In this chapter, we want to introduce issues of bounding in syntax and the far more controversial issue of bounding in LF. Starting with groundbreaking work by Huang, Kayne, Pesetsky and others, the notion of extraction domain has gained increasing attention in linguistic theory over the past decade. The basic idea in this work is that extraction is only possible from domains which are governed, and that it is in addition constrained by tree geometric properties. Pesetsky (1982) proposed that paths of movement may overlap but must not intersect. More relevant for our concerns is Kayne (1983) where directionality of government is considered as a parametrical option in syntactic theory the chosen value of which (partially) determines extractability. The idea is that a head X can start a g(overnment) projection along which extraction from its minimal maximal projection XP can be licensed. This may take place when a g-projection can be built. In a language like English, where the head takes its complement to the right, a g-projection can be built along the lines of positions which are on the right branches with respect to a governing element. Thus, extraction from object position and positions inside an object position is predicted to be licit. Extraction from the subject position, however, is not possible because a g-projection cannot be built beyond the subject position, since the subject is on a left branch. With this machinery Kayne could derive hitherto unexplained subject/object asymmetries in English and in the Romance languages. Chomsky’s (1986a) Barriers-system is in this spirit insofar as every maximal category is taken to be a potential bounding node (a barrier) for syntactic movement and that there are several options for circumventing barrierhood. It differs from Kayne’s work, however, in not taking directionality into account. Chomsky’s theory is largely based on θ-government and the availability of intermediate landing sites to avoid the effects of barriers. The classical case of long movement from COMP to COMP is supplemented with an adjunction operation that can apply to XPs which are θ-marked but fail to be L-marked due to the fact that they are not selected by a lexical head. According to Chomsky, I selects and also θ-governs VP but is not a lexical head. VP is then a blocking category (BC) which will turn the next XP up, namely IP, into a barrier. Chomsky provides a mechanism by which the BC-status of VP can be suspended. This mechanism is adjunction to VP. As we shall see, these assumptions do not constrain derivations sufficiently; this becomes particularly clear in languages with a mixed system of governing heads, such as German and Dutch. The work that has assigned movement constraints based on directionality of government a central place in syntactic theory, and, in addition, deals with the intricacies of Dutch and German word order, is Koster’s (1987) theory of Domains and Dynasties. This is the reason why I will take Koster’s work as a starting point for the following discussion.