Parasitic morphology in Germanic - Susi Wurmbrand - University of ...

May 2010This is the first draft; since the material is constantly evolving, please, do not cite without checking with me.Main goalParasitic morphology in Germanic:Consequences for the theory of feature checkingSusi WurmbrandUniversity of Connecticut1. INTRODUCTIONTheory of feature composition and feature checking/valuation in the verbal domainEmpirical domain• Scandinavian copying constructions (Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007)• Frisian parasitic participles [henceforth ParPar] (den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997)• German “Skandal” [scandal] construction (Vogel 2009)(1) a. Jeg hadde villet lest boka Norwegian: ParParI had want.PART read.PART book.DEF‘I would have liked to read the book.’ [Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007]b. Han prövade o stekte en fisk Swedish: Tense copyinghe try.PAST o fry.PAST a fish‘He tried to fry a fish.’ [Wiklund 2005, 2007]c. hy soe it dien wollen ha Frisian: Downward ParParhe would it do. PART want.PART have.INF have » want‘he would have liked to do it’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997]d. hy soe it dien ha wollen Frisian: Upward ParParhe would it do.PART have.INF want.PART want » have‘he would like to have it done’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997]e. ohne es verhindert haben zu können German: Skandalwithout it prevent.PART have.INF to can.IPP have » can‘without having been able to prevent it’ [Vogel 2009]Common properties• Optional: parasitic participles always alternate with infinitives (all of the above are grammaticalwith the parasitic form replaced by an infinitive).• Parasitic: only possible if there is an appropriate licensing head (parasitic participles only ifthere is an [overt or covert] Aux; as the German IPP shows, not necessarily a higher participle).• Semantically vacuous: parasitic participle is never interpreted as a perfective; parasitic past inSwedish/Norwegian is not interpreted as a past tense; meaning is identical to the meaning ofthe infinitival construction.

Previous approaches• Since there are significant differences among the languages when and where parasitic formsare possible, most previous accounts do not aim at a unified analysis for all of the above.• Main goal of this talk:o Unified theory that derives parasitic participles in all of the above constructions (tensecopying will be left aside here; I only offer some speculations at the end).o Show how independent language-specific differences derive the differences amongthese constructions across Germanic.• Side issues to be covered: IPP and verb cluster reordering — what, where, where, why?Some conclusions to be reached• “Reverse Agree”: valued probe » unvalued goal• Verb cluster reordering: can occur in syntax or PF (linearization)Previous approaches2. SOME INITIAL OBSERVATIONS• Parasitic forms are licensed by higher (c-commanding) elemento den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997) (Frisian): Early Minimalist checking approach; oneAux checks features on one or more participles (in a local configuration); the ‘needy’element is the participle; movement of the participle necessary to bring it in thechecking domain of the Aux. This works well for Frisian (cf. the obligatory 3-2-1 order),but cannot, as the authors note, be extended to Swedish/Norwegian.o Wiklund (2005, 2007) (Swedish/Norwegian): copying relation is “top-down, syntactic,local”; Inverse Agree approach, where parasitic forms are transmitted top-down;notes inconsistency with the standard probe – goal approach, which situates the deficitin the higher probe.(2) Probe – goal system (Chomsky 2001)uF [__] » iF: valuedall uF need to undergo Agree (to delete)Aux » Part1 » Part2uT: [__] iT: perf iT: perfProblems:Notation (rest of the talk):iF interpretable featureuF uninterpretable featurei/uF: [__] unvalued featurei/uF: x valued feature (feature value x)i/uF: [x] unvalued feature that has beenvalued with value xo Wrong semantics (second participle is not interpreted as a participle)o How can the dependency of Part2 on higher Aux/Part1 be guaranteed? How is multipleAgree ever possible?2

Basic proposal• Relation needs to be top-down (the ‘needy’ element is the lower element): “Reverse” Agree• ParPar (Swedish/Norwegian, Frisian): multiple Agree between a licensing Aux and dependentparticiples• Verbs need to value features via Agree with a c-commanding head containing the appropriatevalued features.(3) Aux (β) » Part (α) » Part (α)iT: perf uT: [__] uT: [__] multiple Agree/valuation(4) AgreeA feature F: [__] on a head α is valued by a feature F: x on β, iffi. β c-commands αii. α is accessible to β [roughly within the same phase—see below]iii. There is no γ with a valued interpretable feature F such that γ commands α and is c-commanded by β.• This version of Agree is similar to the Agree version proposed in Zeijlstra (2010) who alsoargues that the c-commanding element in an Agree relation carries the interpretable (herevalued) feature, whereas the c-commanded element carries the uninterpretable (here unvalued)feature. The evidence presented by Zeijlstra, among others, includes multiple nominativelicensing, negative concord, and sequence of tense. The analysis presented here willstraightforwardly carry over to these phenomena as well.• My approach differs from Zeijlstra’s in defining Agree as being driven by valuation ratherthan (un)interpretable features. In the course of this talk, I will present further evidence (seePesetsky and Torrego 2007, Bošković To appear) for separating the notion of interpretability(iF/uF) from the notion of valuation and for Agree being valuation-driven.The bigger picture• The analysis here is in a sense a return to checking theories (since the ‘inadequacy’ [unchecked/unvaluedfeatures] is placed in the lower element) and a departure from standardprobe – goal systems (inadequacy lies in the probe).• The analysis is different from earlier analyses (den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997, Bošković1995, 1999), however, in that the inadequacy can be eliminated via Agree and no movementis necessary. This is crucial for a unified analysis of the constructions in (1), as Swedish/Norwegianparasitism cannot be derived by movement.• Standard Agree vs. “reverse” Agree: Main issue/difference — location of the valued features(5) Pesetsky & Torrego: T: iT: [__] » V: uT: pastp. 11: “[…] reason for assuming that the T-feature of Tns is unvalued, though interpretable:the fact that Tns appears to learn its value in finite clauses from the finite verb.”3

• Why T from the verb and not the verb from T?• Parasitic constructions (multiple Agree) may show that this is not a chicken-egg problem: theverb does appear to be dependent on the higher element, rather than vice versa.• Same point can be made about the Germanic Infinitivus pro participio (IPP) construction.Modals in Aux – Mod – V constructions do not (or only marginally in German; see Baderand Schmid 2009) occur in the participle form; instead, the IPP is used.(6) a. dat Jan het boek heeft kunnen lezen Dutchthat Jan the book has can.IPP read.INF‘that Jan has been able to read the book’b. dass Jan das Buch hat lesen können Germanthat Jan the book has read.INF can.IPP‘that Jan has been able to read the book’• If Aux had to be licensed by a verb valued as a participle, it is not clear how an Aux in anIPP construction could be valued. Rather, the IPP, which is interpreted as a participle, seemsto be dependent on the auxiliary (see also den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997 for this point).• Standard probe – goal system: could cover some of the ParPar constructions, but the mainadvantage of the current approach is its explicitness and the fact that a unified account of allthe parasitic constructions is possible, with most restrictions being derived from independentproperties of the languages.3.1 Verbal features & clause structure3. THE SYSTEM• All interpretable verbal heads have an iT; typically (but not necessarily, see section 5), the iTcomes valued (I consider all tense, mood, and aspect features as involving an iT, thoughsome distinctions are necessary for Case assignment):T Aux/Mod English lexical items NotesiT: past iT: perf(ective) haveiT: ∅iT: pres iT: prog(ressive) beiT: ∅ iT: imp(erfective) ∅iT: pass(ive) beiT: mod(al), irr(ealis) can, may, must, woll…zero tense of certain infinitives(see Wurmbrand 2007, 2008)iT: mod cover feature for different (semantic)types of modals (epistemic,circumstantial, etc.)• All verbal heads have an uT, typically (but not necessarily, again section 5) unvalued.• Agree in (4): uTs: [__] are valued by the closest i/uF: val (within the right domain).• Standard assumption about uTs: not interpretable in semantics; must be deleted before LF.• PF: I assume that the uT value is what is realized at PF (alternative to affix hopping).uT English lexical items uT English lexical itemsuT: past -eduT: perf participleuT: pres ∅uT: prog -inguT: ∅ infinitiveuT: pass participleuT: mod/irr infinitive4

(7) a. He must have been left alone.b. TP [For this talk, I ignore whether T also involves a uT; this3 will depend on one’s assumptions about the properties of C.]T AuxPiT: mod 3Aux AuxPiT: perf 3uT: [__] AuxP VPiT: pass @uT: [__] VuT: [__]c. TP3T AuxP iT: mod can, must, …iT: mod 3 iT: perf; uT: [mod] have + INFAux AuxP iT: pass; uT: [perf] be + PARTiT: perf 3 uT: [pass] V + PARTuT: [mod] AuxP VPiT: passuT: [perf]@VuT: [pass]Important assumption that will be relevant later: Valuation can occur at any point during thederivation (as long as the elements involved appear in the right configuration and domain).3.2 Clause structure and domains(8) Accessibility [Former PIC]i. α is accessible to β iff α is not included in a Spell-Out domain at the time of valuation.ii. Spell-Out domain: complete phase minus the Edge (Edge = head, specifier)Domains, phases• vP, CP (maybe DP, PP…)• One modification: only ϕ-complete vPs count as complete phases (only ϕ-complete v countsas a phase head); vPs that involve unvalued ϕ-features are ϕ-incomplete and not complete.• Once all unvalued ϕ-features are valued, the phase is complete and subject to Spell-Out.Clause structure• Functional structure: TP » Aux/AspP* » vP » Aux/AspP » VP• English modals: only in T (*He has must…, *He must can…)• Modals in other Germanic languages:o Merged as main verbs (V):o Functional heads (Mod/Aux):uT: [__]; select subject (i.e., control)iT: mod; uT: [__]; no subject (i.e., raising)5

phaseSpell-Out domain4. PARASITIC PARTICIPLES4.1 Parasitic participles in Swedish/Norwegian(9) a. Jeg hadde villet lese boka InfinitiveI had want.PART read.INF book.DEF‘I would have liked to read the book.’b. TP Raising3T AuxP[AgrS and Case valuation is ignoredhere.]iT: past 3AuxModPiT: perf 3uT: [past] Mod vPhad.PAST iT: mod 3uT: [perf] Spec v’want.PART DP 3v VP2 @V v t VuT: [mod]read.INFc. TP Control3T AuxPiT: past 3AuxvPiT: perf 3uT: [past] DP v’3v+V VPuT: [perf] 3want.PART V AspP (InfP)t V 3Asp vPiT: irr 3PRO v’• Once subject is merged,vP is complete and sent toSpell-Out.• Spell-Out domain: VP• Vv to escape Spell-Out• uT of V (and possibly v)valued by Mod (Edge isaccessible to elements inhigher phase).• Infinitive includes anAsp/Mod head (Wiklund2001, 2005, 2007; or InfPà la Kayne 1989, 1991)with an iT: irr.• No TP in modal infinitives(see Wurmbrand 2007,2008 for arguments fordistinguishing tense andMod/Asp [woll]).3v+V VPuT: [irr] @read.INFGiven the ongoing controversy about whether modal constructions involve control and/or raising, I assumehere that both structures are in principle available (see Wurmbrand 1999 for arguments that at leastnon-dynamic modal constructions can involve raising). I do, however, assume that for modals, the raisingvs. control distinction correlates with the functional vs. lexical status of the verb. In what follows, I willonly give one successful derivation for all grammatical examples, as this is all that is needed to accountfor well-formedness. To exclude ungrammatical examples, the failure of both options will be illustrated.t V6

Parasitic participles• Related to restructuring (Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007)• Here: Lack infinitival iT: irr (irrealis/future meaning comes directly from modal)• Matrix Aux in lower position (in or below v).(10) a. Jeg hadde villet lest boka ParParI had want.PART read.PART book.DEF‘I would have liked to read the book.’ [Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007]b. TP3TvPiT: past 3DP v’3v+Aux AuxPiT: perf 3uT: [past] Aux• Mod = V (no iT), cannot value lower uTs.• Aux in/below v values the lower uTs.• DP values ϕ-features of PRO (see below);matrix vP subject to Spell-Out.• T values matrix v+Aux (accessible since atthe Edge).VPt Aux 3VvPuT: [perf] 3want.PART PRO v’3v+V VPuT: [perf] @read.PARTt VPrediction: If licensing head is above vP, feature sharing/copying impossible 1• Modal constructions do not allow tense sharing/copying (tense sharing is possible in certainconstructions in Swedish/Norwegian, but they involve a very different structure; see section6).(11) a. *Han kunde lästeHe can.PAST read.PAST OK read.INF‘He could read’ [Wiklund 2005, 2007]b. *Hon sa att han inte kunde lästeShe said that he not can.PAST read.PAST OK read.INF‘She said that he could not read.’[A.-L. Wiklund, p.c.]1 This account also predicts that parasitic participles are only possible in the control structure (the raising structurewould involve a functional modal with an iT: mod, which would block valuation of the embedded V by Aux). I wasnot able to verify yet whether this prediction is correct.7

c. * TP3(Im)possible derivations:T vP• Functional Mod: iT, hence infinitiveiT: past 3obligatory; no parasitic formsDP v’• Lexical Mod: Agree between T and embeddedv impossible; after the subject is3v+V VPmerged, the matrix VP is sent to SpelluT:[past] 3 Out; embedded v+V is then not accessibleanymore.can.PAST V vP3PRO v’3Spell-Out domainvuT: [__]VP@VuT: [__]• Side conclusion: no V/v-movement in restructuring (if embedded V could move to matrix v,it should be possible to get valued by T).Further Evidence: Recursive ParPars(12) Han hade velat kunnat simmat Recursive ParParhe had want.PART can.PART swim.PART‘He would have liked to be able to swim.’ [Wiklund 2001]• Recursive parasitic participles: Evidence for PRO postponing phase-hood and Spell-Out.• Consider the stage before the highest subject is merged in (13):o v Aux can ‘see’ v2 (plus V2, given Vv), since Spell-Out of VP1 has not occurred yet.o But if PRO vPs were full phases, v3+V3 would be inaccessible to v1, since VP2would have been sent to Spell-Out.o Valuation of v3+V3 by Aux would be impossible; recursive ParPars should be *.o Assumption that PRO-vPs are not complete phases: Agree all the way down is possible,and multiple ParPars are correctly predicted to be possible.• OC-PRO: unvalued (but interpretable) ϕ-features which get valued by the controller. v combiningwith PRO is ϕ-incomplete until PRO is valued.• vP3, vP2 are not ϕ-complete, hence by the definition of Accessibility not subject to Spell-Out.• Once the matrix DP is merged, the ϕ-features of PRO get valued, and the embedded VPs becomeSpell-Out domains. 22 To determine when exactly the lower vPs become phases, it will be relevant to look at object control. Wiklundstates that ParPars are possible with låta ‘let, allow’, which, according to her, can involve object control. If objectcontrol is possible in ParPar constructions, valuation of PRO cannot occur as soon as the controller is merged, but itmust be possible to postpone PRO valuation until Aux is merged. Since this would be within one phase and valuation,by assumption, can occur at any stage of the derivation, this should not be a problem. However, more data areneeded to verify these suggestions.8

• Since Aux can be merged lower than (i.e., before) the subject, it can value all embedded uTsbefore the vPs become complete phases.[To simplify the structure, I place Aux directly in v. Nothing would change if it is in a lowerAsp/Aux and moves to v.](13) TP3T vP1iT: past 3DP v’ Not a Spell-Out Domain3v AuxVP1iT: perf 3have V1 vP2uT: [perf] 3want.PART PRO v’3v2+V2 VP2uT: [perf] 3can.PART V2 vP3t V 3PRO v’3v3(+V3) VP3uT: [perf] @swim.PART4.2 Downward parasitic participles in Frisian• My claim (contrary to previous analyses): the downward ParPar construction in Frisian isderived in exactly the same way as the ParPar construction in Swedish/Norwegian.Possible ParPars in Frisian(14) a. hy soe it dien wollen ha Aux INF finalhe would it do. PART want.PART have.INF‘he would have liked to do it’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997: 1058, ex. (3b)]b. omdat hy it dien wollen ha soe Aux INF finalbecause he it do. PART want.PART have.INF would‘because he would have liked to do it’[E. Hoekstra, p.c.]c. sûnder dat echt dien wold te hawwen 3 Aux INF finalwithout that really do.PART want.PART to have.INF‘without really having wanted to do it’[E. Hoekstra, p.c.]t V3 The infinitival form hawwen is shortened to ha in spoken Frisian, which is reflected in some of the data. Thechoice has no bearing on the data.9

d. ?dat er dat dien kinnen hie Aux FIN finalthat he that do.PART can.PART had‘that he had been able to do it’[J. Hoekstra, p.c.]• Thanks to E. Hoekstra for providing me with the following examples with finite final Aux(found via an internet search).(15) a. Mar benammen wol ik Mattie en ús bêrn Bauke, Jelte-Pieter en Tineke tank sizze foaral de opofferjens…But I especially want to say thanks to Mattie and our children Bauke, Jelte-Pieter andTineke for all the sacrifices…dy’t sy de ôfroune jierren dien moatten ha […]which they the past years do.PART must.PART have‘which they had to make in the past years…’b. Ik tink dat immen earst fuot west moatten hat […om]I think that someone first away be.PART must.PART has [in order to]‘I think that someone had to first be away [in order to…]’c. Ik bin tankber dat ik sa folle dien kinnen haw […]I am thankful that I so much do.PART can.PART have‘I’m grateful that I was able to do so much…’• All of the above: participles alternate with infinitives (Mod = functional or emb. iT: irr)• ParPars: as in Swedish/Norwegian, Mod can be a main verb which embeds a PRO-vP complement.• There are two differences between the two languages, but I will argue that these follow fromindependent properties of the languages.Word ordero Word order: Frisian 3-2-1; Swedish/Norwegian 1-2-3o One context that is impossible in Frisian: *when the licensing Aux is in C.• Since ParPars are licensed top-down (see the structure in (10)), movement is not required toderive a ParPar (contra den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997, Bošković 1995, 1999).• Frisian & Swedish/Norwegian hence can involve the same syntax (the same hierarchical relations/sameAgree relations between Aux & participles).• Word order: head-final structure for Frisian, which I assume can be an effect of languagespecific PF-linearization rules for heads & complements.o Syntax: Frisian = Swedish/Norwegian (structure in (10))o PF: Swedish/Norwegian linearizes the head before the complement; Frisian linearizesthe complement before the head (i.e., ModP before Aux; VP before Mod etc.)10

Further support• Recursive ParPars are also possible in Frisian; as long as there is no infinitive in between theparticiples (examples from den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997: 1068; exx (24)).(16) All: ‘He would have liked to be able to do it’a. hy soe it dwaan kinne wollen hahe would it do.INF can.INF want.PART have.INFb. hy soe it dwaan kinnen wollen hahe would it do.INF can.PART want.PART have.INFc. hy soe it dien kinnen wollen hahe would it do.PART can.PART want.PART have.INFd. ??hy soe it dien kinne wollen hahe would it do.PART can.INF want.PART have.INF• This follow from the current analysis (verbs in their hierarchical order):(17) a. Aux Mod1.PART Mod2.INF V3.INF Mod1 & Mod2: functionalb. Aux Mod1.PART Mod2.PART V3.INF Mod1: lexical; Mod2: functionalc. Aux Mod1.PART Mod2.PART V3.PART Mod1 & Mod2: lexicald. ??Aux Mod1.PART Mod2.INF V3.PART cannot be derived• To get an infinitive on Mod2, Mod1 has to either be functional (with iT: mod) or embed aninfinitival Asp with iT: irr.• Independently of the location of Mod2, valuation of V3 by Aux across the iT of Mod1 orinfinitival Asp will be impossible; whatever head values Mod2 as an infinitive will be closerto V3 than Aux.Restriction: *Aux in C• V2 of Aux impossible (V2 of higher Mod is fine)(18) a. *hy hat it dien wollen *Aux in Che has it do. PART want.PART OK if do.INF‘he has wanted to do it’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997: 1082]b. *Hy hie dat dien kinnen *Aux in CHe had that do. PART can.PART OK if do.INF‘He had been able to do it.’[J. Hoekstra, p.c.]• Crucial part of the derivation of ParPar is that the licensing Aux is in/below v (otherwise itwould be too high to access heads in the VP).• This was possible since, per assumptions, Aux can freely be inserted in either the higher orthe lower AuxP/AspP. Insertion of Aux in the lower AuxP/AspP must also be possible in Frisian,since ParPars are possible in (14), (15), and (16).11

• Assumption: Insertion of Aux is only free in Frisian when Aux does not move to C (in all of(14) through (16), Aux can be inserted low, and ParPars are possible). When Aux moves toC, as in (18), it must be inserted in the higher position, hence ParPars are excluded.• Why should this be the case? Preliminary suggestion: some form of shortest move; if Aux isinserted in the higher Aux position, movement to C would be shorter. If there is no movementof Aux to C, it doesn’t matter where Aux is inserted.• Obvious question: Why is only Frisian subject to such an economy consideration (Swedish/Norwegianare also V2 languages)? Possible direction (J. Bobaljik, p.c.): perhaps V2is/can be different in the two languages; Frisian must involve movement of the finite V to C(due to the head-final linearization, which otherwise always puts the finite verb at the end); ina head-initial language, V2 could be met by the finite verb in situ (as long as it is PF-second).4.3 Upward parasitic participles in Frisian• One context where Frisian is radically different from Swedish/Norwegian: “upward” ParPars((19)a).• Given the top-down Agree approach, the existence of upward parasitism might appear surprising.How can a feature be licensed upwards?• There is one restriction on this construction, which is not in effect in the downward ParPar((19)c): upward ParPars are only possible when the higher Mod is in C (cf. (19)a vs. (19)b).(19) a. hy soe it dien ha wollen Upward ParParhe would it do.PART have.INF want.PART want » have‘he would like to have it done’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997]b. *omdat hy it dien ha kinnen soe *Mod finalbecause he it do.PART have.INF can.PART would OK if Mod.INF‘because he would be able to have done it’c. omdat hy it dien wollen ha soe Downward ParParbecause he it do. PART want.PART have.INF would‘because he would have liked to do it’[E. Hoekstra, p.c.](20)a. * CP2C TPbecause 2T ModPwould 2Mod AuxPcan.PART 2Auxhave.INFvP@Vdo.PARTb. CP2C TPwould 2T ModPt T 2Mod AuxPcan.PART 2Auxhave.INFvP@Vdo.PART12

Main claim:There is no “upward” licensing; rather, the c-command relation between the Aux& participle is reversed due to movement. “Upward” ParPar: regular Agree.Word order again• Claim: descending word orders (e.g., 3-2-1) can be the result of PF-linearization or syntacticmovement. By just looking at a 3-2-1 word order, we can’t know whether movement has appliedor not; certainly, the postulation of movement would not be implausible.• Above, we have seen that movement is not necessary to derive ParPars in the 3-2-1 order, butthis does not mean that movement is not possible.• Ways to motivate the existence of syntactic movement (as opposed to simple linearization):o Semantic effect: No (none in verb clusters)o New syntactic relations: Yes—ParPar (movement creates new Agree relations, whichare reflected in the morphological form verbs can take)o Locality restrictions: Yes (I argue that the *Aux in C restriction follows from the localityof Agree; importantly, this restriction only arises when a ParPar is used—i.e.,when a new syntactic Agree relation is to be established)• Claim: AuxP moves to Spec,Mod1(21) CP3CTP{would+T} 3T ModP14AuxP iT: perf ModP1’@ 3… have.INF … Mod1 ModP2{would} 3iT: mod Mod2 t AuxPuT.[perf]• Mod2 can be valued by Mod1 (recall that valuation can occur at any stage) infinitive• Mod2 can also be valued by AuxP (assuming the features of the head are also part of theXP), however, this will only be possible if Mod1 gets out of the way first.• Note: Agree in (4) crucially does not require that the element with a valued F (β) is a head.• If Mod1 C: AuxP in Spec,ModP1 is the closest element with a valued T-feature to Mod2,and hence AuxP can value Mod2 (after Mod1 has moved to C).• If Mod1 stays in situ ((19)b): AuxP cannot value Mod2, and a ParPar is excluded. 44 An interesting question is whether all reordering is done by movement in cases where we have evidence for somesyntactic movement, or whether a mix of movement and PF-linearization is also possible. For instance, does the dovPin (21) also move to a position above AuxP (e.g., top specifier of [or adjoined to] ModP1), or is the word orderV»Aux the result of head-final linearization? At this point, I do not have enough evidence to decide on this point.13

Important derivation to exclude:• Movement of AuxP to Spec,ModP2 must be impossible (Mod1 would then not be in betweenAuxP & Mod2, and the position of Mod1 would not matter—(19)b not accounted for)• Two ways to exclude that derivation:o Antilocality (Abels 2003)/Last Resort (Bobaljik 1995)—movement of complement tospecifier position of same head is “too short”. This would entail that valuation undersisterhood should be possible, which raises a number of technical issues, complicatingthe analysis. Since it also does not seem to extend to the control structure of modalconstructions, I will preliminarily pursue the second option for Frisian here.o No movement to the middle of a verb cluster in Frisian. The current analysis (like allother syntactic accounts of verb cluster reordering) does not solve the question ofwhy certain reorderings take place in certain languages and constructions or whattriggers movement. Fact is that verb clusters show certain reshufflings, which I claimhere can be the result of syntactic movement. Since Frisian only allows strictly descendingword orders (3-2-1) and orders such as 1-3-2 do not exist, a natural assumptionis that movement always targets the top of the verb cluster. Movement of AuxPbetween Mod1 and Mod2 is thus excluded. This assumption also correctly excludesmovement of AuxP between the two modals in a control (i.e., main verb) structure.o Furthermore, this assumption accounts for why movement cannot apply to generatethe structure in (16)d: a potential derivation to yield this configuration would be tomove vP (including V3) above Mod1 but below Aux; in this position, V3 could thenbe valued by Aux, despite Mod2 being valued as an infinitive. However, sincemovement of vP does not target the top of the verb cluster, it is excluded.Recursive upward ParPar• The movement analysis correctly predicts recursive upward ParPars. The structure is exactlylike the recursive ParPar structure in Swedish/Norwegian, with the difference that AuxP getsto the position from where it can value the lower verbs by movement in Frisian (i.e., semanticallyAuxP is lower), and that the verbs are linearized in head-final order.• Since the embedded vPs involve PRO, they are not complete phrases, and movement canproceed unrestricted (see below for more details on movement).(22) hy soe it dien ha kinnen wollenhe would it do.PART have.INF can.PART want.PART‘He would like to be able to have done it.’ [den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997]14

(23) vP3DP v’3vSome predictions of this accountVP13AuxP iT: perf VP1@ 3Aux… V V1 vP2t V 3would PRO v’3v2VP23V2 vP3uT: [perf] 3want.PART PRO v’3v3 VP33V3uT: [perf]can.PART• The restriction that the higher Mod must be in C should not (and does not) arise in the Frisiandownward ParPar construction. Since in this construction no movement is necessary (Auxstarts out higher than the verbs that are valued as participles), the position of elements aboveAux is irrelevant.• Upward parasitism is not possible in Swedish/Norwegian — strict 1-2-3 orders, hence nomovement, hence no upward parasitic construction.4.4 Summarizing…Sw Fr Reason/ConsequenceWord order1-2-3 3-2-1 Movement in Fr possibleUpward ParPar No Yes Mov’t of AuxP above higher Mod requiredDownward ParPar Yes Yes Mod = V; Aux in/below vRecursive ParPar Yes Yes PRO postpones Spell-OutAux in C (downward) Yes No Perhaps difference in V2 due to headedness*Mod above Aux not in C N/A Yes Only in upward ParPar; Mod needs to get out of the wayt AuxP4.5 Other languages?• Construction involving ParPar: Aux – Mod – V• English: modals are in T; cannot be embedded under Aux; Aux – Mod – V cannot be generatedin any form (as for tense copying see below).15

What about German?• Ge Skandal construction: similar to the ParPar in (14)c (difference: IPP and word order) 5• But: the analogues of (14)b,d, (15), as well as upward ParPar constructions are impossible.(24) a. ohne es verhindert haben zu können German: Skandalwithout it prevent.PART have.INF to can.IPP have » can‘without having been able to prevent it’ [Vogel 2009]Questionsb. *weil er es nicht verhindert hat können *ParPar (3-1-2)since he it not prevent.PART has can.IPP OK: prevent.INF‘since he has not been able to prevent it’c. *weil er es nicht hat verhindert können *ParPar (1-3-2)since he it not has prevent.PART can.IPP OK: prevent.INFd. *Er würde es getan haben gewollt *Upward ParParHe would it do.PART have.INF want.PART OK: want.INF‘he would like to have it done’• What contexts allow parasitic participles in German?• What is the difference b/w Swedish/Norwegian/Frisian vs. German?• Why is the Frisian upward ParPar not possible in German (given that German verb clustersdo appear in inverted orders, hence may involve syntactic movement)?Answer can’t be…• Two immediate differences between Fr/Ge: IPP, lack of fully descending order (3-2-1)• Note, however, that, at least marginally, the participial construction is possible in German,when then must appear in the 3-2-1 order.• Crucially, ParPar is still blocked in the following (finite) context.(25) a. dass Jan das Buch lesen gekonnt hat Ge: 3-2-1that Jan the book read.INF can.PART has‘that Jan has been able to read the book’b. *dass Jan das Buch gelesen gekonnt hat *ParParthat Jan the book read.PART can.PART has5 The Skandal construction also has the infinitival marker zu ‘to’ in the ‘wrong’ place (namely, before the modalinstead of the auxiliary, which is structurally the highest element). This is also the case in the non-parasitic versionof (24)a where the infinitive is used instead of the participle. Hence the placement of zu is not a special property ofthe Skandal construction, but of German Aux – Mod – V constructions in general. The generalization regarding theplacement of zu is that it has to appear before the final verb of a verb cluster string, independently of what that verbis. I follow Vogel (2009), who argues that placement of zu is not determined by syntactic position, but rather by a(late) PF-edge constraint.16

5.1 A few facts about the Skandal5. “SKANDAL” CONSTRUCTION• Skandal construction noted in Reis (1979), Merkes (1895), Meurers (2000)• First exhaustive examination: Vogel (2009) who did a number of experimental studies testingthe acceptability of this construction.p. 311• Crucial fact: Skandal construction is more frequent than the regular IPP construction• Follow up studies (grammaticality judgment study, internet search), all with the same result.p. 312• Writing off this construction as a non-standard, marginal phenomenon, or a repair strategyused to deal with the lack of explicit grammatical rules (Reis 1979; see Vogel 2009 for an extensivecriticism of this approach) is hence not appropriate.5.2 Generalization: *Skandal construction with complete vPs• Vogel (2009): Skandal construction only in non-finite contexts(26) a. ohne es verhindert haben zu können German: Skandalwithout it prevent.PART have.INF to can.IPP have » can‘without having been able to prevent it’ [Vogel 2009]b. *weil er es nicht verhindert hat können *Skandal (3-1-2)since he it not prevent.PART has can.IPP OK: prevent.INF‘since he has not been able to prevent it’17

c. *weil er es nicht hat verhindert können * Skandal (1-3-2)since he it not has prevent.PART can.IPP OK: prevent.INF• I suggest a different interpretation of Vogel’s observation: the Skandal construction is impossiblewhen the vP where the participle originates is a complete vP—i.e., a vP with a ϕ-complete DP subject.(27) a. * b. OK3Aux 3ModvP3DP 3v 3V.PARTEvidence: causatives & perception verbs3Aux 3ModvP3∅/PRO 3v 3V.PART• As shown in the results of the corpus study conducted by Vogel, the Skandal constructionalso exists with the causative verb lassen ‘let’.(28) Der Kreml wirft ihm im Gegenzug vorThe Kremlin accuses him in returnsich die Dienste von Prostituierten von einem BankmanagerSELF the servies of prostitutes by a bank.managerbezahlt haben zu lassenpay.PART have.INF to let‘In return, the Kremlin accuses him of having let a bank manager pay him for theservices of prostitutes.’• The example above involves an embedded passive (cf. the subject a bank manager occurs asa by-phrase, and could, in fact, be dropped), which under let occurs with active morphology.A simpler example illustrating this construction is given below:(29) Ich ließ ihn feuernI let him fire‘I let him get fired. I let someone fire him.’• The examples with let are also important in that they clearly show that the Skandal constructioninvolves the underlying hierarchical (semantic) order Aux » Mod/let » V, rather thanMod/let » Aux » V: in passive let-constructions the auxiliary have is impossible in that order(have can only occur above let).(30) a. *weil er sich bezahlt haben ließsince he SELF pay.PART have.INF let.PAST‘since he let have paid him’‘since he has let pay him’18

. weil er sich bezahlen hat lassensince he SELF pay.PART have.PRES let.IPP‘since he has let pay him’• Strikingly, the lassen Skandal construction examples in Vogel’s corpus involve either a passiveor an unaccusative complement—i.e., a complement without an embedded subject. 6• Examples with an embedded subject do appear to be impossible (this needs to be confirmed).(31) Man warf ihm vor… ‘He was accused…”a. seine Kinder Banken ausrauben haben zu lassenhis children.ACC banks to.rob.INF have.INF to let‘of having let his children rob banks’?? a. *seine Kinder Banken ausgeraubt haben zu lassenhis children.ACC banks to.rob.PART have.INF to let‘of having let his children rob banks’• Furthermore, no single record of a Skandal construction with a perception verb was found inthe corpus. Note that perception verb complements are different from let complements in thatthey do not allow the passive construction.(32) a. Sie hat ihn (den Kuchen) essen sehenShe has him (the cake) eat see.IPP‘She has seen him eat (the cake).’b. Er hat den Kuchen essen lassenHe has the cake eat let.IPP‘He has let eat the cake.’#‘He has let the cake eat .’c. #Er hat den Kuchen essen sehenHe has the cake eat see.IPP*‘He has seen eat the cake.’# ‘He has seen the cake eat .’• All of the above hence point to the claim that the Skandal construction is not compatible withan overt AcI subject.New generalization:A vP with a ϕ-complete DP subject blocks the Skandal construction.6 The corpus involves one potential counterexample: Darin wird der "Heimatwerbung" vorgeworfen, Kunden fürdie Affichierung von Plakaten zwar bezahlt haben zu lassen, die Plakate aber nie aufgeklebt zu haben.(I98/AUG.33952 Tiroler Tageszeitung, 26.08.1998). The sentence is ambiguous, but the context seems to favor thesubject interpretation of Kunden, Further empirical investigation is necessary to determine whether examples of thissort are indeed acceptable (to my judgment they are not when a clear subject interpretation is intended).19

5.3 Towards an account—word order again• Frisian and German are alike in that the order of verbs is fully or partially inverted.• Claim made here: word order differences can be the result of PF-linearization or syntacticmovement.• One further property (Vogel 2009): Skandal construction occurs only in the 3-1-2 order.(33) a. ohne es haben verhindern zu können 1-3-2without it have.INF prevent.INF to can.IPPb. *ohne es haben verhindert zu können *Skandal 1-3-2without it have.INF prevent.PART to can.IPP• How is the 3-1-2 word order derived? Assuming that PF-linearization applies only to sisternodes, this word order cannot be derived by simple head » complement linearization choices.(34) 1 [ 2 [3]]]a. 1 before 2P; 2 before 3P: 1-2-3 c. 1 after 2P; 2 before 3P: 2-3-1b. 1 before 2P; 2 after 3P: 1-3-2 d. 1 after 2P; 2 after 3P: 3-2-1• Wurmbrand (2004a, b, 2006a): Some verb cluster reordering is post-syntactic, some syntactic;3-1-2 and 2-1-3 are syntactic.• The German Skandal construction provides further support for this approach.• Assuming there is no actual PF-movement (only linearization of sister nodes), to derive the3-1-2 order, syntactic movement is necessary.Conclusion: The Ge Skandal construction (IPP) is only possible in contexts that require syntacticmovement.Hypothesis: Movement is in fact necessary to derive the Skandal construction.• How could this hypothesis be confirmed? What would be evidence for the necessity of movementin the Skandal construction (in contrast to non-parasitic constructions)?o Semantic effect: No—none in verb clusterso New syntactic relations: Yes—Movement creates new Agree relations, which are reflectedin the morphological form verbs can take.o Locality restrictions: Yes—I argue that the restriction against complete vPs in theSkandal construction (but not in the infinitival construction) follows from syntacticconditions on movement, which again only arise when a ParPar is used—i.e., when anew syntactic Agree relation is to be established.20

(35) GermanAuxP3VP AuxP 3ModP 3have Mod … t VPcan.IPPdo.PART AuxHow could movement creating the 3-1-2 orderbe tied to the licensing of participles?5.4 German participles are differentMain assumptions:o German participles are lexically valued—uT: perf [see below for motivation]o A particular T val can be inserted only once within a single T-domain (TP).o If V is inserted valued, Aux cannot be inserted valued (but, of course, Aux will stillbe interpretable); hence Aux—iT: [__].• Main outcome: In German, Aux becomes dependent on the participle; the system is still differentfrom, e.g., a Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) system, however, in that Agree is top-down(which will force movement of participles).Derivation of the Skandal construction [uT on Mod ignored; see IPP](36) a. ohne es verhindert haben zu können German: Skandalwithout it prevent.PART have.INF to can.IPP have » can‘without having been able to prevent it’ [Vogel 2009]b. CP3C TPwithout 3T AuxPiT: ∅ 3VP Aux’uT: perf 3@ Aux ModPiT: [perf] 3uT: [∅] Mod vPDetails:iT: mod 3PRO v’• VP-movement: possible since vP is not acomplete phase (PRO); movement doesnot have to go through Spec,vP.• After VP-movement, VP can value the iTof Aux (note again that Agree is not definedas a relation between two heads).• Finally, the uT: [__] of Aux is valued bythe iT of T.3v t VP21

• How is valuation by T across the valued VP possible? By assumption, only interpretable featuresblock Agree. This seems necessary in any account, since moved VPs never block Agreerelations between T & other elements.Locality of Agree (repeated):iii. There is no γ with a valued interpretable feature F such that γ commands α and is c-commanded by β.Some technical details• Why can’t VP value both the iT: [__] and the uT: [__] of Aux (hence wrongly creatingAux.PERF)?• At the moment, I can only stipulate that this is impossible, that is, an iT: [__] and a uT: [__]of the same head cannot be valued by the same feature. Looking at the various feature valuationcontexts that have been proposed, this seems to be correct. But I have no answer yet forwhy this is the case.• What guarantees that iT: [__] is valued by the verb (i.e., the element having the uT: perf) andnot some other iT feature above Aux? Answer: If it wouldn’t be uT: perf, then uT: perfwould not be connected to any iT: perf feature. I follow Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) in theassumption that each valued feature must be semantically interpreted in some location (cf.their Thesis of Radical Interpretability, attributed to Brody 1997). In contrast to Pesetsky andTorrego (2007), however, and more in line with Bošković (To appear), the current frameworkdoes not entail that this principle imposes a condition on Spell-Out (a uT: val that is notin an Agree relation with an iT: val will not cause the derivation to crash). Rather, it appearsthat this principle is of a more global nature. I leave open here where (and how) exactly thisprinciple applies.*Skandal construction with complete vPs(37) *weil er es nicht verhindert hat können *Skandal (3-1-2)since he it not prevent.PART has can.IPP OK: prevent.INF‘since he has not been able to prevent it’• This restriction can now be accounted for with one additional assumption: (a slightly differentversion of) Antilocality (Abels 2003): Spell-Out domains are frozen.• If the vP contains a DP-subject, the vP is complete, and the VP becomes a frozen Spell-Outdomain. Movement impossible.• Movement of VPs that are note Spell-Out domains (yet) is possible; in essence, movement ofVP across a DP subject is excluded.22

(38) * TP3T AuxPiT: pres 3Aux ModPiT: [__] 3uT: [pres] Mod vPiT: mod 3DP v’3v VP@VuT: perf• Possible movement: vP; buteven if V v, the features ofV will not be part of the vP(XP contains only the featuresof its head, not of headsadjoined to its head).• iT: [__] of Aux cannot bevalued (correctly), and uT:perf will not be connected toany interpretable version ofthat feature.• Same for the causative examples(39) * AuxP3Aux vP1iT: [__] 3PRO v1’3v1 vP2let 3iT: caus DP v2’3v2 VP@VuT: perf• To value Aux, the embeddedVP has to move above theAuxP.• The higher vP1 is not a problem,as the examples involvednon-finite let predicates.• However, movement of theembedded VP out of a vPwith a DP subject is impossible:vP2 is a completephase, and the embedded VPthus frozen.• Omitting the embedded subject (as in the let passive construction), on the other hand, allowsthe embedded VP to move, and hence the Skandal construction.How then is the regular infinitival construction possible?(40) a. weil er es nicht verhindern hat können 3-1-2since he it not prevent.INF has can.IPP‘since he has not been able to prevent it’b. weil er seine Kinder Banken ausrauben hat lassen 3-1-2since he his children.ACC banks to.rob.INF have.INF let‘since he has let his children rob banks’• The order 3-1-2 entails syntactic movement; I propose that in this construction, it is the vPthat moves (which, as mentioned above, is possible in principle).23

• Since the main verb is not a participle, it does not have a valued uT: perf, and hence does notneed to value Aux.• But: how is Aux licensed in this construction? To see how the features are licensed in the IPPconstruction, we now really need to get into the details of participles and the IPP.5.5 What’s up with participles in German (and the IPP)?Suggested above:• Ge, Du: Aux iT: [__] V uT: perf• Fr, Sw: Aux iT: perf V uT: [__]• This then entails the opposite Agree relations for these languages, and accounts for the maindifferences in the distribution of ParPars.• Initial support for the reverse Agree relation (Part » Aux) is provided by the word order ofAux-Part constructions across West-Germanic: In all the languages below, participles canprecede the Aux, even when the language otherwise has a basic 1-2-3 order in verb clusters(see Wurmbrand 2004a, 2006a and references therein):Verb clusters with two verbal elementsLanguage ge- AUXILIARY-PARTICIPLE MODAL-INFINITIVEAfrikaans yes 2-1 1-2Dutch (1=finite) yes 2-1, 1-2 1-2, 2-1Dutch (1=non-finite) yes 2-1, 1-2 1-2Frisian no 2-1 2-1Standard German yes 2-1 2-1Swiss yes 2-1 2-1, 1-2West Flemish yes 2-1 1-2Is there something about participles in German that could motivate this difference?• Yes: German participles are circumfixal—ge-stem-en-/t; phonology permitting, the prefix geisobligatory. That is, a participle consists of two parts, both of which being relevant.• The suffix (participle morphology) should be licensed in the same way as in Fr, Sw, E: i.e.,via a uT: [__] that needs to be valued.• But what about the prefix? Suggestion: the prefix is not dependent (or only indirectly) on thesyntactic context; rather it seems plausible to consider it a special lexical item in German (aswell as other West-Germanic languages; see below) that is inherently valued as a participle. Ithus assume the following structure of participles (it does not seem to be relevant whether thestructure is formed in the lexicon or via some expanded low VP-structure):(41) a. Ge, Du, WF, Af, Sw b. E, Fr, Sw…VV2 [uT: __]ge- V[uT: perf] [uT: __]24

[Aside: Note that all participles will be assumed to combine with ge-, even those that cannot use theprefix overtly due to phonological restrictions (in German, there is a purely phonological constraintthat requires that prefixes, including ge-, attach to verbs with initial stress; cf. (*ge)marschiert;(*ge)bekommen. In these cases, ge-, or rather its features, are still present structurally, but the lexicalitem ge- is deleted in post-syntactic phonology in accordance with the prefix rule.)]• This cuts the pie correctly: Sw, Fr do not have prefixal participles, hence the verb comes unvalued;Ge, Du do have prefixal participles, hence the verb comes valued.• Moreover, this view allows us to make sense of the IPP.Now, the IPP: An interesting (yet often ignored) generalization• Lange (1981), Vanden Wyngaerd (1994), Hoekstra (1997): IPP is only found in languagesthat have prefixal (circumfixal) participles.• The assumption that ge-participles come with a valued uT allows us to implement this generalization.(42) a. weil er es nicht verhindern hat können 3-1-2since he it not prevent.INF has can.IPP‘since he has not been able to prevent it’b. weil er es nicht hat verhindern können 1-3-2since he it not hs prevent.INF can.IPP‘since he has not been able to prevent it’(43)TP2T AuxPiT: pres 2Aux ModPiT: perf 2Mod vPiT: mod @*uT: perf VuT: [__] uT: [mod]Derivation:• Assumption: A single head cannot come withtwo valued features of the same type (i.e., nottwo valued T-features).• This entails that functional modals, which have avalued iT, cannot also have a valued uT.• Insertion of uT: perf (ge-) in Mod is hence impossible.• Having not inserted any valued perf feature, allowsthe insertion of iT: perf in Aux.IPP• Mod — uT:[__] gets valued perf by Aux• But since uT: [perf] does not correspond to a lexical item in ge- languages, no participle canbe inserted.• uT: [perf] is then exceptionally deleted, and the default infinitive is inserted.• In languages, where participles are not circumfixal, uT: [perf] is realized as a participle andthere would be no reason to delete uT: [perf]. Thus IPP does not occur in those languages.Word order• 1-3-2: PF-linearization (infinitive before IPP)• 3-1-2: movement of vP above Aux; Aux is already valued, so, no issue of unvalued iT.25

Further support—Lexical Mod• The insertion of uT: perf in Mod is blocked since the head already has a valued feature.• Modals only have iT when they are functional; lexical Modal Vs do not have an iT.• Correct prediction: Lexical modals (e.g., modals followed by a DP) can occur as participles.(44) Er hat Latein gekonntHe has Latin can.PART‘He could (speak) Latin.’Further support—werden• There is one verb in German, werden ‘become’, which has two participial forms—one with,and one without ge- (stress is the same on both verbs, hence the ge-less version is not stressrelated):geworden; worden (note the vowel change, which makes this clearly a participle anddifferent from the infinitive).• As predicted, geworden occurs as a main verb (valued uT: perf possible), and worden infunctional contexts (valued uT: perf not possible, but uT: perf can be realized due to the lackof ge- in this verb).(45) a. Hans ist grün geworden / *wordenJohn is green ge-become.PART / *∅-become.PART‘John turned green’b. Hans ist gewählt *geworden / wordenJohn is elected *ge-become.PART / ∅-become.PART‘John got elected.’5.6 Putting everything togetherFinal piece of evidence—Skandal only in the 3-1-2 order• So far, we have seen how the Skandal construction in the 3-1-2 order is derived and why thisconstruction is restricted to cases with non-finite Aux.• One issue remaining is to see how the account excludes Skandal constructions in orders otherwisepossible, such as the 1-3-2 order below (repeated).(46) a. ohne es haben verhindern zu können 1-3-2without it have.INF prevent.INF to can.IPPb. *ohne es haben verhindert zu können *Skandal 1-3-2without it have.INF prevent.PART to can.IPPLet’s go through the potential derivations• IPP: Mod needs to be functional (recall that main V modals do occur as participles).• This leaves two options:26

Summary of featuresVerb Features PFwerden uT: perf + uT: [perf] gewordenuT: [perf]wordenhelfen uT: perf + uT: [perf] geholfen* uT: [perf] No form; *holfen; competes with uT: perf + uT: [perf]wollen uT: perf + uT: [perf] gewolltuT: [perf]No form, but deletion of uT possible (IPP) since nobetter alternativeWhat has done the work?• Crucial difference between Sw/Fr & Ge: ParPar in finite Aux contexts (examples repeated).(48) a. *weil er es nicht verhindert hat können Ge *Skandal (3-1-2)since he it not prevent.PART has can.IPP OK: prevent.INF‘since he has not been able to prevent it’b. Jeg hadde villet lest boka Norwegian ParParI had want.PART read.PART book.DEF‘I would have liked to read the book.’ [Wiklund 2001, 2005, 2007]c. ?dat er dat dien kinnen hie Frisian ParParthat he that do.PART can.PART had‘that he had been able to do it’[J. Hoekstra, p.c.]• Aux with iT: [__]: requires movement of VP above Aux to license Aux; this is only possiblewhen there VP does not cross any complete vP; locality is the major difference betweenSkandal construction & the downward parasitic participles in Swedish/Norwegian & Frisian.• Aux with iT: perf (as in Swedish/Norwegian, Frisian): in German only possible when there isa functional modal (or more specifically, when Aux values only a functional modal; as soonas Aux values a main verb, that option is excluded); Reason: insertion of ge- uT: perf is lesscostly since it does not require feature deletion, and hence required.• A structure with a functional modal, however, does not allow ParPars (recall that Aux cannotvalue the main verb across a functional Mod); VP-movement would not help, since valuationof V by Aux is insufficient to realize a verb as a participle, due to the lexical restriction ofparticiples requiring ge-.5.7 Some loose ends of the Skandal construction5.7.1 ParPars in lexical modal constructions• There is one construction that occurs in the 3-initial (i.e., Part » Aux) order: non-IPP constructions.• The empirical status of this construction is somewhat controversial.28

• Bader and Schmid (2009) show (via experiments) that this construction is not well-acceptedby native speakers (only about 17%), but it is often cited in the literature, and it did yield asignificant number of hits in Vogel’s corpus search (see above).• Interestingly, a ParPar construction is allowed; but as before, the participle is entirely impossiblewhen Aux is finite.(49) a. ohne helfen gekonnt zu haben 3-2-1 (non IPP)without help.INF can.PART to have‘without having been able to help’b. ohne geholfen gekonnt zu haben ParPar 3-2-1without help.PART can.PART to have‘without having been able to help’Ich hoffe, geholfen gekonnt zu haben.‘I hope to have been able to help’This construction yields numerous hits on a Google searchc. *weil er geholfen gekonnt hat *ParPar; Aux = finsince he help.PART can.PART has OK if help.INF‘since he has been able to help’• If these data are confirmed on a broader basis, the following revised generalizations hold forparasitic participles in German:• vP with an overt DP subject blocks the Skandal construction.• The participle must precede Aux (3-1-2 or 3-2-1).• The German ParPar is not restricted to IPP constructions.• (49)a: modal must be main verb (since it occurs as a participle); to derive an infinitive, anembedded iT: irr is required (see section 5.5).• (49)b,c: the contrast strongly suggests that the ParPar is licensed like in the Skandal construction(movement) and not like in the Frisian/Swedish/Norwegian ParPar.• The good news: since the modal and main verbs are ge-participles, they must be inserted withuT: perf, and Aux with iT: [__]. To value the Aux feature, movement is necessary, and thusthe by now familiar locality restriction is predicted (only PRO-vPs allow VP movement).• But: how are two participles possible? To end up with participial morphology, both, the modaland the main verb need to be inserted as lexical verbs with uT: perf. The assumption thatonly one originally valued feature is possible per T-domain thus seems to be too strong forthese cases. Since the data are also not entirely clear yet and need to be confirmed by furtherempirical studies, I leave this issue open for now.5.7.2 Skandal construction in some finite contexts• A Skandal construction seems to be fine, even in a finite context, when there is another modalembedding the 3-1-2 cluster.29

(50) Er wird es nicht verhindert haben können will [3-1-2]He will it not prevent.PART have.INF can.IPP‘He will not have been able to prevent it.’Not: ‘He will not be able to have prevented it.’SW judgment• A quick Google search turned up several of these examples.(51) a. Das müsste dir weiter geholfen haben können. Mod [3-1-2]‘That must have been able to help you further.’have » canNot: ‘That must be able to have helped you.’http://www.joomlaportal.de/allgemeine-fragen-zu-mambo-4-5-0/2122-actualizedgerman-langfile-corrected-date-time.htmlb. Suche nach trillian* sollte auch geholfen haben können Mod [3-1-2]‘The search for trillian* should also have been able to help.’have » canNot: ‘The search for trillian* should also be able to have helped.’http://www.ogoforum.de/1-1-forum/icq-msn-forum/2871-ogo-im-zu-trillian-leerenachrichten/c. Solltest du deiner Oma damit geholfen haben können… Mod [3-1-2]‘Should you have been able to help your grandma…’have » canNot: ‘Should you be able to have helped your grandma…’http://www.onmeda.de/foren/forum-rheuma/mittel-gegen-rheuma/680945/read.html• As for embedded contexts, I also find the following possible (in contrast to the examples withfinite Aux, there is no big difference in grammaticality between participles and infinitives inthese cases). But further empirical work is needed to confirm this.(52) All intended: ‘since he will not have been able to prevent it’a. weil er es nicht verhindert haben können wird [3-1-2] willsince he it not prevent.PART have.INF can.IPP will.FINb. weil er es nicht wird verhindert haben können will [3-1-2]since he it not will.FIN prevent.PART have.IPP can.INF• Solution: the highest modal is a lexical verb embedding the 3-1-2 cluster. The lower modal(can) must be functional since it occurs in the IPP, but nothing seems to exclude generatingthe highest modal as a lexical verb.• The subject is then generated as the subject of the highest modal, and the embedded structureinvolves a PRO subject. VP-movement within the 3-1-2 cluster is thus possible.• The different orders are the result of different PF-linearizations between will and its complement(which is also possible in simple clusters).30

5.7.3 Dutch• It seems standard Dutch does not have any parasitic constructions. Dutch is like German inthat it has ge-participles; hence the kind of parasitic construction we would expect is theSkandal construction.• One major difference between Dutch and German concerns the possible word orders in verbclusters: Aux»Mod»V (IPP) constructions are only possible in the 1-2-3 order in Dutch.• This may be the reason for why the Skandal construction is not possible: to derive that construction,3-1-2 movement is necessary. If that movement is blocked independently, parasiticparticiples are predicted to be impossible.• Caveat: participles do move in certain constructions in Dutch. Thus, it is necessary to tie verbcluster movement to the type of construction (Aux»Mod»V; IPP), rather than the morphologyof the verbs involved.• Parasitic participles do exist in some varieties of Dutch (e.g., the Stellingwerf dialect), andfurther investigation is necessary to establish if the restrictions proposed in this talk carryover to these dialects.6. SOME THOUGHTS ON SWEDISH TENSE COPYING• At the beginning, we have seen that Swedish allows certain tense copying constructions.• Wiklund (2005, 2007) argues that tense copying is only possible:o in infinitives that allow o (morphologically, o is a reduced form of och ‘and); cf. try(o-complement possible) vs. modals (o-complement impossible)o in semantically tenseless infinitives; cf. try vs. decideo in infinitives without the (infinitival) complementizer atto in infinitives without a nominative subjecto when there are no embedded TP, vP-modifiers, or floating quantifiers associated withan embedded subject.(53) a. Jeg hadde villet lest boka ParParI had want.PART read.PART book.DEF‘I would have liked to read the book.’b. *Han kunde (*o) läste *Tense copyingHe can.PAST (*o) read.PAST‘He could read’c. Han prövade o/*att (*han) stekte en fisk OK Tense copyingHe try.PAST o/*att (*he) fry.PAST a fish (Restructuring)‘He tried to fry a fish’d. *Han beslutade o stekte en fisk *Tense copyingHe decide.PAST o fry.PAST a fish (non-restructuring)‘He decided to fry a fish’31

Wiklund’s account:• No coordination structure: non-ATB movement from o-complement is possible; movementof the entire o-complement is possible (but requires do); o tracks the behavior of the infinitivalcomplementizer rather than coordination in multiple o-contexts.• o-complement is a CP with underspecified C, T, v (ignoring partial copying).• Matrix T values the embedded T (via Agree, but details are left open).• Ban against embedded TP, vP modifiers, FQs: assumption that “unvalued functional heads donot license modifiers”.Back to the current approach• Unfortunatly, Wiklunds Agree account is not compatible with the approach suggested here.Since the matrix predicate involves a complete vP, the matrix T can only see down to v, andnot into the complement of v.• Wiklund’s arguments against a full coordination structure are compelling; on the other hand,what’s not accounted for under a simple complementation structure is the fact that tensecopying involves the element o, which is homophonous to conjunction (and, as Wiklund argues,cannot be assumed to be a colloquial version of the infinitival complementizer att).• Similarly, the fact that embedded TP, vP modifiers, as well as floating quantifiers are impossiblemight be taken to show that the o-complement does not involve TP, vP, and an embeddedsubject.At this point, I see two (very different) ways for how to approach tense copying constructions.Further research is needed it see whether either of these approaches is tenable.Infinitive involves a uT: pres/past• This would allow us to basically keep Wiklund’s CP-structure and account for the fact thatthe embedded verb occurs with morphological tense, but this tense is not interpretable.• Main challenge: ensure that the embedded uT: pres/past is dependent on the matrix T andthat tense copying is blocked by intervening iTs, such as in the following:(54) *T » T/C » TiT: past iT: pres/∅ uT: past• The Thesis of Radical Interpretability may do some of the work here; but locality will be themain challenge since the matrix T can never Agree with anything within the complement ofv. This principle thus could not be a condition that has to be met by Spell-Out, rather it mustbe possible to meet it via some version of feature sharing à la Pesetsky and Torrego (2007).However, implementing this in the current account is not trivial.Non-interpretable coordination structure• Tense copying constructions involve v’-coordination, but in contrast to ‘true’ coordinatestructures where the coordinator is an element with an interpretable “and” feature, o in tensecopying construction is not interpretable, but rather a uF: val (&).32

• Advantages:o Agree between T and the two verbs (via the two v’s) is straightforward.o Locality restrictions on tense copying follow.o Ban on embedded TP, vP modifiers, and FQs follows (there is no TP, vP, PRO).o Ban against infinitival complementizers follows (no CP).o Ban against an embedded subject follows (subject is above the coordination).• Challenge:o Relate the lack of ATB-violation to the fact that the coordinator is not interpretable.This requires an account of how exactly ATB-movement and the coordinate structureconstraint works, which I am not able to give here.7.1 Slovenian infinitivesMarušič (2005)7. POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS• Slovenian OC-infinitives do not involve a CP; no PF-phase, but an LF-phase• CP is a PF & LF phase; infinitive (vP or TP) is an LF phase, but not a PF-phase.Account here: Some similar conclusions• v: if OC-PRO subject, v is ϕ-incomplete until PRO is valued; Spell-Out postponed (infinitivefully accessible for Move & Agree until the controller is merged, possibly until the vP includingthe controller is complete).• C: issue of ϕ-incompleteness does not arise; CP always a strong phase.• Move: Marušič (2005) has shown convincingly that the lack of WCO, lack of ‘radical’ reconstruction,clitic climbing, multiple wh-movement provide evidence against infinitival CP.• Prediction of current account: all of these phenomena should be compatible with both OCand NOC (cf. Marušič’s conclusion that a CP is possible but not necessary in NOC).Agree into an infinitive• Marušič (2005): OC no CP; this follows nicely, since OC-PRO (but not NOC pro) needsto get valued by the controller, which would be impossible across a strong phase.• Genitive of negation: Neg in matrix licenses embedded genitive of negation(55) a. Stane še ni sklenil kupiti hišeStane yet Aux.NEG decide buy house.GEN‘Stane hasn’t decided yet to buy a house.’b. Petra Meti ni zapovedala kupiti avtomobilaStane Meta.DAT Aux.NEG order buy car.GEN‘Petra didn’t order Meta to buy a car.’33

• If genitive of negation involves an Agree relation between NEG & the genitive DP, the claimthat PRO-vPs are not phases until the ϕ-features of PRO/v are valued could account for this“long-distance” genitive of negation—it would be local Agree. But there are several issues:o ni in/below v (Neg that originates higher should not license embedded genitive).o LD-genitive should only be possible with OC (unless there is movement of the embeddedobject, which would get it out of the embedded VP if a Spell-Out domain);Marušič (2005) notes that genitive of negation is impossible with convince, a NOCverb (but there could be a different reason for this restriction).o Intervening heads (infinitival T, v) must not block Agree (different features?).o Interesting testing ground for the questions of when exactly the lower vP becomes aphase.• Depictive secondary predicates: Controller and PRO must Agree with embedded predicate.(56) a. Janez je prepričal obe punci ostati pri njemu pijaniJ.NOM Aux convinced both girls.ACC.DU stay at him drunk.ACC/NOM.DU‘Janez convinced the two girls to stay at his place, when they were drunk.’b. Janez je prepričal Meto ostati pri njemu *pijano / ??pijanaJ.NOM Aux convinced M.ACC stay at him *drunk.ACC / ??drunk.NOM‘Janez convinced Meta to stay at his place, when she was drunk.’• Depictive structure à la Marušič, Marvin, and Žaucer (2003)• iT: ∅ values uT: [__] as NOM (like finite T; Landau 2004)• drunk gets valued NOM by infinitival T; cannot get Case-valued by PRO [after PRO is valuedby the controller] or anything in the matrix clause, since infinitival T is closer *ACC.• PRO gets valued ACC (valuation after movement) or NOM (no movement or valuation beforemovement); since PRO is non-overt, the Case is not realized.• Derivation where drunk gets valued NOM converges; cf. the speaker variation Marušič notes.• If *NOM: Late PF-filter (?) — Depictive predicate only possible if the realized cases of allAgreeing elements match: case of DP and predicate must match.(57) VP3DP V’iϕ: 3SG 3uT: [ACC] VTPconvince 3PRO T’uT: [__] 3iϕ: [__] T vPiT: ∅ 3PrP v’# 2PRO drunk v VPuT: [__] uT: [__]iϕ: [__] i/uϕ: [__]34

• Under this structure of depictives, postponed Spell-Out would not be necessary to establishAgree between the matrix object and the depictive, since the latter is at the edge of the lowervP, This may then predict that depictives should be possible with both OC & NOC (cf. theexample with convince).PF-phase vs. LF-phase? Some thoughts…• vP becomes a phase in the course of the derivation (perhaps also TP if T has a uϕ to be valuedby PRO, and the complement of V is a phase; Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005).• Merging matrix DP completes both the matrix and the embedded phases; but since at thatpoint the matrix vP has already been built, the embedded VP (in fact, the whole infinitive) isspelled-out together (simultaneously) with the matrix VP. This may then yield the effect thatthe infinitive is not a separate PF-phase, but part of the matrix VP Spell-Out domain.• What about LF? Marušič (2005) argues that at LF, the infinitive alone (infinitival vP or TP)counts as a separate phase, since quantifiers can be interpreted within the infinitive (lowerthan the matrix predicate). Maybe there is a slightly different way of looking at this now.• Suppose that QR applies, targeting infinitival vP or TP. Due to PRO, Spell-Out (both LF andPF) is postponed and the derivation continues. After the matrix vP is complete, matrix VP issent to Spell-Out. For LF, this means that the structure needs to be interpreted. To do so,what’s required is that quantifiers are merged with appropriate sisters —constituents of type. It seems that in this scenario, this would clearly be met, even if at some earlier stage ofthe derivation, vP/TP was not a phase and that portion of the derivation has not been sent toSpell-Out separately. Note also that QR within the infinitive is not obligatory; QR can alsotarget the matrix predicate, which seems to indicate that the infinitive is not an inaccessible/inescapable(i.e., spelled-out) domain.7.2 Anaphor bindingMinimalist approach to Condition A• Anaphors are deficient, underspecified for certain feature values (Richards 1996, 1997,Heinat 2006, Hicks 2006, 2009, Johnsen 2008, To appear)• Binding domains reduced to phases: anaphors must be bound and pronouns free within vPs,CPs, and in some accounts (non-selected) PPs and DPs (Canac-Marquis 2005, Heinat 2006,Hicks 2006, 2009, Lee-Schoenfeld 2008, Quicoli 2008).• Condition A: syntactic licensing condition requiring anaphors to enter an Agree relation withan element supplying the missing values (antecedent or a head associated with antecedent).• Problem for previous approaches: How can the antecedent (fully specified/valued) value thelower anaphor?• Reverse Agree: This follows straightforwardly4NP 4 John talked to himself about himself[iϕ: val] 4Anaphor 4 Multiple Agree[iϕ: __] Anaphor (see the works above for different[iϕ: __] views on what features are deficient)35

Two types of parasitic participles8. CONCLUSION• Parasitic forms licensed via multiple downward Agree (Scandinavian, Frisian type 1):movement not a prerequisite for licensing of parasitic morphology• Parasitic forms licensed after movement (Frisian type 2, German): parasitic morphology restrictedby syntactic locality conditions(58) a. Type #1: no movement necessary b. Type #2: movement required4 4Aux 4 Licensor 4Part Licensee 4LicensorWhat does the work• “Reverse” Agree: Uniform syntactic licensing — ‘needy’ element is the lower element.• Languages differ as to which element (auxiliary or participle) licenses the other. The differenceis hypothesized to follow from the morphological inventory of the languages.• Movement of the licensing element.Scandinavian Frisian German EnglishEmbedded modals Yes Yes Yes No (*has could read)ge- No No YesAUX values PART Type #1 Type #1 *Type #1 *Type #1Restrictions Agree domain (restructuring)Movement possible No Yes Yes*Type #2 Type #2 Type #2 *Type #2(upward) (Skandal)RestrictionsMovement Locality• Speculation on Dutch (ge- language): For Type #2, movement of VP to the left of Aux needsto be (independently) possible in the Aux–Mod–V construction; Dutch only allows the 1-2-3order in the Aux–Mod–V construction, which may be the reason for why standard Dutchdoes not allow the Skandal construction (but see Bloemhoff 1979, Zwart 1995 for dialects).Theoretical consequences• Morphological properties are, to a significant part, determined by the syntactic configuration(rather than by selection).• Verb cluster reordering: syntactic movement or PF linearization of sister nodes• “Reverse” Agree: i/uF: val “probes” i/uF: unval• Further support for the existence of uF [val] and iF [__] (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007,Bošković To appear) and for separating the notion of interpretability (iF/uF) from the notionof valuation; Agree being valuation-driven.• Parasitic licensing has consequences for the locality of Agree, the definition of phases, andSpell-Out domains (e.g., PRO postpones Spell-Out; derivational definition of phase).36

More general consequences• Skandal construction is not marginal, but follows specific grammatical rules which nativespeakers are clearly aware of (see also Vogel 2009).• Ordnung im Skandal: Unified account of parasitic licensing (at least for these Germanic participles,possible much broader); differences attributed to independent differences of the languages(word order, morphology).• Such an account brings these apparently odd constructions fully in line with standard grammaticalprinciples, and provides a powerful argument for UG—study of “weird corners” ofgrammar is in one way more revealing of UG than basic (high-frequency) constructions.Possible extensions• Case licensing: T [iT: val] licenses [uT: unval] of NP via Agree; no movement necessary forCase licensing (see Wurmbrand 2006, Şener 2010).• Multiple Agree relations (e.g., NPIs, negative concord, SOT; see Zeijlstra 2010): all seem tobe top-down dependencies; e.g. NPI licensing, if established syntactically, one licensor canlicenses several dependent NPIs (He has not seen anyone yet), which again points to a topdownrelation.• Other ‘mismatching’ morphological phenomena: preterite presents, deponent verbs• A crucial part of the account is that PRO-vPs are not complete and hence not ‘phasal’. Numerousphenomena have been reported across languages that indicate that infinitives aremore transparent than finite clauses (e.g., QR, locality restrictions, various agreement andconcord phenomena, etc.). It will be interesting to see how the current approach contributesto our understanding of these differences.9. REFERENCESAbels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding, University ofConnecticut: Ph.D. Dissertation.Bader, Markus, and Schmid, Tanja. 2009. Verb clusters in colloquial German. Journal ofComparative Germanic Linguistics 12.3:175-228.Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection, MIT: Ph.D.Dissertation.Bošković, Željko. 1995. Participle movement and second position cliticization in Serbo-Croatian.Lingua 96:245-266.Bošković, Željko. 1999. On multiple feature checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple headmovement. In Working Minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein,159-187. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Bošković, Željko. To appear. On unvalued uninterpretable features. In Proceedings of the NorthEastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 39. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,GLSA.Brody, Michael. 1997. Perfect chains. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax,ed. Liliane Haegeman, 139-167. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. MichaelKenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Dikken, Marcel den, and Hoekstra, Eric. 1997. Parasitic participles. Linguistics 35:1057-1089.37

Heinat, Frank. 2006. Probes, pronouns, and binding in the Minimalist Program, University ofLund: Ph.D. Dissertation.Hicks, Glyn. 2006. The derivation of anaphoric relations, University of York: Ph.D. Dissertation.Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 139]Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Scrambling to the Edge. Syntax 13.2:133-164.Hoekstra, Eric. 1997. Analysing linear asymmetries in the verb clusters of Dutch and Frisian andtheir dialects. In Rightward movement, eds. Dorothee Beerman, David LeBlanc and Henkvan Riemsdijk, 153-169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Linguistik Aktuell17]Johnsen, Sverre. 2008. Binding in complements of perception verbs. Paper presented at the Eastcoast workshop in syntax (ECO 5), University of Connecticut.Johnsen, Sverre. To appear. Non-local binding in tenseless clauses. In Papers from the 45thRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago,Chicago Linguistic Society.Kayne, Richard. 1989. Null subjects and clitic climbing. In The null subject parameter, eds.Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir, 239-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22.4:647-686.Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 22.4:811–877.Lange, K. P. 1981. Warum Ersatzinfinitiv? In Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks(January 1981), 62-81. Groningen: University of Groningen. [Groninger Arbeiten zurgermanistischen Linguistik 19]Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2008. Binding, phases, and locality. Syntax 11.3:281-298.Marušič, Franc. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases, Stony Brook University: Ph.D. Dissertation.Marušič, Franc, Marvin, Tatjana, and Žaucer, Rok. 2003. Depictive secondary predication inSlovenian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 11, eds. Wayles Browne, Ji-YungKim, Barbara Partee and Robert Rothstein, 373-392. Ann Arbor: Michigan SlavicPublications.Merkes, Peter Wilhelm. 1895. Der neuhochdeutsche Infinitiv als Teil einer umschriebenenZeitform: Historisch-grammatische Betrachtungen, University of Göttingen: Ph.D.Dissertation.Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2000. Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finiteconstructions, University of Tübingen: Ph.D. Dissertation.Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. InKen Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. Cambridge, Mass: MITPress.Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories.In The syntax of time, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495-537.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability offeatures. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian andWendy Wilkins, 262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Quicoli, A. Carlos. 2008. Anaphora by Phase. Syntax 11.3:299-329.38

Reis, Marga. 1979. Ansätze zu einer realistischen Grammatik. In Befund und Bedeutung. ZumVerhältnis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft., eds.Klaus Grubmüller, Ernst Hellgardt, Heinrich Jellissen and Marga Reis, 1-21. Tübingen:Max Niemeyer Verlag.Richards, Norvin. 1996. Toward a Feature-Movement Theory of Long-Distance Anaphora. Ms.,MIT. Cambridge, Mass.Richards, Norvin. 1997. Competition and disjoint reference. Linguistic Inquiry 28.1:178-187.Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbkomplex: Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrektenMorphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift fürSprachwissenschaft 28.2:307–346.Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: the parasitic supine. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory 19.1:199-228.Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2005. The syntax of tenselessness: On copying constructions in Swedish,Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University: Ph.D. Dissertation.Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2007. The syntax of tenselessness: Tense/mood/aspect-agreeinginfinitivals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Studies in Generative Grammar 92]Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Proceedings of the 18th WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D.Haugen and Peter Norquest, 599-612. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press.Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004a. West Germanic verb clusters: The empirical domain. In Verb clusters:A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch, eds. Katalin É. Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk,43-85. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today69]Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004b. Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement. In Proceedings of the 2003Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, eds. Sophie Burelle andStanca Somesfalean, 284-295: Université du Québec à Montréal.Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006a. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The BlackwellCompanion to Syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 227-341. Oxford:Blackwell.V]Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006b. Licensing Case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.3:175-234.Wurmbrand, Susi. 2007. Infinitives are tenseless. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual PennLinguistics Colloquium, eds. Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam and LaiaMayol, 407-420. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. [UPenn Working Papers inLinguistics 13.1]Wurmbrand, Susi. 2008. Thoughts on the syntax and semantics of infinitival tense. Colloquiumtalk UMass, Amherst, Mass.Wyngaerd, Guido Vanden. 1994. IPP and the structure of participles. In Minimalism and Kayne'sasymmetry hypothesis, ed. Jan-Wouter C. Zwart, 265-276. Groningen: University ofGroningen. [Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 37]Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. There is only one way to agree. Paper presented at the Talk given atGLOW33, Wroclaw, Poland.39