Movement and cyclic Agree

Abstract

Recent work has argued for derivational expansion of the search space of ɸ-probes as a result of the cyclic interaction of Merge and Agree (cyclic Agree). Empirical evidence for such effects has come from the interaction of Agree with external Merge, but these accounts make the additional predictions that such interactions should also arise from the interaction of Agree with movement. In this paper, we argue based on evidence from Hindi-Urdu that movement may feed cyclic Agree in the same way as external Merge, bearing out this key prediction. The central empirical generalizations that we argue for are that (i) A-scrambling of an object over a subject may feed agreement in certain configurations, (ii) there is nonetheless a preference for agreement with the structurally lower subject, and (iii) $\overline {\text{A}}$ A ‾ -scrambling of the object never feeds agreement. We develop a cyclic-Agree analysis that provides a principled explanation of these generalizations. Crucial to this explanation are that (i) search space is dynamic and interacts with movement, (ii) there is a preference for agreement with elements c-commanded by the head that hosts the probe (first-cycle Agree), and (iii) ɸ-probes project as part of the label, but not past the immediate projection line of the head.

Search downward: Minimal Search-based Agree

“…At this point, it is unclear which approach is superior empirically, although the later idea sounds more promising theoretically since it does not assume an additional memory stack. 20 This will capture the contrast between A-movement and Ā-movement in cyclic agreement in Hindi-Urdu (Keine & Dash 2017, which I cannot discuss due to space limitations: A-movement but not Ā-movement feeds the second cycle Agree. That is, if a DP A-moves from a lower phase to the matrix SpecTP, since the C head has not yet entered into the derivation, the DP can agree with the matrix T; by contrast, if a DP Ā-moves to SpecCP, since the lexical array for the matrix CP is exhausted after the C head merges in, the DP cannot agree with T. Under the current analysis, for the second cycle MS-Agree, MS will look down from C′ after A-movement but before Ā-movement occurs, allowing the A-moved DP to be returned but excluding the Ā-moved DP.…”