ABSTRACT
Sections 1 and 2 briefly outline some central features of mirror theory (Brody 1997) and discuss consequences with respect to “basic” word order. In sections 3 and 4 I note that mirror theory is incompatible with covert roll-up head chain type relations and argue that contrary to recent claims the analysis of Romance restructuring need not involve such structures. In section 5, I note that Kayne’s correlation between null subjects and clitic climbing may be better captured under the proposed analysis than it has been in earlier approaches. I argue that both phenomena involve licensing of a Spec by an element of Infl. In section 6, I discuss some aspects of the behavior of Hungarian restructuring infinitives and their treatment in mirror theory. Section 7 looks at some similarities and differences between the “climbing” options of Hungarian verbal modifiers and Romance clitics. Finally in section 8, I argue that to understand Hungarian restructuring constructions it is necessary to distinguish (strictly local) head chain and (successive step) phrasal chain type relations, – a fact that constitutes further evidence for some core assumptions of mirror theory.
