This paper highlights striking similarities of three well-known but hitherto disparately treated alternations in Germanic morphosyntax: (i) the positional alternation of the finite verb between a low and a left peripheral (V2) position; (ii) the morphological alternation in adnominal adjectives between so-called weak and strong agreement; and (iii) the contrast in definiteness marking between a free DP-initial definite article and a so-called suffixed article. The number and kinds of punctual similarities among these alternations suggest that we are dealing with a parallelism that is non-accidental (even if not always fully surface apparent). In an attempt to propose a principled account of this parallelism, I argue that the familiar syntactic CP/DP analogy must (A) be extended to include the extended adjectival projection (xAP), and (B) that it is more than an analogy. It is, I claim, a point-wise isomorphism. I identify a shared complementizer head C, which, I claim, extended projections of all colors converge on. In Germanic, C is either lexicalized/identified qua head, as d-, or it attracts the lexical category of its containing extended projection, indiscriminately of whether it is verbal, nominal, or adjectival. Movement of the lexical category to the left periphery results, in many cases, in its preceding material which it does not precede in the absence of such movement, notably inflectional material. If correct, the proposed isomorphism hypothesis has consequences for the analysis of the phenomena involved in that it allows us to transfer insights from one domain to another. In particular, it supports an analysis of the adjectival inflection alternation in terms of adjective movement; and an analysis of V2 as involving two merger steps.

1. Introduction 2. Definite demonstratives 3. xAP 4. Definite quantifiers 5. Ein-determiners 6. ADJ and INV variants among Wh- and S-determiners 7. Case and syncretism 8. Conclusion References

Perlmutter (1970) argued that the indefinite article is categorically different from the definite article and proposed that it is a clitic version of the numeral "one". But there are, as Perlmutter himself pointed out, instances of "a" as well as of "one" that don't seem to have the semantics of the numeral. Hence a divorce of "a" (and of "one") from "numeral"-hood is called for. Furthermore, there are instances of what looks like the indefinite article (e.g., German "ein" or its Dutch, etc. counterpart) which occur in contexts from which the indefinite article is supposed to be excluded: with plural nouns, with non-count nouns, in definite noun phrases, etc. This state of affairs was addressed by Bennis et al. (1998), and others since, by reference to a so-called 'spurious article,' homophonous with the traditional indefinite article "een/ein". The goal of the present paper is twofold: First of all, I argue that German "ein" is not always an `indefinite article,' and, pursuing the idea that there is only one "ein", it is hence never an `indefinite article.' Secondly, I explore some consequences for the structural representation of certain function words which contain "ein" as one of their components, in particular "kein" as well as its English counterpart "no". The discussion promotes a strongly non-lexicalist view, advocating a syntactic derivation of function words, including movement. This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol18/iss1/19 The indefinite article – Indefinite? – Article?

//static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0008413100002152/resource/name/firstPage-S0008413100002152a.jpg

Non-native fish often negatively affect amphibian populations. The sunbleak (Leucaspius delineatus), a small cyprinid fish, is often released into ponds that support amphibian populations because it is thought not to consume amphibian larvae; the argument was based on diet analyses. Here, we present results from a laboratory experiment that demonstrates that sunbleak consume amphibian eggs and larvae. Mortality of eggs and small tadpoles was 100%. Thus, sunbleak at least potentially could be harmful to amphibian populations despite their preference for small prey items reported in the literature. Although diet analyses are valuable, the assessment of whether a species is a predator of another should not be based solely on diet analyses. Experimental predation trials are necessary to assess predation risk.

Abstract This chapter proposes a relativization structure for adnominal adjectives in which the pre-adjectival definite marker and the adjective form a constituent excluding the noun. This is supported by a unified perspective on Greek poly-(*in)-definiteness, Scandinavian double definiteness, and the Germanic weak/strong adjectival declension alternation, and reveals exciting parallels between the extended AP and the tensed clause.

In this paper I explore the elements that make up the German distributive universal quantifier jeder , and the structural relationships among them. I argue that jeder consists of three overt morphemes je-d-er , which are heads in an extended adjectival projection (xAP). Their relative order is derived by movement [ xAP je d er t jeP ]. Je corresponds to the adjectival stem, -d- is an adjectival article (which in turn is analyzed as a relative complementizer) and -er is an agreement head, AgrA. The xAP further contains movement traces/ copies of the nominal which jeder quantifies over. One of these copies is in the complement of je where, I claim, it supplies the restriction (distributive key or range). The components of the proposal are all motivated independently of jeder : (i) the morphology of jeder identifies it as adjectival, hence an analysis of it must incorporate an (independently motivated) adjectival syntax; (ii) a comparison with the distributive dual quantifier beid- ‘both’ further informs the syntactic analysis internal to the word jeder ; and (iii) a comparison of je in jeder and in other je -words suggests that je takes an N(P) complement, a fact that confirms the expectations regarding the selectional properties of je raised by the preceding discussion. Finally, a comparison of jeder with counterparts of it in other languages, as well as with other complex determiners in German, will broaden the scope and corroborate important aspects of the present proposal.

Abstract. The present paper is concerned with the internal structure of Germanicwhat forphrases. A comparative look atwhat foracross Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish, and Swiss German leads to a drastic revision of the traditional view onwhat for. The proposal recognizes an (often silent) functional nominalSORTas a constitutive part of thewhat forconstruction.Foris analyzed as a prepositional complementizer whose complement contains the (silent) nominal and the trace ofwhat, to whichforassigns accusative Case. The projection offor, forP, is argued to sit in a specifier position in the extended projection of the head noun, similar to adjectival modifiers on a Cinquean view.Whatmoves out of forP into the left periphery of the noun phrase.

Based on evidence from Afrikaans, Norwegian, Swedish, and Swiss Ger- man, I propose that Germanic demonstratives are formed of a definite article and a counterpart of here/there in an adjectival modification structure.

The so-calledwhat for construction, exemplified in (1), is widespread across Germ anic.1 It has the distribution of an interrogative noun phrase and consis ts of the counterparts of what, for, an indefinite noun phrase, and demonstrably an often silent fun ctio al nominal e.g. SORT(cf. Leu to appear). One property of thewhat for phrase that has intrigued syntacticians since Den Besten (1 981) is the fact that it can surface in a discontinuous fashion (1b ), the phenomenon that is referred to as “what forsplit”.

,Many thanks for helpful discussion, comments and judgments at various points of the development of this work to Artemis Alexiadou, Antonia Androutsopoulou, Mark Baltin, Lena Baunaz, Oana Ciucivara, Chris Collins, Marcel den Dikken, Alexia Ioannidou, Richard Kayne, Lisa Levinson, Line Mikkelsen, Sarah Nakamaru, David Pesetsky, Henk van Riemsdijk, Laura Rimell, Anna Szabolcsi, ?ystein Vangs nes, and Eytan Zweig, as well as the audiences at the LSA (Jan/06, Albuquerque), the PLC (Feb/06, Philadelphia), the NYU Open House day (March/06, New York), and the CGSW (April/06, Santa Cruz), where parts of this paper were presented.

In the traditional E-type approach to d-(onkey)-pronouns, these pronouns are interpreted as definite descriptions that contain a bound i-(ndividual)-variable (Evans, 1977; Cooper, 1979; Heim, 1990). Elbourne (2001, 2002); Buring (2004) have recently proposed a variant of the E-type approach which dispenses with i-variable binding for donkey anaphora resolution altogether, deriving covariance via s-(ituation)-variable binding. However, they still assume that d-pronouns contain descriptive content, while remaining somewhat vague with regard to what the content exactly is. I will clarify this point of vagueness, discussing examples of d-pronouns with multiple antecedents as well as ambiguous donkey-sentences. I will show that postulating descriptive content in d-pronouns is A) not necessary and B) problematic. I. Evans/Cooper proposal: it = “the donkey owned by himx” II. Elbourne/Buring proposal: it = “thes donkey” III. Present proposal: it = “thes entity” I thus argue that d-pronouns are void of descriptive content. This has interesting consequences for the theory of situations.

Short version: Germanic what for features a [for... NP] which, con-trary to familiar assumptions, is not restricted to interrogative con-texts. The [for... NP] features an often silent (closed class) nomi-nal (SLAG, SORT) in the complement of for. What for split involves leftward movement of [for... NP] followed by leftward movement of the remnant [what...]. What for split can happen not only in the mit-telfeld, but also within the left periphery, involving topicalization of the [for... NP]. This is supported by what the hell for evidence. The subsequent remnant what movement may (in some variants) piedpipe the entire clause across [for... NP] giving rise to [for... NP] "extra-position". This explains interpretive parallels between l eft-peripheral and right-peripheral for NPs.

In the traditional E-type approach to d-(onkey)-pronouns, these pronouns are inter-preted as definite descriptions that contain a bound i-(ndiv idual)-variable (Evans, 1977; Cooper, 1979; Heim, 1990). Elbourne (2001, 2002); B眉ring (2 004) have recently pro-posed a variant of the E-type approach which dispenses with i-variable binding for donkey anaphora resolution altogether, deriving covariance via s-(ituation)-variable binding. However, they still assume that d-pronouns contain descriptive content, while remaining somewhat vague with regard to what the content exactly is. I will clarify this point of vagueness, discussing examples of d-pronouns with multiple antecedents as well as ambiguous donkey-sentences. I will show that postulating descriptive con-tent in d-pronouns is A) not necessary and B) problematic. I. II. Elbourne/B眉ring proposal: it = "the<SUB>s donkey" III. Present proposal: I thus argue that d-pronouns are void of descriptive content. This has interesting