Exocentric Root Declaratives:

Evidence from V2*

Andreas Blümel

In this paper I argue that V2-structures in (mostly) Germanic provide evidence for
the necessity to avoid labeling in root (-like) contexts, i.e. they instantiate
systematic and obligatory failures of the two strategies to label XP-YP-structures
suggested in Chomsky 2013, 2014: In declarative contexts, the prefield must be
occupied to prevent specification of category of α={XP, CPV2}. I show how this
approach not only makes sense conceptually, but elegantly solves riddles of
prefield-occupation (“Vorfeldbesetzung”).

1. Introduction

A recent effort in syntactic theorizing is to rid the grammar of endocentricity and stipulative ̅
X-
theoretic residues. According to Chomsky (2013, 2014) the cases that do speak in favor of
headedness can be made to follow from minimal search, i.e. efficient detection of the
structurally closest head, ultimately a Third Factor principle. Within that approach two
strategies exist to endow structures of the form XP-YP with a label, i.e. structures, where
detection of the closest head fails (as in the trivial case Head-XP): (a) symmetry-breaking
movement turns one member into a discontinuous element such that the in-situ element is
detected, (b) both X and Y share a prominent feature and have undergone AGREE, so that the
common feature provides the label.
The aim of this paper is to defend the view that at least a third strategy exists and that
grammars exploit it systematically. Central to this paper are two related claims:
(1)
a. declarative root clauses must remain labelless
b. and prefield-occupation in V2-languages is one strategy to ensure this.
I couch both these claims in Chomsky’s recent theory of labeling and thereby show how an
interplay between unconstrained Merge,1 Third Factors2 and a reasonably explicit hypothesis

*
I am especially grateful to Dennis Ott for suggestions that entered into this paper. Regarding the core idea, he
was independently thinking along the same lines. Thanks also to Mailin Antomo, Huba Bartos, Michael Brody,
Marcel den Dikken, Joe Emonds, Ángel Gallego, Hans-Martin Gärtner (Danke für die ausführlichen
Kommentare!), Remus Gergel, Chris Götze, Erich Groat, Anke Holler, Gereon Müller, Ad Neeleman, Hagen
Pitsch, Omer Preminger, Marc Richards, Luigi Rizzi, Volker Struckmeier, George Walkden, Hedde Zeijlstra and
an anonymous reviewer for feedback, discussion and encouragement, as well as the audiences of many conferences
and workshops. All errors are my own.
1
Chomsky 2004 et seq, Boeckx 2014.
2
Chomsky 2005.
about the Conceptual-Intentional interface -- i.e. 1 -- delivers a solution to one part of the
syntactic puzzle known as V2.
That said, let me point out the proviso that in this paper, I will not be concerned with
the question of V-in-C, i.e. the fact that the finite verb ends up in the so-called left sentence
bracket or C in V2 clauses. I here rely on the idea that the finite verb V-to-C-moves to assume
the finiteness features on C (cf. Roberts 2004 and Eide 2007 inter alia). Intuitively, it is this
formal movement which endows clauses with illocutionary force in languages that have this
property. A full account of V2 has to address this other half of the conundrum and I hope to
find a satisfactory solution to this problem in the future.
Claim 1 is not novel if stated in different terms:3 Emonds (2004, 2012) proposes that
root clauses in general are categorially unspecified, comprising `a-categorial shells.’ In the
current analysis I side with him in taking 1 to be a significant fact which holds the key to many
of the cross-linguistic root properties we know of. However, I depart from his proposal in that
̅-theoretic machinery, including its stipulations, and in that I take 1 to be an
I reject the X
interface condition, which languages meet in different ways. In other words, the way 1
manifests itself across languages is not in Emonds’ static universal category-neutral projection
but by means of different syntactic and derivational mechanisms (cf. below for specific
suggestions). Let me point out that in addition to what one might consider a mere difference in
`style’ of analysis, Emonds’ implementation of root phenomena in terms of a Discourse
Projection arguably violates Full Interpretation.4 Be that as it may, I take the fact that 1 has
independently been suggested to be promising: 1 -- or something close to it -- might turn out to
be a genuine interface property.
The empirical focus of this paper is narrowly confined to three salient properties of V2
contained in the following generalization:
(2) Prefield-Occupation (central puzzle):
In German declarative root(-like) contexts at least and at most one XP must occupy the
position before the finite verb (V2 -- the position of the left sentence bracket)
A declarative root clause with an XP in the prefield is shown in ((3)a). Omitting the phrase
leads to ungrammaticality as ((3)b) shows.5 Unless indicated otherwise, all the examples of this
paper are from German.

3
Its specific restriction to declarative clauses might be. Emonds' seems to defend a stronger thesis which extends
labellessness to all clause types. Since other clause types too exhibit root/non-root asymmetries, ((1)a) might turn
out to be too weak and Emonds' stronger view might have to be invoked. As for V2, much depends on the nature
of V-in-C which is confined to root contexts (excluding Icelandic and Yiddish).
4
Chomsky (1986a:88-99): Full Interpretation: “every element of PF and LF, taken to be the interface of syntax (in
the broad sense) with systems of language use, must receive an appropriate interpretation -- must be licensed [...].
None can simply be disregarded.” Emonds' discourse shells provide landing sides for movement in V2-clauses,
but its head is not associated with a particular meaning. The problem is exacerbated if no movement to the
discourse shells takes place as in simple English declarative root clauses: the discourse shells receives no
interpretation at either PF or LF.
5
The structure is fine as a yes/no-question, which is accompanied by a rising intonation towards the end of the
sentence. It also has a narrative inversion parsing, for which however, there is evidence for an empty operator in
the prefield, cf. Zwart 1997:217ff. Thus insofar as that kind of analysis is on track, narrative inversion is V2.
Imperatives and a variant of conditionals also features verb initial structures. Finally, topic drop deserves to be
mentioned, which is superficially verb initial. In these structures there is strong evidence for a silent syntactic
object in the prefield (such as island sensitivity).
 (3)
a. Der Jens hat der Maria ein Buch geschenkt.
the Jens has the Mary a book given
`Jens gave Mary the book. (as a present)’
b. *Hat der Jens der Maria ein Buch geschenkt. (assertion)
The second prominent feature of ((2)) is the lack of specificity of the prefield-XP, i.e. its
promiscuity: a phrase of any category can do the job of occupying the prefield:
(4)
a. [DP Maria] hat tDP den Mann gestern gesehen
Mary has the man yesterday seen
`Mary has seen the man yesterday.’
b. [AdvP gestern] hat Maria den Mann tAdvP gesehen
yesterday has Mary the man seen
c. [VP den Mann gesehen] hat Maria gestern tVP
the man seen has Mary yesterday
d. [CP+fin dass die Sonne scheint] hat Maria tCP gesagt
that the sun shines has Mary said
`That the sun shines, Mary said.’
e. [CP-fin die Scheibe einzuschlagen] hat Maria tCP beschlossen
the window to-crush has Mary decided
`Mary decided to crush the window.’
f. [PP über den Wolken] muss die Freiheit tPP wohl grenzenlos sein
above the clouds must the freedom PTCL limitless be
`Freedom must be limitless above the clouds.
g. [AP schön] ist Maria tAP
beautiful is Mary
`Mary is beautiful.’
Uniqueness may function as a term for the final significant feature of V2: No more than one
phrase/XP may occupy the prefield ((5)).
(5) * Der Jens der Maria hat ein Buch geschenkt.
the Jens the Mary has a book given
So the three explananda of prefield-occupation are
(6)
a. „promiscuity” of the prefield: a phrase of any category
b. obligatoriness: at least one phrase (in declarative root contexts)
c. uniqueness: at most one phrase
I set out to show that a labeling-based account not only accounts for these explananda, but also
naturally links them to the root property of V2 and is thus preferable to alternatives. This paper
is structured as follows. In section 2 I re-establish the root character of V2 in German. Section

Brandner (2011) rightly points out that V2-clauses like ((3)a) can have a yes/no-interpretation if accompanied by
a rising intonation. (Intuitively, the reading differs from a regular yes/no-question in verb-initial structures in that
an incredulity appears to be conveyed. The reading might be the yes/no-counterpart of an echo WH-question.) In
this sense, prefield-occupation does not unambiguously determine semantic interpretation. For the purposes of this
paper, I will abstract away from this complication.
3 briefly sketches the standard analysis of V2 and identifies some of its shortcomings. In section
4 I present my new, labeling-based analysis. In section 5 I address some implications and
questions the present analysis gives rise to. In particular, I address the question which
alternative derivational mechanisms non-V2 languages might employ to cleanse root
declaratives of labels. Finally I summarize the paper in section 6.

2. V2 -- A Root(-like) Phenomenon
2.1. Asymmetries between V2-Clauses and V-final Clauses

According to a widespread generalization, V2 is invariably a root phenomenon, i.e. it is the

topmost main clause or has distinctively root-like properties, respectively. This hunch has been
around at least since Joe Emonds’ work on root transformations and den Besten 1977, and has
extensively been argued for by Marga Reis. In the following, I present a small subset of
contrasts observed between V2-clauses and uncontroversially subordinated, properly selected
clauses, introduced by the complementizer dass `that.’ Most of the observations stem from
Reis’ work (Reis 1997).
To begin, once the finite verb is in the C-position, the clause cannot be embedded ((7)),
contrasting with V-final variants ((8)).6 This holds for all clause types (declarative, WH-
question, yes/no-question):
(7)
a. *Maria hat {vergessen/geleugnet...} Hans bringt die Monika nach Hause.
Mary has {forgotten/denied...} Hans brings the Monika to home
`Mary {forgot/denied...} that Hans brings Monika home.’
b. *Maria hat sich gefragt, wen bringt der Hans nach Hause.
Mary has REFL asked who brings the Hans to home
`Mary wondered whom Hans will bring home.’
c. *Maria hat sich gefragt, bringt der Hans die Monika nach Hause.
Mary has REFL asked brings the Hans the Monika to home
`May wondered if Hans will bring Monika home.’

(8)

6
Viola Schmitt (p.c.) brought to my attention that it is possible to coordinate what looks like conjunction of dass-
and V2-clauses (i), thus suggesting, prima facie, that dass-clauses and embedded V2 are on a par:

i. Peter hat gemeint, Peter sei dumm und dass Maria schlau sei.

There seems to be an ordering restriction on the conjuncts, cf. (ii), which looks as if it raises the issue how my
account deals with coordination of labeled and unlabeled categories:

ii. ??Peter hat gemeint, dass Peter dumm sei und Maria sei schlau.

It is not clear to me, however, that what is coordinated in (ii) is two embedded clauses. It is conceivable, for
instance, that the conjunct in (ii) conjoins two main clauses the second of which is mainly elliptical along the lines
of the analysis of right dislocation in Ott & de Vries 2015. The dass-clause is then the counterpart of right
dislocated constituents in their analysis. This approach accounts straightaway for the deviance of (i) in that a V2-
clause cannot be fronted within the second elided main clause or occupy its prefield -- a precondition of ellipsis.
 a. Maria hat {vergessen/geleugnet...} dass Hans die Monika nach Hause bringt.
Mary has {forgotten/denied...} that Hans the Monika to home brings.
Maria hat sich gefragt, wen der Hans nach Hause bringt.
b. Mary has REFL asked who the Hans to home brings
Maria hat sich gefragt, ob der Hans die Monika nach Hause bringt.
Mary has REFL asked if the Hans the Monika to home brings
Moreover, the correlate pronoun es is impossible when associated with a V2 embedded clause
((9)b), but perfectly fine when associated with a V-final embedded clause ((9)a):
(9)
a. Peter hat es {geärgert/gesagt/vergessen...} dass die Sonne scheint.
Peter has it {annoyed/said/forgotten...} that the sun shines
b. *Peter hat es {geärgert/gesagt/vergessen...} die Sonne scheint.
Peter has it {annoyed/said/forgotten...} the sun shines
V2-clauses cannot appear in subject position ((10)), again, unlike verb-final finite clauses:
(10) {Dass die Sonne scheint/*Die Sonne scheint} hat die Leute beeindruckt.
{that the sun shines/the sun shines} has the people impressed
Let me end this section by noting that Dutch V2-clauses cannot be embedded under bridge
verbs,7 which is remarkable, given that the syntactic properties of the two languages are
otherwise very similar:
(11) *Piet zei Frits moest gisteren huilen.
Peter says Fritz must yesterday cry
`Peter says Fritz had to cry yesterday.’ (Dutch)

2.2. Seemingly embedded Contexts of V2-Clauses

The purpose of this section is to review phenomena in which V2-clauses are embedded and by
the same token to highlight asymmetries to their verb-final counterpart. German seems to be
one of the few among the V2-languages where the idea that embedded V2-clauses are directly
selected is even an issue. Next to empirical arguments which I will review in this section (Reis
1997), I hope to show by means of this paper that strong conceptual points speak in favor of
treating V2-clauses as invariably root-like, whatever the formal analysis of “embedding” turns
out to be.
As is well-known, it is possible to embed V2 declarative clauses in the context of so-called
bridge verbs:
(12) Maria hat {gemeint/gesagt/geäussert ...} Hans bringt die Monika nach Hause.
Mary has {meant/said/uttered...} Hans brings the Monika to home
`Mary said that Hans brings Monika home’
Also, given subjunctive mood, V2-clauses may appear as what looks like complements of nouns
or in the prefield:

7
Fitting is the fact that neither weil-V2 nor N+V2 exist in Dutch, as Ad Neeleman (p.c.) informs me.
 (13)
a. Die Behauptung Hans {bringe/*bringt} die Monika nach Hause, liess sich nicht
halten.
the claim Hans bring-SBJC/brings the Monika to home was REFL not tenable
b. Die Sonne gehe unter meinte Monika.
the sun goes under meant Monika
`That the sun sets Monika said.’
However, there are still asymmetries between dass-clauses and V2-clauses preceding the finite
verb in C: pronouns in V2-clauses, which occupy this position cannot be bound by quantifiers
in the main clause ((14)b) -- again, in contrast to the dass-counterpart ((14)c) (Reis1997:139):
(14)
a. Jederi möchte gern glauben, eri sei unheimlich beliebt.
everyone wants happily believe he be uncannily beloved
`Everyonei wants to believe that hei is very much liked by others.’
b. *Eri sei unheimlich beliebt, möchte jederi gern glauben.
hei be uncannily beloved wants everyonei happily believe
c. Dass eri unheimlich beliebt sei, möchte jederi gern glauben.
that he uncannily beloved be wants everyone happily believe
The contrast is reinforced by embedded V2-clauses preceding the main clause finite verb in C,
which feature weil `because’ and obwohl `despite,’ both of which are impossible ((15)b/(16)b)
in contrast to the option of having embedded V-final clauses in this position ((15)a/(16)a):8
(15)
a. Weil Fritz so gerne Eis ißt, gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt.
because Fritz so gladly ice eats go we now in the city
`We go into the city now, because Fritz enjoys eating ice cream so much.’
b. *Weil Fritz ißt so gerne Eis, gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt.
(16)
a. Obwohl Fritz so gerne Eis ißt, gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt.
b. *Obwohl Fritz ißt so gerne Eis, gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt.
From the observation of variable binding asymmetries in ((14)) Reis concludes that in cases
like ((13)b) the embedded V2-clause does not occupy SPEC-CP of the host clause, but involves
a V1 parenthetical. The embedded V2-clause is thus not properly contained in the prefield at
all (cf. also Webelhuth 1992:89, fn. 59).
The observation is, again, corroborated by extraction asymmetries between verb final
dass-clauses which allow long-distance A ̅-movement ((17)a) and V2-clauses which do not

8
V2-clauses with denn `because' cannot occupy the prefield either; they have no verb final counterpart:

iii. Wir gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt, denn Fritz ißt so gerne Eis,.
iv. *Denn Fritz ißt so gerne Eis, gehen wir jetzt in die Stadt.

Cf. Wegener 1993, 2000 and Steinbach & Antomo 2010 for a survey and semantic differences between these
clause types.
9
Thanks to Gereon Müller for querying me about this point. The ban on weil/obwohl-V2-clauses in the prefield in
my view speak support the idea that embedded V2-clauses do not occupy SPEC-CP.
((17)b) (cf. Reis 2002; long-distance extraction out of dass-clauses is subject to well-known
dialectal and idiolectal variation):
(17)
a. Was glaubst du dass er lesen sollte?
what believe you that he read should
`What do you think he should read?’
b. *Was glaubst du, er sollte lesen?
The morale of the observations above is that none of these asymmetries are expected if the V2-
clause is embedded in the same fashion as dass-clauses, i.e. directly merged with and selected
by the related verb. V2-clauses, which function as realizations of arguments of related verbs10
are “relatively disintegrated subordinate clauses.’” It comes as no surprise, then, that they are
islands for movement.
The table below summarizes many of the asymmetries noted by Reis. The upshot is that
embedded V2-clauses in German exhibit distinctive root properties and are crucially not
selected by the embedding verb.
dass-clauses aV2-clauses
Topicalization + -
middle field position + (marginal) -
Postfield possible necessary
Correlates + -
Extraction + -
next to V, N, A, also with P + -
with N in different functions - - (only explicative)
und zwar-structure (`namely’-structure) + -
sluicing remnants in fragment answers + -
Verb-final/V2-asymmetries

Having (re-)established the root character of V2 and its external distribution, I would like
to briefly touch on and critique the standard syntactic analysis of the phenomenon, insofar as
its internal syntax is concerned. I will return to the distributional properties of V2-clauses in
section 5.

3. The Standard Analysis of V2

The structure of a German main clause like ((18)) is standardly represented as in ((19)), where
the prefield is identified with SPEC-CP.
(18) Der Jens hat die Maria geküsst.
the Jens has the Mary kissed
(19)

10
``V2-Sätze in argumentrealisierender Funktion.''
In previous analyses, an EPP or Edge Feature EF on C was postulated, which triggers movement
of an arbitrary category to SPEC-CP (Fanselow 2002, 2004, Roberts 2004). I believe that there
are numerous conceptual problems with this analysis, but here I would like to highlight one
particular issue: Aside from restating the problem of why SPEC-CP must be occupied, the
analysis has nothing to say about what distinguishes root-CPs from embedded, i.e. properly
selected ones. The difference would then probably have to be stipulated in terms of presence or
absence of the EPP/EF on C, which is clearly non-explanatory. In other words, the analysis fails
to even address the concern of Emonds, den Besten and Reis to subsume V2 under root
phenomena and to try to find an account for it. This crucial link is what the following analysis
captures.

4. The New Analysis

4.1. Labeling

My analysis rests on Chomsky’s recent conception of deriving endocentricity of the language-

independent Third Factor principle Minimal Search as laid out in Problems of Projection POP,
(cf. Chomsky 2013 and references therein). The combinatorial device to form hierarchical
structures is Simplest Merge,11 a binary operation that takes two syntactic objects -- say, X and
Y -- to yield an unordered set, which comprises X and Y:
(20) Merge(X, Y)={X, Y}

11
I confine myself to Set Merge here. Pair Merge, the operation that delivers ordered sets, was suggested in
Chomsky 2004 as the operation underlying adjunction phenomena. It raises independent problems and questions
with respect to projection and labeling. See below for a speculative remark.
Let me elaborate. The set delivered by Merge in ((20)) is strictly symmetrical, i.e. no element
is more prominent than the other. There is thus no mechanism of projection involved, which
means that headedness as conceived in ̅ X-theory must come about by different means -- at least,
insofar as it holds. Part of the background assumption is the Minimalist goal to ground
properties of the grammar other than Merge in language-independent principles, i.e. principles
of efficient computation and characteristics of the interfaces. Let us see how the economy
principle is operationalized in POP, to then proceed to the interface-related question what labels
are needed for. Given ((20)) we have three logical options regarding the question how the two
Merge-members are constituted: Head-Phrase, Head-Head, Phrase-Phrase. I will discuss each
in turn.
According to Chomsky (2000/POP), Minimal Search is the guiding principle for
operations such as AGREE and labeling. Regarding labeling, any set formed in the fashion of
((20)) is inspected for the closest head. Whenever a lexical item and a phrasal syntactic object
is merged, a labeling algorithm LA, which abides by the principle of computational efficiency
Minimal Search, detects the former to be the head of the resulting set ((21)). ((22)) exemplifies
how a PP comes about:
(21) {X, YP} → {X, YP}
(22) A prepositional phrase:
{P, NP} → {P, NP} = PP
Thus the ̅ X-theoretic notion of prominence and projection of a head is recast in terms of
availability of structurally closest lexical item within a given set.
The next logical option is Merger of two simplex elements, i.e. the first step in the
derivation. According to much recent work by Alec Marantz, this prototypically12 involves a
category-neutral root and a categorizing element like little v or n, i.e. lexical categories are
contextually specified, not substantially. By assumption,13 acategorical roots do not bear
grammatical features which can project (or serve as labels) to yield a root phrase. In other
words, root phrases do not exist. Categorizers, by contrast, bear grammatical features and can
function as labels. LA thus invariably identifies the latter as the label of Head-Head-structures
((23)); the non-projectionist conception of a vP in ((24)) serves as an example:

(23) {X, Y} → {X, Y}, iff Y a categoryless √𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 and X a categorizer (n, v, a)
(24) Assembling a vP:
{v, √𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡} → {v, √𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒕}=vP
The final conceivable combination is Merger of two phrasal units ((25)):
(25) {XP, YP}

12
This exposure is a simplification, which might hold for syntactic processes only. It is perfectly conceivable that
the initial step in the derivation also involves Merger of two roots, which might actually be the right pairing for
morphological processes, such as exocentric root compounds and the like.

Notice also that, given unconstrained Merge, Merger of two functional heads is a possible combinatorial
option. Here I have nothing to say about the question if such a configuration materializes in natural language or
whether it is uninterpretable by the interfaces.
13
Cf. Irwin 2012, a.o., for the idea that lexical roots do not project.
Here we have to distinguish between two subcases for which POP offers a solution: The first
falls under the rubric of “symmetry breaking movement” pioneered by Andrea Moro.14 The
central idea is that such symmetric structures cannot receive a label unless one element moves,
forming a discontinuous object. The relevant syntactic object visible for the labeling algorithm
is the movement chain, where a chain is understood to be the set of all occurrences. As an effect,
the unraised element is visible for label detection while the lower copy of the raised element is
not ((26)); what I would like to call “the bottom of the EPP” might serve as an example ((27)).
Here an external argument (DP) merges with a transitive vP; raising of the former makes
labeling of {DP, vP} possible:
(26) {XP, YP} → YP ... {XP, <YP>}
(symmetry-breaking movement)
(27) The bottom of the EPP:
{DP, vP} → {DP, {T, {<DP>, vP}}}
{<DP>, vP}=vP
The other strategy POP suggests to label XP-YP-structures is contingent on the operation
AGREE15 and can be considered an instance of feature sharing between X(P) and Y(P): whenever
a probe on a head H entertains AGREE with a goal, raising of the latter to the sister of HP yields
a structure which is labelable by the probing feature and the corresponding feature on the goal
((28)). I call the derivation exemplifying this labeling strategy “the top of the EPP” ((29)):
(28) {XP, YP} →
Label({XP, YP})=F, where X and Y bear F and AGREE wrt F
(29) The top of the EPP:
a. {DP, vP} Merger of T
b. {Tϕ, {DP, vP}} AGREE(T, DP)
c. {Tϕ, {DP, vP}} Move DP
d. {DP, {Tϕ, {DP, vP}}}={DP, TP} ϕ is shared and AGREEd upon
16
e. {DPϕ, TPϕ}=ϕP
This exposition of the technical side of POP completes the list of configurations which the
labeling algorithm endows with a syntactic category. Let me finally say that the labeling
algorithm as conceived in POP applies at the phase level, i.e. at least v and C.
At this juncture we are in a position to address the question what labels are needed for in
the first place. Consider the following quote:
„Each SO [syntactic object] generated enters into further computations. Some
information about the SO is relevant to these computations. In the best case, a single
designated element should contain all the relevant information: the label. [...] the
label selects and is selected in EM [External Merge ...].” (Chomsky 2008:141,
supplements and emphasis A.B.)

14
To be accurate, Chomsky (1995) tentatively touches on the idea. Cf. inter alia Moro 2000, 2007; Ott 2012;
Blümel 2012 and Chomsky 2013 for explorations.
15
In spirit, this strategy and in particular its contingency on AGREE is reminiscent of the Activity Condition. I fail
to see, however, what it follows from or why exactly it works the way it is intended to work.
16
Technically, Chomsky (2014) suggests that the two ϕ-sets form a pair <ϕ, ϕ>, similar to members of movement
chains under the contextual conception of chains. On other parallelisms, cf. Boeckx 2008:34 ff.
This is much in the spirit of Collins (2002): At the very least, labels are needed for the
Conceptual-Intentional systems to ensure that the sister of a selecting head is of the right
category. For instance, a verb embedding a sentential question requires its complement to be
labeled by the semantic feature Q.17 It appears natural to ask: Do labelless categories exist?
Given the system laid out above, this is quite expected if none of the conditions for label
detection (as illustrated in ((21))-((29))) are fulfilled and if no selection is involved. Since at
least root clauses as well as adjunct clauses are not selected, they appear to be excellent
candidates to be labelless categories. This, of course, leads me to V2.

4.2. Core Properties of V2 derived

Let me reiterate the property of V2-structures this paper focusses on: a phrase of any category
must occupy the position before the finite verb in declarative root-like contexts; all the examples
are ungrammatical declaratives without the fronted XP:
(30)
a. [α [DP Maria] hat tDP den Mann gestern gesehen]
Mary has the man yesterday seen
b. [α [AdvP gestern] hat Maria den Mann tAdvP gesehen]
yesterday has Mary the man seen
c. [α [VP den Mann gesehen] hat Maria gestern tVP]
the man seen has Mary yesterday
d. [α [CP dass die Sonne scheint] hat Maria tCP gesagt ]
that the sun shines has Mary said
e. [α [PP über den Wolken] muss die Freiheit tPP wohl grenzenlos sein]
above the clouds must the freedom PRT limitless be
f. [α [AP schön] ist Maria tAP]
beautiful is Mary
In the absence of the notion specifier, how does {XP, CPV2}=α receive a label? Notice that α is
an instance of XP-YP. Quite plausibly, these structures elude both labeling strategies mentioned
above: Symmetry-breaking movement is obviously no option, i.e. the prefield category shows
no sign of being a trace: it is phonologically realized and there is no antecedent. There appears
to be no feature which V2-C and the prefield-XP have in common,18 and thus the shared-
feature+AGREE-idea is not plausible either.
The central idea of this paper is that V2-structures provide crucial evidence for the following
hypothesis:
(31) Root Exocentricity:
Declarative root clauses must not receive a label.

17
Insofar as the goal to reduce c-selection to s-selection and Case is fully feasible, cf. Pesetsky 1982, Chomsky
1995.
18
I here abstract away from subject-initial V2-clauses.
α must remain labelless and prefield-occupation ensures this.19 The question posed before
receives a principled answer: that all the label detection options ((21))-((29)) fail is desired, it
is part of the system and must not be otherwise: Merger of a phrase of any category guarantees
that labeling of the declarative root clause -- by V2-C20 -- is obviated.
Let us take a look, what ((31)) buys us. First of all, the obligatoriness of prefield-
occupation is immediately implied by the hypothesis. Secondly, the promiscuity of prefield-
occupation follows as well: it does not matter what category the system uses to subdue labeling
as long as ((31)) is met. In this sense, promiscuity is expected and it would be rather puzzling
if the system would use a specific category to clog the labeling algorithm. Notice also that the
source from which the XP is merged is irrelevant -- not only internal Merge but external Merge
too is a strategy to prevent labeling of root clauses. This is precisely what Frey (2006) suggests
by way of examples like ((32)):
(32) Kein Wunder spricht Peter so gut Französisch.
no wonder speaks Peter so well French
`No surprise Peter speaks French so well.’
The evaluative DP kein Wunder in the prefield has no plausible clause-internal base position.
Under the current view, this is exactly what we expect, given that the formal function of
prefield-occupation is label suppression. No label can be identified within {DP, CPV2}, no
matter how DP is introduced.
Conceptually, it appears reasonable to say that root clauses do not need a label, because
they are not selected and because syntactic categories arguably serve the ongoing derivation,
hence, if the derivation terminates, labels are superfluous. The stronger claim I defend here,
that root clauses must not receive a label, can be justified by economy: If labeling is not needed,
avoid it by any means necessary, V2 being one such means.21
The account also solves another V2-riddle: we must insert an it-type expletive ((33)) to
obtain a V2-clause, which further supports the assumption that prefield-occupation serves
irreducibly formal purposes22 (cf. Fanselow & Lenertova 2011, Frey 2005):
(33)
a. *(Es) haben hier viele Leute übernachtet.
EXPL have here many people spend-the-night
`Many people have spent he night here.’
b. weil (*es) hier viele Leute übernachtet haben
because EXPL hier many people spend-the-night have
In current terms, the contrast ((33)a/(33)b) receives an explanation: only {DP, CPV2} remains
labelless due to the presence of DP=es in ((33)a), while in ((33)b) no such requirement holds
as German plainly does not have anything like the EPP of English. Thus the so-called Vorfeld-
es (`prefield-it’) emerges as an element that while bearing no meaning on its own, fulfills a

19
Aside from Joe Emonds' work, cf. already Bloomfield 1933:194ff for the claim that sentences in English are
exocentric, and Cecchetto & Donati (2014) for recent related ideas about root clauses.
20
Crucially, this means that V2-C by virtue of its lexically properties functions as a label. On the possibility that
C in English might not have this property, cf. section 5.2.
21
Maybe this avoiding of redundancy is a reflection of optimal design of language?
22
There is a plethora of works dealing with information structural effects of V2 in German, none of which in my
view show that prefield-occupation results from these functions.
crucial interpretive function: facilitating the expression of a declarative when no other prefield
element does.
Let me address illicit verb third V3 at this point, ((34))/((35)):23
(34) *[DP Den Mann] [DP Maria] hat gestern gesehen.
the-ACC man Mary has yesterday seen
(35) *[ Nu för tiden] [DP Gusten] äter aldrig köttfaärs.
now for time-the Gusten eats never minced.meat
`Nowadays, Gusten never eats minced meat.’ (Swedish, Petersson 2009:104)
The tentative accounts I would like to suggest to exclude V3 are related to labeling, but not
logically dependent on it. One strategy to rule out examples like ((34))/((35)) could run as
follows: LA inspects {XP, CPV2}=α for a label at the point of its creation.24 No label is detected
and the operation transfer removes α immediately, terminating the derivation.25 With an empty
workspace, there is no prefield left to doubly occupy. Alternatively, merging an additional XP
has no effect on the outcome (Chomsky 2001) and is hence prevented. I will not pursue these
questions further here.

4.3. A Remark on Sentence or Force Types

Why is it that root declaratives must lack a label? Intuitively, labels, such as those provided by
declarative complementizers, “signal” that the derivation continues and that the formed
syntactic object seeks to entertain further grammatical relations. This would be impossible to
fulfill at the root level -- in a sense, a label on a syntactic object is a promise which is impossible
to keep at the main clause level. Hence labels must be suppressed.
Relatedly, the language system seeks to distinguish sentence types. Maybe root
declarative is a kind of default or unmarked clause type. The unmarked clause type is then
canonically associated with an unlabeled structure {XP, CP}, while marked clause types
(subordinate complement clauses generally, interrogatives, imperatives, etc.) employ mostly

23
Cf. Ott 2014 for an analysis of Left Dislocation in German which retains the V2-rule. Whichever analysis of
grammatical V3-phenomena one chooses, it must explain the ungrammaticality of ((34))/((35)).

Alternatives to weakening the `single-constituent'-generalization are readily available: a) The first

constituent is not integrated in the putative host clause (cf. Meinunger 2006 for examples and convincing
arguments) or b) the fronted units are really one XP, mistakenly analyzed as many. Cf. Sabel 2015 for an approach
along these lines.
24
In POP label detection “waits” until the next phase head. However, at the root level, there is no higher phase
head to trigger label detection -- and it's quite implausible and problematic to postulate one. On the technical side,
a phase head would arguably be a label, which would infinitely reiterate the need to keep the root label-free. On
the aesthetic side, it would be an artificial device to let labeling uniformly be triggered by phase heads. On the
conceptual side, such a merely transfer-inducing head without further motivation and empirical evidence violates
Full Interpretation.
25
Transfer of material other than a phase head's complement has repeatedly been suggested and seems to be
conceptually necessary at the main clause level (cf. Chomsky 2004:108; Obata 2010). Ott (2010) suggests that free
relatives involve transfer of the complement of SPEC-CP, i.e. {C, TP}, such that the remaining WH-phrase
determines the label. Boeckx (2014) generalizes the idea, suggesting that transfer is an operation that applies freely
altogether.
labeled formats.26 Yes/no-questions and the other verb-initial sentences in German could then
be derived by transferring C together with its complement, banning V2. These sentence types
are labeled root clauses and hence give rise to interpretations other than declaratives.
Alternatively, such sentences are V2-clauses with an empty polarity operator in the prefield --
again, an unlabeled structure.

4.4. Interim Conclusion

Let me briefly summarize the hypothesis of this paper and then proceed to important
ramifications the account raises. I have proposed that declarative root clauses need to remain
unlabeled. This is ensured by Merger of an arbitrary XP in those languages that have V2-C --
the type of C I restrict myself to here. The root-CP cannot be {C, TP} as it is illicitly labeled C,
but raising of an arbitrary XP to its sister position to yield {XP, CP} makes labeling impossible,
as desired. This derives the obligatoriness of prefield-occupation. Thus we need not resort to
movement-inducing features like e.g. the EPP on C (Fanselow 2002, 2004; Roberts 2004);
instead Merge applies freely and is restricted by Third Factors: Minimal Search for a label and
the interface condition ((31)). The approach offers a solution to the elusive promiscuity of the
fronted category: any XP will do to prevent labeling of the root. In fact, selectivity would be
unexpected. Finally, the uniqueness property of V2 could be derived by transfer-induced
removal of the structure, bringing the derivation to a halt and banning V3.

5. Implications and Questions

5.1. Embedded V2
5.1.1. Embedded “C’’+V2

An obvious question the above analysis of V2 raises is: How does embedded V2-clauses in the
bulk of Scandinavian languages come about, which are introduced by what looks like a
complementizer, for example att in Swedish ((36))?
(36) Gusten sa att Fantomen har inte tio tigrars styrka.
Gusten said that Phantom-the has not ten tigers strength
`Gusten said that the Phantom doesn’t have the strength of ten tigers’ (Swedish)
I will call this element AT, collectively referring to the complementizer-like element which
introduces embedded V2-clauses and which can be found in the Scandinavian languages as well

26
Notice, incidentally, an interesting, but rather speculative conclusion which these considerations could lead to
regarding the beginning and the end of the derivation. Above I described the POP-suggestion that Head-Head
structures always involve a category-neutral root. Here I propose that the terminal step in the derivation must
involve a category-free syntactic object. In essence then, both onset and end of the derivation involve an unlabeled
object.

Why should this be so? One way to interpret this is related to the way these structures are interpreted at
the conceptual-intentional interface. Possibly these are the only purely conceptual-intentional and, in a sense,
extragrammatical structures. I will not pursue these speculations here.
as Frisian.27 What I would like to suggest is that the current approach to V2 supports a variant
of and generalization over a hypothesis recently advanced by Petersson (2009)28 for Swedish:
AT is, in fact, lexically ambiguous between a true complementizer and a nominal element N/D
which either embeds a proposition (Manzini 2010 and Roussou 2010 on Italian and Greek
respectively) or which is associated with it.
(37) AT-Hypothesis
It is only ever N/D-AT that is associated with embedded V2-clauses, never C-AT.
Let me hasten to say that by using is associated with, I chose a deliberately vague wording in
((37)). If V2-clauses are unlabeled and if labeling is a requirement for selection -- i.e. Merger
with a verb or AT --, then V2-clauses as unlabeled αs are not selected at all, neither by a verb
nor by AT. As I will argue later, the remaining way of introducing embedded V2 into the
derivation is by adjunction, i.e. pair Merge. At this point I remain agnostic about the exact
details of the formal analysis of embedded V2 in Scandinavian/Frisian, a task I hope to take up
in future work. Suffice it to say that for the current purposes, there is evidence for ((37)) and
((37)) allows me to maintain ((31)).
The evidence for a lexical ambiguity of AT is indirect; and yet the striking asymmetries
between AT with V2-clauses and AT with non-V2-clauses fall into place if we accept the thesis.
I.e. there is a way in which ((37)) appears to make the right cut in order to make sense of
syntactic, prosodic and morphological contrasts between these two types of embedded clauses.
Aside from the well-known asymmetries reported in the literature, I will here add another one
less commonly mentioned, regarding a typological gap in complementizer agreement. As I will
show, this gap is entirely expected, given ((37)).
Let me first point out that ((37)) predicts that extraction from embedded V2-clauses is
a violation of the complex NP-constraint (or represents an adjunct island violation respectively,
if ((37)) is equivalent to an adjunction analysis of embedded V2). The examples ((38)a/(38)b)
confirm the prediction. ((38)c) shows the possibility to extract from a non-V2 embedded clause,
headed by a genuine complementizer homophonous to N/D (for parallel facts from Faroese,
Icelandic, as well as residual V2 in English, cf. Vikner1995:114-116):
(38)
a. *Hvilken film sagde hun at i skolen havde bø rnene allerede set?
which movie said she AT in school-the had children-the already seen
`Which movie did she say that the children have seen in school?’ (Danish)
b. *Hvilken film sagde hun at bø rnene havde allerede set?
which movie said she AT children-the had already seen
c. Hvilken film sagde hun at bø rnene allerede havde set?
which movie said she AT children-the already have seen.
(39)
a. Den boken vet jag att Gusten inte har läst den boken.
That book-the know I ATT Gusten not has read that book-the
`That book, I know that Gusten hasn’t read’ (Swedish)
b. ??/* Den boken vet jag att Gusten har inte läst.
that book-the know I ATT Gusten has not read

27
As before, I exempt Icelandic and Yiddish from the picture.
28
He suggests that embedded V2 in Swedish involves a nominal embedding a (split-)CP.
 `That book, I know Gusten hasn’t read.’
Under ((37)), the extraction difference is due to different underlying structures as in ((40)):
(40)
a. Hvilken film sagde hun [CP at bø rnene allerede havde set t]
b. *Hvilken film sagde hun [N/D at [α i skolen havde bø rnene allerede set t]]
Finally, a lexical ambiguity analysis of AT delivers the following prediction: Genuine C may
manifest C-agreement ((41)/(42)) (Richards 2007, Chomsky 2008):29
(41)
a. ob-st du noch Minga kumm-st
whether-2SG you to Munich come-2SG
`... whether you come to Munich’ (Bavarian)
b. ob-ts ees/ihr noch Minga kumm-ts
whether-2PL you-PL to Munich come-2PL
`... whether you (pl) come to Munich’
c. (I frog me,) warum-st des ned moch-st.
I ask myself, why-2SG this not make-2SG
`I wonder why you don’t do it.’
(42) Ich denk de-s doow Marie ontmoet-s.
I think that-2SG you-SG Marie meet-2SG
`I think that you will meet Marie.’ (Limburgian)
For N/D-AT, by contrast, agreement with the grammatical subject of the embedded clause is
unexpected. If embedded V2 is associated with N/D but never with C, this raises the expectation
that there is no language which simultaneously exhibits embedded V2 and C-agreement. In
other words, C-agreement phenomena exhibit strict complementarity with V2. What I would
like to call “Zwart’s puzzle” is a straightforward confirmation of this prediction. There seems
to be a typological gap30 which, however, receives a simple solution under ((37)). I.e. the
constraint ((43)) is an illusion and reduces to the fact that embedded V2 is associated with
obligatorily non-agreeing N/D, never with potentially agreeing C:31
(43) *... V [C-Agr [V2-C... ]]
Even in languages which in principle allow both embedded V2 and C-agreement, they cannot
show up in the same clause (Zwart 1993:291). Frisian serves as an example:32
(44)
a. Heit sei dat-st do soks net leauwe moast
dad said that-2SG you such not believe must-2SG

29
The examples are from Bayer (1984), Haegeman & van Koppen (2012).
30
Jan Wouter Zwart (p.c.), among others. He remarks: “I've always thought that this is a significant absence.”
31
Intended are those V2-languages where V-in-C is uncontroversial, i.e. the prediction does not scope over V2-
in-T-languages.
The prediction developed here has nothing to say about the question why it is that what I dub N/D does
not exhibit agreement with a subordinate clause. Head-final clauses like Turkish or Japanese have phenomena in
which ϕ-bearing D-heads might very well exhibit agreement with subjects internal to clauses that appear to be
selected by D. Much of what I say here depends on the exact nature of the N/D-element, pending further
investigation. The fact that AT is not inflected in any event indicates that it does not bear a ϕ-features.
32
Frisian dat represents a prima facie counterexample to the generalization in Leu 2015 that it is really V2 and the
morpheme d-/th- that are in complementary distribution. But see his fn. 18.
 `Das said that you should not believe such things.’ (Frisian)
b. Heit sei dat/*dat-st do moast soks net leauwe
dad said that/that-2SG you must-2SG such not believe
`Das said that you should not believe such things.’
Independent language-internal evidence for an asymmetry between dat+V2 and das+non-V2
in Frisian comes from Ger de Haan (cited in de Vries 2012:180). He observes that bound
variable readings are available in verb-final structures ((45)b/(45)c) but not in V2 subordinate
clauses ((45)a). De Vries concludes that the observations indicate “that the alleged complement
clause takes high scope” vis-a-vis the universal quantifier:
(45)
a. *Eltsenieni hie sein dat hyi wist it net.
everyone has said that he knew it not (Frisian)
b. Eltsenieni hie sein dat hyi it net wist.
everyone has said that he it not knew
c. Eltsenieni hie sein hyi it net wist.
everyone has said he it not knew
Notice that a CP-recursion analysis (Kroch & Iatridou 1992, Vikner 1995, Holmberg &
Platzack 1995) has nothing to say about why ((43)) holds.33

5.1.2. Embedded V2 in German again

Reis (1997) suggest that V2-clauses embedded under bridge verbs in German are “relatively
disintegrated subordinate clauses” in what looks like the host clause (while functioning as the
argument of the relating predicate, Reis 1997):
(46) Maria hat gemeint Hans bringt die Monika nach Hause.
Mary has meant Hans brings the Monika to home
`Mary said Hans brings Monika home.’
She suggests that they are adjoined to their host clauses (Reis 1997:138), while the association
between the complement position of the embedding verb and the argument-fulfilling V2-clause
is left open:
(47) Maria hat [TP [TP e gemeint] [α Hans bringt die Monika nach Hause]]
If so, this means for the current analysis that unlabeled structures can participate in the ongoing
derivation,34 presumably by pair merge (Chomsky 2004).
(48) <α, TP>
What this means is that adjoined unlabeled structures partake in the computation and remain
unlabeled when a structure like \ref{tp} is transferred to the interfaces. Thus adjoined structures

33
Yiddish exhibits embedded V2 (Diesing 1990). Presumably, it -- and similar languages -- will at least partially
be analyzable as an instance of V-to-T (Diesing 1990 for Yiddish embedded subject- and topic-initial V2-clauses).
34
In accordance with assumptions in POP. Notice that this analysis appears to be compatible only with the “effect
on outcome”-based solution to avoid multiple prefield-occupation alluded to above, because transfer of α would
render α inaccessible to pair merge.
are exempt from requiring a label.35 This converges with recent ideas about adjuncts more
generally, cf. the contribution by Hornstein & Nunes (2008). Notice that beyond this
encouraging result, the current conception sheds light on the reason how absence of a label
comes about, while this is merely postulated in Hornstein and Nunes’ work (if plausibly so).
The question how such adjuncts are licensed is an independent matter. Apparently
German features such a licensing property while Dutch lacks it. Also, Scandinavian utilizes
N/D to license embedded V2, but not the German strategy. Frisian appears to employ both.

5.2. Some open Questions

Here I would like to address some open questions and briefly and tentatively touch on ways to
answering some of them. It goes without saying that a fuller, cross-linguistic account of the
hypothesis advanced here exceeds the limits of this paper, but I hope to show how current
syntactic theorizing has a sufficiently rich vocabulary to meeting ((31)) in different ways.
V2-clauses in German have many subtypes, such as weil-V2 and V2-relatives all of which
are usually subsumed under “root phenomenon” (Wegener 1993, Wegener 2000, Gärtner 2000,
Holler 2005, Steinbach & Antomo 2010, Reis 2013). Their exact analysis is pending, giving
the conclusion reached here. Regarding weil-V2 and the like, however, it strikes me as
noteworthy that they share properties of V2-clauses proper as if the element introducing them
were invisible.

5.2.1. Root Phenomena cross-linguistically

Regarding the hypothesis ((31)), parametrization of labellessness of declarative roots strikes me

as quite counterintuitive and I take it to be a non-starter: ((31)) is an interface condition
regarding the syntactic format of declarative clauses. As such, I take it to be universal and
invariant. If so, it must be the case that particular grammars exhibit variation when it comes to
meeting this condition. What are other, language-particular strategies to avoid labeling of root
clauses? For example, in English? Here we have to distinguish at least two cases. English might
not have a uniform way of avoiding labels in root contexts. As in German, we might have to
separates subject-initial declaratives from everything else. A declarative with topicalization or
residual V2 might employ the strategy I have suggested here for V2-languages:
(49)
a. [α [DP This book ] [ϕP John likes ]]
b. [α [VP Like this book ] [ϕP John does ]]
c. [α [PP To Bill ] [ϕP John gave the book ]]

(50) [α [PP Under no circumstances ] [ would John leave ]]

35
Although tempting, I refrain from going into the idea that adjuncts are defined as unlabeled structures that
participate in the derivation (Hornstein & Nunes 2008), simply by set merge (cf. Oseki 2014 for a recent attempt
to abolish pair merge altogether).
Regarding subject-initial declaratives several options come to mind. A fundamental question is
whether or not they lack a label as their non-subject-initial counterparts. The fact that subjects
have somewhat of an exposed or “privileged’’ status leads me to suspect otherwise (and they
do so not only in English but in German as well36). Consider the idea that subject-initial
declaratives do receive a label after all, namely ϕ:
(51) [ϕP John likes this book ]
An idea proposed in Chomsky 2014 in a different but related context is that declarative null-C
might be derivationally a non-label/phase. He suggests that in embedded clauses, null-C inherits
all its features to its proxy, thereby virtually disappearing (and voiding that-trace effects37). In
root contexts, we could employ a similar rationale: Null-C inherits all its features to T and
thereby ceases to provide a label. After inheritance, the structure looks roughly as follows:
(52) [α C [β John likes this book ]]
At this point, two scenarios are conceivable: The LA searches α vacuously and proceeds to β
where ϕ is detected on both D and T -- the root is labeled ϕ as needed for subject-initial
declaratives.38 Alternatively, the disappearance of C renders α labelless -- as needed for root
declaratives generally. I.e. the labeling algorithm looks into α and detection of label is
impossible since C is invisible and search into β is not an option for Minimal Search. In the
case of V2 subject-initial sentences, a similar solution suggests itself if the feature-based
assumption is adopted: Instead of being inherited to T, C retains its ϕ-set (Legate 2011).
There are numerous open issues. One is, of course, the nature of VSO-languages in
which V is arguably in C. What is their way of meeting ((31))? Moreover, is there a relation
between label avoidance at the root level and the wealth of root transformations of other
languages (Miyagawa & Jiminez-Ferndandez 2014 for a recent take on the latter)? This appears
plausible, in my view, and I would like to go into these matters in future work.

6. Summary

Let me summarize this paper: Labeling V2-clauses as CP was motivated by assuming that
endocentricity uniformly holds for all categories and the ̅X-theoretic notion that all phrases have
or provide for specifiers. In a Merged-based system, these are questionable stipulations -- such
properties should be epiphenomena at best. In addition, a movement trigger was needed to
explain why an XP must occupy the prefield (EPP, Occurrence or Edge Features). Once we
give up these ideas, base endocentricity on a Third Factor (Minimal Search), and consider V2-
C, the motivation for movement or base generation becomes clear, no diacritic is needed and
the elusive promiscuity of the prefield-XP is explained. In addition, the idiosyncrasies of
declarative root(-like) clauses receive an explanation in terms of labeling: XP-Merger preempts
labeling of root declaratives.

36
I am grateful for an anonymous reviewer for pressing me on this point.
37
Cf. also Rose Deal (2016).
38
The option considered is very much against the spirit of Minimal Search.
 Needless to say that the current analysis provides support for a sparse conception of
syntax, without specifiers and based on the simplest conception of Merge, in line with much
recent research.39

Bibliography

Bayer, J. (1984). COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 3, 209-274.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Blümel, A. (2012). Successive Cyclic Movement as Recursive Symmetry-Breaking. In N.
Arnett, & R. Bennett (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, (pp. 87-97).
Boeckx, C. (2008). Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2014). Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandner, E. (2011). Verb movement in German exclamatives : From syntactic
underspecification to illocutionary force. In S. Lima, K. Mullin, & B. Smith (Ed.),
NELS 39 : Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic
Society. 1, pp. 135-148. Amher: Department of Linguistics, University of
Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language . New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding
Theory and the Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In D. M. R. Martin (Ed.), Step By
Step: Essays In Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstovicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in
Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and
Beyond (pp. 104-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On Phases. In R. F. C. Otero, & M.-L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational
Issues in Linguistics (pp. 133-166). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, N. (2014). Problems of Projection: Extensions. unpublished.

39
Chomsky 2004 et seq; Ott 2012; Boeckx 2014; Seely, Epstein, & Kitahara 2014.
Collins, C. (2002). Eliminating labels. In T. D. Epstein (Ed.), Derivation and explanation in
the minimalist program (pp. 42-64). Oxford: Blackwell.
Deal, A. R. (2016). Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses. Linguistic
Inquiry, 47, 427–470.
den Besten, H. (1983 [1977]). On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical
Deletive Rule. In W. Abraham (Ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Vries, M. (2012). Parenthetical main clauses -- or not? On appositives and quasi-relatives.
In L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman, & R. Nye (Eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New
Horizons (pp. 177-201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diesing, M. (1990). Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, 41-79.
Donati, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2014). Deciding between the external and internal definition of
label.
Eide, K. M. (2007). Finiteness and inflection: The syntax your morphology can afford.
unpublished.
Emonds, J. (2004). Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In D. Adger, C. d.
Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects (pp. 75-120).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Emonds, J. E. (2012). Augmented structure preservation and the Tensed S Constraint. In L.
Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman, & R. Nye (Eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons
(pp. 21-46). John Benjamins.
Fanselow, G. (2002). Quirky Subjects and other Specifiers. In I. Kaufmann, & B. Stiebels
(Eds.), More Than Words (pp. 227-250). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Fanselow, G. (2004). Cyclic Phonology-Syntax-Interaction: Movement to First Position in
German. In S. Ishihara, M. Schmitz, & A. Schwarz (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on
Information Structure I (pp. 1-42).
Fanselow, G., & Lenertova, D. (2011). Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and
information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 169-209.
Fernández, Á. J., & Miyagawa, S. (2014). A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena
and parametric variation. Lingua, 145, 276-302.
Frey, W. (2005). Zur Syntax der linken Peripherie im Deutschen. In F. J. d’Avis (Ed.).
Göteborg.
Frey, W. (2006). Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler
(Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 235-264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gärtner, H.-M. (2000). Are there V2 Relative Clauses in German? Journal of Comparative
Germanic Linguistics, 97-141.
Haegeman, L., & van Koppen, M. (2012). Complementizer agreement and the relation
between C° and T°. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 441-454.
Holler, A. (2005). On Non-Canonical Clause Linkage. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,
Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, (pp. 157-177).
Holmberg, A., & Platzack, C. (1995). The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hornstein, N., & Nunes, J. (2008). Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure.
Biolinguistics, 2, 57-86.
Iatridou, S., & Kroch, A. S. (1992). The licensing of CP-recursion and its relevance to the
Germanic verb-second phenomenon. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 50, 1-
24.
Irwin, P. (2012). Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. Ph.D. dissertation, NYU.
Legate, J. (2011). Under-Inheritance. Talk given at NELS 42.
Leu, T. (2015). Generalized x-to-C in Germanic. Studia Linguistica, 1-32.
Manzini, R. (2010). The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers. In E. P.
Panagiotidis (Ed.), The Complementizer Phase (pp. 167-199). Oxford University
Press.
Meinunger, A. (2006). Interface restrictions on verb second. The Linguistic Review, 127-160.
Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Moro, A. (2007). Some notes on unstable structures. unpublished.
Obata, M. (2010). Root, Successive-Cyclic and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge: Implications
for Feature-Inheritance and Transfer. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Oseki, Y. (2014). Eliminating Pair-Merge. unpublished.
Ott, D. (2011). A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 42,
183-92.
Ott, D. (2011). Local instability: The syntax of split topics. Harvard University. Berlin/New
York: de Gruyter.
Ott, D. (2014). An ellipsis approach to Contrastive Left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry, 45,
269-303.
Ott, D., & de Vries, M. (2015). Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 1-50.
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Petersson, D. (2009). Embedded V2 does not exist in Swedish. Workin papers in
Scandinavian Syntax, 84, 101-149.
Reis, M. (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In C. Dürscheid,
K. Ramers, & M. Schwarz (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus (pp. 121-144). Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Reis, M. (2002). Wh-Movement and Integrated Parenthetical Constructions. In J. W. Zwart, &
W. Abraham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Germanic Syntax Workshop (pp. 3-40).
Benjamins.
Reis, M. (2013). "Weil-V2"-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo
& Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 221-262.
Richards, M. (2007). On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability
condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 563-572.
Roberts, I. (2004). The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In L. Rizzi
(Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2, pp. 297-327). New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roussou, A. (2010). Selecting complementizers. Lingua, 120, 582-603.
Sabel, J. (2015). Variationen von V2. unpublished.
Seely, T. D., Epstein, S. D., & Kitahara, H. T. (2014). Labeling by Minimal Search:
Implications for successive cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate
‘phase’. Linguistic Inquiry, 45.
Steinbach, M., & Antomo, M. (2010). Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an
der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft, 29, 1-37.
Vikner, S. (1995). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New
York and Oxford: Oxford. University Press.
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturarion. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Wegener, H. (1993). Weil -- das hat schon seinen Grund. Zur Verbstellung in Kausalsätzen
mit weil im gegenwärtigen Deutsch. Deutsche Sprache, 21, 289-305.
Wegener, H. (2000). Da, denn und weil -- der Kampf der Konjunktionen. Zur
Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In R. Thieroff (Ed.), Deutsche Grammatik
in Theorie und Praxis (pp. 69-81). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Zwart, J.-W. (1993). Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation,
Rijkuniversiteit Groningen.
Zwart, J.-W. (1997). Morphosyntax of verb movement: a minimalist approach to the syntax of
Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.