2. Scope and Content

The first two chapters set the background for discussion and analysis in later chapters. In chapter 1, Hinterhölzl establishes the basic syntactic structure(s) associated with West Germanic languages. Crucial for his key arguments later in the text, Hinterhölzl here elucidates the connection between remnant movement and restructuring, and the connection between scrambling and restructuring as well as other “basic” characteristics of West Germanic syntax, for example, verb-second, scrambling and topicalization, coherent infinitives, and the IPP (to mention a few). In this first chapter, Hinterhölzl also introduces the bulk of theoretical assumptions, necessary machinery, and constraints that he makes use of in his analysis. Some of the concepts put forth in this section are rather archaic and controversial (for example, Hinterhölzl's discussion and use of “head government,” the use of agreement (AgrP) phrases, and the notion that all syntactic movement is driven by feature-checking requirements). For example, following Epstein Reference Epstein, David Epstein and Hornstein2001, it is unclear what the notion of “government” can explain in a derivational syntactic theory. By and large, most current (if not all) incarnations of the Minimalist Program (MP) have avoided any and all references to “government.” The other aforementioned controversial mechanismsthe implementation of agreement phrases to check Case and feature-driven movementare not nearly as controversial as the references to head-government, although they, too, are regarded by most to be obsolete and no longer necessary. In his defense, Hinterhölzl provides a solid rationale for not eliminating these theoretical notions, because “they prompt us to search for general explanations rather than for merely technical accounts of syntactic phenomena, insofar as we strive to provide derivations that are preferably triggered by (interpretable) interface properties” (p. 29). In all fairness to Hinterhölzl, the MP has never presented a successful account of head-movement as comprehensive as Travis's (Reference Travis1984) Head Movement Constraint (HMC); therefore the adoption of head-govern-ment is more of a wart of the theory rather than of Hinterhölzl's discussion and treatment of head-movement.Footnote ⁵ The implementation of Kayne's (Reference Kayne1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) and the elimination of multiple specifiers (in favor of Agr-phrases) shape and define other aspects of Hinterhölzl's analysis, as I further discuss below. Another ontological tool that Hinterhölzl makes extensive use of in this work is Chomsky's (Reference Chomsky and Kenstowicz2001) notion of strong phases (that is, vP and CP).

In chapter 2, Hinterhölzl addresses the claims of Haider & Rosengren (Reference Haider and Rosengren1998) that theoretical accounts of scrambling that implement a formal trigger (that is, a grammatical feature) to account for scrambling are flawed due to the (apparent) optional nature of scrambling. Contrary to Haider & Rosengren, Hinterhölzl ascertains that a trigger account is indeed feasible in a copy theory of movement in which both LF- and PF-conditions determine which copy is to be spelled out. Hinterhölzl argues that one type of trigger for scrambling involves scope features of arguments (see Putnam Reference Putnam2007 for a similar argument). In addition, he maintains that a second kind of trigger[Specificity]is checked in a Spec-head configuration. This treatment of the [Specificity]-feature is similar to its [Scope]-feature counterpart, which “renders superfluous the operation of adjunction in accounting for alternating word orders” (p. 63). To overcome the potential restriction that Chomsky's (Reference Chomsky1995) Inclusiveness Condition would cause for the introduction of such non-lexical features, Hinterhölzl proposes that non-lexical features can be assigned to any head in the course of the derivation. This takes place by means of two mechanisms, namely, Dynamic Feature Assignment (see 1) and the Scope Filter (see 2) (adapted from pp. 57–58):

1. (1)

   1. a. Dynamic Feature Assignment

      Conservative extension: assign the feature to an existing structure (the head at the root) in the course of the derivation.

   2. b. Dynamic extension: assign the feature to (a copy of) a bare functional head and merge the head with the existing feature.

2. (2) Scope Filter

   1. a. A head assigned the feature [w] must c-command a head assigned the feature [n].

   2. b. A head assigned the feature [i] must c-command a head assigned the feature [n] and be c-commanded by a head assigned the feature [w].Footnote ⁶

Economy of derivation ensures that dynamic extension (1b), which is more complex than conservative extension (1a), will only apply in case the derivation that uses only conservative extension does not converge. Furthermore, according to Hinterhölzl, “fewest steps ensures that these features are not assigned repeatedly to a structure and shortest step requires that only the smallest extension that guarantees a convergent derivation will be taken” (p. 57). This is demonstrated in example 3 (from p. 58).

1. (3)

   1. a.

   2. b.

   3. c.

   4. d.

   5. e.

Accordingly, in 3a the scope features are assigned by the conservative extension operation of the Dynamic Feature Assignment operation (cf. 1a) to the respective Case-agreement heads. Assuming that the subject is to be read with wide scope with respect to the object, no extension of the derivation, that is, no scrambling, is necessary. In 3b–e, Hinterhölzl assumes that the object is to be read with wide scope with respect to the subject. The structures in 3b–e show possible extensions of the derivation before the direct object moves to check its scope feature. Aside from the arguments that he sets forth that scrambling is an instance of A-movement, the implementation of the [Scope] and [Specificity] features and their conformity to standard minimalist assumptions (that is, finding a way for their inclusion into syntactic theory without producing violations of the Inclusiveness Condition) represent the key contributions to the theory that this chapter sets forth.

Chapter 3 provides an initial discussion of the properties of coherent infinitives in Dutch and West Flemish. Here Hinterhölzl introduces the standard OV-based biclausal approach to coherent infinitives in Dutch with regard to Verb Raising (VR) and Long-Distance Scrambling (LDS) and the standard approach to the Verb Projection Raising (VPR) in terms of extraposition of the (extended) infinitival VP. Hinterhölzl outlines numerous problems and shortcomings with the traditional approach to these constructions. In particular, he concludes in section 3.1 that the behavior of verb-particles shows that the Dutch verb cluster cannot be analyzed as a head-adjunction structure. Later in this chapter, Hinterhölzl argues that the scope facts in VPR-complements cannot be properly accounted for in terms of scrambling and extraposition (see §3.2.1) and that the distribution of IPP-complements in West Flemish cannot be given a coherent explanation in terms of extraposition (see §3.2.2). To address these shortcomings, Hinterhölzl proposes an analysis that complements are base generated to the right of the selecting head and that leftward head-movement of the verb in West Germanic takes place (which also allows him to adopt Kayne's (Reference Kayne1994) LCA proposal).

Prior to taking an in-depth look at coherent infinitives in German in chapter 5, Hinterhölzl provides an alternative account of Verb Raising and Verb Projection Raising in chapter 4. In sum, Hinterhölzl provides a VO-based approach to VR that allows him to assume that all infinitival complements are CPs and do not employ rightward movement or unmotivated scrambling operations (of adverbs or predicates). Instead he employs movement of the infinitival AspP into [Spec, CP] of the infinitival clause and movement of the infinitival TP into [Spec, PredP] of the selecting verb, as illustrated in 4 & 5 below (adapted from pp. 107–108).

1. (4)

   1. a.

   2. b.

2. (5) Derivational history steps (c–f)

   Step 1: licensing movement in the embedded clause

   

   Step 2: AspP moves into [Spec, CP] in the embedded clause

   

   Step 3: TP moves into [Spec, PredP] in the matrix clause

   

   Step 4: scrambling of the matrix subject and the embedded object

   

One of the distinct advantages that this account of VR has for West Germanic is that it does not assume the movement, that is, scrambling, of any abverbs. Under this approach, an adverb that modifies the verb in a coherent infinitive is moved along with the remainder (after AspP-movement) of the infinitival to a position below the adverbs in the matrix clause. Secondly, this proposal provides us with a simple explanation for the transparency of coherent infinitives. Due to TP-movement, argu-ments of the embedded clause (including quantifiers) may freely undergo A-movement into the matrix clause (which also allows Hinterhölzl to maintain that scrambling in West Germanic is clausal-bound). Accordingly, VPR-structures and their (scopal) properties can be accounted for in the same manner, if it is assumed that in VPR-structures movement of the infinitival VP can optionally pied-pipe larger phrases.

Chapter 5 tackles the extensively studied peculiar properties of co-herent infinitives in German. Here Hinterölzl weighs in on the question of whether coherent constructions are monosentential units that involve complex verbs or bisentential structures that involve an embedded infinitive. Hinterhölzl challenges recent arguments brought forth by Wurmbrand (Reference Wurmbrand2001) (building largely on Haider's (Reference Haider1991) empirical argu-ments in support of the monoclausal nature of coherent to-infinitives in German). In this chapter, Hinterhölzl presents two arguments against a monoclausal account of restructing.

First, he demonstrates that adverbs in restructuring contexts can co-occur in an order that is impossible in simple sentences, as schematized in 6 below (from p. 130).

1. (6)

   1. a.

   2. b.

   3. c.

In 6a, the first adverb (Adv1) modifies the matrix verb (V1), while the second adverb (Adv2) modifies the embedded verb, which has been restructured (V2). As indicated by 6b, there are cases in which two adverbs can modify neither the matrix verb nor the embedded verb in given order. In these cases, a grammatical monoclausal sentence is only possible if the order of the two adverbs is reversed, as shown in 6c. Hinterhölzl conjectures that the disparity between the possible orders of adverbs in simple clauses and in restricted contexts follows straightforwardly in his account, which assumes that the middle field in structuring infinitives comprises more than one TP, that is, more than one licensing domain for adverbs.

Secondly, Hinterhölzl demonstrates that the binding properties in restructuring infinitives differ from the binding properties of simple clauses. In section 5.1.2, Hinterhölzl demonstrates that the binding properties of coherent infinitives of ECM-verbs differ from the binding properties of ditranstive verbs. To account for this difference, he argues that the binding properties of ECM-infinitives follow directly if it is assumed that ECM-infinitives comprise more than one TP.

Chapter 6 takes a closer look at the formation of verb clusters and investigates the positions that are relevant for licensing nonfininite verbs. In particular, Hinterhölzl explores the parametric variation that exists in modern West Germanic languages (and dialects) with regard to verb complexes and the syntax of IPP-complements. Hinterhölzl elaborates on the empirical facts of why German, on the one hand, and Dutch and West Flemish, on the other, differ in the amount of movement of nonfinite verbs in the clause. While German finite and nonfinite verbs always move to the highest head in the vP-phase (that is, the head of the Aspect Phrase), only finite verbs in Dutch and West Flemish move to this position, with nonfinite verbs only moving up to the head F2P. Hinterhölzl points out that this has important consequences for the analysis of verb clusters. A dependent nonfinite verb in a left-branching verb cluster in German must be analyzed as occupying [Spec, AspP] preceding the selecting verb in Asp⁰. A dependent nonfinite verb in a right-branching verb cluster in Dutch or West Flemish must be analyzed as occupying [Spec,F3P] following the selecting verb in F2⁰. Through this analysis, Hinterhölzl provides a straightforward account of the parametric variation of verb clusters and the IPP in the aforementioned West Germanic languages and dialects.

The final two chapters (chapters 7 and 8) conclude this work in their discussion of remaining open issues concerning extraposition, VP-topicalization and the status of gerunds, and a summary and conclusion of the current work respectively. The text closes with a dialogue on the connection between scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic. In this account, scrambling does not feed remnant topicalization. Remnant categories are solely created by standard licensing movements, which are introduced and triggered by restruc-turing.

3. Evaluation

Hinterhölzl does an excellent job of synthesizing the bulk of significant research on scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic languages in a lucid, easy-to-read manner, which in and of itself is a commendable achievement. The chief claim put forward in this monograph is “that all movement operations involved in the complex derivations that lead up to remnant topicalization can be given a coherent account within a phase-based minimalist framework that only employs leftward movement into unique Specifiers of dedicated functional positions that are motivated by feature-checking requirements of the main constituents of the clause” (p. 231).

Overall, Hinterhölzl delivers one of the most succinct and comprehensive treatments of scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic that has been undertaken in decades. Hinterhölzl's analysis could, however, be potentially enriched and strengthened by taking a closer look at Chocano's (Reference Chocano2005) treatment of scrambling (and object shift) in Germanic from the standpoint of the PF-Narrow Syntax interface. Similar to Hinterhölzl, Chocano adopts a phase-based minimalist analysis for her discussion of the phonological aspects of scrambling in connection with coherent and incoherent infinitives in Germanic in connection with freezing and anti-freezing scopal properties. Chocano's work would contribute new and interesting data to Hinterhölzl's workespecially his fifth chapter where he exclusively discusses and analyzes the characteristics of coherent infinitives in German.

Lastly, Putnam's (Reference Putnam2007) treatment of scopal reconstruction in his minimalist analysis of middle field scrambling in West Germanic bears strong resemblance to Hinterhölzl's; however, the former packages the interpretation of lower instances (that is, “copies”) of displaced items without being dependent on look-back and/or look-ahead machinery. As such, this treatment of reconstruction is a welcome find in the minimalist framework and the desideratum of derivational and representational economy whenever possible. Hinterhölzl's treatment of scopal features by means of the Dynamic Feature Assignment (see 1) and the Scope Filter (see 2) would most likely find congruence with Putnam's treatment of restructuring.

To recapitulate, Hinterhölzl's work represents one of the most detailed treatments of scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic in decades. The text provides ample opportunities for researchers and students alike to discuss and pursue some of the current puzzles that beset scholars researching West Germanic syntax in the Minimalist Program.