Anti-locality

23 - Anti-locality

from Part IV - Structural Concerns

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Norvin Richards

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

This chapter reviews the literature on anti-locality, focusing on proposals by Abels (2003), Grohmann (2003), and Erlewine (2016). It reviews some of the kinds of phenomena for which anti-locality has been involved as an explanation (including conditions on preposition stranding and on extraction of subjects). It closes with a proposal about how to derive a particular version of Erlewine’s (2016) type of anti-locality, the one developed by Brillman (2017), which allows us to derive the distribution and nature of anti-locality effects as a consequence of the particular forces that trigger movement.

Keywords

anti-locality P-stranding complementizer-trace effects anti-agreement Contiguity Theory

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 383 - 394
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

Abels, K. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Abels, K. (2012). Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110284225CrossRef Google Scholar

Amaechi, M., & Georgi, D. (2019). Quirks of subject (non-)extraction in Igbo. Glossa, 4(1), 1–36.Google Scholar

Baier, N. (2017). Antilocality and antiagreement. Linguistic Inquiry, 48, 367–377.10.1162/LING_a_00246CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1994). D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24, 247–286.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2016). On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. Linguistic Review, 33, 17–66.10.1515/tlr-2015-0013CrossRef Google Scholar

Branan, K. (2018). Relationship preservation. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Branan, K. (2021). Locality and anti-locality: The logic of conflicting requirements. Linguistic Inquiry, 54, 1–38.10.1162/ling_a_00436CrossRef Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 157–196). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Brillman, R. (2017). Subject/non-subject extraction asymmetries: The view from tough-constructions. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Brillman, R., & Hirsh, A. (2016). An anti-locality account of English subject/non-subject asymmetries. In Burkholder, R., Cisneros, C., & Coppess, E. R. (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 50 (pp. 73–88). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L. (2006). Decomposing Bantu relatives. In Davis, C., Deal, A. R., & Zabbal, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36 (pp. 197–216). GLSA.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; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds,), Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.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

Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., & Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 506–569). De Gruyter; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506CrossRef Google Scholar

Culicover, P. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 557–561.Google Scholar

Deal, A. R. (2019). Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 388–415.10.1162/ling_a_00310CrossRef Google Scholar

Douglas, J. (2017). Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Glossa, 2(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. (2016). Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 429–479.10.1007/s11049-015-9310-zCrossRef Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. (2020). Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa, 5, 1–38.Google Scholar

Fox, D., & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: A reply. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 235–262.10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.235CrossRef Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (2003). Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.66CrossRef Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (2011). Anti-locality: Too-close relations in grammar. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp. 260–290). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ishii, T. (1999). Cyclic spell-out and the that-t effects. In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J., & Norquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 18 (pp. 220–231). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Kandybowicz, J. (2009). Embracing edges: Syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 305–344.10.1007/s11049-009-9064-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Ko, E. (2020). Feeding agreement: Anti-locality in Crow applicatives of unaccusatives. [Paper presented at NELS 51, Montréal, Canada, November 6–8].Google Scholar

Newman, E. (2020). Facilitator effects in middles and more. Glossa, 5(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T to C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 355–426). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2016). Contiguity Theory. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp. 281–337). Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRef Google Scholar

Saito, M., & Murasugi, K. (1999). Subject predication within IP and DP. In Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters (pp. 167–188). Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_7CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider-Zioga, P. (2007). Anti-agreement, anti-locality, and minimality: The syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 403–446.10.1007/s11049-006-9014-5CrossRef Google Scholar

Sulemana, A. R. (2018). Q-particles and the nature of covert movement: Evidence from Bùlì. Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ticio, M. E. (2005). Locality and anti-locality in Spanish DPs. Syntax, 8, 229–286.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00080.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Yamada, A. (2019). Contiguity theory and crystallization: Wh-phrases and concord adverbs in Japanese. In Tokizaki, H. (ed.), Phonological Externalization (vol. 4, pp. 1–22). Sapporo University Press.Google Scholar

Zyman, E. (2021). Antilocality at the phase edge. Syntax, 24, 510–556.10.1111/synt.12220CrossRef 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.