Chapter 1 offers an overview of the protohistory of the concept of parameter. The first part mainly focuses on the theoretical foundations of Generative Grammar, as laid out in Chomsky (1965). The discussion then turns to those works which paved the way to the parametric approach in Generative Grammar, with Chomsky (1973) introducing a first set of universal conditions on grammatical rules, and Chomsky (1976) being the generative work in which the term ‘parameter’ is used for the first time. The outcome of Rizzi’s (1978) and Taraldsen’s (1978) pre-parametric inquiries is then reviewed, as they shed new light on the systematicity of linguistic variation. Finally, focus is put on the explicit formulation of the concept of parameter and the consequent shift toward the systematic study of cross-linguistic variation, a problem previously addressed by Greenberg (1963). In this respect, the major advancement introduced by Chomsky (1981a) is the hypothesis of the existence of implicational relations among individual parameters. How the term ‘parameter’ is used in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) in conjunction with the concept of core grammar is also discussed.

Chapter 2 presents the research on parameters within GB Theory. After classifying the parameters from Rizzi’s (2014) list into five different types, the chapter reviews the null subject parameter (Rizzi 1978), the parameterization of Subjacency (Rizzi 1978), and the parameter of S′-deletion (Chomsky 1981a). Some influential proposals which were originally formulated as non-parametric systematic differences are then reviewed, namely Huang’s (1982) insights on the locus of wh-movement, Kayne’s (1983) treatment of preposition stranding and epistemic verbs, and den Besten’s (1983) account of V2. The next section discusses Hale’s (1983) parameterization of the Projection Principle, Baker’s (1988) analysis of incorporation processes, Pollock’s (1989) split INFL hypothesis, and lastly, Koopman and Sportiche’s (1991) proposed cross-linguistic difference in nominative Case assignment. The chapter ends by covering some influential proposals concerning language acquisition, that is, Hyams’s (1986) hypothesis that parameters have preset default values, Manzini and Wexler’s (1987) parameterized notion of governing category, and finally, the latter’s link to the Subset Principle.

Chapter 3 focuses on the debate about the concept of parameter which took place during the first decade of the twenty-first century. The first two positions discussed are Kayne’s (2000, 2005) microparametric approach and Baker’s (2001, 2008) macroparametric approach. These two approaches are then confronted with Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) criticism. Finally, two lines of linguistic inquiry which are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the notion of parameter are presented, namely Roberts and Holmberg’s (2010) hierarchical parametric model and Longobardi’s and his collaborators’ Parametric Comparison Method (PCM). On the one hand, Roberts and Holmberg’s (2010) model overcomes the limitations of micro- and macroparameters by combining a lexically based, microparametric view of linguistic variation with the idea that parametric variation is an emergent property of the interaction of Universal Grammar, primary linguistic data, and third factor considerations. On the other hand, the unprecedented results achieved by the PCM in establishing the genealogical relations among languages on the basis of syntactic comparison arguably attest to the validity of the parametric model.

Chapter 4 aims at evaluating the classical parameters of GB Theory from today’s point of view. The first parameters discussed are those concerning S′-deletion, Subjacency, long distance anaphora, the Projection Principle, and nominative Case assignment, which are shown either to refer to obsolete theoretical concepts or to be reducible to other, more basic theories. Then, the discussion turns to those parameters whose epistemological status is still being upheld in Minimalism, that is, those concerning null subject, V-to-T and V-to-C movement, polysynthesis, and overt vs. covert wh-movement, by looking at their respective minimalist reformulations. What emerges from this investigation is that, strikingly, the only traditional parameters here reviewed which still enjoy an independent theoretical status are those which in Chapter 2 have been labeled as Spellout parameters. Moreover, the overt vs. covert wh-movement parameter could well be an exception in this sense. In fact, assuming Richards N. (2010) or an equivalent PF-based account is on the right track, wh-movement pertains to the A-P interface.

In this chapter, I address some further phenomena of German syntax that would seem to lend themselves to an analysis in terms of structure removal. However, the analyses are carried out in much less detail, as the overall goal is not so much to develop full-fledged accounts but to make a case for structure removal at work in each of the constructions. For concreteness, the chapter addresses bridge verbs (where a DP shell on top of a CP is removed), applicatives (where a full DP is removed), null objects (where, again, a DP is removed), pseudo-noun incorporation (where a DP dominating an NP is removed), nominal concord (where the well-known case/cyclicity dilemma with concord is approached by postulating temporary removal of case assigners), and ellipsis (where structure removal may give rise to constructions like gapping, sluicing, and determiner sharing).

This chapter develops an approach to restructuring with control verbs in German that is based on the operation Remove. The approaches to restructuring in infinitival constructions developed over the last three decades postulate either uniformly monoclausal structures or uniformly biclausal structures, that is, they do not actually rely on a concept of syntactic restructuring. Against this background, the goal of this chapter is to outline an approach to restructuring with control verbs in German that radically departs from standard approaches in that it presupposes that genuine syntactic restructuring does indeed exist, and can be held responsible for conflicting pieces of evidence that suggest both a monoclausal and a biclausal structure. The chapter is organized as follows. Following an illustration of infinitival constructions in German, I present conflicting evidence for restructuring with control verbs in German: There are arguments for a monoclausal analysis and there are arguments for a biclausal analysis. The Remove-based approach is shown to capture both the evidence for monoclausality and the evidence for biclausality.

The present work adopts a derivational, incremental, phase-based theory of syntax, with the elementary operation Merge at its center, as it has been developed by Chomsky and others within the minimalist program. Against this background, the main goal of this monograph is to develop an approach to the syntax of German that also envisages another primitive operation Remove that is a complete mirror image of Merge: Whereas Merge brings about structure building (both in the form of basic phrase structure generation, and in the form of movement), Remove leads to an elimination of structure. Merge and Remove obey the same constraints, among them the Strict Cycle Condition.

This short chapter focusses on general concepts involved in Remove-based analyses: conflicting structure assignments, short life cycle effects, and displacement without movement. In addition, it illustrates how the new approach may ultimately reconcile the seemingly incompatible trends towards simpler syntactic representations, on the one hand, and highly complex cartographic representations, on the other.

In the complex prefield construction in German, it looks as though more than one constituent can occupy the position in front of the finite verb in declarative root clauses. Two kinds of analysis can be found in the literature: In one approach, there are indeed multiple constituents in the SpecC domain; in another approach, complex prefields are in fact single VP constituents lacking an overt V head. In this chapter I argue that there is empirical evidence for both views, coming from the clause-mate condition, order restrictions, massive prefield placement, complex long-distance topicalization, and an indefiniteness constraint, on the one hand, and from freezing effects, Barss' generalization, bound variable pronouns, negative polarity items, idioms, left dislocation, and extraposition, on the other hand. I develop a derivational, minimalist analysis based on Remove, according to which complex prefields involve both simple VPs (at early stages of the derivation) and multiple constituents (after removal of the VP projection has taken place).