In this article we investigate the negative concord pattern of Old Italian, which, although it displays a negative marker very similar to the one of Modern Italian, has the bizarre property of inducing optional negative concord. We will concentrate on the bare n-word niente/neente/neiente 'nothing' and show that in the case of this element negative concord is actually not optional but depends on the position of the n-word: when it is inside the low IP space, it triggers obligatory negative concord, when it is in the VP internal argumental position it does not. Old Italian is thus different from Modern Italian as it ties negative concord to a specific position that the n-word must occupy.

This paper is intended to show the attempt of defining the acoustic and auditory targets of the Latvian monophthong system. To define the acoustic targets vowels produced in isolation are analyzed since such a production is the closest to the mental prototype. Different methods of interspeaker normalization are utilized in order to make productions by informants of different gender comparable. The auditory targets are registered in perception experiments using synthesized two-formant stimuli. The deviation of experimental results for the front vowels from the formant values predicted by formulas is explainable by the lack of rounded front vowels in Latvian. Certain acoustic characteristics of the Latvian monophthongs are employed for the phonological classification, and the use of particular IPA symbols is suggested comparing the acoustic data of Latvian monophthongs with those of Cardinal vowels.

The core questions are identified and discussed which have to be answered to get to a well-founded view on the syntactic structure of sentences in German: (i) Which model of linear syntax should be the point of departure for any considerations concerning the hierarchical syntax of sentences? (ii) Can there be a reductive analysis of sentences (as VP, DP/NP or PP), or are sentences a category in their own right, and what is the head of a sentence, if there is any? (iii) Which sentential features and hierarchical structures should be assumed, if one wants to cope with the most important syntactic generalizations concerning sentences? (iv) Are there any requirements on the structure of sentences coming from the interfaces of syntax? In the course of discussing these core questions, a new account of sentences as sentential phrases (SPs) is presented. The structures to be proposed are quite simple, the proposed features for valency and movement, however, are of some complexity. It is argued that the interfaces of syntax do not require specific, additional syntactic structures. This is illustrated with respect to the syntax/semantics interface and the interface to illocution.