This chapter examines the syntax of the subperiphery (between the verb phrase and the periphery). It begins (Module 6.1) by arguing that subjects are housed in a separate SUBJP/subject projection which is positioned above the TP/tense projection housing finite auxiliaries. Module 6.2 goes on to argue that subperipheral adverbials are not adjuncts (as in earlier work), but rather specifiers of dedicated functional heads (e.g. probably is the specifier of an epistemic modal head). Module 6.3 then looks at word order variation in the position of adverbs with respect to subjects and auxiliaries, noting that this can arise when subjects/auxiliaries move around adverbs. Module 6.4 subsequently argues that subperipheral prepositional phrases and floating quantifiers are likewise housed in functional projections of their own, leading to the broader conclusion that all peripheral and subperipheral constituents are housed in dedicated functional projections. The chapter concludes with a Summary (Module 6.5), Bibliography (Module 6.6), and Workbook (Module 6.7), with some Workbook exercise examples designed for self-study, and others for assignments/seminar discussion.

This chapter introduces the cartographic approach to syntax, analysing the clause periphery. Module 4.1 argues that a complementiser like that is the head of a FORCEP/force projection marking declarative force, and peripheral topics (whether dislocated, fronted, or orphaned) are specifiers of lower TOPP/topic projections. Module 4.2 goes on to argue that peripheral focused constituents move from an initial position below the periphery to the edge of a peripheral FOCP/focus projection, and contrasts topic and focus. Module 4.3 then argues that peripheral clausal modifiers are directly generated on the edge of a MODP/modifier projection, and that (non)finiteness markers (like infinitival for) are generated as heads of a FINP/finiteness projection which is the lowest projection in the periphery. Next Module 4.4 contrasts complete clauses which project all the way up to FORCEP with truncated clauses which project only as far as FINP. The chapter concludes with a Summary (Module 4.5), Bibliography (Module 4.6), and Workbook (Module 4.7), with some Workbook exercise examples designed for self-study, and others for assignments/seminar discussion.

Chapter 5 extends the cartographic analysis of the clause periphery. Module 5.1 analyses Negative/Interrogative Inversion as involving a focused negative/interrogative XP moving through spec-FINP (concomitantly attracting an auxiliary to move to FIN) before moving to spec-FOCP. Module 5.2 goes on to look at embedded wh-questions (arguing that these involve a wh-XP moving to spec-FORCEP), and at how come questions (taking these to involve how come directly generated in spec-FORCEP). Module 5.3 then analyses yes-no questions, arguing that these involve an abstract yes-no question operator which behaves similarly to wh-question operators. Module 5.4 examines exclamative clauses (taking these to involve movement of an exclamative wh-XP to spec-FORCEP), and standard and non-standard relative clauses, analysing these as involving an overt/null relative operator on the edge of a RELP/relative projection positioned above a declarative/interrogative/exclamative/imperative FORCEP. The chapter concludes with a Summary (Module 5.5), Bibliography (Module 5.6), and Workbook (Module 5.7), with some Workbook exercise examples designed for self-study, and others for assignments/seminar discussion.

Sentence-final particles are normally assumed to occur in the CP domain, i.e., the domain of the complementizer phrase. Their exact syntactic position varies given the heterogeneity of these elements. The position of these particles usually depends on how they are categorized semantically, and also on how they conform to different syntactic principles. Several distinctive and often competing approaches are addressed here. This chapter also discusses those 'sentence-final particles' that are found in the lower domains and revisits the question of whether some, if not all, elements that are said to belong to the category of sentence-final particles should be construed as non-CP elements.