Restructuring by Removal Note: Gereon Müller (Universität Leipzig) See Safir (2010; 2015) for a similar concept (called Peak Novelty Condition in the more Workshop on Shrinking Trees, Universität Leipzig October 10, 2016 recent paper).

1. Structure Removal Assumptions about Remove: Proposal: (i) Remove is feature-driven. It is triggered by designated [–F–] features, which are or- Syntactic derivations employ two elementary operations modifying representations: In dered on lexical items. addition to an operation that builds structure – Merge (Chomsky (2001; 2008; 2013)) –, (ii) Remove may apply to heads or phrases: [–F0–], [–F2–]. there is a complementary operation that removes structure: Remove. (iii) Remove obeys the Strict Cycle Condition. Conflicting representations: (iv) Remove can be external or internal. (3) Remove and phrases: complements 1. There is substantial evidence for conflicting representations in syntactic derivations. b. Remove(X[−Y2−],YP): a. Merge(X[•Y2•]≻[−Y2−],YP): X 2. The standard means to account for this is displacement: If some item α shows proper- ′ ties associated both with position P and position Q, then this is due to the fact that α X has moved from Q to P. X[−Y2−] YP 3. However, there are many cases of conflicting representations that do not lend them- selves to analyses in terms of displacement. ZP Y′

4. These latter cases can be straightforwardly derived by structure removal. Y WP Observation: If Remove exists as the mirror image of Merge, it is expected to show similar properties and obey identical constraints. Note: ZP, WP cannot be removed by X because of the Strict Cycle Condition. Assumptions about Merge: Side remark: (i) Merge is feature-driven. It is triggered by designated [•F•] features, which are ordered (3) qualifies as a Duke-of-York derivation (see Pullum (1976), McCarthy (2003), and on lexical items (Heck & Müller (2007), Abels (2012), Stabler (2013), Georgi (2014), Lechner (2010)). Müller (2014), and references cited there). (ii) Merge may apply to heads (incl. head movement in cases of internal Merge) or phrases (4) Remove and phrases: specifiers ′ ′ b. Remove(X [−Y2−],YP): (incl. XP movement in cases of internal Merge): [•F0•],[•F2•]. (0=min, 2=max.) a. Merge(X [•Y2•]≻[−Y2−],YP): XP (iii) Merge obeys the Strict Cycle Condition in (1) (Chomsky (1973; 1995; 2001; 2008); XP also cf. the Extension Condition and the No Tampering Condition). YP X′ X UP (iv) Merge can be external or internal. ′ ZP Y X[−Y2−] UP (1) Strict Cycle Condition (SCC): Within the current XP α, a syntactic operation may not exclusively target some item δ Y WP in the domain of another XP β if β is in the domain of α. (2) Domain (Chomsky (1995)): The domain of a head X is the set of nodes dominated by XP that are distinct from and Note: do not contain X. Again, ZP & WP cannot be removed by X because of the Strict Cycle Condition. In principle,

1 2 (8) Remove and heads: specifiers w/o specifiers X might also remove UP in this configuration after YP has been merged. Evidence: (i) ′ ′ b. Remove(X [−Y0−],Y): Richards (2001) on tucking in with internal Merge. (ii) If ellipsis constructions involve a. Merge(X [•Y•]≻[−Y0−],YP): structure removal rather than mere PF deletion (Murphy (2015)), removal of the TP by a XP XP [–T –] feature on C in German sluicing constructions must take place after wh-movement to ′ 2 ′ ZP X SpecC has occurred. YP X X UP (5) Complement Removal in Sluicing: Y ZP X[−Y0−] UP

Fritz hat irgendwen gesehen, aber ich weiß nicht [CP wen1 C[ TP der Fritz t1 Fritz has someone seen but I know not whom the Fritz gesehen hat ]] (9) Remove and heads: specifiers with specifiers ′ ′ seen has a. Merge(X [•Y•]≻[−Y0−],YP): b. Remove(X [−Y0−],Y): XP XP (6) Remove and heads: complements w/o specifiers ′ ′ b. Remove(X − − ,Y): YP X ZP X a. Merge(X[•Y•]≻[−Y0−],YP): [ Y0 ] ′ ′ X X ′ ′ ZP Y X[−Y0−] UP WP X

X − − YP X ZP [ Y0 ] Y WP X UP Y ZP

Short life cycle effects: Note: 1. Some other operation Γ can be interspersed between Merge(X,YP) and Re- Since [–F0–] removes the head, it takes away the highest projection, and only this. More move(X,Y(P)). deeply embedded material (like ZP) is attached to the head responsible for removal and re- places the original item (YP): This works exactly like tree pruning (see Ross (1967, ch. 3)). If 2. However, due to the Strict Cycle Condition, a YP removed by [–F–] is predicted to there are two or more items in YP (e.g., ZP, WP), they reassemble in their original structural have a short life cycle (unless it undergoes movement; see 6. below): It is only acces- and linear order in the XP domain. Such a reassociation is not an instance of Merge. Also cf. sible for other operations for a small part of the derivation. Stepanov (2012) on head movement. And cf. Pesetsky (2016) on Exfoliation (→ Appendix). 3. Given incremental, bottom-up derivations, this implies that YP is accessible from be- low (downward accessibility) and inaccessible from above (upward inaccessibility): (7) Remove and heads: complements with specifiers b. Remove(X[−Y0−],Y): Remove counter-bleeds Γ but bleeds subsequent operations (see Chomsky (1951), a. Merge(X[•Y•]≻[−Y0−],YP): XP Kiparsky (1973)). X′ ′ 4. There is empirical evidence for short life cycle effects of this type (Müller (2016b)). ZP X

X[−Y0−] YP 5. Alternative accounts can only derive these kinds of effects on a case-by-case basis, as X WP conspiracies because they cannot acknowledge, and model, a systematic pattern. ZP Y′ 6. The system predicts one exception (Müller (2016c), Murphy (2016)): If an item is Y WP moved to a higher domain, it can be targeted there by a head with a [–F0/2–] feature, in accordance with the Strict Cycle Condition in (1). Phenomena addressed in terms of Remove so far: Note: This opens up the possibility of dislocation without movement (i.e., without internal Merge • Removal of phrases: passive (Müller (2016b), Murphy (2016)), applicative (Müller of ZP in (7)). (2015b)), antipassive (Müller (2015a)), ellipsis (Murphy (2015), Murphy & Müller (2016))

3 4 • Removal of heads: complex prefields (Müller (2016a;c)) 2.1.2. Verb (Projection) Raising (11) M-II. Verb (projection) raising (incl. Ersatzinfinitiv): Goal: Building on the rough sketch in Müller (2015b), I develop an approach to restructuring and a. dass wir Ede hatten singen hören non-restructuring infinitives with control verbs in German that is based on uniform CP em- that we Ede had sing hear bedding and subsequent removal of functional shells. b. weil Beate Ede wird anrufen wollen that Beatenom Edeacc will call want 2. Restructuring c. weil er das Land nicht wird haben verlassen dürfen that he the land not will have left may Generalization: 2.1.3. Negation • Non-restructuring control infinitives in German behave in all relevant respects like (12) M-III. Wide scope of negation: finite embedded clauses and thus uniformly demand a biclausal analysis in terms of CP embedding. a. dass sie ihn nicht zu sehen versucht that shenom himacc not to see tries • Restructuring control infinitives in German exhibit both evidence for monoclausality b. dass sie ihn nicht zu sehen bedauert (i.e., for the absence of at least a CP shell, possibly also of a TP or vP shell) and that shenom himacc not to see regrets evidence for biclausality. (13) Two readings for (13-a), one for (13-b): Side remark (Fanselow (1989; 1991)): a. It is not the case that she tries to see him. There is some variation among speakers as to which (control) verbs count as (non-) restruc- b. She tries not to see him. turing predicates in German. Tendency: The younger the speaker, the more verbs (s)he c. *It is not the case that she regrets seeing him. accepts as a restructuring predicate. This does not affect the generalization as such. d. She regrets not seeing him. 2.1. Arguments for Monoclausality 2.1.4. Intonation Refs.: Stechow & Sternefeld (1988), Grewendorf (1988), Fanselow (1991), Bayer & Kornfilt (14) M-IV. Intonation (‘Grenzpause’): (1994), Wurmbrand (2001), Haider (2010). a. dass sie ihn zu küssen versuchte 2.1.1. that she him to kiss tried b. dass sie versuchte ihn zu küssen (10) M-I. Ban on extraposition: that she tried him to kiss a. Sie hatte [ nicht gestört zu werden ] gewünscht c. dass sie ihn zu küssen gar nicht erst versucht hat she had not disturbed to be wished that she him to kiss PRT not PRT tried has b. Sie hatte gewünscht [ nicht gestört zu werden ] she had wished not disturbed to be 2.1.5. Status Government c. Sie hatte [ nicht gestört werden ] wollen (15) M-V. Status government (‘verbal case assignment’): she had not disturbed be wanted a. als wir Ede singen hörten d. *Sie hatte wollen/gewollt [ nicht gestört werden ] when we Ede sing heard she had want/wanted not disturbed be b. weil Beate Ede anrufen will Note: because Beatenom Edeacc call wants Some verbs (auxiliaries, modals, causative and perception verbs, raising verbs) obligatorily c. weil Beate Ede angerufen haben wird trigger restructuring; regular control verbs (like versuchen (‘try’)) do so optionally. Wurm- because Beatenom Edeacc called have will brand (2001; 2004): Functional restructuring vs. lexical restructuring; the ban on extraposi- d. weil das Wetter gut zu werden scheint tion only holds for the former class (see below). because the weather good to become seems

5 6 (16) Status (‘verbal cases’): b. [ t1 Zu lesen abgelehnt ] hat es1 keiner a. first status: aufessen (bare infinitive) to read rejected has itacc no-onenom b. second status: aufzuessen (zu-infinitive) 2.1.9. Compactness c. third status: aufgegessen (past participle) Observation (Haider (2010)): Assumption: Items participating in restructuring are compact in the sense that other material cannot lin- Status assignment (Bech (1955/1957)) (or ‘verbal case assignment’ (Fabb (1984))) is a form early intervene. of government (Stechow (1984; 1990), Adger (2003)); like all kinds of government, it is (21) M-IX. Compactness clause-bound. a. *dass er gearbeitet gestern hat 2.1.6. Absence of Pied Piping of Infinitives that henom worked yesterday has (17) M-VI. Pied piping of infinitives: b. *dass es1 keiner [ t1 zu lesen ] gestern versucht hat a. die Ratten, die zu fangen Hubert sich vorgenommen hatte that itacc no-one to read yesterday tried has the rats which to capture Hubert REFL planned had Note: b. *die Ratten, die Hubert fangen Günther ließ Haider accounts for compactness by postulating a complex base-generated head analysis for the rats which Hubert capture Günther let restructuring. However, it seems that most of the relevant data can be accounted for indepen- c. *die Ratten, die zu fangen Günther scheint dently (Wurmbrand (2007), Müller (2014, ch. 3)). In addition, the compactness requirement the rats which to capture Günther seems can be circumvented by various kinds of movement operations (verb-second, ), 2.1.7. Extraction and it does not hold in the third construction (see below) (Wurmbrand (2007)). (18) M-VII. (& unstressed pronoun movement) across matrix material: 2.2. Arguments for Biclausality a. dass den Fritz1 keiner [ t1 zu küssen ] versuchte 2.2.1. Uniformity of Embedding that the Fritz no-one to kiss tried acc nom Observation (Stechow & Sternefeld (1988)): b. dass die Maria es ihm gestern [ t zu lesen ] empfohlen hat 1 1 Every control verb that permits restructuring can optionally also show up in a non- that the Maria it him yesterday to read recommended has nom acc dat restructuring context. Deriving this implicational generalization requires additional assump- c. *dass den Fritz keiner die Maria [ t zu küssen ] aufforderte 1 1 tions if restructuring predicates can simply optionally involve TP-embedding, vP-embedding that the Fritz no-one the Maria to kiss requested acc nom acc or VP-embedding; but the generalization follows directly if the only way to end up with such d. *dass die Maria es1 gestern [ t1 zu kennen ] geleugnet hat a smaller complement size is via an initial CP embedding that is then subject to some reanal- that the Marianom itacc yesterday to know denied has ysis operation. Note (Ross (1967)): (22) B-I. Uniformity of embedding with verbs that optionally trigger restructuring: Scrambling in German is strictly clause-bound. a. dass der Oberförster versuchte [CP dem Peter einen Film zu empfehlen ] (19) Ban on long-distance scrambling in German: that the head forester tried the Peterdat a filmacc to recommend

a. *dass den Fritz1 keiner gesagt hat [CP dass wir t1 einladen sollen ] b. dass sie [CP dem Peter einen Film zu empfehlen ] versuchte that the Fritzacc no-onenom said has that wenom invite should that she the Peterdat a filmacc to recommend tried b. *dass die Maria es1 meinte [CP solle man t1 lesen ] c. dass ihn1 der Oberförster [ dem Peter zu empfehlen ] versuchte that the Marianom itacc said should onenom read that him the head forester the Peterdat to recommend tried 2.1.8. Remnant Movement 2.2.2. Distribution of PRO (20) M-VIII. Remnant movement: Observation (Stechow & Sternefeld (1988)): The distribution of the empty pronominal subject of control infinitives (PRO) requires the a. [t1 Zu lesen versucht ] hat es1 keiner presence of a CP projection. to read tried has itacc no-onenom

7 8 (23) B-II. PRO (Sternefeld (2006)), not with approaches where it can in principle be a vP or TP containing

a. dass der Oberförster versuchte [CP PRO ein Buch zu lesen ] PRO (Wurmbrand (2001)). The reason is that a PRO subject can act as a minimal intervener that the head forester tried a book to read establishing a binding domain for the reflexive.

b. dass der Oberförster [CP PRO ein Buch zu lesen ] versuchte that the head forester a book to read tried However: c. *dass der Oberförster [vP PRO ein Buch zu lesen ] versuchte An intervening subject DP can be skipped with PP-internal reflexives in an ECM construc- d. *dass der Oberförster [VP ein Buch zu lesen ] versuchte tion headed by lassen (‘let’) or sehen (‘see’) (Reis (1976), Grewendorf (1983), Fanselow (1987), Gunkel (2003), Barnickel (2014)). This is never possible across a finite clause bound- Note: ary. Crucially, it is also never possible with control infinitives, even when restructuring takes This presupposes that lesen must discharge both its θ-roles in the , that the external θ- place. role is represented by PRO, and that PRO must not be governed (‘PRO theorem’), Chomsky (1981). The PRO theorem is not widely accepted anymore; however, somehow it needs (26) B-IIIb. Absence of new binding domains: to be ensured that PRO shows up in these contexts, and simple accounts would seem to a. dass Maria1 [TP Paul2 [PP bei sich1/2 ] schlafen ] lässt crucially rely on the presence of a C projection. Adger (2003): Control predicates embedding that Marianom Paulacc with REFL sleep lets infinitival clauses select a special type of complementizer which in turn assigns a case-like b. dass Maria1 sagt [CP dass Paul2 bei sich∗1/2 schlafen kann ] feature [null] to the embedded subject that requires a non-overt realization not just of the that Marianom says that Paulnom with REFL sleep can ending, but of the whole argument DP (as PRO). Conclusion: If there is no CP projection, c. dass Maria1 Paul2 [CP PRO1 [PP bei sich1/∗2 ] zu schlafen ] verspricht the difference between ECM/raising and control may be blurred. that Marianom Pauldat with REFL to sleep promises d. dass Maria es Paul [ PRO t [ bei sich ∗ ] zu organisieren ] (24) Illicit long-distance passive with embedded subject promotion (Stechow & Sternefeld 1 3 2 CP 1 3 PP 1/ 2 that Maria it Paul with REFL to organize (1988), Sternefeld (1990)): nom acc dat verspricht a. *dass Fritz [ t zu arbeiten ] gewünscht wurde 1 VP 1 promises that Fritznom to work wished was

b. dass t2 gewünscht wurde [CP2 dass Fritz arbeitet ] Conclusion: that wished was that Fritznom works Whatever accounts for the fact that PP-internal reflexives (in contrast to arguments of the embedded V) can skip over the subject of the infinitive, it is clear that such long-distance 2.2.3. Absence of New Binding Domains reflexivization is blocked by a CP phase boundary. The data then show that a CP is always Observation: present with control verbs (restructuring and non-restructuring), and not present with ECM Restructuring does not create new binding domains. An accusative object reflexive in a predicates. subject control infinitive can never pick a dative object of the matrix verb as an antecedent, in the way that an object reflexive can pick a dative object of the same verb as an antecedent 2.2.4. Unstressed Pronoun Fronting for many speakers (Sternefeld & Featherston (2003), Featherston & Sternefeld (2003)). Generalization: Unstressed pronouns must undergo fronting to a position that can only be preceded by a (25) B-IIIa. Absence of new binding domains: subject DP, which then has undergone optional EPP-driven movement to SpecT (Müller

a. Der Oberförster1 hat ihm2 (PRO1) sich1 zu waschen versprochen (2001), Fanselow (2004)). Assumption: Unstressed pronouns end up in a (higher) Specv the head forester has himdat REFL to wash promised position (more specifically, at the left edge of vP), where they precede DP and PP arguments b. *Der Oberförster1 hat ihm2 (PRO1) sich2 zu waschen versprochen (including scrambled ones), adverbials, and the base position of subjects. the head forester has him REFL to wash promised dat (27) Unstressed pronoun fronting: c. Der Oberförster1 hat ihm2 sich1/2 im Spiegel gezeigt a. dass es1 die Maria dem Fritz t1 gegeben hat the head forester has himdat REFL in the mirror shown that itacc the Marianom the Fritzdat given has Note: b. dass die Maria es1 dem Fritz t1 gegeben hat As it stands, this problem arises only with monoclausal approaches where the embedded that the Marianom itacc the Fritzdat given has infinitive is always either part of a complex verb (as in Haider (2010)) or is a bare VP

9 10 c. *dass die Maria dem Fritz es1 gegeben hat (30) TP extraposition:

that the Marianom the Fritzdat itacc given has a. *dass ich gesehen habe [TP den Mann das Buch lesen ] d. *dass die Maria wahrscheinlich es1 dem Fritz t1 gegeben hat that Inom seen have the manacc the bookacc read that the Marianom probably itacc the Fritzdat given has b. *dass sie ließ [TP ihn schlafen ] Observation: that shenom let himacc sleep Obligatory restructuring environments do not have sufficient space for unstressed pronoun (31) vP/VP extraposition: fronting. However, there is a vast improvement with control constructions: Here, restructur- a. *dass sie t1 hat [VP gearbeitet ] ing contexts seem to provide sufficient space for unstressed pronoun fronting. that shenom has worked b. *dass er t hat [ das Buch gelesen ] (28) B-IV. Unstressed pronouns in restructuring contexts: 1 VP that henom has the bookacc read a. *dass sie mir1 schon letzte Woche [ t1 es2 gegeben ] hat c. *dass er t1 wird [VP das Buch lesen ] that shenom medat already last week itacc given has that henom will the bookacc read b. *dass sie mir schon letzte Woche [ es2 zu lesen ] schien d. *dass sie hatte [ t1 wollen/gewollt [VP das Buch lesen ]] that shenom medat already last week itacc to read seemed that shenom had want/wanted the bookacc read c. *dass sie mich schon letzte Woche [ es1 lesen ] ließ that shenom meacc already last week itacc read let Observation: Extraposition is possible in the third construction (Besten & Rutten (1989)), i.e., with scram- d. ?dass sie mir1 schon letzte Woche [ t1 es2 zu geben ] versucht hat bling from restructuring infinitives. This strongly suggests that the extraposed item is a CP. that shenom medat already last week itacc to give tried has If the third construction involves extraposition of a VP (Wöllstein-Leisten (2001), Haider e. ?dass sie mir1 schon letzte Woche versucht hat [ t1 es2 zu geben ] (2010)), it is unclear how VP extraposition can be excluded in all the other contexts. that shenom medat already last week tried has itacc to give Conclusion: (32) B-V. The third construction:

This indicates that there is more structure in control infinitives; assuming raising and ECM a. dass sie ihn2 t1 versucht [CP1 PRO t2 zu küssen ] environments to involve embedded TPs (Fanselow (1991)), the evidence suggests that a CP that shenom himacc tries to kiss is required for all cases of unstressed pronoun fronting in German, and that such a CP is b. dass sie das Buch2 t1 versucht hat [CP1 PRO t2 dem Mann zu geben ] therefore present in restructuring contexts with control predicates. (Why should this be the that shenom the book tried has the mandat to give case, given that the actual landing site is at the left edge of vP? There are various possibilities, c. dass es2 Maria t1 verspricht [CP1 PRO t1 zu lesen ] incl. feature inheritance from C, as in Chomsky (2008), Richards (2007); ultimately, it seems that itacc Maria promises to read that these movements to Wackernagel positions are regulated by C.) d. dass es2 Fritz ihr t1 empfohlen hat [CP1 PRO t1 zu lesen ] 2.2.5. The Third Construction that itacc Fritznom herdat recommended has to read Generalization: Consequence: CP can undergo extraposition in German, vP, VP, TP cannot do so. (Crucially, this only M-I (ban on extraposition, (10)) only holds for predicates that obligatorily undergo re- holds for Standard German; see Haegeman & Riemsdijk (1986), Bader & Schmid (2009), structuring, not for control verbs, which optionally undergo restructuring. As before, this Salzmann (2011; 2013a;b) for variation in other varieties of German.) suggests a truly biclausal (i.e., CP) analysis only for the latter environments. (29) CP extraposition: Problem: a. dass er gesagt hat [CP dass es regnet ] VP extraposition is possible after all (in fact, obligatory) in the Ersatzinfinitiv construction, that henom said has that itnom rains in apparent violation of the generalization that only CPs (and PPs, plus to some extent DPs) b. dass sie versucht hat [CP PRO zu schlafen ] can undergo extraposition in Standard German, not VPs. that shenom tried has to sleep

11 12 (33) Ersatzinfinitiv: A structure that is initially biclausal is reduced to a monoclausal one, via some form a. *dass sie das Buch lesen gewollt hatte of structure removal. The main problem with all these approaches is that they rely on transformations that are (a) ad hoc, (b) not constrained in interesting ways, and (c) that shenom the bookacc read wanted had b. *dass sie das Buch lesen wollen hatte not embedded into a general system of elementary, primitive operations manipulating syntactic structure. that shenom the bookacc read want had c. *dass sie das Buch hatte lesen gewollt Claim: that shenom the bookacc had read wanted An analysis based on Remove makes it possible to pursue a simple, principled renalysis d. dass sie das Buch hatte lesen wollen approach to restructuring. (Pace Haider (2010, 309): “Radical clause union [...] cannot be that shenom the bookacc had read want achieved derivationally since derivations to not destroy or eliminate structures” – They do.) Solution: This is the exception that proves the rule. In Ersatzinfinitiv constructions, existing con- 3. Analysis straints are violated in optimal forms so as to satisfy higher-ranked requirements (Schmid 3.1. Structure Removal in Infinitival Complements (2005)). Note that extraposition in the third construction, unlike what is the case with the Assumptions: Ersatzinfinitiv construction, is strictly optional, and not a repair operation. 2.3. Interim Conclusion • All control verbs take CP complements. Situation so far: • Restructuring control verbs can subsequently remove CP and TP layers, yielding de- There is evidence both for a truly biclausal (CP) analysis and for a monoclausal analysis of rived vP complements. restructuring constructions with control verbs in German. • Other restructuring verbs (functional restructuring predicates) take smaller comple- State of the art: ments from the start.

• Monoclausal approaches (Haider (1993; 2010), Kiss (1995), Wurmbrand (2001; 2007; Note: 2015b), Sternefeld (2006)), many others: In principle, it is possible to introduce yet more subtle distinctions, with different degrees of Evidence for biclausality poses problems that typically require construction-specific removal eventually yielding different final output structures for the infinitival complements; assumptions complicating the overall analysis. see Fanselow (1991), Wurmbrand (2001; 2015b).

• Biclausal approaches (Baker (1988), Sternefeld (1990), Müller & Sternefeld (1995), Proposal: Sabel (1996), Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000)): Evidence for monoclausality poses problems that typically require extremely abstract • Evidence for biclausality involves a CP structure before removal. The relevant opera- interactions of movement operations lacking independent motivation (plus additional tions are counter-bled and counter-fed by Remove. stipulations). • Evidence for monoclausality involves a vP structure after removal. The relevant oper- • Coanalysis approaches (Huybregts (1982), Bennis (1983), Haegeman & Riemsdijk ations are bled and fed by Remove. (1986), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Sadock (1991), Pesetsky (1995)): Both types of evidence can be accomodated because monoclausal and biclausal struc- tures can exist simultaneously. These approaches are typically quite unconstrained, and often not fully worked out (especially where restructuring is directly addressed); and it is sometimes not clear why one process would target one kind of structure rather than the other one.

• Reanalysis approaches (Ross (1967, ch. 3), Rizzi (1982), Aissen & Perlmutter (1983), Stechow & Sternefeld (1988)):

13 14 (34) Control infinitives: (35) Restructuring:

a. Merge (C[•T•],[∗case:[null]∗] , TP): a. Merge (V[•C•]≻[−C0 −]≻[−T0−], CP): CP VP

C[∗case:[null]∗] TP CP V[−C0−]≻[−T0−]

vP T C TP versucht

′ PRO[case:] v vP T

′ VP v PRO[case:[null]] v

DP V VP v

ihn zu küssen DP V

(i) Agree (C[∗case:[null]∗], PRO[case:]): ihn zu küssen CP b. Remove (V[−C0−]≻[−T0−], CP): C TP VP

vP T TP V[−T0−]

′ PRO[case:[null]] v vP T versucht

′ VP v PRO[case:[null]] v

DP V VP v

ihn zu küssen DP V

ihn zu küssen Note: Since there is no obligatory EPP feature for German T, there is no reason to assume that PRO c. Remove (V[−T0−], TP): must undergo movement to SpecT; it is licensed by C in its in situ (Specv) position. VP

vP V

′ PRO[case:[null]] v versucht

VP v

DP V

ihn zu küssen

15 16 Side remark: traposition in German, TP/vP/VP cannot do so). Assumption: Rightward movement is trig- No restrictions are needed on the possible combinations and orders of Remove features on gered by an optional [◦X◦] feature (with X ∈ {C, P, D} in German). restructuring verbs: (36) The third construction: V • • ≻ − − ≻ − − successful cyclic removal of CP, TP, and restructuring to vP • [ C ] [ C0 ] [ T0 ] → a. Merge (V[•C•]≻[◦C◦]≻[−C0 −]≻[−T0−], CP): VP • V[•C•]≻[−T0 −]≻[−C0−] → no removal of TP because of the Strict Cycle Condition, no removal of CP because the feature is not yet visible CP V[◦C◦]≻[−C0 −]≻[−T0−]

V • • ≻ − − no removal of TP because of the Strict Cycle Condition • [ C ] [ T0 ] → C TP versucht 3.2. Deriving Evidence for Biclausality vP T Note: ′ The operations that presuppose the presence of CP are counter-bled and counter-fed by PRO[case:[null]] v subsequent structure removal. VP v B-I: Uniformity of embedding: DP V The implicational generalization that all control verbs that permit restructuring are also compatible with non-restructuring complements is derived straightforwardly: The only way ihn zu küssen to reach vP is via an initial CP: Remove counter-bleeds feature-driven external Merge.

b. Remerge/right (V[◦C◦],[−C0 −]≻[−T0−], CP): B-II: Distribution of PRO: VP PRO is licensed via Agree with an infinitival C that assigns null case to it. Once null case is ′ assigned, it cannot be taken away again. Thus, it does not matter that the context in which V CP PRO can be licensed (CP) is ultimately destroyed by removal: Remove counter-bleeds PRO – V − − ≻ − − C TP licensing. [ C0 ] [ T0 ] versucht vP T B-III: Absence of new binding domains: ′ Assuming that reflexives are licensed by Agree operations which are (in most cases) blocked PRO[case:[null]] v by a CP boundary (Reuland (2001; 2011), Fischer (2004), Hicks (2009)), a reflexive will have its index fixed once the minimal CP is reached. Subsequent structure removal can VP v neither lead to new binding options by adding a binding index on a reflexive if new potential antecedents are around (also note that unlike English, German does not allow for movement DP V producing new binding options, cf. Barss (1986) vs. Frey (1993), Büring (2005)); nor ihn zu küssen can it undo existing binding indices on a reflexive: Remove counter-feeds new binding of reflexives and counter-bleeds old binding of reflexives.

B-IV: Unstressed pronoun fronting: An unstressed pronoun moves to the left edge of vP, and must ultimately be licensed in this position by C (as an instance of Agree). Subsequent removal of CP and TP comes too late to block the licensing: Remove counter-bleeds unstressed pronoun fronting.

B-V: The third construction: CP extraposition takes place before structure removal (recall that only CP can undergo ex-

17 18 c. Remove (V[−C0−]≻[−T0−], CP): A second question: VP The final representation is monoclausal, as required for scrambling or unstressed pronoun fronting to a vP specifier of the matrix V. However, it is not quite clear why a vP in a derived ′ V TP specifier (or adjoined) position does not block extraction via the Condition on Extraction Domain (CED, Huang (1982), Chomsky (1986), Cinque (1990); the problem persists under – V − − vP T [ T0 ] the approach to CED effects in Müller (2010) based on the Phrase Impenetrability Condition versucht PRO v′ (PIC, Chomsky (2001))). See below. (A non-solution: Perhaps movement in general does [case:[null]] not leave a trace/copy, so that extraposition would actually produce a new complement here. VP v This would not account for cases where there is an additional matrix object in the third construction, as in (32-d); and it would be incompatible with the approach to periphrastic DP V verb forms just sketched.)

ihn zu küssen With that proviso: Remove counter-bleeds extraposition. d. Remove (V[−T0−], TP): VP 3.3. Deriving Evidence for Monoclausality

V′ vP 3.3.1. Feeding and Bleeding M-I: Extraposition & M-II: Verb (Projection) Raising: ′ – V[−C0−]≻[−T0−] PRO[case:[null]] v The properties do not hold for control verbs and are accounted for without invoking structure removal. versucht VP v M-III: Negation: DP V Scope of negation is an output-oriented phenomenon, determined at LF. Wide scope ihn zu küssen presupposes the absence of a CP boundary: Remove feeds scope of negation.

M-IV: Intonation: Note: Intonational phases are output-orientied objects, determined at PF, and sensitive to CP There is no problem with Remove affecting specifiers (or adjuncts) rather than complements; boundaries: Remove bleeds the generation of smaller intonational phrases. recall (4), (7), (8) from section 1.

(37) Restructuring with subject clauses (unergative, unaccusative): M-V: Status government: One possibility would be that status government is determined late, after structure removal a. dass es sich nicht [ PRO t zu beanstanden ] gehört hat 1 1 (Remove feeds status government). However, this is at variance with Agree operations that it REFL not to object to respectable is 1 applying as soon as possible, giving rise to default realization (realization by the maximally b. dass sich ihm [ PRO t zu befreien ] gelungen ist 1 1 unspecific form) if they cannot be carried out within a certain local domain (Preminger that REFL him to free successful was dat (2014)): Removal of CP and TP comes too late to feed status government (Benz (2016)). A first question: Solution: Only first and third status of V2 are determined via Agree with a c-commanding What about periphrastic verb forms (perhaps more generally functional restructuring)? V1; second status is the default status (not specified by status features). (All verbs that optionally give rise to restructuring take complements where the verb has the second status.) Answers: (i) Head movement of non-finite lexical V, followed by discharge of the extraposition feature M-VI: Pied piping: in the derived position, plus minimal modification of the SCC incorporating the effect of The standard assumption is that pied piping by a relative pronoun requires the presence of (this type of) head movement. CP. Furthermore, movement to SpecC of the matrix clause is a very late operation that must (ii) The two Vs form a single complex head (and verb-second is excorporation). follow removal triggered by matrix V: Remove bleeds clausal pied piping.

19 20 3.3.2. Extraction from Clauses (39) Extraction and restructuring revisited:

M-VII: Extraction & M-VIII: Remnant Movement: a. dass den Fritz1 keiner [ PRO t1 zu küssen ] versuchte An obvious account might rely on the assumption that extraction from the infinitival com- that the Fritzacc no-onenom to kiss tried plement can take place after removal of CP and TP shells, i.e., that Remove feeds extraction. b. dass sie den Fritz1 versuchte [ PRO t1 zu küssen ] (Remnant movement is straightforwardly accounted for, given that is merely involves an that shenom the Fritzacc tried to kiss additional operation of VP topicalization that requires extraction to have taken place earlier, (40) Movement in the embedded CP: and can therefore be disregarded in what follows.) However, there are problems with such a CP naive view. DP C′ Cv Why Remove does not feed extraction: • Successive cylicity: An item that needs to undergo extraction from a constituent needs den Fritz C TP to undergo intermediate movement steps to phases edges, because of the PIC. An item within an infinitival CP does not know that eventually, there will be no CP; thus, with- vP T out look-ahead, it will have to undergo movement to SpecC, via Specv. – v′ • Third construction: Recall that a vP in a right-peripheral SpecV position should block ′ extraction because of the CED. PRO[case:[null]] v More general question: VP v Why does a CP block scrambling and unstressed pronoun fronting (cf. (19-a)) but not wh- movement, topicalization or relativazation in the first place? (Wurmbrand (2015b): Every CP – V contains an abstract ΣP that blocks the former movement types but not the latter movement types, essentially by fiat.) zu küssen

(38) a. *dass den Fritz1 keiner gesagt hat [CP dass wir t1 einladen sollen ] Proposal: [Σ: vC ] that the no-onenom said has that wenom invite should Removal of a CP leads to immediate deletion of a C symbol on a moved item in SpecC. Fritzacc b. wen1 sie gesagt hat [CP dass wir t1 einladen sollen ] (41) Extraction and Restructuring: [wh: Cv ] shenom said has that we invite should whomacc a. Structure before removal: VP Assumption: CP V − − ≻ − − 1. Improper movement: [ C0 ] [ T0 ] Extraction from CP must proceed via SpecC (because of the PIC), and the Williams DP C′ versuchte Cycle (Williams (1974; 2003)) ensures that once an XP domain has been targetted by Cv intermediate movement, the final landing site must be at least of the same height as the XP in the clausal spine. den Fritz C TP 2. Local implementation (Müller (2014, ch. 2)): vP T Category information about intermediate landing sites is recorded on a buffer that is ′ associated with a moved item (a list that acts as the value of a movement-related fea- PRO[case:[null]] v ture); a category symbol is deleted once the same kind of category symbol is added; in criterial positions, the category list on a moved item is required to conform to the VP v functional sequence of heads: Cv is legitimate (as with wh-movement in (38-b)), but zu küssen vC is illegitimate (as with scrambling in (38-a)).

21 22 b. Remove (V[−C0−]≻[−T0−], CP), reassociation of DP: Observation (Geilfuß (1991)): VP Items in immediately preverbal positions in the third construction do not exhibit the charac- teristic properties of scrambling in German; they instantiate pseudo-scrambling. Evidence ′ DP v V comes from focus projection, wh-scrambling, scope, non-specific indefinites, directional PPs, extraction, idioms, and quantifier floating.

den Fritz TP V[−T0−] (42) Focus projection (out of the blue contexts): vP T versuchte a. #Fritz hat das MÄRchen1 einem Kind t1 vorgelesen Fritznom has the fairy taleacc a childdat read to ′ PRO[case:[null]] v b. Fritz hat einem Kind das MÄRchen1 [VP versucht [ t1 vorzulesen ]] Fritznom has a childdat the fairy taleacc tried to read to VP v (43) Scope:

zu küssen a. Er hat mindestens ein Geschenk1 fast jedem Gast t1 überreicht henom has at least one presentacc almost every guestdat given c. Remove (V[−T0−], TP): Readings: ∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃ VP b. Er hat mindestens ein Geschenk1 versucht [ fast jedem Gast t1 zu he has at least one present tried almost every guest to ′ nom acc DP v V überreichen ] give den Fritz vP V Readings: ∃ > ∀, *∀ > ∃

′ Note: PRO v versuchte [case:[null]] The same predictions are made for locally string-vacuous scrambling from non-extraposed VP v restructuring infinitives in remnant movement contexts (Müller (2014, ch. 3)).

zu küssen 4. Long-Distance Passive Observation (Höhle (1978), Stechow (1992), Bayer & Kornfilt (1994), Sabel (1996), Third construction: Wöllstein-Leisten (2001), Wurmbrand (2001; 2015a;b), Sternefeld (2006), Haider (2010), Exactly the same kind of derivation takes place with extraction in the third construction: DP Keine & Bhatt (2016): in SpecC becomes reassociated with VP as a consequence of CP removal in the extraposed In the long-distance passive construction, an object of the embedded verb is assigned matrix position. clause nominative and agrees with the matrix verb; passive morphology only shows up on the matrix verb. Note: On this view, a DP that has reached SpecC of a restructuring infinitive ends up in the matrix (44) Long-distance passive: VP domain without having undergone movement to that position. a. dass der Traktor1 [ t1 zu reparieren ] versucht wurde that the tractornom to repair tried was Two possibilities: b. dass die Traktoren1 versucht wurden [ t1 zu reparieren ] that the tractors tried were to repair • DP can undergo further movement in the matrix clause; since it only has v on its nom buffer, it can undergo movement of any kind (e.g., wh-movement, scrambling). Generalizations:

• DP stays in SpecV; since it has not moved there, the position is virtually indistinguish- • Long-distance passive in German presupposes restructuring, but not every restructur- able from a base-merged position at this point. This provides a principled approach to ing predicate permits long-distance passive (Höhle (1978), Wöllstein-Leisten (2001), pseudo-scrambling phenomena.

23 24 Sternefeld (2006), Haider (2010)): versuchen (‘try’), vergessen (‘forget’) vs. beab- Appendix: Remove vs. Exfoliation sichtigen (‘intend’), wünschen (‘wish’). Differences between Remove and Pesetsky’s (2016) concept of Exfoliation: • Cross-linguistically, long-distance passive and restructuring seem to be indepen- 1. Remove can apply to phrases or heads; Exfoliation is confined to phrases. dent phenomena, but as a tendency the former presupposes the latter (Wurmbrand (2015a;b)). 2. Remove is local: An operation that is triggered by the head of a projection α and that applies to some item δ (merging or removing it) does indeed “exclusively target” δ Sketch of an analysis: (in the sense of (1)) in the domain (in the sense of (2)) of which δ is a member. In (i) Restructuring verbs that also permit long-distance passivization in German have an ad- contrast, Exfoliation is inherently non-local; it can (in fact, must) apply across phase ditional [–v –] feature that removes the vP shell of the infinitival complement. As a conse- 0 boundaries, and can be reconciled with the Strict Cycle Condition only if it is assumed quence of vP removal, PRO becomes reassociated with the matrix VP. It shows up in SpecV that the root domain that induces the operation is also directly affected by it. without having undergone movement to this position. (ii) Close proximity of the matrix subject (DPext in Specv) and the embedded subject (PRO 3. Remove is feature-driven. Exfoliation is not feature-driven; rather, it is a repair oper- in SpecV) makes it possible that both are removed by a single argument reduction operation ation that can resolve a dilemma created by the need of an embedded subject DP to initiated by passive v in the matrix (Müller (2016b)). This presupposes that the two subjects undergo movement to the matrix clause across a phase (viz., an embedded CP) without share an index (via Agree-based control): There can be no long-distance passive with object violating either a phase-based concept of antilocality (by movement to the specifier of control verbs; cf. *dass ihr der Traktor zu reparieren empfohlen wurde (‘that her the tractor the phase) or phase impenetrability (by skipping over the specifier of the phase): Exfo- to repair recommended was’). liation can delete the CP phase (plus, possibly, a TP below it) and thereby make subject (iii) To suppress accusative case assignment in the embedded clause, v must be absent movement to the matrix clause possible. in long-distance passives (Wurmbrand (2001)). In the present approach, this implies that counter-bleeding of accusative case assignment by removal of the vP shell must be pre- 4. Remove can apply recursively; Exfoliation cannot apply recursively. vented, perhaps by some visibility condition for overt (as opposed to null) case assigners. 5. Exfoliation does not act as a direct counterpart of Merge.

6. Remove can affect a specifier; Exfoliation, by assumption, can never be upwards.

5. References Abels, Klaus (2012): Phases. An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. Vol. 543 of Linguistische Arbeiten, De Gruyter, Berlin. Adger, David (2003): Core Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Aissen, Judith & David Perlmutter (1983): Clause Reduction in Spanish. In: D. Perlmutter, ed., Studies in Relational Grammar 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 360–403. Bader, Markus & Tanja Schmid (2009): Verb Clusters in Colloquial German, Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax 12, 175–228. Baker, Mark (1988): Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Univer- sity of Chicago Press, Chicago. Barnickel, Katja (2014): Opazität in AcI-Konstruktionen. Master’s thesis, Universität Leipzig. Barss, Andrew (1986): Chains and Anaphoric Dependence. Ph.d. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Bayer, Josef & Jaklin Kornfilt (1994): Against Scrambling as an Instance of Move Alpha. In: N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk, eds., Studies on Scrambling. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 17–60.

25 26 Bech, Gunnar (1955/1957): Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Niemeyer, Tübin- Geilfuß, Jochen (1991): Scrambling und Pseudoscrambling. Ms., Universität Tübingen. gen. Reprint 1983. Georgi, Doreen (2014): Opaque Interactions of Merge and Agree. PhD thesis, Universität Bennis, Hans (1983): A Case of Restructuring. In: H. Bennis & W. van Lessen Kloeke, eds., Leipzig. Linguistics in the Netherlands. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 9–19. Grewendorf, Günther (1983): Reflexivierung in deutschen AcI-Konstruktionen – Kein trans- Benz, Johanna (2016): Status Government and Structure Removal. Seminararbeit, Univer- formationsgrammatisches Dilemma mehr, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Lin- sität Leipzig. guistik 23, 120–196. Besten, Hans den & Jean Rutten (1989): On Verb Raising, Extraposition and Free Word Grewendorf, Günther (1988): Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Narr. Order in Dutch. In: D. Jaspers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys & P. Seuren, eds., Sentential Gunkel, Lutz (2003): Infinitheit, Passiv und Kausativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Stauf- Complementation and the Lexicon. Studies in Honor of Wim de Geest. Foris, Dordrecht, fenburg Verlag, Tübingen. pp. 41–56. Haegeman, Liliane & Henk van Riemsdijk (1986): Verb Projection Raising, Scope, and the Büring, Daniel (2005): Binding Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Typology of Rules Affecting Verbs, Linguistic Inquiry 17(3), 417–466. Chomsky, Noam (1951): Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Master’s thesis, University Haider, Hubert (1993): Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Narr, Tübingen. of Pennsylvania. Haider, Hubert (2010): The Syntax of German. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chomsky, Noam (1973): Conditions on Transformations. In: S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky, Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller (2007): Extremely Local Optimization. In: E. Brainbridge & eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Academic Press, New York, pp. 232–286. B. Agbayani, eds., Proceedings of the 26th WECOL. California State University, Fresno, Chomsky, Noam (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. pp. 170–183. Chomsky, Noam (1986): Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Hicks, Glyn (2009): The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Chomsky, Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Höhle, Tilman (1978): Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere In- Chomsky, Noam (2001): Derivation by Phase. In: M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale. A Life in finitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52. Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982): Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Chomsky, Noam (2008): On Phases. In: R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 133–166. Huybregts, Riny (1982): Class Notes. Ms., Tilburg University. Chomsky, Noam (2013): Problems of Projection, Lingua 130, 33–49. Keine, Stefan & Rajesh Bhatt (2016): Interpreting Verb Clusters, Natural Language and Cinque, Guglielmo (1990): Types of A-bar Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Linguistic Theory Published online, 13.4.2016. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Edwin Williams (1987): On the Definition of Word. MIT Press, Kiparsky, Paul (1973): Abstractness, Opacity and Global Rules. In: O. Fujimura, ed., Three Cambridge, Mass. Dimensions in Linguistic Theory. TEC, Tokyo, pp. 57–86. Fabb, Nigel (1984): Syntactic Affixation. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Kiss, Tibor (1995): Infinite Komplementation. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Fanselow, Gisbert (1987): Konfigurationalität. Narr, Tübingen. Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi (2000): Verbal Complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Fanselow, Gisbert (1989): Coherent Infinitives in German. In: C. Bhatt, E. Löbel & Mass. C. Schmidt, eds., Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. Lechner, Winfried (2010): Criteria for Diagnosing Movement (And Some Remarks on the Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1–16. Duke of York). Ms., University of Athens. Fanselow, Gisbert (1991): Minimale Syntax. Habilitation thesis, Universität Passau. McCarthy, John (2003): Sympathy, Cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York Gambit. In: C. Féry Fanselow, Gisbert (2004): The MLC and Derivational Economy. In: A. Stepanov, & R. van de Vijver, eds., The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press, G. Fanselow & R. Vogel, eds., Minimality Effects in Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 23–76. pp. 73–123. Müller, Gereon (2001): Order Preservation, Parallel Movement, and the Emergence of the Featherston, Sam & Wolfgang Sternefeld (2003): The Interaction of Factors in Judge- Unmarked. In: G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner, eds., Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. ments of Reflexive Structures: Data from Object Coreference in German. In: L. Gunkel, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 279–313. G. Müller & G. Zifonun, eds., Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 25– Müller, Gereon (2010): On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC, Linguistic Inquiry 41, 35– 50. 82. Fischer, Silke (2004): Towards an Optimal Theory of Reflexivization. PhD thesis, Universität Müller, Gereon (2014): Syntactic Buffers. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 91, Universität Tübingen. Leipzig. Frey, Werner (1993): Syntaktische Bedingungen für die Interpretation. Akademieverlag, Müller, Gereon (2015a): Structure Removal. A New Approach to Conflicting Representa- Berlin. tions. Lecture Notes, Universität Leipzig.

27 28 Müller, Gereon (2015b): Structure Removal: An Argument for Feature-Driven Merge. Ms., Leipzig, pp. 65–121. Universität Leipzig. Lingbuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002704. Schmid, Tanja (2005): Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a Repair Strategy. Müller, Gereon (2016a): Freezing in Complex Prefields. Ms., Universität Leipzig. To appear Benjamins, Amsterdam. in Andreas Konietzko & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Stabler, Edward (2013): Two Models of Minimalist, Incremental Syntactic Analysis, Topics Empirical Domains. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. in Cognitive Science 5, 611–633. Müller, Gereon (2016b): The Short Life Cycle of External Arguments in German Passive Stechow, Arnim von (1984): Gunnar Bech’s Government and Binding Theory, Linguistics Derivations. Ms., Universität Leipzig. 22, 225–241. Müller, Gereon (2016c): Structure Removal in Complex Prefields. Ms., Universität Leipzig. Stechow, Arnim von (1990): Status Government and Coherence in German. In: G. Grewen- Müller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld (1995): Extraction, Lexical Variation, and the Theory dorf & W. Sternefeld, eds., Scrambling and Barriers. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 143– of Barriers. In: U. Egli et al., eds., Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language. 198. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 35–80. Stechow, Arnim von (1992): Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In: Murphy, Andrew (2015): Ellipsis as Syntactic Structure Removal. Ms., Universität Leipzig. P. Suchsland, ed., Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache. Niemeyer, Tübingen, Murphy, Andrew (2016): Double Passivization in Turkish: A Structure Removal Approach. pp. 175–248. In: K. Bellamy, L. Karvovskaya, M. Kohlberger & G. Saad, eds., Proceedings of Con- Stechow, Arnim von & Wolfgang Sternefeld (1988): Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. West- SOLE 23. pp. 316–339. deutscher Verlag, Opladen. Murphy, Andrew & Gereon Müller (2016): The Short Life Cycle of Elided Elements: Ellip- Stepanov, Artur (2012): Voiding Island Effects via Head Movement, Linguistic Inquiry sis as Syntactic Structure Removal. Ms., Universität Leipzig. (Poster, Workshop Ellipsis 43, 680–693. Across Borders, Sarajevo 2016). Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1990): Scrambling and Minimality. In: G. Grewendorf & W. Sterne- Pesetsky, David (1995): Zero Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. feld, eds., Scrambling and Barriers. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 239–257. Pesetsky, David (2016): Exfoliation: Towards a Derivational Theory of Clause Size. Ms., Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2006): Syntax. Stauffenburg, Tübingen. Two volumes. MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Sam Featherston (2003): The German Reciprocal Einander in Dou- Preminger, Omer (2014): Agreement and Its Failures. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. ble Object Constructions. In: L. Gunkel, G. Müller & G. Zifonun, eds., Arbeiten zur Pullum, Geoffrey (1976): The Duke of York Gambit, Journal of Linguistics 12, 83–102. Reflexivierung. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 239–265. Reis, Marga (1976): Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformation- Williams, Edwin (1974): Rule Ordering in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. sgrammatisches Dilemma, Papiere zur Linguistik 9, 5–82. Williams, Edwin (2003): Representation Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Reuland, Eric (2001): Primitives of Binding, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492. Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika (2001): Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion. Stauffenburg Ver- Reuland, Eric (2011): Anaphora and Language Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. lag, Tübingen. Richards, Marc (2007): On Feature Inheritance, Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563–572. Wurmbrand, Susanne (2001): Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Mouton de Richards, Norvin (2001): Movement in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gruyter, Berlin. Rizzi, Luigi (1982): Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Wurmbrand, Susi (2004): Two Types of Restructuring – Lexical vs. Functional, Lingua Ross, John (1967): Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 991–1014. Sabel, Joachim (1996): Restrukturierung und Lokalität. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Wurmbrand, Susi (2007): How Complex are Complex Predicates?, Syntax 10, 243–288. Sadock, Jerry (1991): Autolexical Syntax. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Wurmbrand, Susi (2015a): Complex Predicate Formation via Voice Incorporation. In: Safir, Ken (2010): Viable Syntax: Rethinking Minimalist Architecture, Biolinguistics 4, 35– L. Nash & P. Samvelian, eds., Approaches to Complex Predicates. Brill, Leiden, pp. 248– 107. 290. Safir, Ken (2015): It’s a Conspiracy! The A/A′-Distinction as an Epiphenomenon. Ms., Wurmbrand, Susi (2015b): Restructuring Cross-Linguistically. In: T. Bui & D. Özyıldız, Rutgers University. eds., Proceedings of NELS 45. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 227–240. Salzmann, Martin (2011): Resolving the Movement Paradox in Verb Projection Raising. In: Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8. CNRS, Paris, pp. 453–485. Salzmann, Martin (2013a): New Arguments for Verb Cluster Formation at PF and a Right- Branching VP, Linguistic Variation 13, 81–132. Salzmann, Martin (2013b): Rule Ordering in Verb Cluster Formation. In: Rule Interaction in Grammar. Vol. 90 of Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, Institut für Linguistik, Universität

29 30