Clausal selection by predicates lies at the heart of linguistic representation as it combines syntactic, semantic, and lexical information. Yet, no extant theoretical approach can fully capture the way predicates embed their clausal complements. The position that most approaches take is that the syntactic and semantic encoding of complement selection projects from the lexical properties of the selector. However, such “projectionist” models have been argued to be theoretically wanting: they provide a fundamentally taxonomic description of the relevant relations and induce redundant encoding in the system. State-of-the-art approaches instead propose that the syntactic and semantic encoding of selection does not project from the lexical properties of either the selector or the selectee. The dependency rather involves relationships between functional structures which encode grammatical features such as definiteness, numerosity, tense and aspect. Such “neo-constructionist” accounts obviate the flaws of their “projectionist” predecessors by arguing that these functional structures register purely grammatical meanings and are argued to be broadly comparable (that is, non-idiosyncratic) across different languages, opening up the way to explaining a host of important generalizations about how syntactic selection relates to grammatical semantics cross-linguistically. A conjecture about clausal complementation that falls within the neo-constructionist view, tracing back to the very beginnings of modern linguistic theory, is that clausal arguments are dominated by a nominal shell. Under this view, clausal complementation reduces to an instance of nominalization, and this, in turn, is in line with the neo-constructionist view that treats clausal complementation semantically as some kind of modification. The conjecture under consideration has been investigated from various perspectives, and the upshot is that the nominal shell may translate to a definite or an indefinite element. The nominalization view has so far restricted attention to the (un)grammaticality of two types of clausal complements (declarative and yes/no interrogative), and has never been applied to the other major type of interrogative clausal complements: wh-questions. Furthermore, the nominalization view of clausal complementation has not convincingly shown that there are absolutely no lexical properties involved. In fact, outside clausal complementation, some variants of the neo-constructionist approach propose a minor role for lexical features. Extending the range of phenomena that the approach applies to will provide evidence as to exactly what aspects of lexical properties are irreducible, and hence improve the approach. Concentrating on the evidence provided by wh-questions within the neo-constructionist approach, this highly successfull research project examined the absolute minimum of lexical features that guide clausal complmentation in the presence of the appropriate functional/grammatical properties. Apart from its major scientific impact, the results obtained by this 2-year research project are expected to provide broader value to the fields of: (i) Teaching of Second/Foreign Languages, an issue of growing importance in a more diverse European Union requiring more effective communication among its citizens; (ii) Language Disorders, contributing towards a more inclusive society; and (iii) Language Typology, enhancing the European Research Infrastructure.
