Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VP-topicalization in Germanic*

In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal VP-topicalization in Germanic gives rise to the presence of a dummy verb meaning ‘do’. Cross-linguistically, this is a rather uncommon strategy as comparable VP-fronting constructions in e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. Discussing several recent approaches to verb doubling showing that they all involve VP-evacuating head movement of the verb and subsequent deletion of the (low copy of) VP, I conclude that this derivation, and therefore verb doubling, should in principle also be available in Germanic where V-to-C movement provides the necessary VP-evacuating head movement of V. Aer discussing and rejecting some alternative explanations for the lack of verb doubling I propose that it is the result of a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP-movement, i.e. the fact that both movement operations are triggered by the same head C. e resulting prediction that verb doubling should result if there is independent V-to-T movement seems to be borne out.


Introduction
In a number of languages it is possible to displace the verb phrase, understood to be the verb and any associated direct or indirect objects, into the le periphery of the clause. Commonly, this displacement is associated with a topic or focus interpretation on the displaced constituent and some kind of contrast. Examples from Polish ( a), Hebrew ( b), German ( c), and Norwegian ( d) are given below. ' As for reading the book, she wants to do it today. ' (Norwegian) All of the above examples have in common that there is an auxiliary or modal verb form present in the sentence besides the lexical verb. Displacement of the latter therefore does not cause any problems related to the absence of the main verb from the (core of the) sentence. In the absence of an in ectable auxiliary or modal verb, one o en nds that a nite copy of the displaced lexical verb appears. is is the case in Polish ( a) and Hebrew ( b) as well as in a vast amount of other languages including Brazilian Portuguese (Bastos-Gee ), Buli (Hiraiwa b,a), Dagaare (Hiraiwa and Bodomo ), Krachi (Kandybowicz and Torrence ), Mani (Childs ), Russian (Abels , Aboh and Dyakonova ), Spanish (Vicente , ), Vietnamese (Tran , Trinh ), Yiddish (Cable ), and Yoruba (Manfredi ).
herbatę tea ] (to) Marek Marek wypije, will-drink ale but nie not wypije will-drink kawy. co ee ' As for drinking tea, Marek will drink it, but he will not drink co ee. ' (Polish, Bondaruk : ) b. [ VP Liknot buy.
et ha-praxim the-owers ], hi she kanta. bought ' As for buying the owers, she bought (them). ' (Hebrew, Landau : ) As will be shown in section , the most prominent recent analyses of this type of verb doubling link the overt pronunciation of the lower ( nite) verb copy to the fact that the V-head has to undergo head-movement to some higher functional head like Asp or T independently (see e.g. Nunes , Landau , Aboh and Dyakonova , Trinh , LaCara ). Most Germanic languages , however, exhibit a di erent pattern. When VP-topicalization occurs in the absence of an auxiliary or modal, instead of a gap or a verb copy there is a dummy verb usually translatable as do. is is shown for German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and English VP-topicalization in ( a-f Outside of the Germanic language family only a handful of languages have been reported to exhibit this pattern, namely Hausa, Skou, Wolof, and possibly also Welsh, Basque, and Breton (for details, see Hein ). e behaviour of the Germanic languages with regard to gap avoidance in VP-topicalization seems particularly unexpected in light of the fact that, with the exception of English, they all show at least some degree of V-to-higher functional head movement, i.e. V-to-C movement. Given that head movement is syntactic, it should always precede post-syntactic copy deletion of the low VP copy, giving rise to verb doubling. Instead, it seems that head movement in Germanic only applies a er the low VP copy has been deleted in the post-syntactic component. It is further noteworthy that English behaves like the other Germanic languages, despite lacking V and verb movement of any kind.
As the nature and location of head movement has been debated again recently (Zwart , Harizanov and Gribanova , Arregi and Pietraszko ) the phenomenon of verb doubling and its absence in VP-topicalization constructions might provide insights based on the underlying interaction of head movement and copy deletion.
In this paper, speci cally, I argue that the Germanic peculiarity follows from the fact that verb movement targets C in most Germanic languages, while it targets a lower T/Asp head in most of the languages exhibiting verb doubling. Crucially, the triggers for both VP-movement and V-movement are therefore located on the same head. is peculiarity of Germanic languages coupled with some general properties of probing and movement, I argue, leads to VP-topicalization bleeding V-to-C movement and thus to a lack of verb doubling. A post-syntactic conception of head movement (Chomsky , Boeckx and Stjepanović , Hale and Keyser , Merchant , Schoorlemmer and Temmerman , Platzack , Zwart , Korsah ) is therefore not necessary in order to account for the lack of verb doubling in Germanic. Rather, head movement can be treated as a true syntactic process (Lechner , , , Baltin , Iatridou and Zeijlstra , Roberts , Keine and Bhatt , Gribanova , Sailor ) e paper is structured as follows. Section provides some background on current analyses of verb doubling under V(P)-fronting detailing how they link the overt pronunciation of the low verb copy to head movement of V. I will discuss and reject some immediately conceivable explanations for the occurence of the dummy verb in section such as the independent presence of the dummy verb, the absence of head movement of V, and base generation of the topicalized VP with the dummy verb as a VP-proform. In section , I will develop an analysis in terms of bleeding and counter-bleeding between VP-movement and V-movement. Section is concerned with a few rami cations of the present approach, in particular concerning the Germanic languages English, Yiddish, and Afrikaans, as well as non-Germanic non-doubling languages. Further issues pertaining to embedded clauses, V-to-v movement, and dummy verb insertion are discussed in section . Section summarizes and concludes the paper.

Background on verb doubling
Since Koopman's ( ) widely received seminal work on verb-doubling verb-fronting in Vata a vast body of theoretical work on the topic has accumulated to this date both on bare verb fronting (i.e. V-fronting) and VP-fronting (see e.g. Piou , Bernabé , Lumsden and  ). All but one (LaCara ) of the most recent approaches are embedded in the Copy eory of Movement (Chomsky , Nunes ) where instead of a trace or gap there is a copy of the movee le in the root of the dependency which is later deleted as part of a PF process of copy deletion. As Abels ( ) and Nunes ( ) point out, a straightforward way to conceive of the clause-internal verb copy in verb doubling constructions is as an exceptionally pronounced lower copy of a movement dependency as depicted in ( ).
While the lower copy of the object in ( ) undergoes deletion at PF (indicated by strikethrough) and will go unpronounced, the low V copy itself remains undeleted for some reason to be speci ed and will hence be pronounced. us, given that there are in fact arguments in favour of V(P)fronting involving movement, the only thing that is missing is an explanation for the exceptional non-deletion of the low verb copy at PF. Several such explanations have been put forward in the literature (e.g. Nunes , Landau , Kandybowicz , Aboh and Dyakonova , Trinh , LaCara , Kandybowicz and Torrence ). As laid out in detail in what follows, they all derive verb doubling from the fact that the verb independently undergoes head movement (in whichever implementation) to a higher functional head which causes it to be exempt from deletion. Crucially, all else being equal, they therefore predict that Germanic V-to-C movement should give rise to verb doubling, too.
. Linearization con ict (Nunes, ) Revising and extending the ideas presented in his dissertation (Nunes ), Nunes ( ) proposes that the deletion of lower copies of a movement chain is the solution to contradicting linearization statements. His proposal rests on the assumption that linearization of a syntactic structure is derived from its hierarchical relations via the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA Kayne ) where c-command translates into linear precedence. e presence of two copies of an element X in two di erent positions, one being c-commanded by and the other c-commanding another element Y, then gives rise to the following partial linearization statements: • Y precedes X, because Y c-commands X • X precedes Y, because X c-commands Y.
is con ict is usually resolved by a process of Chain Reduction, which in the standard cases deletes all but the highest copy of a syntactic element.

( )
Chain Reduction (Nunes : ) Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that su ces for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA.
In cases of verb doubling in bare verb fronting, Nunes argues that the higher copy of the verb is morphologically reanalysed as forming a single terminal together with the attracting head to which it has (head-)moved ( ). Appealing to a proposal by Chomsky ( ), Nunes assumes that the LCA does not apply word-internally and that the higher copy therefore becomes invisible for the LCA as soon as it is fused with the attracting head. Consequently, it will not trigger Chain Reduction because it no longer causes a linearization con ict. In summary, the pronunciation of two links of a verb movement chain is the result of one of these links being morphologically fused with another head thereby becoming invisible for the LCA and consequently for Chain Reduction.
Nunes ( ) does not discuss verb doubling in VP-fronting contexts in his book but one can in principle conceive of two di erent structures for verb phrase fronting: In the rst structure, the VP moves as a whole phrase into the speci er of the attracting head (C here, but Foc or Top are also candidates) ( a). In the alternative structure, rst the V head adjoins to C, then the object DP moves into the speci er of CP ( b).
e second option can safely be discarded as it assigns the wrong constituency to the fronted verb phrase (though see Baltin on English VP-preposing) and, at least for most VO languages, also predicts the wrong linear order, namely OV, in the fronted verb phrase (see e.g. the Hebrew and Polish examples in section ). e correct structure of VP-fronting must hence be ( a). However, here, the verbal head cannot morphologically fuse with the attracting head as they are not in a sisterhood relation. We would thus expect Chain Reduction to apply regularly deleting the lower VP copy. is expectation is not borne out given the existence of a nite copy of the fronted verb in VP-fronting constructions in many languages, including Hebrew and Polish.
is nite verb copy can only arise if the low V copy moves to T and fuses with it, rendering it invisible for the LCA ( ).
head-mvmt phrasal mvmt fusion A fused head should only allow for insertion of a single vocabulary item. e fact that in ectional material (usually associated with the non-fused T head) occurs on the low V head, which is targeted for insertion of the verb, is accounted for if Fusion takes place a er Vocabulary Insertion (as argued by Kandybowicz ). Turning to Germanic VP-topicalization, we need an explanation for why V-to-C movement does not similarly lead to fusion of V and C, and eventually, to verb doubling, as expected under Nunes's ( ) approach. Simply stating that V does not fuse with C is an unsatisfactory solution.
. . An edge constraint on copy deletion (Trinh, ) Trinh ( , ), in trying to account for verb doubling with bare verb fronting, proposes the following condition on the mechanism responsible for deletion of super uous copies.
( ) Edge Condition on Copy Deletion (Trinh : ) For any chain (α, β) where α is the higher and β the lower copy of the moved constituent, deletion of β requires that β ends an XP.
In this formulation, β ends an XP if and only if the last morpheme of β coincides with the last morpheme of the XP. e underlying observation leading to ( ) is that a majority of verb doubling languages are VO languages while multiple verb pronunciation is absent from OV languages despite them exhibiting verbal fronting. Under the assumption that verb fronting in addition to being remnant VP movement, can also be derived by A-head movement of the verb into the le periphery, Trinh ( ) deduces three possible structure-types of verb fronting ( ).
( ) Possible underlying structures of verb fronting (Trinh : ) In type ( a) V has undergone A-head movement. e lower V copy does not end an XP and therefore will not be deleted as it does not satisfy the ECCD. is type is supposedly instantiated by Hebrew and Vietnamese. In type ( b), V again has undergone A-head movement. Here however, the lower V copy is at the end of an XP, namely VP. e ECCD is thus ful lled and the lower V copy is deleted. is structure is claimed to underly verb topicalization in German and Dutch. Finally, type ( c) has been generated by remnant VP movement, and the lower VP copy is deleted in accordance with the ECCD as it ends the vP. is structure, Trinh argues, underlies verb topicalization in Swedish and Norwegian. In summary, Trinh ( ) proposes that lower copies of a movement chain can only be deleted if they end a phrase. is Edge Condition on Copy Deletion predicts that SVO languages show verb doubling in verb fronting, whereas SOV languages exhibit a gap instead. Languages that are SVO but do not show verb doubling are argued to employ remnant verb phrase movement rather than A-head movement of V to SpecCP in verb fronting.
As is obvious from ( c), VP-fronting (be that a full or a remnant VP) in a head-initial language should never give rise to verb doubling, since the low VP copy always ends an XP, namely vP or TP, and should consequently undergo copy deletion. As Hebrew and Polish attest, this is quite the contrary of what is the case (also see data discussed in Manfredi ). However, if V-to-T movement is taken into consideration, the verb would be correctly expected to evade deletion. Although the lower copy of this head-movement chain does not end an XP, it is deleted as part of the low copy of the VP-chain, which does end an XP, leaving the higher copy to be pronounced. A er all, Trinh's ( ) approach turns out to be able to account for verb doubling under VP-fronting, then.
Concerning VP-topicalization in the Germanic languages, however, without further qualications it leads us to expect V-to-C movement to have the same e ect as V-to-T movement. It should evacuate the verb from the low VP copy prior to its deletion. Note further that this approach would possibly predict that head-nal Germanic languages should not delete the low VP copy, as it does not end the vP, given that some morpheme realizes the v head.

. P-recoverability and Economy of Pronunciation (Landau, )
For Landau ( ), the decision whether a copy is spelled-out or deleted is based on its phonological/prosodic properties. Working in the Copy eory of Movement, Landau's explanation for the fact that in most cases not all copies of a movement chain are pronounced is the economy constraint in ( ) which triggers deletion at PF.

( )
Economy of Pronunciation (Landau : ) Delete all chain copies at PF up to P-recoverability. e deletion operation thus applies freely in the PF component of grammar up to a certain boundary. is boundary is set by P-recoverability.
( ) P(honological)-Recoverability (Landau : ) In a chain ⟨X . . . X i . . . X n ⟩, where some X i is associated with phonetic content, X i must be pronounced.
In the standard cases, ( ) ensures that at least one copy in a movement chain of non-empty elements is pronounced simply because all copies in such a chain have phonetic content themselves that would be irrecoverably lost if they were all deleted. Now the key to both spell-out of the highest copy and spell-out of multiple copies as in verb doubling is what it means for a copy to be "associated with phonetic content". Landau ( ) proposes the following de nition ( ).
( ) X is associated with phonetic content i : a. X has phonetic content, or b. X is in a position speci ed with some phonological requirement. e crucial part of ( ) is the second clause. According to Landau, certain syntactic positions can impose phonological requirements on the elements in these positions. One example is head movement of V to T, where V adjoins to T and has the phonological requirement to provide a lexical host for the tense (or other) a xes in T, an idea that, as Landau acknowledges, is not new (see Davis and Prince , Dekydspotter , Abels ). In this case, according to clause b. of ( ), V is associated with phonetic content and therefore will be pronounced. e lower copy of the V-movement chain can be recovered from the higher copy and does not ful ll a speci c phonological requirement in its position. e situation is di erent with multiple copy spell-out. Based on data from Hebrew V(P) fronting, Landau claims that in verb doubling structures, the two overtly realized copies each ful ll a distinct phonological requirement. e position adjoined to T is associated with the phonological requirement of providing a lexical host for tense and agreement features. e position SpecTopP imposes a phonological requirement on V as the head of VP, namely, the speci c intonational pattern of fronted VPs. is pattern consists of a high pitch accent on the stressed syllable of the fronted verb followed by a low tone plateau (Landau : ). Consequently, both the V copy in SpecTopP and the one in T ful ll some phonological requirement that is not recoverable from any of the other copies and, hence, they are both una ected by deletion.
In summary, one prerequisite of double pronunciation is that the verb moves at least twice in order for there to be two di erent target positions with di erent additional phonological demands because the verb's base position does not have any such requirements. Commonly, one of these movements is V-to-Asp/T/C movement.
Turning to Germanic, the position adjoined to C probably is associated with some phonological requirement demanding the overt pronunciation of the verb in second position, as most Germanic languages are V languages. Even when V-to-C movement does not take place, i.e. in VPtopicalizations, a dummy verb has to be inserted to ful ll this requirement. e phonological requirement ful lled by the fronted VP is not immediately evident. One could thus expect the V copy inside the fronted VP to go unpronounced due to ( ) since P-recoverability is provided by the V copy in C. However, this would predict that VP-topicalization in Germanic should look just like regular object topicalization, which is clearly not the case. Landau ( ) thus fails to account for the lack verb doubling in Germanic VP-topicalization.
Note that this requires syntactic terminals to either start out with phonological information speci ed or be equipped with it (e.g. via Vocabulary Insertion in Distributed Morphology) prior to the application of the deletion operation.

. Parallel chains (Aboh & Dyakonova, )
In a similar vein, Aboh ( ), Aboh and Dyakonova ( ) and Kandybowicz ( ), Kandybowicz and Torrence ( ) argue that the verb in verb doubling contexts undergoes two separate movements into distinct positions. e two movement dependencies have a seperate head but a common tail in the base position of the verb. e two chains are reduced regularly, that is, the lower copy is deleted while the highest one of each chain is pronounced resulting in double spell-out of the verb. is is an instance of Chomsky's ( ) parallel chains where the lowest copy of a moved element is part of both an A-chain and an A-chain. e proposals by Aboh ( ), Aboh and Dyakonova ( ) and Kandybowicz ( ) di er from Chomsky's original one in that at least one of the two parallel movements is head movement. Working on Nupe, Kandybowicz ( ) argues that the verb root A-head moves into SpecFocP. Independent of this verb fronting, the verb root has to move to v in the language (Kandybowicz : chap. ). Since both Foc and v separately probe for the verb root, two parallel chains are created, one being a regular head movement (HM) chain and the other being an A-head movement (AHM) chain ( ).
HM AHM An ordinary mechanism of chain reduction then inspects each chain separately and deletes its lower copy.
Aboh and Dyakonova investigate VP fronting in Russian and V fronting in Gungbe. ey propose that Agree-Tense-Aspect features on an Asp head (which, working under the Split-C hypothesis, Rizzi , they assume are inherited from Fin) trigger the short V-to-Asp head movement. e Foc or Top head, on the other hand, bears a discourse-related feature probing for a focus feature on V and triggering V-to-Foc head movement ( ) (for details see Aboh and Dyakonova : § ).

HM HM
Since, again, Foc and Asp probe seperately two distinct movement chains exist which will undergo regular chain reduction deleting the common tail of both but leaving their respective heads to be pronounced. Kandybowicz ( ) claims that a linearization con ict (which is the trigger for deletion of all but one copy in Nunes ) between the two non-distinct elements in the heads of the separate chains does not arise because the lower chain between V and v is entirely contained within the vP phase. In cyclic phase-based spell-out, this chain will pass the interfaces and thus undergo Chain Reduction and Linerization before the V-to-SpecFocP chain becomes available at PF. However, in standard conceptions of phase transfer, the phase head itself, v in this case, is not part of the domain that is sent o to PF. As v contains the higher chain link of the V-to-v chain, we would expect it to not be visible by Chain Reduction and therefore, the lower link of that chain should not be deleted. Instead, upon transfer of the domain of the CP phase, both the V copy in SpecFocP and the lower one in the complex v head become available at PF and should cause a linearization con ict that should result in the deletion of the V copy in v, contrary to fact. VP/vP movement is supposed to be the result of Generalized Pied-piping (Chomsky : ) where the whole VP/vP moves instead of the V head and lands in SpecFocP/SpecTopP instead of adjoining to Foc/Top.
In summary, verb doubling is due to the fact that there are two distinct chains of verb (head-)movement, one to SpecFocP (Kandybowicz ) or to Foc/Top (Aboh and Dyakonova ) and the other to v/Asp, which are both rooted in the same position, namely the verb's base position. Whatever the mechanism is that ensures that in the common cases only the highest copy of a chain is pronounced, it also applies to these verb chains and deletes the lower copies while retaining the highest one in a regular fashion. Consequently, two copies of the verb are phonetically realized. erefore, like in Landau ( ), verb doubling is contingent on the verb moving to some higher functional head like v or Asp (or T) in addition to its displacement into the le periphery.
Turning to Germanic, as C attracts both a V head and a VP phrase it is the case that there are two di erent chains, a head-movement chain and a phrasal movement chain. Of these the respective higher copies should be retained, the V adjoined to C and the VP in SpecCP, resulting in verb doubling. e parallel chains account thus fails to account for the Germanic pattern.

. Non-syntactic head movement (LaCara, )
e most recent proposal that is concerned with verb doubling in verbal fronting constructions is LaCara ( ). He suggests that one can straightforwardly derive verb doubling if one abandons the idea that head movement is successive syntactic adjunction of a head to a higher head (see e.g. Travis , Pollock , Vikner ). Concretely, he adopts the view of head movement as Con ation (Hale and Keyser , Harley , ) where the features µ X of a head X that trigger lexical insertion come to be present on higher heads under certain conditions. Due to economy considerations, insertion of actual morphemes in the presence of more than one head with the features to be expressed then only takes place in the highest head that contains them. Head movement is therefore not treated as actual displacement of a syntactic terminal but rather as a kind of feature propagation, where all the features of a lower head are also present on any higher head within a certain domain.
As a consequence, there is only one syntactic movement that leads to the creation of verb copies, namely movement of the verb phrase to SpecCP, to which a copy deletion mechanism applies in a regular fashion deleting all but the highest copy. Crucially, if a language shows independent V-to-T movement, the verb's insertion-triggering features µ V are passed up to T by Con ation. erefore, besides being spelled out as part of the verb phrase occupying SpecCP, the verb will also be pronounced in T despite there not being an actual V head in this position ( ).
A-mvmt Con ation Con ation

Vocabulary Insertion
For LaCara ( ) the pronunciation of a second verb token is independent of any actual movement or resolution mechanism as it is the regular consequence of a distinct operation, Con ation, that mimics the e ects of classical head movement. Nonetheless, the core of his proposal still is the idea that also underlies the parallel chains accounts (Aboh , Aboh and Dyakonova , Kandybowicz ) and to some extent Landau's ( ) P-recoverability approach: e verb undergoes two movements whose nal landing sites are pronounced. LaCara ( ) di ers only in the implementation of the second (shorter) movement step thereby circumventing several open issues about copy deletion that were le unresolved in the other accounts. However, he ties double pronunciation to V-to-v/T movement just as those did.
Turning to Germanic, this account, like the two previous ones, fails to account for the lack of verb doubling. is is because V-to-C movement, like V-to-T movement, should propagate V's µ V features out of the lower VP copy. erefore, they should evade copy deletion resulting in the verb spelled out twice, once in the VP copy occupying SpecCP and once in C, which (a er con ation has taken place) is the highest head containing the verb's µ V features.
To conclude, in all ve approaches, the overt pronunciation of the lower verb copy is due to it having combined with a higher functional head (either via head-movement or via Con ation). erefore, we can identify two independent components of verb doubling: (i) some displacement of a verbal constituent into the le periphery and (ii) V-to-higher functional head movement.

e Germanic peculiarity
A er this review of some approaches to verb doubling in V(P)-fronting constructions, let us return to Germanic. As shown above, the Germanic languages generally comprise of some displacement operation of a verbal constituent into the le periphery of the clause, namely VP-topicalization. As is well known, with the exception of English, all of the above-mentioned Germanic languages also exhibit an independent head-movement operation of V out of VP to some higher functional head, namely V-to-C movement (at least in matrix clauses, Vikner ). All else being equal, we would therefore expect them to show verb doubling under all ve of the above-mentioned analyses provided that V-to-C movement is essentially equivalent to V-to-Asp/T movement ( ).
A-mvmt HM Yet, Germanic VP-topicalization unexpectedly does not result in verb doubling. Rather, a dummy verb takes the place of the nite verb clause-internally. Why does Germanic VP-topicalization behave di erently from VP-fronting in so many other languages? In the following, I will rst brie y present and discuss a very parallel pattern found with verb-stranding VP-ellipsis. A er a short digression about the locus of head movement in grammar, I will go on to discuss and reject some conceivable explanations for the peculiar Germanic behaviour involving the claims that (i) topicalization is not (A-)movement, (ii) there is no V-to-C movement, (iii) the dummy verb is independently present in a presumed base construction to VP-topicalization, (iv) the dummy verb is a proform in a le -dislocation structure, and (v) the C head comes too late to trigger the relevant head movement.

. An intriguingly parallel pattern
Interestingly, we nd a strikingly similar peculiarity in the realm of VP ellipsis. In a number of languages, including (Brazilian and European) Portuguese, Hebrew and Russian, it is possible to pronounce the verb of an otherwise elided VP as shown in ( ). is phenomenon is commonly referred to as verb-stranding VP-ellipsis (VVPE). It has generally received a very similar analysis to the verb-doubling VP-topicalizations (VVPT), namely, that independently attested V-raising moves the verb out of the VP before ellipsis takes place (Goldberg ).
Note that Landau ( ) argues that examples such as ( b) are actually better analysed as involving argument ellipsis (see also footnote ). As Goldberg ( ) states, all else being equal, we would expect any language that allows VPE and comprises of some independent V-out-of-VP-raising to exhibit VVPE. Curiously, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (Mainland Scandinavian, MSc), do not ful l this expectation. ey do allow VPE ( ) , and dispose of V-raising out of VP, but crucially disallow VVPE ( ). Instead of a copy of the lexical verb, a nite form of the dummy verb gøre, gjøre, göra 'do' is pronounced. det. det 'Maria didn't drive the car, but Johan did. ' (Swedish, Sailor : ) is intriguingly parallel lack of VVPE in MSc has been noted by Sailor ( ). He argues, that it derives from the di erence in the height of V-raising. While it targets T or Asp in the languages that show VVPE it targets the higher C head in MSc. He adopts the theory of ellipsis of Aelbrecht ( ), where the ellipsis site essentially becomes opaque for any syntactic operations a er the licensor of ellipsis, which is T in the case of VP ellipsis, has been merged. Now, if T licenses ellipsis and also triggers V-raising, both operations are assumed to take place simultaneously, At least for Norwegian and Swedish, VPE requires polarity focus ( oms : ) in contrast to English. German and Dutch are not discussed here as they do not show the necessary VPE in the rst place. Note that the Norwegian example in this form is only accepted by some speakers. For the others, the pronoun det necessarily has to follow the dummy verb as in (i).  resulting in a structure where the verb has moved out of the (to-be-)elided VP ( ). is gives rise to verb-stranding VP-ellipsis on the surface.
However, if the trigger for V-raising only enters the derivation a er ellipsis has been licensed, the ellipsis site has already become opaque and V-raising out of it may not take place anymore. is is the case in MSc, where the trigger for V-raising is located on C whereas the licensor of ellipsis is T ( ). is derivation gives rise to a lack of VVPE in MSc.
( ) T merges: ] y E ectively, Sailor ( ) makes it possible for both head movement and ellipsis to interact in both a bleeding and a counter-bleeding way by placing them both within syntax proper. e di erent order of application then falls out from the independent property of a language showing V-to-T or V-to-C movement. In section . , I argue that it is not straightforwardly possible to similarly place the copy deletion operation inside syntax proper. Nonetheless, the analysis that I put forward in this paper (see section ) ultimately also derives the presence vs. absence of VVPT from the relative distribution of the triggers for V-raising and copy deletion but in a di erent way than Sailor ( ).

. Short digression: e locus of head movement in grammar
Recently, the discussion about the locus of head movement has been gaining traction again (Schoorlemmer , Schoorlemmer and Temmerman , Platzack , Zwart , Harizanov and Gribanova ). One proposal to reconcile both sides of the argument comes from Harizanov and Gribanova ( ). ey argue that head movement is not a unitary phenomenon, but rather falls into two types of movement with di erent properties. e rst kind is proper syntactic head movement which shows semantic e ects, crucially in uences word order and does not build morphologically complex words. e second type is postsyntactic head movement which may apply downwards (Lowering, Embick and Noyer ) or upwards (Raising). is type has no semantic e ects and is involved in the build-up of morphologically complex words. Crucially, Harizanov and Gribanova ( ) take V-to-C movement to be of the former kind, i.e. taking place in syntax, while V-to-T/Asp movement is regarded as being of the latter, post-syntactic kind. Considering the patterns of interaction of these two kinds of V-raising with copy deletion on the one side and ellipsis on the other, we nd that V-to-T movement (as in Hebrew, Portuguese, and Russian) counter-bleeds both copy deletion and ellipsis, whereas V-to-C movement (as in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) seems to be bled by those operations. Under the common assumption that ellipsis and copy deletion are post-syntactic operations, Harizanov and Gribanova's proposal cannot be upheld. If V-to-C movement is really syntactic, we would expect it to always apply before ellipsis and copy deletion giving rise to both verb-stranding VP ellipsis and verb-doubling VP-topicalization, contrary to fact. Similarly, if V-to-T movement is post-syntactic, we would expect it to be possible that at least in some V-to-T languages ellipsis and copy deletion may bleed V-raising.

. VP-topicalization is A-movement
Coming back to the main topic, one conceivable explanation for the lack of verb doubling with VP-topicalization in Germanic is that VP-topicalization does not involve movement. If the clauseinitial VP were base generated in its surface position with the dummy verb being a kind of coreferential item, there is no need for movement of any kind (cf. Lumsden and Lefebvre , Lumsden , Larson and Lefebvre , Dekydspotter , Cable ). Without VP-movement there are no copies of V to be exceptionally pronounced hence no verb doubling would occur.
Unfortunately, standard A-movement diagnostics like islands and long-distance extraction are not necessarily decisive on the question at hand. is is because islands usually test for extraction out of an embedded nite clause, which leaves the possibility that the VP has been base generated in the le periphery of this clause. at is, they usually test for movement out of a clause, but our question is concerned with movement inside a single clause. Some more reliable tests for this kind of movement come from reconstruction e ects and extractions from coordinate structures.
With the former, the moved VP shows binding e ects associated with its base position. Concretely, an anaphor in object position will still be interpreted as being bound by the subject although it has been displaced as part of the VP. is reconstruction for Principle A is shown to hold in German ( a) and Norwegian ( a). A referential expression in the topicalized VP, on the other hand, will be unable to be coreferential with a pronominal item in the subject position because it will be interpreted in the base position where such coreferentiality would constitute a Principle C violation. is is shown to be the case for German ( b) and Norwegian ( b).
As far as I know, VP-topicalization in other Germanic languages like Danish, Dutch, and Swedish behaves alike with regard to cross-over e ects, reconstruction, and topicalization from coordinate structures.
Note that in contrast to the Norwegian examples the subject in the second conjuct must be overtly distinct from the one in the rst conjunct. e conjunction must therefore be between C ′ constituents rather than VP constituents. Otherwise, the sentence could receive a structural analysis as an SLF construction (Subjectlücke in finiten Sätzen, Höhle , , ). is construction has, together with a few others from various languages, been subsumed under the term asymmetric coordination because super cially they all look like proper coordination but crucially do not show the same syntactic behaviour. Most importantly, they seem to be able to violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint. is also holds for the SLF construction, where for instance an NP can be topicalized from one of the two conjuncts without rendering the sentence ungrammatical (ia). Equally, VP-topicalization out of one conjunct in such an SLF construction results in a grammatical sentence (ib).  Asymmetric coordinations have been analyzed as underlying subordinations that become super cial coordinations in the course of the derivation (see Weisser ). For an analysis of SLF constructions along these lines see Barnickel ( ).
From that I conclude that VP-topicalization is in fact (A-)movement of a VP from its base position into the le periphery rather than base generation of a VP in the le periphery.

. V-to-C movement takes place
Another logically possible explanation for the lack of verb doubling in Germanic VP-topicalization concerns, of course, the second movement step that is fundamental to the above approaches to verb doubling, head movement of V out of VP. In the case of Germanic, this movement is V-to-C movement. If, for some reason, the verb were to not move to C it would not leave the low VP copy. When copy deletion then applied it would delete the verb as part of the low VP copy.
is explanation is considered here only as a logical complement to the one in the previous section. Although the status of V-to-T movement is notoriously unclear for the Germanic languages (modulo English), at least since Vikner ( ) it is well established that they all (modulo English) exhibit V-to-C movement in matrix clauses.
In matrix clauses, the nite verb (bold faced) always appears in the second position in the clause preceding adverbs or negation (italicized) ( ) while it follows them in embedded clauses ( ).
Vikner's ( ) analysis (the current standard analysis) of this word order variation between matrix and embedded clauses is that while the latter show the verb in its base position inside the VP, the former involve head movement of the verb across any intervening adverbs like negation to C (see also Koster , den Besten ; usually assumed to proceed via V-to-T movement in accordance with the Head Movement Constraint, Travis ). ere have, of course, been arguments from single languages or language groups challenging various details of his proposal, among them arguments that Danish subject-initial clauses are TPs and the verb thus only moves as high as T (Mikkelsen ), debates whether V-to-T movement in the Scandinavian languages is contingent on a V structure (Wiklund et al. ), and doubts that a T head exists at all in German (Haider ). Nonetheless, the general consensus still is that the word order change between matrix and embedded clauses in Germanic is due to V-to-C movement in the former and its absence in the latter. e lack of verb doubling with VP-topicalization in Germanic can therefore not be attributed to the absence of head movement of the verb out of VP.

. e dummy verb is not independently present
Yet another possible explanation for the lack of verb doubling and the presence of a dummy verb in Germanic VP-topicalization is that it is derived from an independent construction that already contains the dummy verb in an auxiliary position. us, when the VP undergoes topicalization the dummy verb is stranded like any other tense auxiliary or modal verb and V-to-C movement is blocked by this dummy verb. Indeed, such an independent construction, the so-called tun-periphrase, is attested in German. In colloquial German it is possible to have the main lexical verb stay in-situ while an in ected form of the dummy verb tun 'do' acts as the nite verb occupying the nal position in embedded sentences ( a) and the second position in matrix sentences ( b) (for details see Schwarz At least for languages that do not comprise of such an independent dummy verb construction we would still be le to explain why they do not show verb doubling. Second, as Bayer ( ) notes, even the tun-periphrase in German is restricted to stage-level predicates. Individual-level predicates like besitzen 'own' or ähneln 'resemble' are exempt from occuring in the complement of tun 'do' ( ).
us, the tun-periphrase cannot act as a derivational base for all cases of VP-topicalization which lack the a priori expected verb doubling.
In summary, even though a construction where the dummy verb is independently present may serve as the base for some cases of VP-topicalization with a dummy verb in some languages it is far from being a satisfactory account of the general lack of verb doubling in Germanic. .

VP-topicalization is not le dislocation
One last possibility to explain the lack of verb doubling in Germanic is that VP-topicalization is actually a (contrastive) le dislocation structure (Ott )  In this kind of structure, there is a le -peripheral element Den Peter, which precedes an independently grammatical clause with a resuming pronominal element den. In analogy, the topicalized VPs in ( a) However, this approach is untenable for two reasons. First, note that ( ) violates the V property of German, if both constituents Den Peter and den are parts of a single clause. e fact that ( ) is still grammatical has been taken as evidence that the le -dislocated constituent is not part of the clause as its resuming element (Zaenen , Ott ). Now, if the topicalized VP in ( ) corresponds structurally to Den Peter in ( ), it should also be outside of the following clause.
is would leave the clause without a preverbal constituent in violation of V . Consequently, ( ) should be ungrammatical, contrary to fact (for a similar argumentation on Swedish VPtopicalization, see Källgren and Prince ). Second, there are VP-le dislocation constructions in all Germanic languages which parallel the le dislocation structure in ( ) even closer than the VP-topicalization in ( ) does in that they also seemingly violate the V requirement of a single preverbal constituent ( ).
In these constructions, the resuming element (corresponding to den in ( )) is the pronominal det/das rather than the nite verb gjør/tut.
One could, of course, argue that VP-topicalization is derived from VP le dislocation by topic drop of det/das which is in principle a feasible analysis. However, this account does not extend to V-topicalization which is available in addition to VP-topicalization in Dutch and German ( ). As ( ) exempli es, V le dislocation is ungrammatical (at least in German) and could thus not serve as a derivational base for V-topicalization. Both V-and VP-topicalization (at least in German) behave in a parallel fashion syntactially (see Hein : §A. . . ) which strongly suggests that they share a common derivation di ering only in whether the moved category is a full VP or a remnant VP. is parallelism would be neglected by the topic drop analysis of VP-topicalization. An account of VP-topicalization based on VP le dislocation is therefore not persuasive. In fact, Ott ( ) presents the inverse account, which derives contrastive le dislocation from topicalization.

. V-to-C movement is not bled by spell-out of VP
Connected to the nature of the relevant head movement in Germanic there is another seemingly elegant way to account for the di erence between Germanic and other languages. In contrast to Hebrew, Polish, and many other non-Germanic verb doubling languages, the head movement that is supposedly responsible for the exceptional pronunciation of the lower V copy is V-to C rather than V-to-T movement. Combined with current Phase eory (Chomsky , ), this independent di erence might make for a neat account of the lack of verb doubling. An analogous proposal has been put forward in Sailor ( ) to account for the lack of verb-stranding VP-ellipsis in Mainland Scandinavian despite showing the crucial ingredients for it independently, namely VP-ellipsis and head movement of V out of the ellipsis-site.
Suppose that both CP and vP are phases whose domain (i.e. complement) is sent o to PF at a certain point of the derivation rendering it opaque for probing and extraction. Suppose further that head-movement is always triggered by a head-movement feature [○H○] on the criterial head (i.e. the goal of the head movement process). In Germanic, the triggering head would have to be C since V always requires V-to-C movement. V-to-T only occurs as a by-product of V-to-C due to locality constraints such as the Head Movement Constraint (Travis ). at is, V-to-T is never induced by T, only by C (see Vikner , van Craenenbroek and Haegeman ). Now, if V only started moving when the movement-trigger C enters the structure, it should actually already be inaccessible for probing as it is properly included inside the domain of the vP phase I owe this argument to Klaus Abels. I am not considering any of the various modi cations of phase theory here, such as parameterized phases (Bošković ), phase extension (den Dikken ), or phase sliding (Gallego ). e conlusions might turn to out to be di erent for those approaches.
( ). It should therefore regularly undergo copy deletion as part of the low VP copy thereby explaining the lack of verb doubling.
Although this proposal very elegantly derives the presence and absence of verb doubling in di erent languages from the interaction of an independent di erence in height of a language's V-movement with general principles of phase theory it does not hold up to closer scrutiny as it leads to wrong predictions concerning V-to-T languages and V-to-C languages. Two scenarios are conceivable di ering in whether the strong or the weak version of the Phase Impenetrability Condition is taken to hold.
Under the strong PIC (Chomsky ), the domain of the phase becomes opaque as soon as the phase is completed. In our case, upon merge of the subject in its base position in SpecvP the domain of vP, i.e. VP, would become opaque and inaccessible for probing from the outside. As both T ( a) and C ( b) are merged a er completion of the vP phase, V-attracting probes on these heads come too late to trigger head movement of V.
opaque domain erefore, both Germanic (with C being the V-movement trigger) and non-Germanic languages (with T or Asp being the V-movement trigger) should behave alike in VP-fronting contexts: Both should not exhibit verb doubling. As this is not the case, the account based on the strong version of the PIC cannot be correct.
Under the weak PIC (Chomsky ), the phase domain only becomes opaque upon merger of the next-higher phase head. us, the domain of the vP phase (VP) will be inaccessible for probing once the C head enters the structure. In this case, a head-movement trigger in T/Asp may probe for V inside the VP as T/Asp is merged before C and V head-moves to T/Asp ( a). However, as soon as C is merged, VP becomes opaque and the head-movement trigger on C cannot probe for V inside the VP ( b).
opaque domain is straightforwardly derives the occurrence of verb doubling in V-to-T/Asp languages like Hebrew and Polish but the lack thereof in V-to-C languages like the Germanic ones. Unfortunately, If, as is standardly assumed, V-to-v movement takes place qua default, V should be accessible to C as part of the edge of the phase. In order for a phase-based approach to work, one would have to adopt a Voice head that intervenes between T and v, introduces the external argument, and constitutes the actual phase head (i) ( this approach also predicts that V-to-C movement should be blocked in all instances where vP (and CP) is a phase. is commonly also includes regular declarative matrix clauses lacking any VP-topicalization at all. We would thus falsely expect these to not exhibit V-to-C movement, i.e. V word order. In order to save the account one would have to encode the presence/absence of VP-topicalization somewhere low in the clause either by stating that vP is arbitrarily only a phase in sentences that show VP-topicalization or by claiming that v or T act as exceptional V-movement triggers in clauses without VP-topicalization. In my opinion, both options equally lack independent evidence. A further proposal where V-raising is bled by copy deletion would be to suggest that a low copy is deleted as soon as its c-commanding higher copy is generated. In the case of VP-topicalization, this would be when C enters the structure and attracts the VP into its speci er. Crucially, though, C is also the head that attracts the verbal head. Following Sailor ( ), this would mean that both V-raising and VP-topicalization (plus the associated immediate deletion of the low VP copy) take place simultaneously as has been the case for VVPE when T both attracts the verb and triggers VP-ellipsis (see section . , example ( )). Consequently, under this proposal we would expect Germanic V languages to exhibit VVPT, contrary to fact. In order to derive the lack of VVPT, one would have to postulate that although both operations are triggered by C, VP movement (and associated CD) takes place before V-movement, i.e. that the features triggering those operations are ordered on C. While ordered features on heads have been proposed (see van Koppen , Müller , Halpert , Georgi , Assmann et al. , Puškar , Murphy and Puškar , a.o.), this order has to be extrinsically determined. Furthermore, it would remain unexplained why they could not apply in the exact reverse order.
However, I think that this line of reasoning is essentially on the right track. erefore, in the following section, I will develop a proposal where the lack of VVPT in Germanic follows from a xed order of application between VP-movement and V-raising, which itself falls out from independent properties of the underlying structure of the clause.

An explanation based on head-height
In the preceding section, I have argued that VP-topicalization in Germanic languages is indeed (A-)movement and that V-to-C movement does take place in these languages. us, all necessary ingredients for verb doubling to occur are present. I have also shown that the unexpected lack of verb doubling can be neither explained by an independent presence of a dummy verb, nor be due to VP-topicalization being le dislocation, nor be attributed to the interaction of the head-movement-triggering heads with phase-boundaries.
In this section, I will propose an explanation based on the di erent height of the respective V-raising in verb doubling languages compared to Germanic languages.

. e role of height of head movement
As shown above, the di erence between verb doubling and do-support cannot be accounted for by the phase-based di erence in accessibility of V depending on whether T or C is the attracting head. Nonetheless, the one very prominent contrast between languages like Hebrew, Polish, and many other non-Germanic languages on the one side and Germanic languages on the other side is that the head movement supposedly responsible for verb doubling is V-to-T/Asp movement in the former, but V-to-C movement in the latter. us, the general idea that the height of head movement plays a role, as in Sailor's ( ) account of VVPE, is an attractive one. It would link the occurrence of either verb doubling or do-support with VP-topicalization in a language to an independent property of the language. In addition, this would be a property which is very prominent in the grammar and which is acquired quite early and consistently (Clahsen / , Santelmann , Bohnacker , Blom , Westergaard ). It thus provides an easily accessible and reliable cue for the learner as to which repair strategy the language uses in auxiliaryless VP-topicalization. Furthermore, it seems to be the case that of the abovementioned non-Germanic languages that show do-support in VP-fronting, many can be analyzed as also exhibiting V-to-C movement in the relevant constructions (see Ortiz de Urbina  ,  ,  Elordieta , Irurtzun , Duguine and Irurtzun for Basque; Schafer , for Breton; Watanabe for Welsh; and Martinović , for Wolof). An account in which the height of the functional head targeted by verb movement is responsible for which repair strategy occurs can straightforwardly derive this observation.
Hence, in the following, I will present a solution to the puzzle making use of this crucial di erence between Germanic and non-Germanic languages. Assuming that both phrasal movement and head movement require a featural trigger on the attracting head, what sets Germanic languages apart is that the trigger for head movement of the verb is located on the same head as the trigger for phrasal A-movement of the verb phrase, namely the C head ( ). In verb doubling languages, only the latter trigger is located on C, whereas the former is located on a functional head below C, namely T or Asp ( ). I claim that this di erence is responsible for the lack of verb doubling in Germanic. Two anonymous reviewers note that all cited languages with verb doubling (i.e. Portuguese, Hebrew, Polish, and Russian) also allow argument drop/ellipsis whereas the Germanic languages do not. Taking up on this observation, it might thus be the case that in the former, argument ellipsis is preferred over complete deletion of the low VP copy, thereby sparing the verb from non-pronunciation, in order to satisfy the constraint of having a nite verb in the clause. In the latter, this option is not available. e lower VP copy must therefore be deleted as a whole with dummy verb insertion taking place as a repair to provide the clause with a nite verb. While this observation is indeed an interesting one which might open up a di erent approach to the problem at hand, for reasons of space and coherence, I will not pursue it further in this paper.
In the next section, I will brie y lay out the details of the proposal and then show how the system derives Polish verb doubling and German dummy verb insertion in a VP-topicalization structure.
. Simultaneous probing and lower copy freezing I assume that movement, be that phrasal or head movement, is triggered by a feature on the attracting head.
is feature probes the c-command domain of the head looking for a goal (movement is preceded by agree Chomsky ). Upon encountering a goal, movement takes place immediately. Probing proceeds in a stepwise fashion as follows: First, the sister node XP of the probing head H is inspected. If no match occurs, the rst daughter of XP is inspected. If again no match occurs, the second daughter of XP is inspected. is process is repeated on the level below the daughters of XP until a matching goal is found (see Himmelreich ). Probing occurs as soon as the probe-bearing head is merged (Earliness Pesetsky , Řezáč ). Once a feature has found a goal and triggered any associated operations, it is discharged (marked by striking through).
Crucially, if a head bears more than one probe P , P , all of them probe simultaneously. is means that the node currently under inspection is checked for a match with both P and P . ere is thus no notion of ordering between probing of P and probing of P in the system (pace Müller , Georgi , Assmann et al. , Puškar ). In general, there are two types of movement-triggering features, one for phrasal movement ([•F•]), which leads to movement of the goal into the speci er of the attracting head, and another one for head movement ([○F○]), which leads to adjunction of the goal to the attracting head.
Working within the Copy eory of Movement, when α undergoes movement, a copy of it is le behind. Since not all copies receive an overt pronunciation there is assumed to be a post-syntactic mechanism Copy Deletion (CD) that identi es and deletes super uous copies. Various proposals have been made as to the exact de nition of this process (see e.g. Brody , Bobaljik , Groat and O'Neill , Pesetsky , , Nunes ). For concreteness, I will adopt Nunes' ( ) formalization here, which, roughly speaking, deletes lower copies under c-command from a higher copy in order to resolve a linearization con ict induced by the presence of more than one copy.
Moved constituents exhibit so-called freezing e ects, meaning that elements from inside a moved constituent cannot be further extracted from that constituent (Ross , , Wexler and Culicover , , Takahashi among many others; also see Corver for a recent overview). Within the copy theory of movement, I suggest this entails that all copies of a moved constituent YP have to be frozen. If only the highest copy (the one in the nal landing site) were inaccessible for subextraction ( in ( )), one would expect that a probe H searching for a goal XP that is part of YP could simply ignore the highest copy of XP and target the XP copy inside the lower copy of YP ( in ( )). Note that this cannot be precluded by a general account of intervention e ects as the goal XP in the higher copy of YP does not c-command the goal XP in the lower copy of YP and therefore does not count as an intervener ( ).
Since Agree is a necessary prerequisite for movement, the freezing condition can be formulated as a condition on Agree. I will thus assume the following formulation of a Condition on Movement-Triggering Agree (somewhat similar in spirit to Puškar's ( ) Condition on Agree Domains, albeit formulated on domination rather than c-command).
( ) Condition on Movement-Triggering Agree (CoMTA) Once a probe P has targeted a goal G triggering movement of G, a probe Q cannot induce movement of a constituent dominated by (any copy of) G.
We now turn to how this links verb doubling to the height of the target of verb movement.
. Deriving (the lack of) verb doubling e interplay between the locations of the movement-triggers, simultaneous probing and freezing straightforwardly derives the occurrence of verb doubling in V-to-T/Asp languages and its lack in V-to-C languages (without independent V-to-T).
Concerning V-to-T languages, the trigger for V movement is on T and that for VP movement on C. As T merges before C it is able to probe for the V head and attract it without hindrance. Only when C merges, is movement of the VP triggered by the [•VP•]-feature on C and the VP becomes frozen (indicated by boxing it). When copy deletion applies at PF, it deletes the lower VP copy. In the resulting structure, there are two copies of V, one in the complex V+T head and another one inside the VP in SpecCP ( ).
x y Copy deletion does not a ect the V copy in T, as it is not c-commanded by the higher V copy inside the VP in SpecCP. Note that the head targeted by verb movement need not necessarily be T in order for verb doubling to arise. It may also be Asp or Agr or any other functional head (except C) provided that it is located outside the constituent that undergoes fronting to SpecCP.
Turning to V-to-C languages, both probes are located on the C head. As multiple probes on the same head probe simultaneously, in Germanic languages probing for V and VP starts when the C head is merged. Now, VP is encountered earlier by the probing algorithm than V and, consequently, the VP probe nds its goal rst and triggers movement of VP to SpecCP leaving a (low VP) copy. Given that the freezing e ects also hold for lower copies of moved elements, the V probe, which encounters its goal later than the VP probe, fails to trigger V-to-C movement due to the CoMTA ( ). Copy deletion later deletes the low VP copy and the contained V with is leaves the derivation with the [○V○] feature on C not satis ed. However, I assume that such non-discharged head-movement triggering features can be discharged at spell-out as a Last Resort and thus do not lead to a crash of the derivation.
it resulting in a structure which contains only one copy of the lexical verb in the VP in SpecCP.
us, phrasal movement of VP bleeds head movement of V in V-to-C languages ( ).
ere are two crucial states of a airs in this derivation that come together to prevent the head movement: First, the constituent attracted by the head movement probe is contained inside the constituent attracted by the phrasal movement probe ( a). And, second, the head movement probe is not located on a head that is c-commanded by (i.e. lower than) the head bearing the phrasal movement probe ( b).

( ) Prerequisites for bleeding of head movement
, where > stands for c-command .
In the absence of ( b), ( a) alone is not su cient to prevent head movement.
is is the situation for VP-topicalization in V-to-T languages described in ( ), where the head targeted by the head movement probe, namely V, is dominated by the phrase targeted by the phrasal movement probe, namely VP. In this situation, verb movement is possible. Conversely, if ( b) is given, but not ( a), head movement should be allowed. is state of a airs is found with regular (non VP-topicalization) V sentences. An example from Norwegian is given in ( ). Since Koster ( ), iersch ( ), and den Besten ( ), the V property has been standardly analysed as verb movement to the C position coupled with phrasal movement of some XP into the speci er of CP. In the present framework, both of these movements are triggered by (features on) the C head (making ( b) true). Nonetheless, the presence of a phrasal movement feature besides a head movement probe does not and in fact must not block verb raising to C, as this would incorrectly rule out regular V sentences. Consider ( ), roughly representing the structure of ( ), where the internal argument of a transitive verb is targeted for movement to SpecCP.
x y z When C is merged, both of its probes start looking for a goal. According to the Agree algorithm, V is encountered rst and head moves to C. As the object is not contained in V (making ( b) false) For ease of exposition, I assume the phrasal probe to probe for the category VP here. In fact, the feature that this probe is looking for (especially in non-V languages like Polish or Hebrew) is probably an information-structural one, such probing for [•DP•] continues. It eventually encounters the object DP and triggers movement to SpecCP. us, head movement has taken place unhindered. Note that even if the attracted DP is higher than V in the structure, as would be the case for a subject, head movement may take place. In this situation, the subject would be encountered rst, triggering its movement to SpecCP. As V is not dominated by the subject, it is not frozen by subject movement and can be raised to C by [○V○]. With these general conditions in place we can now turn to two example derivations of VPtopicalization, one which shows verb doubling and another which exhibits no verb doubling.
ose are supposed to stand as exemplars for their respective language groups.

. Verb doubling in Polish VP-topicalization
One of the non-Germanic languages that shows verb doubling with VP-topicalization is Polish (Bondaruk , ). An example of the construction where the verb inside the fronted VP appears in the in nitive while its copy inside the clause is nite, is given in ( nie not wypije will-drink kawy. co ee ' As for drinking tea, Marek will drink it, but he will not drink co ee. ' (Polish, Bondaruk : ) As Witkoś ( ) argues, it also exhibits verb raising to Asp. e trigger for head movement and the trigger for VP-topicalization (a [• •] feature) thus reside on distinct heads, the former is on Asp while the latter is on C (assuming that SpecCP is the position for topics in Polish). e derivation of this sentence in the current system is as follows. First, the VP is built by merge of the verb with its object. e new phrase is in turn selected by v, which then introduces the subject. According to Witkoś ( ), the vP is then merged with an Asp head which initiates probing (step x) and triggers head movement of V (step y) ( ).

( ) Polish VP-topicalization: V-raising to Asp
x y Upon merger of the T head with AspP, the subject moves to SpecTP (step z). When C enters the derivation, its [• •] feature probes (step {) and attracts the -marked VP into its speci er (step |), resulting in a structure like ( ) with frozen VP copies (step }). Bondaruk ( , ) refers to this type of construction as a "predicate cle ", which implies a biclausal (base generation) structure. However, based on various A-movement diagnostics, she eventually attributes to it a monoclausal structure in which a verb phrase has moved into the le periphery. e fronted constituent in verb phrase fronting in Polish is actually vP rather than VP (see Bondaruk : , for arguments in favour of this). A more exact structure of verb phrase fronting would therefore be (i) with the fronted vP containing the subject and the object.
( ) Polish VP-topicalization: VP-to-SpecCP movement At spell-out, copy deletion (step~in ( )) then erases the lower subject copy. e lower VP copy is equally deleted (indicated by striking through) while the high VP copy survives because it is not c-commanded by any higher copy of VP. e main verb, thus, evades deletion by virtue of having moved to outside of the lower VP copy prior to copy deletion. is gives rise to verb doubling on the surface.

. Lack of verb doubling in German VP-topicalization
In contrast to Polish above, German does not show verb doubling with VP-topicalization. Instead of a nite copy of the fronted verb, a nite dummy verb tut appears in the V position ( ). Since German matrix clauses usually exhibit VP-evacuating verb movement, one would, however, expect it to actually show verb doubling analogous to other languages which independently comprise of VP-topicalization and V-raising. e di erence to Polish is that the verb raises all the way to C in German. erefore, both the phrasal movement probe and the head movement probe must be located on C. In the current system, this di erence is responsible for the lack of verb doubling. e derivation of ( ) proceeds as follows. First, the VP, vP, and TP are generated as usual with the subject moving from its base position in SpecvP to SpecTP (step x, probing of T for the subject is ignored here). Upon merge of C, both of its probes start looking for a goal in the c-command domain of C. According to the Agree algorithm (Himmelreich ), the TP node is checked rst. As no matching feature is found, next, the subject is probed. Again, no matching feature is encountered. us, probing targets the T head (skipping the T ′ node as, by assumption, Agree only takes place with X and XP categories) and, yet again, no match is found. is continues for vP, the lower copy of the subject, and the v head. Eventually, the VP is encountered. As it bears the [ ] feature, it matches the [• •] is does not a ect the argumentation here, because crucially, the verb head moves as high as Asp. Since Asp is located higher than both VP and vP the verb leaves the lower copy of the fronted constituent before it is deleted independent of whether it is VP or vP. e additional copy of the subject inside the fronted vP will undergo deletion in the same way that the object copy does in a remnant VP movement structure. For reasons of consistency and ease of exposition, I simplify Polish verb phrase fronting to be movement of VP rather than vP.
I explicitly make no claim about the highly controversial issue of subject movement or the existence of T in German here (for discussion see e.g. Haider ). Subject movement is included in the derivation solely for comparability with the Polish derivation above. probe (step y) and is attracted to SpecCP (step z). Crucially, this renders its internals opaque for further subextraction due to the CoMTA (indicated by the rectangle around it, step {).

( ) German VP-topicalization: VP-to-SpecCP movement
x y z Now, as the head movement probe [○V○] has not yet found a matching goal, it continues probing and nds V (step |). However, as V is dominated by VP and VP has been probed and moved already, it fails to trigger V-to-C movement (step }).

] Adv ] T ]]]]
| } At spell-out, the lower copy of the subject and the lower copy of VP undergo deletion. Equally, the unsatis ed [○V○] feature on C is discharged as a Last Resort. As a result, the sentence is pronounced with just one lexical verb present in the VP copy in SpecCP ( ). A dummy verb tun 'do' is inserted into C in order to satisfy the requirement that there be a nite verb in the sentence (see also section . ). .

Interim summary and discussion
Wrapping up the present section, I have presented an analysis of verb doubling and the lack thereof as being the consequence of the independent property of whether a language has V-to-T/Asp movement or V-to-C movement. In the former case, the feature triggering V-raising is lower than that triggering topicalization and, therefore, head movement is una ected by phrasal movement. In the latter case, however, both features are on the same head and probe simultaneously. Since the phrasal probe nds its goal rst, VP movement occurs rst. Since moved constituents (and their lower copies) are islands for subextraction, V-raising cannot take place anymore leaving the C-head empty. Importantly, this analysis presupposes that there is no V-raising to T/Asp independent of V-to-C movement in the languages that lack verb doubling. Otherwise, the trigger for this independent movement, by virtue of being located on T, would be able to attract V out of VP (before VP-to-SpecCP movement later leads to freezing of the latter) (step x in ( )). Of the two movement probes on C, the one that triggers V-raising would then encounter its goal, namely the V inside the complex V+T head, rst and attract the whole complex to C (step y in ( )). Only then would the [•VP•]-probe on C nd its VP-goal and trigger its movement into SpecCP (step z in ( )) thereby rendering it opaque for subextraction (step { in ( )). It has even been argued by some researchers that there is no actual V-to-T movement in V -clauses either but that V moves directly to C skipping T (Biberauer and Roberts , Roberts , Sailor , Harizanov and Gribanova , Gribanova and Mikkelsen ). First, V-to-T in V is solely enforced by the Head Movement Constraint (Travis ), and, second, it is not needed to couple the verb and its tense in ection. Since tense in ection shows up on the verb independent of the clause's V -status ( ), there must be some other mechanism, e.g. Agree or A x Hopping or post-syntactic lowering, that brings V and T together. is mechanism would probably also connect V and T in V clauses, e ectively rendering actual V-to-T movement redundant. For the purposes of this paper, I will adopt this latter view of the absence of any actual V-to-T movement.
For German and Dutch, the status of V-to-T movement is somewhat unclear. Due to them being head-nal OV languages, movement to T would be string vacuous. However, Haider ( : .) argues convincingly that V does not move to T in V-nal clauses in German, but stays in its base position (see also Haider : , Vikner , Biberauer and Roberts ). It has also o en been argued that V-to-T movement is absent in Dutch (Reuland , Koopman , Zwart , Rohrbacher , Biberauer and Roberts ). Given this, it is plausible to assume that like in the Scandinavian languages, T has some other way of coupling with V that applies in both non-V and V environments. us T in Germanic does not bear a feature triggering head movement of the verb. e analysis therefore ts well with the data. It also makes the prediction that V languages that do in fact show evidence for independent V-to-T movement should exhibit verb doubling. Indeed, Yiddish seems to instantiate this type of language as I will discuss in detail in section . .

Consequences and predictions
is section adresses some consequences and predictions of the proposed account of (the lack of) verb doubling in VP-topicalization. So far, we have discussed languages that show V-to-T/Asp without V-to-C, namely Hebrew and Polish, and languages that show V-to-C without V-to-T/Asp, namely most Germanic languages. What about languages with other combinations of these two head movements? Do they show verb doubling or dummy verb insertion? e full typology of these two features is presented in ( ).

( ) Typology of head movements (incomplete)
language V-to-T/Asp V-to-C pattern

. English VP-topicalization
As laid out in the previous sections, V-to-T/Asp movement is what gives rise to verb doubling VP-topicalization in languages such as Hebrew and Polish. On the other hand, V-to-C movement (without independent V-to-T) leads to a lack of verb doubling and the presence of a dummy verb in VP-topicalization (for a discussion of the dummy verb insertion see section . ). Turning to English VP-topicalization, we nd that it does not pattern with Polish and Hebrew, as it does not exhibit verb doubling, but rather patterns with the other Germanic languages in showing dummy verb insertion ( ) despite not being V (not having V-to-C).
( ) John wanted to read the article and [ VP read the article ] he did.
is is completely expected under the present approach. First, English does not show V-to-T movement (Pollock ). Hence, there is no attractor outside the VP that could trigger verb raising out of the VP before that VP is deleted as the lower copy in a VP-topicalization movement ( ).
( ) . . . and [ VP read the article] C he T did [ VP read the article].
e di erence to the other Germanic languages is that it also generally lacks V-to-C movement. However, what derives the lack of verb doubling in those languages is not the presence of V-to-C, but rather its being exceptionally impossible in exactly those cases where a VP is also attracted by C. us, while the general properties of Germanic languages -availability of VP-topicalization and VP-evacuating V-raising -lead us to expect verb doubling, contrary to fact, the general properties of English -availability of VP-topicalization and absence of VP-evacuating V-raisinglead us to correctly expect it to lack verb doubling. What derives the Germanic anomaly in the languages other than English is thus that they become like English in the relevant con gurations in not allowing V-to-C movement.
Distilling the proper generalization: Verb doubling requires V-to-T/Asp movement. e lack of verb doubling is not tied to the presence of V-to-C but more precisely to the absence of V-to-T/Asp movement.

. Yiddish VP-topicalization
Yiddish is a Germanic V language. In contrast to most other Germanic V languages, however, it has been argued to show V-to-T movement independent of V-to-C movement (Vikner : -). e main argument comes from embedded topicalization. Yiddish more or less freely An anonymous reviewer made the objection that most English-based creoles and pidgins show verb doubling (i) even though (under most analyses) they lack V-to-T movement. Under the current approach, these would be predicted to lack verb doubling. It is argued that this bare V-fronting is in fact not (possibly remnant) VP-movement but rather involves A-head movement of V, i.e. movement of V into a speci er position (see Koopman , Landau , Vicente , , Ott , Harizanov ). As argued by Hein ( ), this special type of movement always leads to verb doubling because its lowest copy is exempt from copy deletion. Given this, it is not surprising that many creoles and pidgins show verb doubling despite lacking V-to-T movement.
allows embedded V clauses. However, there are some environments, such as indirect questions, in which true V (i.e. non-subject-initial V ) is not available ( a) but subject-initial V orders are permitted ( b) and in fact are obligatory ( c (Vikner : f.) As Vikner ( ) argues, the di erent grammaticality status of the V orders in ( a) compared to ( b) can be taken to indicate that the nite verb in ( b) has moved to T with the subject ocurring in SpecTP. As ( c) shows, this movement is obligatory. An analogous analysis is not available for ( a) (i.e. nite verb in T, topicalized phrase in SpecTP), because topicalization necessarily has to take place into an A ′ -position, such as SpecCP, and SpecTP is an A-position. e only possible derivation for ( a) would thus be one in which dos dozike bukh has moved into a SpecCP position (in a recursive CP structure) and the nite verb has risen to C. In other words, ( a) can only be a proper V -con guration ( a) (in contrast to ( b)) which, for some reason, is not allowed with (this type of) indirect questions. at there is actual verb movement in subject-initial embedded V sentences, rather than the verb staying in its base position with the subject appearing in SpecvP is evidenced by the behaviour of particle verbs like avekshikn 'to send away' . In ( a), it occurs in its undivided form embedded under an auxiliary. In ( b) it appears in a root V clause, where it has moved to C stranding its particle in its base position. In ( c), it occurs in an embedded subject-initial V clause, where it occurs in second position like the nite verb in ( b), however, this cannot be its base position because it now precedes the stranded particle avek 'away' .  (Diesing : ) at said, as Yiddish shows independent V-to-T movement, the current approach predicts that VP-topicalization to SpecCP should give rise to verb doubling. is is because the T head bears a [○V○]-feature and therefore attracts the verb out of the VP ( ). When the C head merges later on in the derivation, it bears two features, the [• •]-feature triggering phrasal movement of the VP to SpecCP, and another [○V○]-feature that ensures that the resulting sentence has V order. Crucially, at the point when both of C's probes start searching for a goal, there is one copy of V that is not dominated by VP, namely the one in T. So whichever probe nds its goal rst, there will not be any bleeding e ects due to CoMTA, and VP as well as the V+T complex can undergo their respective movements into the C domain without hindrance with super uous copies being deleted at PF ( ).
Indeed, as predicted by this analysis, Yiddish exhibits verb doubling in a VP-topicalization con guration, with the nite verb occurring in second position ( ).
sh sh ] est eats Maks. Max ' As for eating sh, Max eats them. ' (Cable : ) We can thus complete the typology of V-toT/Asp and V-to-C as in ( ).

( ) Typology of head movements
language V-to-T/Asp V-to-C pattern As is clear from the table it is not the presence of V-to-C movement that gives rise to the lack of verb doubling, but rather the absence of V-to-T movement.

. Afrikaans VP-topicalization
Afrikaans is another Germanic V language. Like its sister, Dutch, it shows an asymmetry in the position of the nite verb in root clauses and embedded clauses, with V in the former and V-nal word order in the latter. It has therefore been analyzed as an OV language (Waher , Oosthuizen ). Given this, we would take it to show V-to-C movement in matrix clauses, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, no independent V-to-T movement, parallel to the two other Germanic OV languages German and Dutch.
Like German and Dutch, Afrikaans allows VP-topicalization with stranded auxiliaries ( ). Since there is no evidence for V-to-T movement in the language, the current approach predicts it to exhibit no verb doubling in VP-topicalization constructions without auxiliaries or modals. Indeed, this seems to be correct ( a). Instead, a dummy verb appears in second position ( b), as is the case in German and Dutch, too. In a corpus-based investigation of the modern spoken language in comparison to the written standard, however, Biberauer ( ) has found that about of embedded complementizerintroduced declaratives show the verb in second position as in ( ). 'I think that you'll enjoy the book very much. ' (Biberauer : ) As the preverbal position in these clauses is limited to subjects (Biberauer ), similar to what was the case in the Yiddish example in ( ), Biberauer ( ) rejects an analysis as genuine V clauses (i.e. clauses with the nite verb in C). She instead suggests that the verb appears in T. If this is on the right track, then Afrikaans as an OV language must at least optionally comprise of independent V-to-T movement. is challenges the generalization that verb doubling VP-topicalization is a direct consequence of the independent availability of V-to-T movement.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that of the nite verbs that appear in embedded V declaratives are functional verbs like modals or auxiliaries (Biberauer : ), which arguably are base-merged in T. Hence, they do not provide strong evidence for the existence of independent V-to-T movement in Afrikaans. Judgements of native speakers corroborate this. ey consistently judged embedded V declaratives with a lexical verb in second position to be bad while those with a functional verb in this position were not similarly rejected (Biberauer : ). Consequently, the generalization that V-to-T movement is the crucial factor in determining whether verb doubling occurs can be upheld.

. Non-Germanic dummy verb insertion
Let us brie y turn to some of the non-Germanic languages that lack verb doubling in VP-fronting con gurations, namely Breton, Welsh, and Wolof. It has been pointed out in section . that all of them can be analyzed as having V-to-C movement. In light of the developed analysis, the crucial issues with these languages is whether they also lack independent V-to-T movement. For Wolof, this question is of no relevance as C and T start out as the same head (Martinović , ). erefore, T cannot enter the derivation and attract the verb out of the VP prior to merger of C. us, both the phrasal and the head movement probe are always located on the same head and probe simultaneously. Consequently, Wolof is expected to not allow verb doubling, because the topicalized VP becomes opaque before the head movement probe can evacuate V. is expectation is borne out.
For the Celtic languages Breton and Welsh, however, the consensus in the literature seems to be that what can be analyzed as V-to-C movement is actually more plausibly V-movement to the highest in ectional head (see among others Harlow , Rouveret , , Roberts , for Welsh; Borsley et al. , Jouitteau for Breton). If this is true, the trigger for V-raising is located on a di erent, lower head (T in standard phrase structure, Fin in cartographic approaches, Rizzi ) than that for VP-fronting (which targets SpecCP or, alternatively, SpecTopP). All else being equal, we would therefore expect that both languages show verb doubling rather than dummy verb insertion because the head that attracts the verb is merged before the head that attracts the VP. Alas, Breton ( a)  e Welsh VP-fronting in ( b) could then simply be derived from such a periphrastic construction by means of VP-movement stranding the auxiliary gwneud, analogous to other cases of VP-fronting with auxiliary stranding. In order to exclude optional VP-fronting with verb doubling there must then be some constraint that bans VP-fronting in the absence of an auxiliary.
us, despite having V-to-T movement, Welsh does not show verb doubling because it has an Note that Breton recently innovated verb doubling in bare verb-fronting contexts with a very narrow (and dialectally variable) set of verbs (Jouitteau ). Due to this restriction and the fact that bare verb-fronting shows quite distinct syntactic behaviour from VP-fronting (Borsley et al. , Jouitteau ) I will not be concerned with this doubling in this paper. independent dummy verb construction from which VP-fronting is derived. is line of analysis is corroborated by the fact that with stative verbs, where gwneud-periphrasis is ungrammatical for independent reasons ( a), it is not possible to strand a nite form of gwneud ( b). Instead, a di erent placeholder verb, namely bod 'to be' , appears in nite form ( c). However, in contrast to Welsh, Breton is commonly taken to be a V language (Schafer , , Borsley and Kathol , Jouitteau ). According to Roberts ( ), Holmberg ( ), the V property is made up of two components ( ). is functional head wants a constituent moved to its speci er position.
at is, whichever head triggers V-raising also triggers VP-movement in a V language. If V indeed moves to T in Breton, then as a V language, the sole preverbal constituent must be in SpecTP. Such an analysis of V has been proposed for other languages as well, among them Yiddish (Diesing , ) and Icelandic (Rögnvaldsson and ráinsson , Iatridou and Kroch ; though somewhat outdated and not current anymore), which are therefore sometimes referred to as I-V languages (Holmberg ). Under this analysis, Breton behaves as expected; both probes would be on T and V-raising would be blocked by prior VP-movement leading to a lack of verb doubling.
It would, of course, be of interest to take a closer look at various other languages, in particular at non-Germanic languages with V like properties, like for example Kashmiri (Bhatt ), Sorbian (Stone ), Estonian (Ehala ) and Dinka (van Urk ). e predictions for those are clear: ey should show verb doubling in case they have independent V-to-T/Asp movement coupled with the absence of an independent dummy verb periphrase. ey should, however, lack verb doubling in case they do not have independent V-to-T/Asp movement or do have an independent dummy verb construction at their disposal. For reasons of space, and because they diverge from the main focus of this paper, I will leave these questions open for now.

Further issues . Embedded clauses
Within the Germanic V languages, there is some variation as to whether they show V order, i.e. Vraising, in root clauses (RCs) only or also in embedded clauses (ECs) with an overt complementizer. Generally, three groups of languages are distinguished. e rst one does not allow embedded V with an overt complementizer at all. Dutch and German are languages of this type. As is well known, in these languages, overt complementizers force V-nal word order and V is ungrammatical, as exempli ed in ( ) for German.
e second group contains languages that generally allow embedded V with an overt complementizer. Yiddish and Icelandic are members of this group. An example of an embedded V sentence with a matrix verb that is unable to embed V in German (and most other Germanic languages) is given in ( ). fri early oyfshteyn. get.up 'Jonas doubts that Miriam will get up early tomorrow. ' (Yiddish, Vikner : ) e third group consists of languages which, in addition to their more common regular embedded V order, allow complementizer-introduced V complement clauses (in fact, they require the presence of a complementizer in an embedded V clause) but only under a certain condition. is condition has been argued by some to be the type of matrix verb, only so-called "bridge-verbs" allow embedded V (see e.g. de Haan and Weermann , Iatridou and Kroch , Vikner ), and by others to be the illocutionary force, such that embedded clauses are more likely to allow V the more assertive they are (see e.g. Hooper and ompson , Andersson , Green , Wechsler , Holmberg and Platzack , Truckenbrodt , Julien , , Bentzen ). Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish belong to this group. As the Norwegian example in ( a) shows, the nite verb in the embedded clause precedes the negation, an indication that V-raising has taken place, and the single constituent preceding the nite verb is a non-subject, an indication that it is a true V con guration. e same con guration under a di erent matrix verb, however, is ungrammatical ( b). e more common regular word order in a standard embedded clause is given in ( c).

. . Group : No complementizer-introduced embedded V
Starting with group , it seems clear from the complementary distribution of complementizers and V that the verb in embedded V clauses occupies the C-position. us, these clauses involve Vto-C movement just like root clauses. In both types of embedded clauses the verb could therefore not escape the VP prior to a hypothetical VP-topicalization because it does not raise at all in regular ECs (compare English lack of verb doubling) and raises to the head that also attracts the VP in embedded V clauses (compare MSc and Dutch/German matrix clause lack of verb doubling). us, we would expect both clause-types to not exhibit verb doubling. is prediction holds for both, embedded VP-topicalization, where the VP does not leave the EC, i.e. the nal landing site is the embedded SpecCP ( a), and for long distance VP-topicalization, where the VP-movement inside the EC takes place as an intermediate step through the embedded SpecCP ( b).
In German, embedded VP-topicalization is only available in embedded V clauses ( ), where it gives rise to dummy verb insertion ( a), as expected. As for long distance VP-topicalization, extraction from embedded V is generally possible and results in dummy verb insertion, as predicted ( a). For dass-clauses, there is regional variation with regard to extractability from them. For the speakers that allow this, VP-topicalization leads to dummy verb insertion again, as we would expect ( b (German) us, for group , the empirical pattern ts the one we expect given the proposed analysis.

. . Groups and : Complementizer-introduced V
Let us rst discuss regular non-V embedded clauses in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (group ). As these languages lack independent V-to-T movement in embedded clauses, we expect them to behave like Dutch and German (and English) with regard to VP topicalization. at means that, in a regular non-V embedded clause, the verb does not raise out of the VP and therefore undergoes regular copy deletion as part of the lower VP copy in the VP-topicalization chain. erefore, verb doubling is predicted to be absent. Indeed, this is what we nd with long distance topicalization in Swedish ( a) and Norwegian ( a), where a dummy verb occurs. As embedded topicalizations are ungrammatical in a non-V embedded sentence in general (Brandtler ), the corresponding embedded VP topicalizations are out (where the order of negation before dummy verb indicates that no V movement has taken place).
Turning to embedded V clauses, in groups and , compared to group , there is an additional complication introduced by the fact that there is an overt complementizer. A simple V-to-C analysis of V is not feasible, because the overt complementizer occupies the C position. It has therefore been proposed that these clauses contain two CP-layers, an idea referred to as CPrecursion, where the higher C hosts the complementizer and the lower C hosts the nite verb and the preverbal constituent ( a) (see Iatridou and Kroch , Holmberg , Platzack , de Haan and Weermann , Holmberg and Platzack , Vikner , Heycock , Wiklund et al. , , Brandtler ). Another analysis takes embedded V (and also matrix V ) clauses to involve V-to-T movement with the preverbal constituent appearing in SpecTP and the complementizer, as usual, in C ( b)  Depending on which analysis is chosen, the current proposal makes di erent predictions for verb doubling in embedded V clauses. As Icelandic does not show VP-topicalization ( ráinsson : ), I will ignore it in what follows. Let us rst consider Yiddish (group ), where V order is not restricted to root clauses or CP-complements of a narrow set of verbs, but is more or less freely available in most embedded clauses (Diesing : , Jacobs et al. : ). In a CP-recursion analysis, C attracts both the VP and the verb. However, as Yiddish has independent V-to-T movement (see section . ), the verb can leave the VP before it becomes opaque for extraction when the C head has triggered VP-topicalization. us, we would expect verb doubling to occur in VP-topicalizations from embedded clauses. As (non-verbal) topicalization is possible both in embedded ( a) as well as long distance contexts ( b), I would expect it to also allow the corresponding VP-topicalizations in ( ), crucially exhibiting verb doubling. Under a V-to-T analysis of embedded V , the T head attracts both VP and V. However, in this case there is no independent prior head movement of the verb to a position outside the VP. us, when T probes for VP and V, it should nd VP rst and trigger its movement to SpecTP, which in turn renders the low VP copy opaque for extraction of V. erefore, for embedded VP-topicalizations, we would expect no verb doubling ( a). In contrast, if the VP moves to outside the embedded clause, it has to undergo intermediate movement to SpecCP, rather than SpecTP. In this case, the VP-attracting head (a C with an edge-feature) and the V-attracting one (T) would be distinct with the former being structurally higher than the latter. is con guration should give rise to verb doubling as in ( b).
( ) Predicted sentences under the V-to-T analysis of embedded V For Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, the di erence compared to Yiddish, besides the limited availability of embedded V , is that there is no evidence for independent V-to-T movement (see section . ). e CP-recursion analysis therefore makes the prediction that embedded VP-topicalization should result in a lack of verb doubling. Assuming that extraction from the embedded clause proceeds via SpecC P, long distance VP-topicalization, in contrast, should give rise to verb doubling. is is because the head that attracts V (C ) is di erent from and lower in the structure than the head that attracts the VP (C ). Under a V-to-T analysis (for Danish subject-initial matrix clauses, see Mikkelsen ), the predictions remain the same. Embedded VP-topicalization should result in a lack of verb doubling, as T attracts both V and VP, whereas long distance VP-topicalization should give rise to verb doubling, as T attracts V but the higher C attracts VP via an edge feature. e predictions are summarized in ( ).
See section . for a discussion of V-to-v movement. Proponents of the V-to-T analysis of embedded V generally assume that it also holds for matrix V clauses. If this were true, the current analysis would predict that Yiddish should lack verb doubling in matrix clauses, contrary to fact, as the T head would attract both the verb and the VP. While there is no logical necessity between a V-to-T analysis of V in embedded clauses and in matrix clauses, the presence of verb doubling in matrix clauses might render the V-to-T analysis of embedded V clauses less plausible. 'She believed that read the book we didn't do. ' (Norwegian) e predictions for long distance VP topicalization are not as easily testable, because topicalization (of arguments and adjuncts) from embedded V clauses is ungrammatical in the three languages (Holmberg : -; Holmberg : ; Vikner : -). ere is but one exception to this restriction: argument extraction from a subject-initial embedded V clause is claimed to be possible in (some varieties of) Norwegian (Hrafnbjargarson et al. : ). Whether this also holds for VP-topicalization is unclear at the moment.

( ) Predictions for VP-topicalization in/from embedded V clauses in
To summarize, the predictions that the current approach makes for verb doubling in embedded clauses across many Germanic languages are for the most part borne out. ere are two cases for which reliable language data are missing: (i) embedded and long distance VP-topicalization in Yiddish, and (ii) long distance VP-topicalization in one variety of Norwegian.

. V-to-v movement
Up to this point, I have assumed a clausal spine that consists of the three heads V, T, and C, only. A structure more common in current theories (at least since Kratzer ) would include at least a v head in addition, which introduces the external argument and is responsible for the word order between the verb and both objects in ditransitive constructions (Larson ). e common assumption is that the verb obligatorily raises to v in ditransitives (and, by extension, in all other clauses) in order to appear before both objects on the surface ( ). (As in English, there is an alternation in ditransitive sentences in MSc between a double object construction and a DP-PP-construction.) Unfortunately, my native speaker informant, Siri M. Gjersøe does not allow any exceptions to the ban on long-distance topicalization from embedded V clauses at all.
Since the early s, v is also argued to be the categorizing head of an otherwise categoryless root or root phrase (Marantz , , Embick and Marantz , Embick , a.m.o.). e root (of what is eventually to be pronounced as a verb) then has to undergo head-movement to v in order to obtain a categorial status as a verb.
Crucially, as this movement raises the verb out of the VP, we would expect it to have the same e ect on VP-topicalization as independent V-to-T/Asp movement. at is, it should give rise to verb doubling. If it takes place obligatorily in all clauses, which seems to be the general assumption, the current account would predict verb doubling to be the only possible result of VP-topicalization without an auxiliary/modal, contrary to fact.
For OV languages like Dutch and German, there is no con gurational evidence from ditransitives that requires the verb to leave its base-position (though see Murphy for a possible argument in favour of rightward verb movement in German). Like V-to-T movement, V-to-v movement would be string-vacuous. One could therefore argue that in these languages V-to-v is absent, avoiding the above-mentioned problem. However, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, are VO languages and, as shown for Norwegian in ( ), the verb precedes both arguments in an embedded ditransitive sentence.
As there is no V-to-T movement in embedded clauses, under the common assumption that the indirect object is generated in the speci er of V, V-to-v movement seems to be required to generate the correct word order in ( ). One could then try to argue that the fronted category in VP-topicalization is not VP but rather vP. e impossibility of a subject inside a topicalized vP is easily explained by the fact that it obligatorily moves to SpecTP prior to vP-topicalization. In fact, it has been argued that the fronted verb phrase is actually larger than VP for e.g. German (Haider ) and Polish (Bondaruk ). However, there is evidence that the topicalized constituent in Norwegian is indeed a VP (or root phrase) (see also Platzack for Swedish). e adverb igjen 'again' , as in English, is ambiguous between a repetitive and a restitutive reading ( ) depending on whether it adjoins to the vP or the VP (as argued for the German cognate of igjen, wieder, by von Stechow , Rapp and von Stechow ).
igjen. again 'Terje opened the door again. ' Repetitive: Terje has opened it before. Restitutive: e door has been open before and was closed in the meantime. (Norwegian) Note that this problem also arises for Sailor's ( ) analysis of verb-stranding VP-ellipsis, where V-to-T movement applies prior to elision of VP but V-to-C movement is only triggered a er the VP has already been elided. As Gribanova and Mikkelsen ( ) point out, if V were to standardly move to v, it would always evade elision as part of the VP, and therefore, every language that has VPE would falsely be expected to also show verb-stranding VPE.
is ambiguity disappears with topicalization of the verb phrase. When igjen appears in the fronted constituent ( a) only the restitutive reading is available, when it is stranded ( b) only the repetitive reading is.
As the restitutive reading is tied to adjunction to VP, whereas the repetitive one is tied to adjunction to vP, this pattern receives a straightforward explanation if the fronted constituent is maximally a VP (see Johnson , Merchant , who make the same argument for the size of the elided constituent in VP-ellipsis). e problems caused by the necessity for V-to-v movement can be resolved in a more elaborate structure of the v domain. Several researchers have argued for a split-vP, where there is an additional verbal head above v, o en referred to as another v or Voice (see e.g. Pylkkänen , , Merchant , Harley , Legate ). Assuming that it is the lower vP that undergoes topicalization and given that V only moves to the head of this phrase rather than to the higher Voice head (Merchant : ), V-to-v movement does not evacuate the verb from the lower copy of the topicalized phrase ( ).
x y Di erent readings of igjen 'again' then result from its di erent adjunction possibilities. If adjoined at the VP-level, a restitutive reading arises, whereas the repetitive reading derives from adjunction to VoiceP (see Merchant : ). Concerning the fact that external arguments never appear inside the topicalized verb phrase in MSc, there is some divergence as to whether this argument is introduced by the higher Voice head (Pylkkänen , Harley ) or the lower v (Merchant ). In the former case, the base position of the subject is simply not contained inside the fronted phrase. In the latter case, obligatory raising of the subject to SpecTP is responsible for its absence in topicalized VPs. ough see Houser et al. ( ) who argue that the fronted constituent is a vP . A note on dummy verb insertion e current proposal is able to derive the presence or absence of verb doubling in VP-topicalizations without auxiliaries. However, when verb doubling is not available in a language, one regularly nds a semantically largely vacuous dummy verb occurring in place of a nite verb doublet. is dummy verb insertion in Danish, Dutch, German, Norwegian, and Swedish is reminiscent of the well-studied do-support in English, although it appears in only a subset of the canonical environments of the latter (Houser et al. , ). In section . , I have argued against an account where the dummy verb is independently present in the base structure from which VPtopicalization is derived, akin to what is the case for stranded auxiliaries. Such an account is clearly not feasible as the purported base construction is ungrammatical (as in MSc) or not available in all contexts that allow VP-topicalization (as in German and possibly Dutch), although it is probably the correct analysis for Welsh (see section . ). e question then is, why the dummy verb appears in said VP-topicalizations.
For English do-support, one widely adopted view is that it takes place as a Last Resort operation in order to avoid a violation of the Stray A x Filter (Chomsky , Lasnik ). e underlying assumption is that in ectional a xes are hosted in the T head and combine with the verb when T lowers to V. If this lowering is blocked, e.g. by an intervening polarity head, movement of T to C, or deletion/movement of V, do is inserted to host the in ectional a xes in T (Chomsky , Jaeggli and Hyams , Bobaljik , Embick and Noyer ). us, there is a close link between the lack of V-to-T movement and the presence of do-support in English (Emonds , Pollock ). Interestingly, this resembles the link between the absence of (independent) V-to-T movement and the lack of verb doubling (and the resulting presence of a do-like dummy verb) in the other Germanic languages. However, as Platzack ( , ), Bjorkman ( ), Houser et al. ( ) argue, it is not possible to transfer this Last Resort analysis of do-support to other Germanic languages (in particular, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish). e problem is that it predicts the dummy verb to occur in T. In the mainland Scandinavian languages, embedded clauses do not have V-raising to T (see section . ). In these clauses, there must be some kind of T-lowering to V in order to account for the occurrence of in ection on the verb just as in English. However, as Platzack ( , ), Houser et al. ( ), Bjorkman ( ) argue, deletion/ellipsis of the verb (as part of the VP) bleeds T-lowering, and the in ectional a xes are stranded in T (see also Murphy ( ) for bleeding of lowering by ellipsis). If the dummy verb were indeed inserted into T as a Last Resort repair, we would expect it to occur before negation and VP adverbs in contrast to a nite lexical verb or auxiliary, which always occurs a er negation and VP adverbs. As the examples in ( ) attest, this is not the case.
Do-support in English canonically occurs in the context of negation, emphasis, polar questions, non-subject wh-questions, VP ellipsis, and VP displacement. Only the latter two require dummy verb insertion in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and only the last one in German and Dutch, because these two languages lack VP ellipsis.
See Houser et al. ( ) for an account of Danish gjøre where it is treated as a defective auxiliary, i.e. as present in the base structure. e fact that it only occurs in VP-topicalization, VP-ellipsis, and VP-pronominalization is claimed to be due to it only selecting for pronominal VPs, which either anaphorically relate to a discourse antecedent or are bound by a sentence-initial VP. ) reject an analysis of the dummy verb in terms of a Last Resort insertion process to T. Rather, Platzack ( , ) and Bjorkman ( ) suggest that the dummy verb is the overt realization of v. For Platzack ( , ), v bears an uninterpretable but valued tense feature equivalent to a tense a x. In order for it not to violate the Stray A x Filter (Lasnik ) either V moves to v or the dummy verb is inserted in v. e feature is discharged by agreement with an interpretable but unvalued tense feature on T. A v targeted by dummy verb insertion also bears an interpretable Aktion feature with an EPP attached to it. Under this analysis, the VP complement of the dummy verb moves to SpecvP in order to satisfy this EPP feature. As it cannot stay in this position, it later moves on to SpecCP resulting in VP-topicalization. An alternative but similar proposal is presented in Bjorkman ( ). In her proposal, V-to-v movement is assumed to be the default operation resulting in realization of the V+v complex by a lexical verb. Dummy verb realization of v only takes place when the positional requirements on the realization of v are in con ict with those of V. e rst requirement, based on Embick and Noyer ( : , ex. ), is ( ).
( ) T must be immediately local to any in ectional head X with which it has an Agree relationship. (Bjorkman : , ex. ) If X is v, then ( ) will impose a positional requirement on v. If, however, X is an auxiliary, for example, then v has no restrictions concerning its position of realization. In MSc, the requirement that is in con ict with ( ) is given in ( ).
( ) If VP is displaced (by movement or ellipsis), V must likewise be displaced. (Bjorkman : , ex. and ) is requirement possibly independently falls out from Takano's Generalization, which states that headless XP-movement is illicit (Takano ), and Lasnik's Generalization, which states that headless XP-ellipsis is illicit (Lasnik , Funakoshi , ). e con ict is resolved by dummy verb realization of v which blocks V-to-v movement.
is allows v to retain its immediately local relationship with T while V is free to move to SpecCP with the topicalized VP.
In Platzack's analysis, it is not the case that the presence of a dummy verb is a consequence of VP-topicalization. Rather, as a consequence of choosing to insert a dummy verb in v (with an EPP feature), the VP complement of v has to undergo some topicalization movement. Bjorkman's proposal nicely captures the intuition that dummy verb insertion is a response to VP-topicalization rather than a prerequisite for it. However, it does not properly t the current proposal. Taking into account what was said about the presence of a Voice head in section . , it remains unclear where the con icting requirements are to be found. If auxiliaries are absent, the highest in ectional head with an Agree relation to T is probably Voice. However, VP-topicalization, which is argued to be displacement of vP, does not a ect this relation in any way, thus not a ecting the requirement in ( ). Neither has Voice to be displaced with vP (see requirement ( )) nor is it the target of vor V-raising according to the analysis presented so far.
I would therefore suggest an amalgam of analyses, treating the dummy verb as a Last Resort insertion into the Voice head. is occurs if Voice fails to lower post-syntactically to v due to v being elided/deleted ( ) (akin to T-lowering in English).
Interestingly, in contrast to English T-lowering, which can be blocked by intervening heads as well as displacement of vP/VP, in MSc, only displacement has this e ect. is is due to the fact that there simply are no heads that could intervene between Voice and v. It thus falls out from this analysis, why non-English Germanic dummy verb insertion occurs in a subset of environments of English do-support, namely exactly those that do not include an intervening head. Support for the analysis comes from passives in MSc. Generally, there are two ways of forming a passive, either with a passive auxiliary bli 'become' plus the participle of the verb ( a) or by su xing the verb with a passive morpheme -s ( b).
Assuming that the voice distinction is encoded on Voice, both varieties may be analysed as instantiating two di erent derivations, one in which Voice lowers onto v and is realised as the su x -s ( b), and one in which it does not ( a). In the latter case, the Voice head is realized by bli. While lowering is apparently optional in the passive, only the periphrastic form may undergo VP-topicalization stranding the auxiliary ( a). VP-topicalization of the -s-form is ungrammatical ( b).
Another possible resolution of con icting demands on v and V, as Bjorkman ( ) suggests, is verb doubling. is is evidence that lowering of Voice is blocked in the context of VP-topicalization, which is expected as VP-topicalization takes place in the syntax while lowering is a post-syntactic process. Now, in the active voice, lowering of Voice is not optional, as evidenced by the fact that Voice cannot be realized on its own in the active ( a) but must be expressed on the main verb ( b).
However, if one forcefully interrupts the lowering process by fronting the vP in an active clause, Voice is stranded and akin to its passive variant must receive an overt realization ( ).
Crucially, the material that occurs in addition to that present in the corresponding non-topicalized sentence is a form of gjøre 'do' making it very plausible that gjøre is inserted into Voice.

Summary and Conclusion
In this paper, I compared VP-topicalization in the Germanic languages with VP-topicalization in non-Germanic languages like Hebrew and Polish (and many others). In the absence of an overt auxiliary or modal, non-Germanic languages generally exhibit verb doubling whereas Germanic languages employ a dummy verb strategy to avoid a gap le by displacement of the main verb. is peculiar behaviour of Germanic languages has been argued to derive from the fact that they show V-raising to C in contrast to verb doubling languages, where V raises only as high as T or Asp. In V-to-C languages, both the probe triggering head-movement of V and the probe triggering VPmovement are located on C. Given that they probe simultaneously, the latter will always encounter its goal rst and move it to SpecCP. As movement renders a moved constituent and all its copies opaque for further subextraction (Freezing), the V-probe will be unable to initiate raising of V out of the lower VP copy to C. us, VP-movement always bleeds V-raising. In V-to-T/Asp languages, however, the V-probe is on T/Asp and therefore derivationally prior to the VP-probe on C. Hence, in those languages, V-raising will always take place before VP-movement thereby evacuating the verb from the VP which leads to verb doubling on the surface. e core of this analysis of the lack of VVPT is thus not so much the presence of V-to-C movement in a language, but the absence of (independent) V-to-T/Asp movement. is view was corroborated by an analysis of English, Yiddish, and Afrikaans VPT. Further evidence for the head movement-blocking e ect of both probes being located on the same head has been adduced from the non-Germanic non-verb doubling languages Wolof and Breton.
One important result of this analysis is that the apparently necessary application of (syntactic) head movement of V a er (post-syntactic) deletion of the lower VP copy in Danish, Dutch, German, Norwegian, and Swedish, does not serve as an argument for the post-syntactic nature of head movement.
A question that is raised, however, is one about the behaviour of VP-topicalization (or VPfocalization) in non-Germanic V languages, like Kashmiri (Bhatt ), Sorbian (Stone ), Estonian (Ehala ) and Dinka (van Urk ). Do they, indeed, lack verb doubling if they lack independent V-to-T movement, and show verb doubling if they show it? I will have to leave this issue for future research here.
. Long head movement and information packaging in Breton. . Parameters and e ects of word order variation. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Trinh, Tue.
. One probe -two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD diss, Leiden University, Leiden. van Urk, Coppe.
. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Vicente, Luis.
. e syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. PhD diss, University of Leiden, e Netherlands. Vicente, Luis.
. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vikner, Sten.
. e di erent readings of wieder "again": A structural account. Journal of Semantics : -.
. e position of the nite verb in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics (SPIL) : -.
. Agr-based case theory and its interaction with the a-bar-system. phdthesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Wechsler, Stephen.
. Derived Coordination: A minimalistic perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Vol.
. e Acquisition of Word Order: Micro-cues, information structure, and economy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. Some syntactic implications of a theory of language learnability. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter Culicover, omas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, -. New York: Academic Press. Wexler, Kenneth, and Peter Culicover.