Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 403–446 | Cite as

Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality. The syntax of dislocated subjects

Original Paper


Anti-agreement is the phenomenon whereby the morphosyntactic form of subject/verb agreement is sensitive to whether or not an agreeing subject has been locally extracted. This paper argues that, together with an anti-locality constraint on movement (Grohmann, 2003) which prohibits overly local movement as elaborated in (i–v), the occurrence of a canonically left dislocated subject in anti-agreement languages accounts for all syntax peculiar to the phenomenon in the Bantu language of Kinande: (i) subjects can extract long-distance even across islands; (ii) subjects are locally unextractable if the canonical subject/verb agreement occurs; (iii) local subject extraction requires a change in subject/verb agreement morphology; (iv) objects cannot locally extract even if they appear to do so; and (v) objects can extract long-distance; however, they are sensitive to islands. Evidence comes from an analysis of the distribution of nominal expressions in the language as well as in-depth examination of two different wh-question formation strategies in the language. This study also reveals that the last resort strategy in a language is relativized to what is first resort: if resumption is first resort, movement is last resort, and vice versa.


Anti-agreement Agreement Anti-locality Locality Subject A’-dependencies Left edge Dislocation Case Kinande Bantu Base generation Resumption Resumptive pronoun Wh-agreement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anagnostopoulou E., van Riemsdijk H., Zwarts F. (1997). Materials on left dislocation. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson S. (1993). Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language, 69, 68–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoun J. (1981). The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoun J. (1985). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Aoun J., Benmamoun A. (1998). Minimality, reconstruction, and PF-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 569–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Authier J.-M. (1988). Null object constructions in Kinande. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–415Google Scholar
  8. Baker M. (1996) The polysynthesis parameter. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker M. (2003). Agreement, dislocation, and partial configurationality. In A. Carnie H. Harley, & M. A. Willie (Eds.), Formal approaches to function in grammar (pp. 107–132). Linguistics Today 62, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Bhatt R. (2002). Verb second. Class handout, available from∼bhatt/ lin381l/l3.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Boeckx C. (2001). Mechanisms of chain formation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  12. Boeckx C. (2003). Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky N. (1995). Categories and Transformations. In The minimalist program (pp. 219–394). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky N. (1999). Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martin R., Michaels D., Uriagareka J. (Eds), Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 89–156Google Scholar
  16. Chung S. (1982). Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 39–77Google Scholar
  17. Chung S. (1998). The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Clements G. (1984). Binding domains in Kikuyu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14, 37–56Google Scholar
  19. Collins C. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Den Dikken M. (2006). Relators and linkers. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Den Dikken M., Naess A. (1993). Case dependencies: The case of predicate inversion. The Linguistic Review 10, 303–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diesing M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Dukes M. (1992). On the status of Chamorro Wh-agreement. In J. Mead (Ed.), Proceedings of the WCCFL 11 (pp. 177–190) Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  24. Emonds J.P. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Georgopoulos C. (1985). Variables in Palauan syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 3, 59–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Georgopoulos C. (1991). Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A-binding in Palauan. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  27. Grohmann K. (2000). Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  28. Grohmann K. (2003). Prolific domains. On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  29. Grohmann K. (2005). The road to PF. Handout from talk given at the 17th international symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics. Aristotle University, Thessaloniki GreeceGoogle Scholar
  30. Haïk I. (1990). Anaphoric, pronominal, and referential INFL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hornstein N. (1995). Logical form: From GB to minimalism. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  32. Hornstein N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  33. Iatridou S. (1990). Clitics and Island effects. ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Jelinek E. (1984). Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 39–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kayne R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Kayne R. (2005). Pronouns and their antecedents. In Movement and silence, chapter 6. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Li Y.-H.A. (1992). Dou: syntax or LF? Conference talk at the 4th North American conference on Chinese linguistics (NACCL). Michigan University, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  38. Maranz A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical aspects of bantu grammar I (pp. 113–150). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  39. McCloskey J. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Epstein S.D., Seely T.D., (Eds) Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 184–226Google Scholar
  40. McGinnis M. (1998). Locality in A-movement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Miyagawa S. (2005). On the EPP. In M. McGinnis & N. Richards (Eds.), Perspectives on phases (pp. 201–235). MIT Working papers in Linguistics 49, Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITGoogle Scholar
  42. Ouhalla J. (1993). Subject-extraction, negation and the anti-Agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 477–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips C. (1996). Disagreement between adults and children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego. (Published 1998 in A. Mendikoetxea & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (Eds.,) Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface (pp. 173–212). San Sebastian: ASJU.Google Scholar
  44. Progovac L. (1993). Non-augmented NPs in Kinande as negative polarity items. In: Mchombo S. (Eds) Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 257–270Google Scholar
  45. Richards N. (1997). What moves where when in which language? Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  46. Rizzi L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman L. (Eds) Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 281–337Google Scholar
  47. Rizzi L. (2002). Locality and left periphery. In: Belletti A. (Eds), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol 3. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 223–252Google Scholar
  48. Schneider-Zioga P. (1988). Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Handout from the Second Niger-Congo syntax and semantics workshop. Cambridge MA, MITGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider-Zioga P. (1994). The syntax of clitic doubling in modern Greek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, USC.Google Scholar
  50. Schneider-Zioga P. (1995). Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 23, 67–93Google Scholar
  51. Schneider-Zioga P. (1998). A predication analysis of clitic pronouns in Greek. In: Tamanji P., Kusumoto K. (Eds) Proceedings of NELS 28. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 183–196Google Scholar
  52. Schneider-Zioga P. (1999). A successive cyclic account of anti-agreement effects in Kinande. Handout from the Annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  53. Schneider-Zioga P. (2000). Anti-agreement and the fine structure of the left edge. In R. Ai et al. (Eds.), Working papers in linguistics 6 (pp. 94–114). Irvine: Department of Linguistics, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  54. Schneider-Zioga P. (2002). The case of anti-agreement. In A. Rackowski & N. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of AFLA 8: The eighth meeting of the Austronesian formal linguistics association (pp. 325–339). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44 Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  55. Tuller L. (1985). Tense features and operators in Hausa. In Rapport de Recherches du Groupe de Linguistique Africaniste. (pp. 493–516). année 1985–1986, Montréal: Department of Linguistics, University of Quebec at MontrealGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Riemsdijk H., Zwarts (1997). Left dislocation in Dutch and status of copying rules. In: Anagnostopoulou E.F. et al. (Eds) Materials on left dislocation. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 13–29Google Scholar
  57. Vikner S. (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Wackernagel J. (1892). Ueber ein Gesetz der Indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschung, 1, 333–446Google Scholar
  59. Zwart C.J.-W. (2005). Verb second as a function of merge. In: den Dikken M., Tortora C. (Eds), The function of function words and functional categories. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 11–40Google Scholar
  60. Zubizarreta M.L. (1999). The cl(itic) projection in questions. In Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. The Catalan working papers (pp. 253–277).Google Scholar
  61. Zubizarreta M.L. (2001). The constraint on preverbal subjects in romance interrogatives: A minimality effect. In: Hulke A., Pollock J-Y. (Eds), On romance inversion. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 183–204Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English, Comparitive Literature, and LinguisticsCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations