the only candidate for the Head of the alleged projection:(136) Derthe Mann,man [dessenwhose Frau]wife ichI schonalready kenne,know . . .Let us assume, rather, that COMPs, like all other lexical items, have a projection of thesame sort allowed by the PS \rule" in (93), p.22:(137) COMP"/ \/ \X" COMP'/ \/ \COMP Y"where the bar-levels are interpreted as max/min features in the manner speci�ed above, theY is a [+max] Complement, namely S = V[+max], and X is a [+max] Speci�er, and exploreboth the consequences of this structure, as well as some of the evidence for it.First of all, it should be noted that the semantic interpretation of the WH-element followsdirectly in a manner parallel to that sketched for the other constituents, as suggested abovein x 6.2. Recall that the function of heads is quite typically, among other things, to linkthe element in the Speci�er position to an argument position of an open predicate, i.e.,predicating the complex predicate of the Speci�er. But in the [+WH] cases, this is of coursejust what happens; the Complement of `that' is a projection which cannot normally be open,namely S = [+V, +max, +tense], and the complementizer allows it to be open by linkingits Speci�er to an empty position. (For convenience, in the following, let us refer to theseelements as C's, without attaching any theoretical signi�cance to this notation, any morethan using V to mean verbs which are, variously, tensed, participles, gerunds, or in�nitives.In modern English, and in modern German, it is di�cult to \see" the structure of theC-projection, since, as will be suggested below, some of its elements are often phoneticallynull. In Bavarian German, however, we have the full paradigm present (the orthography isonly intended to be suggestive, as diacritics are not available):(138) Desthat istis deathe mon,man demwhom wowhere deathe XaverXaver ea buchbook kschentgiven hot.has`That's the man, to whom Xavier gave a book.'(139) II woassknow net,not wenwhom da�that deathe SeppSepp vergiftpoisoned hot.has`I don't know who Sepp poisoned.'Note that the relative clause is begun by two elements in the full case; the �rst is the relativepronoun, just as in High German, which in ects for gender and case; the second is theinvariant element `wo' which literally means \where" as in \Wo ist das Buch?", but here issimply a relativizer, whose presence or absence is syntactically determined, and depends on33

case matching between the relative pronoun and Head of the NP. (Cf. Bayer 1984 for detailsand a discussion of the data.)Hence we have the following paradigm in Bavarian:57(140) a. X00 V S (Main clause, statement or WH-question)b. V S (Yes/No-Question)c. da� S (embedded factive)d. X00 da� S (embedded WH-clause, where X00 is [+W]e. X00 wo S (relative clause, where X00 is [+D]Now if we assume that the C-projection is just like all the others as suggested above in (137)and repeated here (with `COMP' replaced by the more non-committal `C'):(141) C"/ \/ \X" C"/ \/ \C Y"then we have exactly the paradigm in (140) above, if the constituent C" can be headed eitherby a lexical complementizer or a lexical verb. What we would like to suggest is: (1) that asentence like (138) or (139) has a structure like (141), not, for example, that in (134).This is borne out, for example, by conjunction data58:(142) Desthat isis derthe mon,man, demwhom wothat mirwe g'hoifahelped homhave undand wothat deathe FranzFranz ea Buachbookg'schenktgiven hot.has`That's the man, who we helped and Franz gave a book to.'Note the two conjoined \wo S" sequences, utilizing the same (dative) relative pronoun. Whileone might claim there is an empty category in the second conjunct before the `wo' whichis coindexed with the `dem', one would have to explain why it can occur just here, as thedative relative pronoun, unlike the nominative, cannot be deleted:(143) Des ist dea Mon, dem wo mir g'hoifa hom.(144) * Des ist dea Mon, wo mir g'hoifa hom.cf.(145) Des ist dea Mon, deawho wothat unsus b'schissnbeshat hot.has(146) Des ist dea Mon, wo uns b'schissn hot.= \. . . , who made fools of us." (not a literal translation)The same is true of the embedded [+W] clauses:57Recall that German, in general, distinguishes between two types of \[+WH]" phrases; [+W] (questions):`wen', `wer', `wessen Buch', etc., and [+D] (relatives): `den', `der', `derren Mann', etc.58Check Bavarian orthography! 34

(147) Waeichewhich Hiathat da�that deathe XaverXaver g'kauftbought hothas undand da�that diethe MuellerMiller Buamboys wiederagainweg'schmissnaway-thrown hom,have woassknows vonof unsus neamt.no-one.`None of us knows which hat Xaver bought and the Miller boys threw away.'We now note that this resolves the con ict about the structure and interpretation of theseconstituents. In the relative clause case, (140e) above, the C takes a V[+max] with a missingargument, i.e., an open predicate as a Complement, and identi�es the missing argument withthe element in its Speci�er. That is, the C in this case allows the [+V, +max, +tense], whichis normally opaque and cannot have an open argument position because of the case/thetaassignment procedures outlined in x 6.2 above, to nevertheless function as an open predicate.It should be noted that the exact mechanics of the licensing (of, for example, the Speci�erof a C) are not clear (and as far as I know, the question has not been directly addressed in theliterature): it cannot be absorption of Case, as in the past participle cases, as the elementswhich can appear in the Speci�er of the C can themselves be adjuncts, which presumablydo not received Case59:(148) The day wheni Hilda arrived ei was cloudy and bleak.This is even more true if we consider the other clause types in (140) to be cases of C-max'sas well:(149) Gestern hat der Hund meinen Sohn gebissen.(150) C"/ \/ \Adv" C'| / \gestern / \i C V"| / \hat / \j /___________\... e ... ei jEvidently, some property of a C other than case assignment licenses its Speci�er, as well asthe empty position in the V-max. Note that this seems to be a function of the C; that, forexample, an element from V" must \move" up to �ll the position, and the conditions underwhich this can and must happen, are a result of other principles, such as the Binding Theoryof G/B; but the licensing of the position itself needs to be accounted for.Note that this issue arrises independently in the case of other projections. For example,how is the Speci�er of NP licenced? While Case could play a role in(151) [The King of England]'s umbrella . . .where `the King of England' is presumably assigned some Case, this seems implausible in\that book" or \the cat". If we take the idea of projection seriously for other lexemes aswell, then the same problem arises: if co-ordinate conjunctions are K-projections,59Not obvious, cf. earlier observations about adverbial NPs getting at least morphologicalcase. Would have been better to use a PP in the example: ``The day on which ...''35

(152) K"/ \/ \X" K'| / \John / \K Y"| |and Marywhere K, as will be suggested below, is a constituent whose categorial features are the inter-section of the categorial features of its Speci�er and Complement, then in general somethingother than Case must license X and Y, since not only NPs can be conjoined.A second issue which must be addressed (and which is evident from the last examplein the preceding paragraph) is the feature content of what we have been abbreviating as`C': sometimes the \position" seems to be occupied by a lexical complementizer like `that'or `da�'; at other times a tensed verb, as we have suggested in (141) above. Is it reallycorrect to \identify" these two as the same type of constituent, as is so frequently done inthe literature? (Cf. Den Besten 1977, Thiersch 1978, etc., etc.) There seems to be, ashas been frequently noted, an intimate relation between the \COMP"-C and the \INFL"-C(i.e., the tensed verb): in some dialects (such as West Flemish, cf. Haegemanns 1982 andBavarian, cf. Bayer 1984) even the former can take verbal morphology (tense endings), atleast super�cially. Perhaps the correct way to think of this is that the class \C" consistsof a minimal set of features which includes both some verbal features, as well as featureswhich make the C-max into a proposition. The Head, C, may be �lled by any lexical itemwhich does not (a) con ict with these features, and (b) does not con ict with the featuresrequired by the matrix Head which it subcatagorizes. (Hence \movement" of the verb intothis position, if it is left empty, is not prohibited.) One might suggest that the verb itself (i.e.,the features of the V-projection), unlike, for example, English or Japanese, do not containthe features which are nessary for making an assertion. (These features, whatever they are,must, at least methodologically, be kept separate from tense and agreement features oftenreferred to as INFL, since the latter are presumable present even in a subordinate tensedclause, in which the C contains the complementizer `da�' and the tensed verb is clause �nal.)So far we have been, of course, talking about Bavarian; what about \standard" German(as well as other dialects)? Let us look again at the Bavarian paradigm given above andrepeated here:60(140) a. X00 V S (Main clause, statement or WH-question)b. V S (Yes/No-Question)c. da� S (embedded factive)d. X00 da� S (embedded WH-clause, where X00 is [+W]e. X00 wo S (relative clause, where X00 is [+D]What happens in other dialects? Apparently there are speakers who have the above paradigm,except that (140e) is(140e0) X00 S60Similarly for other complementizers of this type like weil, ob, etc. (although there are some questions tobe raised about whether some are COMPs or Ps). Josef: doesn't know of any speakers who have the `wenda�' but not `wo' relatives. CT: What about Hans-Thilo Tappe? Also, in my (conversational) English I �nd\Sam wondered who that Fred saw" OK, but the relative clause case is out \*A man who that Susan hadkissed. . . ". 36

let us assume that the structure is really(140e00) X00 ; Swhere ; is a phonetically empty `C'. That is, a relative clause is always a C-projection,regardless of whether the Head is phonetically present. Note that what we are saying is thatthe Head, with its categorial/semantic features, is present, even if phonetically unrealized.A similar situation occurs with other projections as well; analogously, the Russian copula isphonetically null in sentences like(153) Knigabook naon stole.table`The book is on the table.'No one would, I presume, suggest that the verb is \not there", but rather that the structureis(154) [V [N kniga] [V [V ; ] [P na stole ] ](V"=S) where the verb V is simply phonetically null. (In fact, this only occurs in thepresent tense, the past tence being \Kniga byla na stole".) Hence it seems not unreasonableto assume that the constituent C" has the same structure regardless of the phonetic contentof the Head. Another dialect has a further \development", namely that (140d) also has a Cwhich is phonetically null:(140d0) X00[+W] ; S.This, however, is Hochdeutsch, the \standard" dialect. This seems to parallel the develop-ment in English, where the \which that" construction in Old and Middle English becamesimply \which" or \that".61 Note that all of the elements of this structure turn up phoneti-cally in other Germanic languages as well; e.g. \som" in Swedish:62(155) JagI undrarwonder vemwho somthat moerdadamurdered Jessica.JessicaThis now gives us a consistent analysis for the various constituent projections considered sofar; before turning to coordinate structures, let us return to the issue of the phrase-structurestatus of the various satellites (e.g., Speci�er (the position [X, Y] in diagram (156) below)versus \speci�er" (the function, such as \subject").6361EDB suggests (pers. comm.) that the construction has become further reanalysed in Modern English,and the \that" is now a relative pronoun, so that the C is always empty:The book [C thati [C [ ; ] [ I read ei yesterday]]] . . .This seems a not unreasonable reanalysis, and perhaps could o�er an explanation for the lack of so-called\that-trace" e�ects in relative clauses, as they have a di�erent structure under this analysis from embeddedthat-factives.62Cf. Holmberg 1983, example (32) p.2; note that the \vem" is the subject of the embedded clause; thisshows clearly, as do similar Bavarian examples, that the [+WH] subject moves to the Speci�er of C.63[Josef emphasizes that coordination provides several problems for this analysis:] (Cf. hisanalysis in TLR, where the [+WH] word moves into COMP if it is otherwise empty.) The analysis abovesuggests that 0-COMP & lexical-COMP can be conjoined; but(i) * I woass ned wen der Franz g'holfn hot und da� die Emma a Buach g'gebn hot.(Analysis, CT:[C weni [C OPi [ . . . ei . . . ] und [C e? [C da� [ . . . ei . . . ]]] ! Coordination problem with binding?)37

Some problems with the interpretation of the Spec and ergative64verbs[Material from the file PROBLERG.SCRIPT.A. This is so long, it should be a sec-tion, not a footnote!]At this point there is an important problem which, up until now, we have ignored. I havebeen using \Speci�er" to denote the structural position [X, Y]; i.e.,(156) Y"/ \/ \X" ...(similarly, \Adjunct" and \Complement") while using \speci�er", etc. for the functionalnotions (e.g., that Complements are often arguments of the Head, etc.) I have kept the twousages separate, as I had suggested a revision of the notion \bar-level", namely as features,which makes the two usages di�erent. With explicit PS rules, such as (98) repeated here:(98) N" --> (X") N'N' --> (Adj') N' (X")N' --> N (N") (X")the bar-levels are identical to the functional notions; that is, the sisters of N0 (the Comple-ments) are the complements. This is not true in the system suggested by rule (100), alsorepeated here:(100) [ �F, �min] ! ([ �F, +max]) [ �F, �max] ([ F, +max])Under this interpretation, the NP's \the destruction of Rome" and \the man with a hat"both have the same structure, namely:(157) N [+max, �min]Det N [�max, �min]N[�max,+min] P�� @@�� @@(ignoring the question mentioned above about whether \of Rome" is \really" a NP or aPP); that is, the structural Complement is in the former a complement and in the latter anadjunct.65(ii) ??Des is dea Mon dem der Fran g'holfn hot und wo die Emma e Buach g'gebn hot.(Second is better, but funny because in the \Standard" dialect, the \wo" can never be missing - JB). FromDer Spiegel:(iii) . . . , da� deutlich geworden ist, da� und warum ein derartiges Untersuchungsverfahren sinnvoll ist.JB says this shows above analysis wrong; isn't this an RNR construction if there ever was one?[[da� ei ] und [warum ei ]] [ein derartiges . . . ist]i64In today's terminology, ``unaccusative''.65NB: original tree had X" in place of Det; while irrelevant for this argument, the wholestructure would obviously need to be revised according to the DP analysis.38

With the explicit bar-level rules, they must have di�erent structures:(158) N" N"/ \ versus / \X" N' X" N'/ \ / \N P" N' P"|NThe same applies to other cases; we can use the bar levels to distinguish the functionallevels. While this seems at �rst glance to be desirable, we might ask if it is really necessary:in structure (158), we can say that P" in the leftmost case is an argument of the N, itscomplement, because it is its Complement (sister of the head); in the second \with a hat"structure, it is not a sister of N and hence an adjunct/Adjunct. However, suppose that wesay that the interpretation of a constituent is free, base on various principles; for example inthe structure (157) (assuming now the bar-level features presented in the paper), we claimthat the P" is interpreted as a complement if the Head takes an obligatory complement,otherwise as an adjunct. (Similarly for the other positions.) If the Head takes an optionalcomplement (in the functional sense), then the P" is optionally interpreted as a complement.Does this create any problems? In parsing structures, of course there will be a problemin determining which of the two one has in the optional case, but this is a separate problem,and is a subcase of the \attachment problem": for example, which of two adjunct positionsin two di�erent constituents does an adjunct in a particular use of a sentence actually occupy.(E.g., John killed the man with the knife.) This is a general problem in either framework.Presumably, in parsing of \real" (i.e. spoken) sentences, the context and the phonology willdisambiguate in many cases, expecially in the \focus" cases discussed above in Chap.00:(159) John [[[read ei ] yesterday] [�ve books on mathematics]i ]where `yesterday' is not interpreted as the complement, since the real complement has beenscrambled to the right.There are some perplexing cases however: if Speci�er, etc. are to be interpreted as purelystructural terms, as suggested in the text, then there is a problem which is not so obviousin a language like English, but is in German: if we compare two verbs like `tanzen' = \todance" and `kommen' = \to come", then they super�cially have the same structure, if weadopt the X-bar theory presented in the text:(160) ..., da{\ss} der Junge kommt. ..., da{\ss} der Junge tanzt.that the boy comes dances|[da{\ss} [ [ der Junge] [ kommt] ]] <same structure>V" N" VThat is, V" is an abbreviation for [+max, �min] and V is an abbreviation (here) for[�max, +min]; i.e., `der Junge' is the Speci�er (i.e., subject), as noted above, in both cases.But there is a lot of well known syntactic evidence that `der Junge' in the sentence with`kommen' behaves like a direct object (albeit with nominative case), whereas in `der Jungetanzt', it behaves like a true subject. In English it is claimed that in this verb class (the\ergative" intransitives) the direct object \moves" to get nominative case:(161) \Fred came" = [S Fredi [V came ei ]]39

But as one can see from the arguments in Chap.00,00 above, this is neither justi�ed nordesirable in German, as Class III verbs regularly have nominative NPs in \direct object"position66:(162) [S NPDat: NPNom: V ]so that the sturctures behave (in German) as though they were(163) [der Junge [tanzt]] versus [der Junge kommt]For example, the focus position with respect to the sentential stress rules stresses the sisterof the main verb to indicate normal scoping of focus. The result is, however,(164) `der junge TANZT' versus `der JUNGE tanzt'There are clearly ways of solving this, but none of them seem to be very appealing. Forexample, we since we must distinguish between \external" and \internal" arguments (in thesense used in the text, referring to the order in which they are linked, not to being \in" or\out" of a maximal projection), we might imagine that the stress/focus rules can refer to thisdirectly, although it seems undesirable, since it seems as though these rules are otherwiseinsensitive to functional notions (cf. the discussion of negative elements, below).67Similarly, \passive" will in someway have to refer to these notions of \external" vs. \in-ternal" in German: since in general NPs in Complement position (e.g. class III verbs) canreceive nominative case from [+Tense] in situ, so that, while accusative case is no longer\assigned", we no longer have to move to get nominative case. Hence we have the followingparadigm: a normal verb like SEHEN automatically assigns accusative case to its Comple-ment; if the Speci�er is licensed if it can get some Case, as outlined in the text. If theparticiple form GESEHEN is used, it fails to assign accusative case, and if there is a nom-inative case assigning element (e.g. tense) it assigns the nominative to the Complement, ifthere is one.In the case of `tanzen', there is none, and so the Speci�er is not licensed; but this isunproblematic, since the assignment is optional in German, so that the Speci�er/speci�er issimply absent, and we have(165) IchI glaube,think da�that getanztdanced wurde.68wasIn the case of `kommen', however, we cannot passivize the intransitive:(166) * Ich glaube, da� gekommen wurde.What happens?69 Under the hypothesis, `kommen' assigns no Case to its Complement,which however gets nominative case from [+tense], if present, in the \active" voice. Ifwe use the past participle, `gekommen', it presumably (vacuously) has its Case-assigningproperties removed. If in the active voice we then embed it under `haben', then the `haben'assigns its accusative case (as suggested above in 00) to the Complement. This is �ne with`gesehen' or even `getanzt', since there is a \potential", or optional, Complement. Cf.66I.e., ergatives like unterlaufen and passives; cf. (62) on p.1767Josef �nds all this incomprehensible; check TNH's judgements, as the arguments are based on his article!68Cinque: Why is \*. . . , da� [PRO zu tanzen] wurde" out, since no subject is present? CT: partially,because of subcategorization; \werden" takes something like AP, ('Mir wurde kalt'), & hence Past Participleprojection. Note it's OK with `sein': \Er behauptet, da� hier zu tanzen sei."69Cinque: Is the following discussion asserting that (166) is starred because passive morphology absorbsthe external �-role, but here there is no external �-role to absorb? Note that the same holds for Italian `si'constructions but is obscured by other factors. . . 40

(167) a. Er hat getanzt.b. Er hat einen Walzer getanzt.But in the case of `gekommen' we would get(168) ** . . . , da� ihn gekommen hat.In general, Accusative (complements) without speci�ers, unlike inherent Dative (comple-ments), are highly marked, and exist for only a few verbs, like `grauen'. < Hence thisis disallowed, although I'm not sure this is the reason. > If we take an auxil-iary which doesn't assign accusative case, like the copula `sein', then the Complement getsnominative case, and the (active) sentence is grammatical:(169) . . . , da� er gekommen ist.What about the passive? If `werden', when tensed, tries to assign its nominative case \tothe Complement if there is one", as suggested above, then we should get a perfect sentence,which we don't:(170) * . . . , da� er gekommen wurde.Furthermore, the `impersonal passive' (cf. (165) and (166)), is also bad:(171) * . . . , da� gekommen wurde.Hence some part of the process of passivization must also be sensitive to the \external"/\in-ternal" (or complement/speci�er) distinction. That is, if we think of passive in the terms ofWilliams (1981), where he assums functions like EXTERNALIZE(x) and INTERNALIZE(x),then apparently the crucial distinction is that something like INTERNALIZE(x) must apply;the EXTERNALIZE(x) is optional.<< CT: Check to see whether he notes this. >>In any case, it seems from both of these examples that we need to refer crucially to thecomplement/speci�er distinction.END: PROBLERG.SCRIPT.A8 Other constituent typesHaving suggested that the C-projection has the same X-bar \skeleton" as the N, V, P, andA projections (namely, that given by \rule" (100), p.24, above, we might well ask what partother lexical items play in the X-bar projection theory. Note that while the Head of the N, V,P, and A constituents is always a predicate, we have extended the notition of what can be theHead of a projection to operators, inasmuch as `that', `da�', `wo' are operators rather thanpredicates: their Complements are not \arguments" in the usual sense, but rather (roughlystated) they take a grammatical object and allow it to have a di�erent function than its usualone: for example, the relative complementizer `wo' ('0' in the standard language) allows asaturated predicate, a tensed V", to nevertheless function as an adjunct (i.e., relative clause),by \licensing" the extra Speci�er position, and binding it to an empty category in the V".70Similarly, we can extend the notion to other cases: the subordinate `da�' ('that') is anoperator allowing its Complement, which is semantically an assertion, to function as anargument.There seems to be no reason not to extend this to words which are logical operators aswell: we need only to assume that their categorial features (e.g., N or V) are not speci�ed,70Note the problem with the notion \license" discussed above!41

and they simply assume the categorial features of their Complement (and Speci�er, if there isone). Other features (such as number features) may be inherited by the usual rules discussedelsewhere in the literature, and the Head may make a feature contribution of its own. Forexample, if `and' is a lexical item, then it occurs in the structure suggested above in (152)and repeated here:(152) (152) K"/ \/ \X" K'| / \John / \K Y"| |and MaryThe K" is an N", as it inherits the \intersection" of the categorial features of its Speci�er andComplement, and hence is [+N, �V]. (Cf. a similar idea in the GPSG literature <refs.?> toaccount for the unacceptability of conjoining items which are in some sense \too di�erent"categorially. Other features are a function of the features of the satellites; e.g. when thefunction is `and', then two singulars make a plural, but not with `or'. (Again, disregardingthe many problems with such a mechanical interpretation which have been noted in theliterature.) Similarly, `not' presumably also Heads a projection, namely,(172) Neg"/ \/ \Neg X"| / \not /_______\where the Neg-projection, like K, is \transparent" and inherits the categorial features of itsComplement.71 This is quite often obscured in languages by the cliticization or phoneticsuppletion of the negative element. For example, if we regard (172) as the basic structure,and cliticization or suppletion as a subsidiary process (perhaps \later" in some sense), thenwe can account for some interesting constructions:Firstly,72 it has often been noted that the analysis requiring \movement" of a constituentto the Vorfeld is problematical, in that there is no \source" for the movement; that is, thestring which is alleged to be a constituent in the Vorfeld never appears as a contiguous stringin the Mittelfeld under similar circumstances. For example,(173) the Dendog Hundhit geschlagenhas hathe ernot nicht.71Cinque asks if this means that the Neg" is an X [CT: almost but not quite; it's an X[+neg];add this to discussion below!] He asks if this could be extended to other cases, e.g., only, even, etc. [CT:Precisely; see discussion below.]Josef likes idea but has a di�erent structure for the DET structures above:[Nk [Nj [Ni dem Vater] seinj ] [Nk [Nk Buch]]]72This should really be moved to the first part where it is relevant to the analysis ofVorfeld fronting; cf. footnote 13, p. 7. 42

`He didn't hit the dog.'Ought to correspond to one of the following structures:(174) [den Hund geschlagen]i [ hatj [er ei nicht ej ]](175) [den Hund geschlagen]i [ hatj [er nicht ei ej ]]But both the corresponding Mittelfeld sentences are super�cially bad:(176) *? Gestern hat er nicht den Hund geschlagen.(177) ** Gestern hat er den Hund geschlagen nicht.(178) *? Fritz meint, da� er nicht den Hund geschlagen hat.(179) ** Fritz meint, da� er den Hund geschlagen nicht hat.The preferred versions are(180) Gestern hat er den Hund nicht geschlagen.(181) Fritz meint, da� er den Hund nicht geschlagen hat.However, notice that there is a sentence with the string in question in the Mittelfeld andwhere the `nicht' both proceeds it and takes scope over the whole constituent:(182) Erhe hathas nichtnot denthe Hunddog geschlagen,beaten sondernbut diethe Katzecat gestreichelt.petted`What he did was not to beat the dog, but rather to pet the cat.'Note that in fact for some speakers, sentences like those in (176, 178) are marginally possiblewith strongly stressed `nicht'; what this seems to indicate is that the `nicht' is in fact gener-ated before a maximal constituent (just as in the case with NPs and PPs) and can remainthere when the entire constituent is constrasted, but in the \normal" case, cliticizes on theverb.73A similar problem arises in English with so-called \do-support". As has been often notedin the literature, English verbs, unlike German verbs, are divided in to two classes, which wemight refer to as [+A] and [�A] for want of better name. So, for example, the projectionsof [�A] verbs can \topicalize" in English, but the projections of [+A] in general cannot:(183) a. Played the piano John never has!b. * Been playing the piano John might have!(cf. Akmajian/Steele/Wassow 1979 and Gazdar/Sag/Pullum 1982 for discussion.) Similarly,English [+A] verbs have a �xed order:(184) a. John might have been visiting Mary.73It might be hypothecised that this happens because negative sentences are usually contrastive, and inGerman (recall the focus and intonation rules from 00 above) the normal (projective) stress will go on theconstituent immediately before the main verb; hence if the NP 'den Hund' scrambles away from the verb,then we have the structure(1) Er hat [ [die Post]i [N nicht [V ei abgeholt] ] ]= \He didn't get the mail."and `nicht' is in a position to get stress, yet still takes scope over the constituent V". In the cases wherethe NP remains, the stress is of the non-projective (i.e., contrastive) type (cf. H�ohle (1979/82), and hencehas the construction can only be used under the particular circumstances which this stress allows. Cf. thediscussion of H�ohle's article above in 00. 43

b. * John might be having visited Mary.(Again, cf. the literature for attempts to account for this in various ways other than purestipulation. < Give refs. to Horstein and/or Hudson here? >)As noted above and in the literature, German \auxiliary" verbs behave in every respectlike \main" verbs:(185) a. Den Hund geschlagen hat er nicht!b. Den Hung geschlagen haben soll er!Similarly, the \auxiliaries" can occur in any order, modulo semantics:(186) a. Er soll den Hund geschlagen haben. MODAL < HAVE < MAIN VERBb. Er hat schon seit 2 Jahren schwimmen koennen. HAVE < MODAL < MAINVERB= `He has been able to play the piano for two years.' (Literally `He has could playthe piano since two years.')and can even take direct objects:(187) Er kann Franz�osisch! = \He can (speak) French."Although the projections of [�A] verbs in English cannot themselves be fronted (\topical-ized"), they themselves can move into the Head of a C-projection, just like all Germanverbs:(188) [V John can [V see Mary]](189) [C cani [V John ei [see Mary]]]Unlike German, main verbs are [�A] and cannot appear as the Head of a C-projection; cf.(190) a. Sah Hans Maria?b. [C sahi [V Hans Maria eibut a. * Saw John Mary?b. [C sawi [V John Mary eiHence if questions require a \C", for whatever reasons, then only way to save the structureis to use a dummy verb, hence(191) [C did [V John see MaryA similar case occurs in negation: as observed above, `nicht' (and similarly `not'), is the Headof its projection, i.e., is generated before a maximal projection which is its Complement, but\cliticizes" (although cf. FN00 above) to the verbal complex in German. Let us assumethe same for English, except that the `not' cliticizes to the preceeding verb, rather than thefollowing one.74(192) Fred saw not the dog, but the cat.(193) [V Fred was [N not [V visiting his aunt]]].74The di�erence in directionality presumably has something to do with the directionality of governmentby the verb in the two two languages. 44

However, with a non-compound verb, the projection `visit his aunt' is not maximal (cf.discussion of (102a){(102b), p.24 & �.)(194) [V Fred [V visited his aunt]]and hence it cannot be the Complement of `not'. The only candidate is the maximal projec-tion [Fred visited his aunt], but this would give the structure(195) [N not [V Fred visited his aunt]]which cannot itself be an assertion, since `not' can't take tense features. Thus the onlystrategy is again to create a dummy maximal projection to be the Complement of the `not'by inserting a dummy verb:(196) [V Fred [V did [N not [V visit his aunt]]]][Put in other do support cases here?][Put quantifier/determiner stuff in here?][MORE ON CO-ORDINATE STRUCTURES FOLLOWS:] Another problem to which this anal-ysis provides an interesting solution is the question of the correct analysis of phrases like\The man and the woman who left together . . . ", where the relative clause either has nosource (if it is considered to be \extraposed" from the \the man" or \the woman", or itviolates X-bar theory, if it is base-generated with the structure:(197) [NP [NP? [NP the man] and [NP the woman]] [S who left together]]which is problematical for numerous reasons: (1) what is the top NP a projection of? Howcan a maximal category be maximal if it is dominated by a maximal projection of the itself?Where is the \and" attached? If we adopt the analysis presented above, then the \and" isthe head of the constituent; its categorial features are inhereted from its complement andspeci�er (i.e., those of the NPs) but now the S (i.e., C-max) is base-generated in place, andits argument is linked by the usual rules to the referent of the head of the consituent (theK) which is also correct semantically75:(198) K"/ \/ \/ \N" \/ \ K'the man / \/ \/ \/ C"K' / \/ \ who C'/ \ i / \/ N" C V"K / \ | / \| the woman 0 e left togetherand ii75Note that this holds as well for the analysis in which the satellites of the K(and) are D" (Det-max)instead of NPs. 45

To the above remarks need to be added the observation that conjunctions probably di�erfrom other Heads in that they do not necessarily take maximal categories as Satellites;rather they act as an identity mapping w.r.t. the syntax; that is, they not only absorb someof the category features of their arguments, they absorb the bar-level as well.Hence we have the following schema,(199) and [ S] X [ . . . , �Max, �min, �F]X [. . . , �Max, �min, �F, S]�� @@where F are the relevant categorial features, and S are some features of the conjunction, whichalso serve as the \book-keeping" of whether a constituent is already coordinated or not; e.g.,in English, a phrase cannot be added directly to a �S phrase, but needs a conjunction; ifthe phrase is already conjoined, another constituent of the same type can be added directly.9 Conclusion[needs to be added!]REFERENCESAbney, S. (1984?) \Some issues in German syntax" unpubl. ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.|{ & Saddy, D. (1984?) \Es-insertion" unpubl. ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Abraham, W., ed. (1982) Satzglieder im Deutschen. T�ubingen, Narr.|{ (1983) On the formal syntax of the West Germania. Amsterdam, Benjamins.|{ (1985) Erkl�arende Syntax des deutschen. T�ubingen, Narr.Akmajian, A., Steele, S. & Wasow, T. (1979) \The category AUX in univeral grammar."LI 10, p.1-64.Aoun, J & Sportiche, D. (1982/83) \On the formal theory of government" TLR 2.3.Bayer, J. (1984) \COMP in Bavarian Syntax" TLR 3.3.Bennis, H. & Hoekstra, T. (1984) \The distribution and interpretation of gaps" unpubl.ms., U. Leyden.Cardinaletti, A. (1984) Die Syntax der linken Peripherie des deutschen Satzes. Diss., U.Venezia.Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague, Mouton.|{ (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Foris.Cinque, G. (1983?) \A note on operators in COMP, C-command, and ECP" unpubl. ms.,U. Venezia.Davidson, D. (1966) \The logical form of action sentences" in Davidson, D. (1980) Essayson actions & events. Oxford, Clarendon Press.46

Davis, L. (1984) \Government, proper government & control" unpubl. ms, U.Conn., Storrs.Den Besten, Hans (1977) \On the interaction of root transformations & lexical deletiverules" in Abraham (1983). [Also in GAGL 20]|{ (1981) \Some remarks on the ergative hypothesis" unpubl. ms., U. Amsterdam. [re-vised version, \The ergative hypothesis and free word-order in Dutch and German" inToman, J. (1986).Felix, S. (1983) \Parasitic gaps in German." U.Passau. Working Papers. [Also in Abraham(1985)].Fukui, N. & Spaes, M. (1986) \Speci�ers and projection" unpubl. ms., MIT, Cambridge,Mass.Gazdar, G., Sag, I., & Pullum, G. (1982) \Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictivetheory of grammar", Language 58.3.Gussenhoven, Carlos (1984) On the grammar and sematics of sentence accents. Dordrecht,Foris.Haegeman, L. (1982) \Complementiser-subject agreement in Dutch dialects." unpubl. ms.,NPWO Ghent.Haider, H. (1984) \The case of German" unpubl. ms., U.Wien.|{ [add other Haider articles?]Higginbotham, J. (1984?) \A note on phrase-markers" in Revue Qu�eb�equoise de Linguis-tique vol.13.|{ (1985) \On semantics" unpubl. ms, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Hoekstra, T. (1984) [see Bennis]H�ohle, T.N. (1979) \ `Normalbetonung' und `Normale Wortstellung': eine pragmatischeExplikation" in Leuvense Bidragen nr. ? [Revised version: \Explikation f�ur `normaleBetonung' " in Abraham (1982)].|{ (1983) \Subjektl�ucken in Koordinationen." U.K�oln. unpub. ms.Holmberg, A. (1983-4) \The �nite sentence in Swedish and English." WPSkS 3.Hopcroft, J & Ullmann, J. (1981) Introduction to automata theory, languages and compu-tation. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (1981) Explanation in linguistics. New York, Longman.Huybregts, R. and H. van Riemsdijk (1985) \Parasitic Gaps and ATB," NELS 15, BrownUniversity, Proceedings, GSLA, U. Mass./Amherst.Jackendo�, R. (1974) \Introduction to the X' convention" Bloomington, Ind., IUP.|{ (1977) X-bar syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Kayne, R. (1984) Connectedness & binary brancing. Dordrecht, Foris.47

Klima, E. (1966) \Constituent structure & word-order rules for German" in the MIT Re-search Laboratory of Electronics, Quarterly Progress Report No.77, p.317.Kolb, H.-P. and Thiersch, C. (1991)\Levels and Empty Categories in a Principles andParameters Approach to Parsing" in: Representation and Derivation in the Theory ofGrammar. Haider, H. & Netter, K. eds. Dordrecht: ReidelKoopman, H. (1984) The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht, Foris.Koster, J. (1975) \Dutch as an SOV language", LA 1, p.11-116.|{ (1978) Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht, Foris.|{ (1982) \Do syntactic respresentations contain variables?" unpubl. ms., U. Tilburg;translated as \Enthalten syntaktischen Representationen Variablen?" in LB nr. 83,1983.|{ (1984) Global Harmony. Tilburg, NL, Working Papers in Language and Literature,no.61.Lasnik, H. (1981) \Restricting the theory of transformations: a case study" in Hornstein &Lightfoot (1981)Lightfoot, D. (1981) [see Introduction to Hornstein & Lightfoot (1981)]Lenerz,J. (1977) Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. T�ubingen, Narr.|{ (1982) Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Habilitationschrift, U. M�unster.Marcus, M. Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983) \D-theory" in ACL Proceedings 21.Muysken, P. & van Riemsdijk, H. eds. (1985) Features and Projections. Dordrecht, Foris.Pesetsky, D. (1982) \Paths & categories" MIT. Diss.Platzack, Ch. (1983) \Germanic word order and the COMP/INFL parameter" WPSkS 2.Radford, A. (1981) Transformational syntax. Cambridge University Press.Reuland, E. (1985) \A feature system for the set of categorial heads" in Muysken & vanRiemsdijk. [previously (1984) \Features for the set of categorial rules", unpubl. ms.,U.Groningen.]Richardson, J.F. (1983/4?) \Let X' = X'*" unpubl. ms., U. Chicago. [isn't this in CLS?]Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Foris.Sa�r, K. (1984) \Missing subjects in German" in Toman, (1986) ed.Saito, Mamoru (1983) \Comments on the papers on generative syntax", in Otsu, Y., et al.(eds.), Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition. ICU, Tokyo.Siegel, D. (1974) Topics in English morphology. MIT diss.Spaes, M. (1984) \Complement selection and inversion." unpubl. ms., MIT, Cambridge,Mass.|{ [see also Fukui]. 48

Stowell, T. (1981) The origins of phrase structure. MIT. diss.Tappe, H.-Th. (1984) Struktur und Restrukturierung. U.G�ottingen. diss.|{ (1985) [pers. comm.: letter. See if he's written this up!]Thiersch, C. (1978) Topics in German syntax. MIT. diss.|{ (1982) \A note on `scrambling' and the existance of VP" in Wiener LinguistischeGazette, Heft 27-28.|{ (1991) \Hoofdstuk 11: Het (hulp-)werkwoordsystem" (in Dutch). in: Model, Jan, ed.,Grammatische Analyse. Dordrecht: ICG PublicationsTravis, L. (1984) \Parameters and e�ects of word order variation." MIT. Diss.Toman, J. ed. (1986) Studies on German grammar. [check title!] Dordrecht, Foris.Van de Velde, M. (1977) \Zur mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen" in Conte, Ra-mat, & Ramat, eds. Wortstellung und Bedeutung. T�ubingen, Niemeyer.Webelhuth, G. (1984/5) \German is con�gurational" TLR 4.3, p.203-46.Williams, E. (1981) \Argument structure and morphology" TLR 1, p.81 �.|{ [add his other articles on external arguments? esp. (1983) \Against small clauses", LI14.2.]* * * * * * * * * * *ACL = Association for Computational LinguisticsGAGL = Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen LinguistikICU = ??IUP = Indiana University PressLA = Linguistic AnalysisLB = Linguistische BerichteLI = Linguistic InquiryTLR = The Linguistic RevewNPWO = ??WPSkS = Working Papers in Skandanavian Syntax.49