This paper adds a new dimension to the study of obligatory control: the distinction of inherent vs. non-inherent control predicates. Inherent control predicates are clause-embedding predicates that invariantly require identification of one of its individual arguments with an argument of the embedded predicate, irrespective of the type of clausal complement. The paper thus identifies instances of control in German finite verb-final and V2 complements and in nominalized clausal arguments, thereby adding data to the discussion of finite control. The lexical property of inherent control results from various factors: one major factor is event coherence – the respective predicates and their clausal complements denote a coherent event, which disallows incompatible local and temporal modifiers in matrix clause and embedded clause (e.g. with implicative verbs such as wagen 'dare'). As a consequence, matrix predicate and embedded predicate have to share at least one participant. In addition, there are various subgroups of inherent control predicates that do not exhibit event coherence. Here, the inherence of the control relation results a) from the sincerity conditions of the matrix predicates (with directive and commissive predicates), b) the fact that the clausal argument is integrated as “direct predication” of the matrix predicate's internal argument (e.g. vorwerfen 'reproach'), or c) semantic specialization of the matrix predicate in contrast to semantically similar predicates, which involves self-related attitudes or speech acts (e.g. bereuen 'regret/repent').

In this article I take into account OV orders found in Old Italian which have gone unnoticed in the literature up to now. I will show that there are two types of OV constructions with different properties: one similar to scrambling which is related to information structure and targets XPs placed in front of the past participle. The construction is insensitive to the type of constituent moved, which can be the direct or indirect object, a selected or unselected PP or even a verbal modifier or a (low) adverb and more than one XP can be scrambled. The same type of phenomenon can be observed inside the DP, where adjectives and object PPs can be scrambled in front of the head noun.

The second type of OV construction applies obligatorily to bare quantifiers, which are placed in a dedicated position located higher than the scrambling position mentioned above. Given the different properties of the two OV orders and the different location of the two, I will assume that the process yielding OV orders with DPs is different from the one that yield OV with quantifiers, as suggested by the comparison with other languages.

Moreover, the fact that the scrambling construction is related to information structure gives the impression of optionality, and could be interpreted on the basis of the double base hypothesis, according to which speakers have two grammars. I will argue that this is not necessary and that the complex distribution of Old Italian can be made sense of on the basis of one single grammar, provided the correct distinctions are made.

This paper discusses the syntactic position of comparative particles in German against the background of their diachrony. The development that these particles undergo is shown to constitute an instance of cyclical change, the comparative cycle. The historical data, especially so-called hypothetic comparisons, provide evidence for a synchronic analysis of als as a syntactic head above the standard of comparison-CP, and wie as C0. It is argued that, diachronically, the former has changed from a lower to a higher syntactic head position while the latter has undergone a reanalysis from a specifier to a head.