@article{Hein2021,
  author    = {Hein, Johannes},
  title     = {Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VP topicalization in Germanic},
  series = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1383-4924},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10828-021-09125-5},
  pages     = {89 -- 144},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal, VP-topicalization in most Germanic languages 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 other languages, e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. A comparison of several recent approaches to verb doubling in VP-fronting reveals that it is the consequence of VP-evacuating head movement of the verb to some higher functional head, which saves the (low copy of the) verb from undergoing copy deletion as part of the low VP copy in the VP-topicalization dependency. Given that almost all Germanic languages have such V-salvaging head movement, namely V-to-C movement, but do not show verb doubling, this paper suggests that V-raising is exceptionally impossible in VP-topicalization clauses and addresses the question of why it is blocked. After discussing and rejecting some conceivable explanations for the lack of verb doubling, I propose that the blocking effect arises from a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP movement. As both operations are triggered by the same head, i.e. C, the VP is always encountered first by a downward search algorithm. Movement of VP then freezes it and its lower copies for subextraction precluding subsequent V-raising. Crucially, this implies that there is no V-to-T raising in most Germanic languages. V2 languages with V-to-T raising, e.g. Yiddish, are correctly predicted to not exhibit the blocking effect.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vandeKootSilvaFelseretal.2015,
  author    = {van de Koot, Hans and Silva, Renita and Felser, Claudia and Sato, Mikako},
  title     = {Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming},
  series = {The linguistic review},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {The linguistic review},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0167-6318},
  doi       = {10.1515/tlr-2015-0010},
  pages     = {739 -- 776},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The present study focuses on A-scrambling in Dutch, a local word-order alternation that typically signals the discourse-anaphoric status of the scrambled constituent. We use cross-modal priming to investigate whether an A-scrambled direct object gives rise to antecedent reactivation effects in the position where a movement theory would postulate a trace. Our results indicate that this is not the case, thereby providing support for a base-generation analysis of A-scrambling in Dutch.},
  language  = {en}
}