Agree

31 - Agree

from Part V - Features and Agree(ment)

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Roberta D’Alessandro

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Agreement has come to occupy a central role in contemporary syntactic theory. This chapter provides a brief historical overview of the theory of agreement within mainstream generative syntax, focusing on the difference between the morphological marking of a dependency between elements in a clause and the syntactic operation taking place between them. The chapter starts from the concept of agreement as it was initially formulated in the early days of generative syntax and culminates in the definition of the Agree operation (Chomsky 2000, 2001), which serves as the foundation for contemporary analysis of agreement. This overview emphasizes that certain aspects of agreement gain more prominence across the various phases of syntactic theory, spanning from PSR to GB and to MP.

Keywords

Agree agreement probe–goal spec-head copy

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 598 - 624
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2003). Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 681–735.10.1023/A:1025502221221CrossRef Google Scholar

Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8CrossRef Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–415.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619830CrossRef Google Scholar

Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement. Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

Benmamoun, E., Bhatia, A., & Polinsky, M. (2009). Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. In van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook (vol. 9, pp. 68–88). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bickel, B., & Yādava, Y. P. (2000). A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua, 110, 343–373.10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00048-0CrossRef Google Scholar

Bjorkman, B., & Zeijlstra, H. (2019). Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 527–569.10.1162/ling_a_00319CrossRef Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., & Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces (pp. 295–328). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0010CrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2004). Long-distance agreement in Hindi: Theoretical implications. Studia Linguistica, 58, 23–36.10.1111/j.0039-3193.2004.00108.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2009). On long-distance Agree. Iberia, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C., & Niinuma, F. (2004). Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 453–480.10.1023/B:NALA.0000027669.59667.c5CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 589–644.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. ([1998] 2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). MIT Press. (The 1998 version appeared as Minimalist inquiries, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics.)Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511811937CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1994). Wh agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 1–44.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (2013). The syntactic relations behind agreement. In Cheng, L. & Corver, N. (eds.), Diagnosing Syntax (pp. 251–270). Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R., & Roberts, I. (2008). Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 477–491.10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.477CrossRef Google Scholar

Fischer, S. (2004). Optimal Binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 481–526.10.1023/B:NALA.0000027668.22030.aaCrossRef Google Scholar

Haegeman, L., & Lohndal, T. (2010). Negative Concord and (Multiple) Agree: A case study of West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 181–211.10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.181CrossRef Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keiser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Linguistics Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harbour, D., Adger, D., & Bejar, S. (eds.) (2008). Phi Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Holmberg, A., & Hróarsdóttir, T. (2003). Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua, 113, 997–1019.10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00162-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.10.1162/002438999553968CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1989). Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar (pp. 85–103). Foris.10.1515/9783110869255-005CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195102352.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Koopman, H. (1987). On the absence of Case Chains in Bambara. Ms. UCLA.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. (2006). Agreement configurations: In defense of spec-head. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Agreement Systems (pp. 159–199). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.92.09kooCrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2009). Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 187–237.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187CrossRef Google Scholar

Landau, I (1999). Elements of Control. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1999). On feature strength: Three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 197–217.10.1162/002438999554039CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? North East Linguistic Society, 31(2), article 5.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B., & Chae, H. R. (eds.), Proceedings of ESCOL (pp. 234–253). Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2011). Aleut case matters. In Yuasa, E., Bagchi, T., & Beals, K. P. (eds.), Pragmatics and Autolexical Grammar: In Honor of Jerry Sadock (pp. 382–411). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, E. (1974). Object–verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals, 15, 25–140.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, E. (1978). Agreement. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. IV: Syntax (pp. 331–374). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Nevins, A. (2010). Locality in Vowel Harmony. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262140973.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Polinsky, M., & Preminger, O. (2019). The Agreement Theta Generalization. Glossa, 102, 1–17.Google Scholar

Postal, P. (1964). Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntactic Description. Mouton.Google Scholar

Postal, P. ([1966] 2014). On so-called “pronouns” in English, 1966. In Kayne, R., Leu, T., & Zanuttini, R. (eds.), An Annotated Syntax Reader: Lasting Insights and Questions (pp. 12–25). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Preminger, O. (2013). That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. Linguistic Review, 30, 491–500.10.1515/tlr-2013-0015CrossRef Google Scholar

Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and Its Failures. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.10.1162/002438901750372522CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Rooryck, J., & Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2011). Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1996). Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 57.Google Scholar

Smith, P., Mursell, J., & Hartmann, K. (2020). Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Program. Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Ura, Y. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Wiklund, A. L. (2005). The syntax of tenselessness: On copying constructions in Swedish. [Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University].Google Scholar

Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2012). The syntax of valuation in auxiliary-participle constructions. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A. (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 29. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2014). The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Kosta, P., Franks, S., Radev-Bork, T., & Schürcks, L. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces (pp. 130–166). John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.11.06wurCrossRef Google Scholar

Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H. (1984). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441–483.10.1007/BF00133285CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. (2012). There is only one way to Agree. Linguistic Review, 29, 491–539.10.1515/tlr-2012-0017CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.