Why and its counterparts in some languages are argued to be externally merged in a low left-peripheral specifier of a dedicated functional category and subsequently moved to a criterial position higher in the left-peripheral space. The analysis considers both short- and long-distance construals of why , asymmetries of why -extraction in finite and nonfinite complement clauses, the position of ‘why’ in a multiple wh -movement language like Romanian, and the differences between why and how come . The analysis sharpens the formal differences between movement to a criterial position and movement out of cyclic domains via escape hatches.

Verbs can be introduced (merged) in either a lexical VP or a functional head, the latter position giving rise to restructuring contexts. We argue that there are two clitic positions in Italian “restructured” clauses: one associated with the (restructured) lexical verb and the other a clausal clitic position located in the functional domain. While restructuring can be recursive, clitics appear either on the restructured infinitive (no clitic climbing) or in the functional domain of the highest verb (full clitic climbing). There is no clitic climbing to an intermediate restructuring verb. We argue that only the lowest restructured verb makes a position for clitics available and that this position is the same as that of infinitive-final [e]. Finally, we show that the functional ∼ lexical dichotomy is too sharp and that a variety of verb classes must be admitted, whose properties correlate with the point in the structure in which they are merged.

We study the distribution of null subjects in one Franco-Provençal variety. These are possible in root declaratives, obligatory in embedded subject position, and impossible in root wh -questions as well as in the company of weather predicates. We approach null subjects indirectly, by investigating the distribution of one subject clitic, arguing that its optionality in some contexts is due to the possibility of moving pro to a peripheral topic position, where formal licensing is not required. We also discuss the circumstances in which an overt complementizer and a robustly inflected verb license pro, rendering the clitic redundant. The comparative interest of this dialect is that it reveals synchronically the three mechanisms of pro licensing available in Romance diachronically. These are (a) association with rich verbal inflection, (b) government by a complementizer, and (c) doubling by a clitic. We contend that the syntax is sensitive to the formal relationship between an XP and a head that these three mechanisms instantiate.