This article investigates the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC): a head-initial category cannot be the immediate structural complement of a head-final category within the same extended projection. This universal cannot be formulated without reference to the kind of hierarchical structure generated by standard models of phrase structure. First, we document the empirical evidence: logically possible but crosslinguistically unattested combinations of head-final and head-initial orders. Second, we propose a theory, based on a version of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom, where FOFC is an effect of the distribution of a movement-triggering feature in extended projections, subject to Relativized Minimality.

In this article, we propose a phase-based alternative to Kayne’s (1989) analysis of past participle agreement in Italian. This analysis captures the principal facts without making reference to specifier-head agreement. Instead, the possibility of overt past participle agreement is determined by the Phase Impenetrability Condition and is linked to the surface position of the past participle. The analysis has interesting crosslinguistic implications, notably in that it predicts a general asymmetry between subject and object agreement.

This article proposes a simple modification to Chomsky's (1995:chap. 4) account of Move F(eature): that this operation is able to occur before Spell-Out. This idea has numerous potential consequences. Two theoretical consequences are explored here: that Move F corresponds to weak features and Move Category to strong features, and that Procrastinate is not required. The empirical motivation for overt Move F comes from English have/be raising; it is argued that the auxiliaries are simple feature bundles moved as free riders with the overtly moved (weak) V-feature.