Consider the observation that null subject languages do not exhibit complementizer-trace effects. This is illustrated for Italian in (10). This correlation is robust: Gilligan (1987) shows, with a 100-language sample, that the general availability of postverbal subjects entails the lack of complementizer-trace effects.

Rizzi (1982) proposes that in null subject languages, subjects need not move to their preverbal position (see also Roberts 2010), allowing for Ā-extraction directly from a base position, as in (11). Such movement is not in danger of violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, and therefore does not trigger the complementizer-trace effect. This explains the correlation between the null subject parameter and the lack of complementizer-trace effects.

Even in a language without null subjects, if the EPP is satisfied through alternative means, the subject can be extracted across an overt complementizer by moving directly from its predicate-internal position. This can be observed in English, for subjects which are compatible with the there-construction. Rizzi (2006) presents the contrast in (12), arguing that the subject skips Spec,TP in (12b), allowing for grammatical subject extraction across a complementizer.

For Rizzi (2006) and Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007), the contrast in (12) is due to the subject position (Spec,SubjP for Rizzi & Shlonsky) being a “criterial” position from which further movement is disallowed. But their suggestion that skipping the Spec,TP position allows for subject extraction across an overt complementizer also applies to my anti-locality-based account in (9). Evidence from the following section will, furthermore, lead us to abandon the “Criterial Freezing” account.

Next, consider obviation by high adverbs. As noted in Bresnan (1977) and Culicover (1993), the addition of an adverb between that and the subject trace position obviates the English that-trace effect.

Such adverb obviation is also attested in Swedish, as observed through the contrast in (14):

But not all adjuncts have this obviation effect. Rizzi (1997: 311) notes that only high adjuncts obviate the complementizer-trace effect, attributing this observation to Kinsuke Hasegawa. Compare the addition of the epistemic adverb fortunately and the manner adverb quickly in the English (15):

Both the obviation of complementizer-trace effects by adjuncts and the fact that this is limited to structurally high adjuncts is explained by Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. I assume that the introduction of the adjuncts in (13) and (15) involves the projection of additional functional structure between TP and CP, here labeled AdvP. As Bošković (2016) also notes, this extra functional material makes movement from Spec,TP to Spec,CP no longer violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. This allows for the overt complementizer, projecting a CP independent of TP.7

A note is in order regarding the optional projection of functional structure. I assume with Giorgi & Pianesi (1996: 13–17), Rizzi (1997: 314–315), and Erlewine (2016: 475) that functional projections are only projected in the clausal spine if they contribute to the interfaces morphophonologically, interpretationally, or by hosting material such as specifiers. See also Bošković (2016: 42 fn. 28). As noted by a reviewer, Cinque (1999: 133) tentatively rejects this approach on conceptual grounds. The sensitivity of complementizer-trace effects — and other subject extraction phenomena, as we will see — to the addition of material between the subject position and the clause edge forms an empirical argument against Cinque’s conceptual critique.

Such adverb obviation data present a challenge for a range of other approaches to complementizer-trace effects. For Rizzi and Shlonsky’s approach, briefly described above, material in “criterial” positions, including subject positions, is unable to move out. But the addition of higher material should not affect this “criterial” status. The interaction is also not predicted under other, less fine-grained anti-locality constraints such as the “prolific domains” approach of Grohmann (2003). For Grohmann, clauses are organized into three domains — roughly, the extended CP, extended TP, and the theta domain — and movement must cross between these domains. If the ungrammaticality of the original complementizer-trace violation (as in (9a) above) is due to Grohmann’s anti-locality, moving within a single domain, it is unclear how the addition of an optional functional projection will make the movement now proceed across two different domains.

The third argument for the anti-locality approach to complementizer-trace effects comes from locative inversion. Recall that this approach is purely configurational: its logic will apply to other arguments which are in an exceptionally high position in the clause, not just subjects. Bresnan (1977: 186) observes that locative PPs in locative inversion (LI) constructions (17) are also subject to complementizer-trace effects when extracted. This contrast is observed in (18): (18a) involves Ā-movement of the PP from the clause-initial LI position, requiring a null complementizer. However, the same PP can be extracted across an overt complementizer in (18b), without LI.

There are broadly two families of analyses to the structure of LI (see Salzmann 2011; Diercks 2017). One takes the locative PP to function as the subject, and therefore occupy Spec,TP. With the locative PP in Spec,TP, the approach to complementizer-trace proposed here in (9) would extend to these PPs as well. The other approach to LI proposes that locative PPs are not in Spec,TP, but in a higher topic position. The examples in (19) and (20) from Stowell (1981) show that LI is unavailable in various environments that disallow topics.

Such data argues against the complementizer-trace effect being specifically about movement from Spec,TP to Spec,CP. If locative PPs are in a topic position (e.g. Spec,TopicP) above TP, movement from Spec,TopicP to Spec,CP must then be subject to complementizer-trace effects.

The anti-locality approach to complementizer-trace effects can explain the contrast in (18), even if the topic analysis for LI is adopted. Following the discussion in the previous section, suppose that the high topic position (TopicP) is only projected when necessary to host a topic, such as in LI constructions. With a PP moved to Spec,TopicP above the subject in (21a), movement of the locative PP from Spec,TopicP to Spec,CP will violate Spec-to-Spec anti-locality. Instead, the projection of a bundled C and Topic head — CTopic below — will allow for LI and also put the locative PP at the edge of the embedded clause, at the cost of disallowing an overt complementizer.8

The fourth and final argument for the anti-locality approach comes from the behavior of complementizer-trace effects in Yiddish as described in Diesing (1990). Yiddish allows for embedded V2 clauses with an overt complementizer az (22). Following Diesing, I assume the V2 verb is in T (her Infl), with the prefield (italicized ‘wine’ below) being in Spec,TP.

Yiddish exhibits complementizer-trace effects targeting the extraction of material in the embedded prefield, not specifically subjects. Consider first the examples in (23).9 In this minimal pair, it appears that Yiddish exhibits a complementizer-trace effect whereby non-subjects but not subjects can be extracted from embedded clauses with az.

However, upon further inspection, what is specifically banned is not subject extraction across az, but rather extraction from the prefield across the complementizer az. This is observed in two ways. First, in (24), we see that object extraction across the complementizer az is also ungrammatical if the object first occupied the prefield (Spec,TP).

The ungrammaticality of the string in (24) also teaches us that a derivation where the wh-word vos moves from its base position directly to the intermediate Spec,CP — leaving Spec,TP empty — is also unavailable. This follows from the EPP requirement of Yiddish Spec,TP; see Diesing (1990) for motivating arguments for the EPP in Yiddish.

We observe next that subject extraction itself becomes grammatical across az if another constituent occupies the embedded prefield (Spec,TP):

As noted by Branigan (2005), the complementizer-trace effect in Yiddish thus cannot specifically be about subject properties such as nominative case, contra e.g. Pesetsky & Torrego (2001). Instead, it is specifically about movement from the closest, embedded specifier position (here labeled Spec,TP) to Spec,CP.

I have argued here that complementizer-trace effects should be analyzed as due to Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, as also recently proposed in Bošković (2016). We have seen that this proposal is able to explain a number of peculiarities of these effects. Because movement of subjects from Spec,TP across an overt complementizer to Spec,CP is banned by anti-locality, we predict obviation of the effect by the addition of high functional material such as high adverbs. In contrast to other approaches, the anti-locality approach is purely configurational: It is not tied to other subjecthood properties such as nominative case or being specifically in Spec,TP/Spec,SubjP. This approach thus successfully extends to complementizer-trace effects in locative inversion and with Yiddish embedded V2 clauses. I presented a new analysis for that-less complement clauses and their equivalents, based on the bundling of C and T into a single head (Martinović 2015; Erlewine 2018; Hsu to appear).

We have concentrated here on the analysis of complementizer-trace effects where the complementizer varies between null and pronounced variants. As noted in the introduction to this section, there are also complementizer-trace effects where subject extraction triggers the use of a distinct complementizer instead, such as the French que/qui alternation. Preliminary evidence suggests that such alternations are also amenable to an anti-locality-based account. I briefly illustrate here with evidence from the gànán/’án alternation in Nupe (Niger-Congo; Nigeria). Example (26a) shows long-distance object extraction out of an embedded clause headed by the regular complementizer gànán. In contrast, long-distance subject extraction is ungrammatical across gànán, instead triggering the use of the ’án complementizer, as in (26b). There is no null complementizer option.

Kandybowicz then observes that the addition of the high adverb pányí lě ‘a long time ago’ exceptionally allows for subject extraction across the default gànán complementizer, as in (27a). This obviation effect does not hold of lower adverbs, such as dàdà ‘quickly’ (27b). See Kandybowicz (2008: 40–41) and Kandybowicz (2009: 310), respectively, for evidence that pányí lě is above the subject position and dàdà is below.

In other words, the need to use the special ’án subject extraction complementizer is obviated by the addition of material above the canonical subject position but not below it, just as we observed for English in section 2.2 above, suggesting that an anti-locality constraint may underly this alternation as well. Within the framework of bundled vs split functional heads discussed here, ’án may reflect the realization of C bundled with the lower head associated with the subject position (e.g. T), whereas gànán may realize the split C; see Erlewine (2018) for discussion of the morphological realization of bundled vs split heads. I leave the evaluation of anti-locality-based approaches to this and other complementizer-trace effects for future work.

The first piece of evidence supporting the anti-locality-based approach to anti-agreement effects comes from the effect of negation on anti-agreement. In his pioneering work on anti-agreement, Ouhalla (1993) notes that in some languages, the addition of negation can obviate anti-agreement. Consider the Matsigenka (Arawak; Peru) data below, originally from the Vargas Pereira & Vargas Pereira (2013) corpus, as reported in Baier (2018) but with glosses simplified. (32a) shows that Matsigenka verbs have a prefixal agreement marker. In subject relatives such as (32b), the verb loses this subject agreement prefix. The addition of negation te, which precedes the verbal complex and hosts the relativization clitic =rira, triggers the reappearance of subject agreement on the verb, as in (32c).

However, Ouhalla also notes that there are languages where the addition of negation does not affect anti-agreement. One such language is Turkish. In Turkish subject relatives, the relativized verb is unable to exhibit plural agreement with the subject (33), which is optional in regular SOV clauses. Here, the addition of negation does not obviate anti-agreement as seen in (33b).

Such data led Ouhalla to a generalization as in (34). For precision, here I give the formulation from Baier (2018).

Descriptively, we see that negation involves a high head te in Matsigenka above the locus of subject agreement, whereas negation is in a structurally lower position in Turkish, closer to the verb root. In his survey of anti-agreement behaviors, including 18 languages with anti-agreement where data on negation was available, Baier (2018) reports that no counterexamples to Ouhalla’s Generalization were found.

Further support for Ouhalla’s Generalization comes from the effects of two different negators in Welsh, not discussed in Ouhalla (1993). The Welsh copula has a special non-agreeing “relative” form (sy be.REL) used in subject extraction constructions. This is illustrated in (35). (35a) shows the agreeing copula, which cannot be used in the subject cleft in (35b).

Welsh has two different negators, na(d) and ddim, which differ in register and in their structural heights; see e.g. Borsley, Tallerman & Willis (2007: 79). Consider the effect of these negators in the subject wh-questions in (36). The lower ddim leaves us with the non-agreeing copula sy (36a), but the agreeing copula reappears with the higher na(d) negation (36b). The higher negator obviates anti-agreement but the lower one does not, supporting Ouhalla’s Generalization (34).

This obviation of anti-agreement by high negation but not low negation echoes the obviation of complementizer-trace effects by high adverbs but not low adverbs; see (15). Under the anti-locality approach to complementizer-trace effects and anti-agreement effects, this pattern is not accidental. Both behaviors are reactions to the subject’s canonical position being too close to the edge of the clause, bearing out prediction (5a) from the introduction.

Ouhalla’s Generalization (34) is predicted by the anti-locality approach to anti-agreement (31). Suppose full subject agreement reflects the subject occupying a high position associated with subject agreement morphology (31a), and sentential negation reflects the presence of an additional functional head. If the negative head is structurally higher than the position of agreeing subjects, as determined by the locus of subject agreement, its addition will increase the distance between the subject position (Spec,TP) and its Ā-landing site (Spec,CP). This allows subjects to first occupy their agreeing position and then Ā-move without violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality (37a). In contrast, the projection of negation in a lower position will not affect the fact that the subject cannot be extracted to Spec,CP through the agreeing Spec,TP position without violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality.

Ouhalla’s Generalization (34) is thus naturally derived by the anti-locality approach to anti-agreement, and can in turn be taken as evidence for this approach.

A second argument for the anti-locality approach to anti-agreement comes from anti-agreement effects in non-nominative-accusative languages. In introducing my approach to anti-agreement in (31) above, I assumed that T agrees with transitive subjects and intransitive subjects in Spec,TP, following the analysis of Brandi & Cordin (1989) and further discussion in Ouhalla (1993). But the logic of anti-agreement (31) would apply equally to other arguments which canonically move to Spec,TP and concurrently agree with the verb.

An example of such a pattern of anti-agreement comes from Karitiâna (Tupian; Brazil). The verb in Karitiâna agrees with transitive objects (38a) and intransitive subjects (38b) — i.e. absolutive arguments. There is generally no agreement with transitive subjects. There is no case marking on nominals.

Karitiâna exhibits absolutive-aligned extraction asymmetries, including anti-agreement with extracted absolutive arguments. Wh-phrases are initial in wh-questions, but using different derivations. Transitive objects and intransitive subjects cooccur with the copula -mon in initial position in (39a–b). In these cases, the agreement morpheme is replaced by an invariant i- or ti- prefix, instantiating an instance of absolutive-aligned anti-agreement. Storto analyzes the structures in (39a–b) as clefts involving nominalization of the verb, which explains their lack of agreement. Wh-movement without this clefting strategy is possible for transitive subjects (39c), and also with the extraction of obliques (see Storto (1999: 200ff)).11

Why can’t transitive objects and intransitive subjects wh-move directly from their regular positions? As noted in Erlewine (2016: 472–473), the answer could be anti-locality. Storto (1997; 1998) proposes that absolutive arguments move to Spec,TP in Karitiâna. Subsequent movement of an absolutive argument from Spec,TP to Spec,CP will violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. In contrast, the movement of transitive subjects is not restricted by anti-locality, leading to direct movement and no change in agreement in (39c).

Here again, the canonical high position of absolutive arguments, in Spec,TP, together with Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, explains why these arguments cannot be extracted regularly, forcing an alternative derivation to be invoked.

In this section, we described a basic approach to anti-agreement effects driven by anti-locality. If agreement correlates with the movement of an argument to a structurally high position (Spec,TP), it may be unable to ϕ-agree and also Ā-move to Spec,CP. Moving from Spec,TP to Spec,CP would violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, assuming no intervening functional projections. Instead, these languages Ā-extract the subject in a different manner, forgoing agreement. We saw in this section that additional, higher functional material can obviate anti-agreement, but not lower functional material (Ouhalla’s Generalization), as it increases the structural distance between the agreeing Spec,TP position and Spec,CP. We also saw that this approach to anti-agreement effects can be productively extended to ergative-absolutive languages with absolutive anti-agreement.

I also note, however, that there are examples of anti-agreement effects which appear to not be amenable to the anti-locality-based approach sketched in (31) above. For example, Baier (2018: 30) notes that “there are clear examples of languages [with anti-agreement] where ϕ-agreement is not parasitic on movement to a specifier in an anti-local configuration with Spec-CP,” making the first step of the account (31a) not apply. See the cases in Baier (2017) and Baier & Yuan (2017). Here I have highlighted the existence of anti-agreement effects which do exhibit signatures of an anti-locality-driven interaction, leaving open the possibility that some other anti-agreement effects require alternative explanations.

I begin with discussion of resumptive relatives in two South Slavic languages, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. Both languages have relative clauses introduced by a wh relative pronoun and relative clauses introduced by a dedicated relative complementizer; we discuss only the latter here. As noted above, both languages exhibit a general ban on resumptive pronouns in subject position, both for local and long-distance relatives. In this section, we take a closer look at these patterns, including evidence that their ban on subject resumptives is an anti-locality-driven effect.

We begin by reviewing the Serbo-Croatian data above, beginning with the basic subject/non-subject asymmetry in relative clauses introduced by the relative complementizer (što). Example (53a) shows the availability of optional resumption in object relatives, whereas (53b) demonstrates the ban on subject resumptives for local subject relatives.

The facts for Slovenian relative clauses with the relative complementizer (ki) are similar. Non-subject relatives involve resumptive pronouns, as in (54a), whereas resumptive pronouns are generally disallowed for subject relatives, as in (54b).

I note that the availability of gapped versus resumptive non-subject relatives here are constrained by additional factors (Bošković 2009; see also Gračanin-Yuksek 2013), and also vary by speaker (Hladnik 2015: 99). Here I will set these factors aside and concentrate on the overall availability of resumptive pronouns for the relativization of non-subjects as in (53a) and (54a), but not for subjects as in (53b) and (54b).

The examples above in both languages include second-position clitics, indicated with =, which warrant some discussion. This includes, above, the present tense copular auxiliaries sam and je in (53) and the object pronouns ga. In matrix clauses, these clitics follow one initial constituent, as in (55) below, but in embedded clauses (including relative clauses), the second-position clitics immediately follow the complementizer.

Here I will follow the proposal developed in Bošković (2001) for the second-position effect. Bošković argues that clitic placement reflects a PF filter, but that these clitics themselves generally do not move. Rather, the PF resolution of other movement chains will be affected by this PF requirement. I concretely illustrate his proposal through the case of subject movement, presented schematically in (56) below. In the syntax, the subject moves from its predicate-internal base position to its canonical, high position (here Spec,TP) (56a). Between TP and vP are projections for the clitic auxiliaries such as je and for hosting clitic pronouns, not present in this example. Following a proposal of Franks’s (1998) — later further motivated in Bošković (2002) — Bošković proposes that the head of a movement chain is pronounced unless it causes a violation at PF, in which case a lower copy in the chain is pronounced.

With a null complementizer and no other fronted material as in (56b), the subject can be pronounced in its movement-derived position and satisfy the second-position PF requirement of the clitic auxiliary. If however there is an overt complementizer (56c) or another constituent pronounced above the auxiliary, the subject will appear lower at PF through lower copy pronunciation. See Bošković (2001) for extensive argumentation for this approach. Crucially, for our purposes, this means that the subject is always moved high in the narrow syntax, even if pronounced below these second-position clitics.

We now turn to the syntax of these relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. Both languages have both gapped and resumptive relatives introduced by their relative complementizers. Hladnik (2015) has independently argued for two distinct derivations for these strategies, parallel to what I have proposed above: a head-raising derivation for gapped relatives and a head-external derivation for resumptive relatives, with covert movement of the resumptive pronoun to the edge of the relative clause. Hladnik provides evidence from parasitic gap licensing for the covert movement of the resumptive pronoun in Slovenian; see e.g. Hladnik (2015: 35–36).

Consider the derivation of the resumptive relatives in (53) above, beginning with the object relative in (57). The resumptive object pronoun here is a clitic pronoun and thus moves to the preverbal clitic-hosting position. It then moves covertly to the edge of the relative clause. The second-position requirement of the auxiliary and pronominal clitics are satisfied as they follow the complementizer što and the subject is a null pronoun. The object relative derivation is grammatical.

Now consider the attempted subject relative with resumption in (58). This derivation involves subject movement to Spec,TP, followed by covert movement to Spec,CP. This second movement violates Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, predicting this structure to be ungrammatical.

In contrast, as seen in (53b) and (54b) above, the parallel gapped subject relatives are grammatical. Gapped relatives reflect a head-raising structure (49a).16 Raised head nouns need not move to A-positions to be Case-licensed internally, and thus a raised subject head noun can skip the Spec,TP position, avoiding the violation of Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality illustrated in (58) above.

Note that this anti-locality violation in (58) is not immediately reflected in the surface string. The mechanisms for PF chain resolution in these languages, reviewed above, predict that the subject will be pronounced in a lower position, with both the complementizer and auxiliary intervening between it and the edge of the clause. I follow Bošković in assuming that subject movement nonetheless takes place, with the pronunciation of its movement chain resolved only at PF, based on requirements imposed by the second-position clitic auxiliary. The structural proximity of the subject’s high, canonical position to the edge of the clause results in the ungrammaticality of the subject relative with resumption in (53b/58).

Evidence for the ban on subject resumption being due to anti-locality comes from the possibility of obviating the ban on subject resumption by increasing the distance between the high subject position and the edge of the clause. Bošković observes such an effect, exemplified by the relative acceptability of example (59). The effect is also replicated in Slovenian, in (60a), with baseline in (60b).

In examples (59) and (60a), the focused object is fronted to a position above the subject. Note in particular that these examples have no second-position clitics. Following the proposal of Franks (1998) and Bošković (2001), then, the subjects are pronounced at the head of their overt movement chains, i.e. in Spec,TP. Movement of the object to an optional, clause-peripheral focus position increases the distance for the subject’s covert movement from Spec,TP to Spec,CP, resulting in a grammatical subject resumptive relative.

Hladnik (2015) also observes that subject resumptives in Slovenian improve with the addition of a focus particle. The “(?)” judgment in (61) is Hladnik’s. The focus particle increases the structural distance between the pronoun’s overt position and Spec,CP, making its covert movement possible.

Having established the anti-locality-driven nature of the ban on subject resumption in these languages, we now discuss long-distance relatives. Here too, resumptive pronouns are reported to be significantly degraded, if not ungrammatical:

The anti-locality-based proposal here can also derive this ban on embedded subject resumptives. Suppose that the organization of these embedded clauses straightforwardly has the complementizer da taking TP as its complement, where Spec,TP is the canonical subject position. I assume that long-distance relativization involves successive-cyclic movement through intermediate Spec,CPs up to the relative clause edge. In gapped relatives, this is movement of the head noun, whereas in resumptive relatives, this is covert movement of the resumptive pronoun.

The hypothetical head-external derivation for the ungrammatical resumptive forms in (62–63) is schematized in (64) below. Recall that subjects generally move to Spec,TP, even in cases where they are ultimately pronounced in a lower position due to PF requirements of second-position clitics.17 Movement of the subject out of the embedded clause will violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality.

In contrast, in a head-raising derivation, the head noun need not be licensed within the relative clause itself, allowing it to skip the canonical subject position in Spec,TP, and thus grammatically covertly move through the intermediate Spec,CP to the edge of the relative clause. Thus, without further differentiation between the structure of embedded clause edges and the edge of relative clauses, the anti-locality-driven approach to bans on subject resumption here predicts — correctly for Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian — that these bans will extend to embedded subject positions as well.

Next we consider relative clauses in Hebrew. Recall that optional resumption in Hebrew is subject to the so-called Highest Subject Restriction (HSR): a ban on subject resumption only in local relativization. I argue that the HSR also follows the anti-locality-based logic described above, which we saw in action in Serbo-Croation and Slovenian in the previous section. In this section I do not address why the ban on subject resumption only applies to local relativization in Hebrew, but we will return to this question in section 5.

I begin by discussing attested exceptions to the HSR. Borer (1984) and Shlonsky (1992) report that fronting another constituent to the edge of a relative clause allows for grammatical highest subject relatives with resumption:

Assuming that the fronted constituent in (65) is hosted by an optional, dedicated functional projection (e.g. FocusP or TopicP), the fronted material increases the structural distance between the preverbal subject position and Spec,CP. This allows for a pronoun to first occupy the canonical preverbal subject position — which I call Spec,TP here — and then move to Spec,CP in a head-external derivation (49b), resulting in pronunciation of the resumptive pronoun in the preverbal position.

Highest subject resumptives can also be made grammatical by adding additional structure to the pronoun itself, rather than adding structure to the clausal spine. In (66), the focus particle rak ‘only’ is added to the subject hu, resulting in a grammatical subject resumptive, parallel to what we observed in Slovenian in (61). The focus particle adds another projection between the pronoun’s overt position and its covert landing site, making its movement possible.

Yet another way to increase the distance between the subject and the relative clause edge is to place it in a postverbal position. Consider the grammatical local subject relatives in (67). These examples involve a high register V2-like inversion structure, where another constituent is fronted to a preverbal position, leaving the subject postverbal. In this case, resumption is allowed.

The subjects in (67) may occupy either (a) a lower, predicate-internal position or (b) their canonical Spec,TP position but with subsequent movement of the verb and another constituent to a higher position. In either case, the structural distance between the pronounced position of the subject relative pronoun and Spec,CP is increased, allowing for its movement to Spec,CP without violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. These exceptions to the HSR in (65–67) are predicted by the anti-locality approach to bans on subject resumption presented above.

The anti-locality approach also predicts that the ban will also apply to resumption of other arguments at the high relative clause edge, right under its Spec,CP covert landing site. This prediction is borne out in long-distance subject relatives with internal fronting. First, we note that resumptive pronouns can be overtly fronted within relative clauses, even long-distance. This is illustrated with a long-distance object relative with resumptive in (68). The {…} notation indicates that the pronoun ‘oto may be in any of the {…} positions.

Now recall that embedded subject resumptives are grammatical in Hebrew, as in (47), repeated here in (69); we discuss why this is so in section 5 below. However, (70) shows that fronting this resumptive to the edge of the relative clause leads to ungrammaticality:

The data in (68–70) raise two questions. First, why is the internally-fronted subject resumptive pronoun in (70) ungrammatical? I propose that this follows from the general logic of the HSR. (70) requires fronting of the embedded subject pronoun to the high edge of the relative clause’s topmost clause, followed by covert movement to the relative clause’s Spec,CP. Movement from this high position to Spec,CP violates Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. This example shows that the HSR in Hebrew is not specifically a ban on resumptive pronouns for local subjects, in a manner predicted by the anti-locality approach to the HSR.

The second question that (68–70) raise is why this ban on high resumptives nonetheless only applies to subject pronouns (70) and not to object pronouns (68). That is, the object resumptive ’oto can be at the top of the relative clause in (68), unlike the subject resumptive hu in (70). I propose that this further asymmetry is due to the fact that subjects are the only nominals that are unambiguously preposition-less DPs in Hebrew. Pronouns in direct object position are generated with the DOM accusative marker ’et, which in these examples fuse with the pronoun into ’oto. Kotek (2014) shows that Hebrew ’et is ambiguous between a preposition and a case marker. The availability of a prepositional parse for ’et allows for the high fronted direct object relative resumptives as in (68).

Consider the two head-external relative clause derivations in (71), where the resumptive has been fronted to the edge of the relative clause’s topmost clause. I simply label this relevant projection (Focus or Topic) XP below. The two derivations differ in whether or not the pronoun is bare or a prepositional object. For subject pronouns, there is no prepositional option, and thus the only possibility would be (71a), where covert movement of the pronoun from its overt position to the relative clause edge violates Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. In contrast, object pronouns can be prepositional objects. Although the overt fronting within the relative clause moves the entire PP, as Hebrew disallows preposition-stranding, covert movement to Spec,CP targets the pronoun alone, as illustrated in (71b). Notice that this final movement step now crosses two maximal projections, PP and XP (FocusP or TopicP), and thus will not violate Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality.

In sum, we have seen that the Hebrew HSR exhibits the behaviors of an anti-locality-driven interaction: It is obviated by the addition of higher material and also applies to other, exceptionally high constituents. These behaviors are explained by optional resumptive pronouns being the result of a head-raising derivation (Sichel 2014) with covert movement to the relative clause edge (49b), with movement restricted by Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality. Along the way, we have established a new characterization for the Hebrew HSR as a ban on subject pronouns which are in the highest position inside the relative clause, rather than a ban specifically on local subject resumption. The availability of object pronouns in this same high position also follows from the anti-locality approach, together with the independently motivated ambiguity of Hebrew accusative ’et as a case marker or preposition (Kotek 2014). I discuss why the Hebrew HSR only affects the highest clause in section 5.

In this section I discussed restrictions on subject resumption in Serbo-Croation, Slovenian, and Hebrew, with discussion of Irish included in the Appendix. In Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, the restriction applies to both highest and embedded subject positions, whereas in Hebrew and Irish, the restriction famously holds only for local subject relativization. I argued that these restrictions are all reflections of Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, as evidenced by the fact that they can be obviated by the projection of additional structural material above the subject.

I presented an analysis of different relativization types — combining the analysis of optional resumption in Bianchi (2004) and Sichel (2014) with the Demirdache (1991; 1997) proposal that resumptive pronouns move covertly to the edge, also independently proposed for Slavic languages in Hladnik (2015) — which then derives these bans on subject resumption from Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality.

Clauses of different types, within a single language, may vary in the richness of their functional projections. This is an intuition that has been developed in the literature on Main Clause Phenomena and their relation to the organization of clauses. In this section, I show how such independently-motivated differences in clause structure can productively explain the selectivity of subject extraction asymmetries.

We first consider variability in whether subjects behave differently only for local extraction or also for long-distance extraction. As discussed in section 4.1, if we assume that long-distance movement proceeds successive-cyclically and that the embedded clause edge is organized similarly — with no maximal projections between the canonical subject position (Spec,TP) and its (successive-cyclic) Ā-landing site (Spec,CP) — we predict the same subject/non-subject differentiation to apply at embedded clause edges as well. I proposed above that this is the case in Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, where the ban on subject extraction applies to both local and long-distance relativization. The same can be said for subject anti-agreement in Fiorentino and Trentino, where the extraction of an embedded subject also triggers anti-agreement on the embedded verb (Brandi & Cordin 1989).

However, it is also possible for a language to have embedded clauses within a long-distance Ā-construction that are structurally richer than its topmost clause. I illustrate this idea in (72) below, with the topmost clause of the Ā-construction labeled CP₁ and embedded clauses labeled CP₂. If CP₂ includes an additional functional layer between its subject and clause edge, long-distance subject movement will not be restricted by Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, and therefore will be treated on par with non-subjects. The subject/non-subject asymmetry is then predicted to only hold of local extractions.

Such a difference is one possibility for why the Hebrew ban on subject resumption only applies to the highest clause, although I also present an alternative possibility in the following section. This proposal would be supported by independent evidence for Hebrew relative clauses being structurally reduced as compared to its embedded clauses. I leave the identification of such diagnostics for future work.

Similarly, there are languages where subject anti-agreement only holds of local Ā-extractions but not their long-distance variants, including Tarifit Berber, Breton, and Turkish, all discussed in Ouhalla (1993). Here too, it may be that their topmost clauses are reduced as compared to their embedded clauses, leading to subject anti-agreement via anti-locality only in the instance of subject extraction from the highest clause. Baier (2018) notes that “the asymmetry between local and long distance extraction with regards to anti-agreement in languages like Tarifit and Turkish is not predicted by any account of anti-agreement,” potentially making the approach here the first concrete proposal to account for these asymmetries.

Different, related Ā-constructions within a single language may also vary in the amount of functional material projected, leading to selectivity. Consider the fact that restrictive and non-restrictive (appositive) relatives differ in the availability of certain high adverbs:

As frankly is a speech-act modifier (see e.g. Ernst 2002: 70–73), it must attach to a high, speech-act-related functional projection of the clause. Suppose this functional layer is projected in the edge of non-restrictive relatives but not restrictive relatives. This hypothesis immediately explains the contrast in (73), and serves to account for other Main Clause Phenomena available in non-restrictive relatives but not in restrictive relatives (Emonds 1979).

Let’s relate this contrast in (73) to our subject extraction asymmetries. Suñer (1992) notes that anti-agreement behavior in the Northern Italian dialects of Fiorentino and Trentino, described in section 3, differs between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives. Specifically, whereas restrictive subject relatives trigger default, third singular masculine agreement (anti-agreement), non-restrictive subject relatives retain full agreement:

Assuming that the fine structure of relative clauses in (Northern) Italian resembles that of English above — with non-restrictive relatives projecting additional functional material, as compared to restrictive relatives — the contrast in (74) may be explained by the anti-locality approach to anti-agreement. The projection of additional functional material in non-restrictive relatives allows for subject extraction to proceed via the agreeing Spec,TP position in the non-restrictive (74b) but not in the restrictive (74a).

Another way in which constructions may vary, and thereby exhibit a subject extraction asymmetry in one case but not another, is in the precise position targeted by their Ā-extractions. For example, suppose that all clauses under discussion in a language include a projection XP between TP and CP, but that one type of Ā-extraction targets Spec,XP (75a), whereas another type targets Spec,CP (75b). This too would lead to a kind of selectivity: we predict a subject/non-subject extraction asymmetry for Ā-movement in (75a), but not in (75b).

This is, in effect, the outline of my explanation for why the Irish ban on subject resumption only holds of local relatives, presented in the Appendix. Following independent work on Irish morphosyntax, there is an intermediate head between T and C: Σ. I propose that resumptive pronouns move to Spec, ΣP (75a), explaining the ban on local subject resumption. In contrast, long-distance movement involves movement through intermediate Spec,CP (75b) and thus exhibits no subject/non-subject contrast. See the Appendix for further details.

This approach to selectivity could also be adopted for the distinction between Hebrew local and long-distance relativization as well. Suppose that both the topmost and embedded clauses in Hebrew relatives project an XP between TP and CP, and that resumptive pronouns covertly move to Spec,XP at the edge of the relative, as in (75a), whereas long-distance movement moves through intermediate Spec,CP, as in (75b). This too would derive the “highest” nature of the Hebrew Highest Subject Restriction. It is worth noting that, for wh-movement constructions, Preminger (2010) independently proposes such a difference between the landing sites of final versus intermediate wh-movement in Hebrew.

Variation in the landing site of movement could also account for selectivity between different Ā-constructions in a single language. For example, Suñer (1992) observes that D-linked wh-phrase subjects in Fiorentino and Trentino are fully agreed with; i.e. D-linked wh-phrases do not trigger anti-agreement. This difference is illustrated in (76) below:

There is, however, an independent difference between the syntax of D-linked and non-D-linked wh-movement structures in Italian. Whereas wh-movement in Italian regularly triggers obligatory subject inversion (77a), D-linked wh-phrases are allowed to cooccur with preverbal subjects (77b).

Based on such observations, Rizzi (2001), Brunetti (2002), Cecchetto (2004), and Poletto & Pollock (2004) propose that D-linked wh-phrases have different possible landing sites in Italian. For concreteness, following Brunetti’s discussion, D-linked wh-phrases may target a higher landing site than non-D-linked wh-phrases. We then predict that D-linked subject wh-phrases can move to their landing site from their agreeing Spec,TP position without violating Spec-to-Spec Anti-Locality, as in (75b), whereas the movement of non-D-linked wh-subjects requires the “skipping” derivation discussed in section 3 above. This explains the selectivity of subject anti-agreement observed in (76) above.

In this section I discussed the analysis of “selective” extraction asymmetries, which only apply to particular Ā-extraction constructions, or only to their local variants. Following the anti-locality-based analysis of these effects, I sketched two possible syntactic manipulations which could lead to such sensitivity: varying the structure of different types of clauses and varying the landing site of different movements. Each of these forms of variation has been independently proposed for various languages and constructions, and we have seen their correct predictions for the modeling of selective extraction asymmetries.

The discussion here not only offers an approach to such selective reflexes of subject extraction, but it also can productively explain the direction of their selectivity. Suppose two clause types are independently known to vary in the richness of their left peripheries. If the language has a selective quirk of subject extraction, the anti-locality-based analysis makes a prediction: The special behavior will distinguish subject extraction from non-subject extraction in the structurally smaller clause, but not in the larger clause. This correctly predicts some subject extraction asymmetries in various languages to only apply to local Ā-extraction, or only in restrictive relatives but not in non-restrictive relatives. Similarly, if we independently know that the landing site of movement is farther up in one type of clause or construction than in another, a selective extraction asymmetry is predicted to be active in the case with the lower landing site, where the landing site of movement is just above the subject position, but not in the structure with the higher landing site. This correctly predicts the direction of selectivity in the Irish ban on subject resumption and for D-linked versus non-D-linked wh-movement in Northern Italian.

For many alternative accounts to the subject extraction behaviors discussed here, it is not obvious how such selectivity could be analyzed, let alone how the directionality of selectivity is explained. For concreteness, consider the Baier (2018) morphological impoverishment approach to anti-agreement effects. This theory accounts for anti-agreement by positing different morphological impoverishment rules targeting different combinations of Ā- and ϕ-features on a single probe, with broad empirical coverage. Selectivity can be modeled by distinct impoverishment rules for different environments, for example with distinct impoverishment rules applying to matrix clauses versus embedded clauses (see e.g. Baier 2018: 194). But this approach leads to no a priori expectations about the direction of such differences, or how such selectivity could be predicted based on independent differences in clause type. The correct predictions that my approach makes for the direction of selectivity is a significant strength of the anti-locality-driven approach to subject/non-subject extraction asymmetries developed here.

Perhaps the most important prediction of all is that it is subject extraction, not non-subject extraction, which the grammar treats in an exceptional way. In cases where a particular extraction asymmetry is neutralized — for example, by adding higher projections, or in an embedded clause or a particular Ā-extraction — in all of the asymmetries described here and indeed in all such extraction asymmetries that I am aware of, the result is that subject extraction changes to behave like non-subject extraction. Uniformity is not achieved by non-subject extraction suddenly behaving like subject extraction. This too is explained naturally under the anti-locality-based approach. Subjects are normally exceptionally high in the clause, uniquely too close to the edge, and therefore it is subject extraction that necessitates an exceptional repair or variant derivation. Non-subject extraction is the “normal” case.