an underlying head-initial structure to the head-final ones actually found in such languages would violate other constraints. It is implied that such languages are likely following a head-final parameter value, as originally conceived. (For a head-initial/Antisymmetry analysis of Japanese, see Kayne.) Takita's argument is based on Lin's analysis of Chinese. Since surface head-final structures are derived from underlying head-initial structures by moving the complements, further extraction from within the moved complement violates CED. One of the examples of movement which Takita looks at is that of VP-fronting in Japanese. Grammatically, the sentence without VP-fronting (a) and the sentence where the VP moves to the matrix clause (b) do not significantly differ. In (b), the fronted VP precedes the matrix subject, confirming that the VP is located in the matrix clause. If Japanese were head-initial, (b) should not be grammatical because it allows for the extraction of an element (VP2) from the moved complement (CP2). Thus Takita shows that surface head-final structures in Japanese do not block movement, as they do in Chinese. He concludes that, because Japanese does not block movement as shown in previous sections, it is a genuinely head-final language, and not derived from an underlying, head-initial structure. These results imply that Universal Grammar involves binary head-directionality, and is not antisymmetric. Takita briefly applies the same tests to Turkish, another seemingly head-final language, and reports similar results. References Sources Generative syntax Grammar frameworks Syntactic relationships Syntax Asymmetry