This article shows that stripping, the elision of declarative TPs, is possible not only in coordinate structures, but also in embedded clauses—however, only when the complementizer is absent. This Embedded Stripping Generalization is not predicted by earlier accounts of stripping, but it falls out from a certain combination of independently available assumptions. Specifically, I propose a zero Spell-Out view of ellipsis in a dynamic (or contextual) phasehood approach, which, together with the lack of a CP layer in that -less embedded clauses, derives this generalization in languages like English. I then briefly consider stripping in other languages and suggest that the analysis also has the flexibility to accommodate crosslinguistic differences in the distribution of stripping.

This article investigates the temporal and aspectual composition of infinitival complementation structures in English. I show that previous classifications of tense in infinitives are insufficient in that they do not cover the entire spectrum of infinitival constructions in English. Using the distribution of nongeneric, nonstative, episodic interpretations as a main characteristic, I show that infinitival constructions fall into three classes: future irrealis infinitives, which allow episodic interpretations with bare VPs; simultaneous infinitives that do not allow episodic interpretations; and simultaneous infinitives that allow episodic interpretations depending on the matrix tense. I argue that the three classes of infinitives are derived from the following properties: future infinitives are tenseless but involve a syntactically present future modal woll ; simultaneous propositional attitude infinitives impose the now of the propositional attitude holder as the reference time of the infinitive; and certain simultaneous infinitives form a single temporal domain with the matrix clause. The analysis proposed has consequences for the composition of tense and aspect, the syntax of infinitives, and the way selection is determined.

A recurring pattern of partial correlations between word order variation and scope possibilities (the ¾ signature ) supports a particular view of economy constraints in syntax, with these properties: (1) There are economy conditions (soft constraints) that value a particular type of correspondence between LF and PF representations. (2) These constraints are unidirectional: LF (broadly construed) is calculated first and determines PF (surface word order). (3) Scope rigidity is a property not of languages but of specific configurations, and the distribution of rigidity effects is (largely) predictable from independent variation in the syntactic resources of various languages. We focus here on the interaction of these three assumptions and on the role of (2) in predicting the ¾ signature effect. We contrast our proposal with Reinhart’s (2005) Interface Economy model, in which economy conditions regulate a mapping that takes overt structure as its input and yields permissible interpretations.