Local Domain in their discussion of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, in which words have multiple binary branching layers composed of roots and functional projections, with the deeper layers of the morphological hierarchy being too far away for the syntax to see and only the higher head of this multi-layered morphological tree has the ability to transmit information. Additionally, some theories of syntax appear to be incompatible with the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, such as Minimalism. Lieber and Scalise argue that Chomsky's version of Strict Minimalism necessitates lexical items to be fully formed before entering syntactic operations. However, proposes that syntactic and lexicalist approaches may be reconciled through a checking approach. Checking assumes words are built in the lexicon, and subparts of these words have features attached. These features are then checked to find matching features within the functional heads of the syntactic structures which the words are part of. Dikken asserts that syntax does not only refer to the internal structure of words; it also looks at the properties of subparts of complex words. Theory The English Right-Hand Head Rule (RHHR) In English, the Righthand head rule (RHHR) provides evidence for the division between the syntax and the lexical item. The properties of the head of the word, which in English tends to be the rightmost element, determines the properties of the word. The lens of syntax cannot see any other element in the word other than the head. In compounds, for example, a word like greenhouse is composed of the adjective, green, and the noun, house. The RHHR dictates that the head of the word comes from the rightmost element, which is a noun. As a result, the properties of the adjective green are invisible to the syntax. While most easily illustrated with compounds, the RHHR can also be extended to complex words and their respective suffixes. Five tests for Lexical Integrity: Bresnan and Mchombo identify five tests of lexical integrity which will be outlined below: extraction, conjoinability, gapping, inbound anaphoric islands and phrasal recursivity. The examples below parallel those outlined by . Extraction Syntactic operations are precluded from movement, such as extracting and relocating (as in topicalization) morphological constituents. Conjoinability Functional categories do not undergo morphological derivation, as evidenced by failures in coordination tests: syntactic categories can be coordinated but stems and affixes cannot. Gapping The gapping test shows that the syntax is unable to "see" inside morphological constituents.