Linguistic Inquiry Early Access Corrected Proof - Specialized Research AI at MIT

Linguistic Inquiry Early Access Corrected Proof
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00459
(cid:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

A¯ -Probing for the Closest DP

Kenyon Branan
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine

We consider the typology of attested A¯ -extraction asymmetries be-
tween core argument DPs and argue that an A¯ -probe can be required
to specifically target the closest DP. Such an A¯ -probe specification is
part of Aldridge’s (2004, 2008) influential analysis of syntactically er-
gative extraction restrictions, but has not been widely adopted outside
of work on ergative languages. We argue that restricted probing of
this form underlies subject-only extraction behaviors in a number of
nonergative languages, including some of those in Keenan and Com-
rie’s (1977) typology of relativization asymmetries. We describe the
behaviors of such probes in detail and relate them to other probe-goal
behaviors in recent work on composite A /A¯ probes.

Keywords: extraction asymmetries, probing, relativization, subjects,
syntactic ergativity

1 Introduction

A central concern of syntactic theory is how nonlocal dependencies are formed and constrained.
Since Chomsky 2000, 2001, much of this work has been fruitfully discussed in terms of probes
and their specifications. A probe initiates a search for a goal that matches a particular feature
specification, to Agree with or to Move. This article contributes to our understanding of the
possible feature specifications and behaviors of probes that trigger A¯ -movement.

For example, we may describe wh-movement in a language like English as involving C
probing for the closest [WH] constituent (see, e.g., Rizzi 1990). This allows for wh-movement of
the embedded subject in (1a) or the embedded object in (1b); in either case, the moved goal is
the closest constituent with a [WH] feature. Intervening non-[WH] constituents are ignored. When
multiple potential goals are accessible to the probe, the structurally closest goal is chosen, as re-
flected in the contrast in (1c).

(1) A¯ -probing for the closest [WH] goal

a. C[PROBE:WH] you expect who to eat the sandwich ⇒

Who do you expect

to eat the sandwich?

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

For discussion of specific facts reported in the article, we thank Henrison Hsieh (Tagalog) and Jaklin Kornfilt
(Turkish). For additional discussion related to other languages in the Keenan and Comrie survey that are unfortunately
not discussed here for reasons of space, we thank Dan Brodkin (Minangkabau), Catriona Hyslop Malau (Northeast Aoban/
Ambae), and Alex Smith and Carly Sommerlot (Iban). We also thank Amy Rose Deal and Asia Pietraszko for related
discussion, and Justin Adhiyatma for preparing our Rejang corpus materials. This research is supported by the Singapore
Ministry of Education under grant MOE2017-T2-2-094 “Subjecthood in Southeast Asia: Description and Theory” to the
second author.

Linguistic Inquiry, Early Access Corrected Proof
1–27
(cid:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) License.
https:/ /doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00459

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

b. C[PROBE:WH] you expect Sara to eat what ⇒

What do you expect Sara to eat

c. C[PROBE:WH] you expect who to eat what ⇒

Who do you expect
*What do you expect who to eat

to eat what?
?

Concretely, we adopt the definition for closest in (2), which is equivalent to the locality

condition on Agree stated in the discussion in Chomsky 2000:122.

(2) Closest

A potential goal G for probe P is closest if no other potential goal for P c-commands
G.

There are, however, languages with much stricter restrictions on A¯ -extraction, such that only
particular types of arguments can be A¯ -extracted. Aldridge (2004, 2008) develops one influential
approach to the analysis of so-called syntactic ergativity, narrowly defined as a ban on the A¯ –
extraction of transitive subjects. (See Deal 2015, 2016 and Polinsky 2017 for overviews and
discussion.) One component of Aldridge’s analysis is a claim that A¯ -probing can be restricted as
in (3).

(3) A¯ -probing for the closest DP

An A¯ -probe can be specified to target the closest DP.

Combined with a commonly adopted approach to the clause structure of a subtype of ergative
languages, a probe of this type will necessarily target absolutive arguments. A¯ -probing of the
form in (3) has been adopted for the analysis of Philippine-type Austronesian languages, for
which the analysis was developed, as well as for similar extraction restrictions in Mayan languages
in more recent work (Levin 2018, Coon, Baier, and Levin 2021). However, probing of this form
has not been commonly invoked in the analysis of nonergative languages, leading some linguists
to the impression that probing of this form is a special property of ergative languages.

In this article, we argue that A¯ -probing for the closest DP is indeed attested in the grammars
of nonergative languages, manifest in extraction constructions with apparent subject-only restric-
tions. In particular, A¯ -probing for the closest DP makes accurate predictions for apparent excep-
tions to subject-only extraction restrictions: for example, even in a language where the subject
is frequently the highest DP in a clause, if the language has a strategy for raising a non-
subject DP to a higher position, such raising may feed the restricted extraction. We conclude that
A¯ -probes indeed can be specified to necessarily target the closest DP, as Aldridge proposes, and
that such A¯ -probes are not limited to ergative languages.

After reviewing the motivation for this conjecture as part of the analysis of syntactic ergativity
in section 2, we formalize this mode of probing and present two novel arguments for it from
relativization in Turkish and Rejang in section 3. In section 4, we then review and highlight relevant
results from Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) typology of relativization and related subsequent work,
which serves to motivate and contextualize the research reported here. In section 5, we argue that

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

this restriction on A¯ -probing to the closest DP must be a specification on individual probes, rather
than a language-level or construction-level parameter. We conclude in section 6.

2 Syntactic Ergativity via A¯ -Probing for the Closest DP

We begin by reviewing Aldridge’s (2004, 2008) analysis for syntactic ergativity in “Philippine-
type” Austronesian languages, such as Tagalog. Philippine-type languages are verb-initial, with
case-marking patterns that can be analyzed as exhibiting ergative-absolutive alignment.1 Among
core arguments of the verb, these languages allow only for A¯ -extraction of the absolutive DP.

(4) Absolutive-only extraction restriction in Tagalog

b. *babae(cid:3)ng [binili

isda(cid:3)ng [binili ng babae]
fish(cid:3)LK bought ERG woman
‘fish that the woman bought’
ang isda]
woman(cid:3)LK bought ABS fish
‘woman who bought the fish’
(Aldridge 2017:25, (61a–b))

Aldridge’s theory for this extraction restriction is one specific instantiation of what Deal
(2016) calls the “standard theory of syntactic ergativity,” narrowly referring to the absolutive-
only extraction restriction. The shared intuition of these proposals is that transitive objects (O)
canonically occupy a structural position above that of transitive subjects (A).2 For Aldridge, in
a transitive clause with two core arguments, an agent and a theme, the theme will move to the
outer specifier of vP.3 The agent is base-generated as the inner specifier of DP. See (5). The verb
is ultimately pronounced higher, preceding its arguments.

1 Philippine-type refers to a set of languages with certain shared grammatical characteristics; see Himmelmann 2002,
Ross 2002, and Blust 2010. Another major subgroup of Austronesian languages is the Indonesian-type, discussed below.
The description of Philippine-type Austronesian languages as ergative has been controversial; see, for example, Chen

2017, Erlewine, Levin, and Van Urk 2017, and Kaufman 2017.

Our glossing for Tagalog examples simplifies their verbal morphology and in some cases reglosses case markers

for uniformity throughout. See the source works for further details.

2 Other examples of the “standard theory” include Campana 1992, Murasugi 1992, Ordo´n˜ez 1995, Bittner and Hale

1996, Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014, Assmann et al. 2015, Levin 2018, and Coon, Baier, and Levin 2021.

3 This analysis dovetails with the widely adopted inherent case theory for ergative case (e.g., Woolford 1997, 2006,
Legate 2002, 2008, Aldridge 2004, 2008; see also Sheehan 2017 for an overview). Because the agent receives ergative
case in its thematic position, there is no need for it to syntactically associate with a higher functional head such as T as
in many proposals for structural nominative case.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(5)

Monotransitive vP as in Aldridge’s account

DPA
agent

DPO
theme

Aldridge also discusses clauses with applicatives, where the DP moved to the outer specifier of
vP is a goal, instrument, location, or possessor (see Nie 2019) instead of a theme.

We now turn to A¯ -extraction. A¯ -extraction of DPs in Tagalog is limited to the extraction of
absolutive arguments (e.g., transitive objects (O) and intransitive subjects (S)); transitive subjects
(A) cannot be A¯ -extracted. Aldridge proposes that A¯ -probing by C necessarily targets the closest
DP.4 Following the proposed structure for transitive clauses, A¯ -extraction from a transitive clause
will thus necessarily target the outer specifier of vP, which may be a transitive object (O) or an
applicativized argument (see above). See (6). There is no way to target a transitive subject (A)
for A¯ -movement.5

(6)

¯
A-probing for the closest DP from (5)



(cid:2)

DPO

DPA

4 Specifically, Aldridge (2004:338) writes, “C has an EPP feature, which attracts a DP. In a transitive clause, the
closest DP will be the internal argument absolutive, residing in the outer specifier of v. The external argument will not
be attracted, because doing so would violate Attract Closest.” Aldridge (2012:197n9) later clarifies that closest must be
defined so that two specifiers of the same phrase do not count as equidistant for higher probes, pace Chomsky’s (2000:
122, 130; 2001:27) Equidistance principle. Our definition of closest in (2) satisfies this desideratum.

5 Syntactically ergative languages generally have a strategy for A¯ -extracting notional transitive subjects (A). A
common one is to antipassivize the clause, so that the A subject becomes a formally intransitive S subject and thus eligible
for A¯ -extraction. See Aldridge 2012 for discussion of this approach in Tagalog.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

In an intransitive clause, the sole DP argument (S) is the closest DP to the probe and thus can
be A¯ -extracted as well.6 This derives the syntactically ergative A¯ -extraction restriction.

Aldridge’s analysis for the extraction asymmetry in Philippine-type languages thus relies on

the conjecture stated in (3), repeated here:

(7) A¯ -probing for the closest DP

An A¯ -probe can be specified to target the closest DP.

This conjecture has been adopted as part of the analysis of syntactically ergative extraction asym-
metries in other languages as well, including the ones proposed by Levin (2018) and Coon, Baier,
and Levin (2021) for a number of Mayan languages. Also see Erlewine and Lim to appear for
an investigation of extraction asymmetries in Bikol, a sister language to Tagalog, which strength-
ens the empirical case for extraction asymmetries in Philippine-type Austronesian languages to
be based on (7), over and above Aldridge’s original argumentation.

We should step back, however, and note that A¯ -probing of this form—if it exists—is perhaps
unusual and conceptually surprising.7 Such probing would lead to an A¯ -extraction process that
has the locality profile of A-movement, rather than the familiar long-distance and “relativized”
character of A¯ -movement (as in, e.g., Chomsky 1977, Rizzi 1990; see (1)). It also raises the
questions of whether non-DPs can be A¯ -extracted in such a language and if so, how; we return
to these questions in section 5.3. We also note that alternative accounts for the extraction behavior
of such Philippine-type languages exist, which do not require A¯ -probing that is restricted to the
closest DP (7).8 In the pursuit of a maximally restrictive theory of grammar, then, it is tempting
to reject the possibility of probing of the form in (7), or perhaps to somehow limit its availability
to ergative languages.

The goal of this article is to show that there in fact is substantial motivation in nonergative
languages for the existence of A¯ -probing that is restricted to the closest DP (7). This conclusion
in turn lends support for the plausibility of Aldridge’s proposal for absolutive-only extraction
restrictions in ergative languages as well.

6 In Aldridge’s approach, intransitive v does not move any argument to its specifier. Intransitives are either unergative,
with the agent DP being the sole specifier of vP, or unaccusative, where the sole DP argument is lower, but with vP
being a “weak phase” in Chomsky’s (2001) terms and thus permeable for probing from above.

7 There has been rather little explicit discussion of this notable aspect of Aldridge’s proposal. We are aware of such

discussion only in Aldridge 2008:990, 992n6, Deal 2015:698–699, and Polinsky 2017:18–20.

8 For example, see the “case agreement” approaches of Pearson (2001, 2005) for Malagasy and Rackowski (2002)
and Rackowski and Richards (2005) for Tagalog, which take the apparent absolutive-only extraction restriction to be
epiphenomenal.

Another alternative approach discusses apparent “extraction” restrictions in these languages without appealing to
extraction at all, instead analyzing different “voice” forms as different participant nominalizations; see Keenan 2008 for
Malagasy and Kaufman 2009 for Tagalog (but see also Hsieh 2019 for a forceful response to Kaufman’s proposal). Such
nominalization analyses may also extend to subject-only participial relatives in European languages mentioned by Keenan
and Comrie (1977:70); see footnote 23 below.

Finally, see also Hsieh 2021 for a novel analysis of DP-extraction restrictions in Tagalog that does not involve A¯ –

probing for the closest DP.

For syntactic ergativity in other language families, too, there are accounts that do not involve A¯ -probing for the

closest DP (7). See Deal 2016, 2017 and Polinsky 2017 for two recent approaches.

Here, we will not review or evaluate the arguments for analyzing syntactically ergative extraction restrictions in
(potentially) morphologically ergative languages as involving A¯ -probing for the closest DP. Instead, we concentrate on
the applicability of A¯ -probing for the closest DP in nonergative languages.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

3 Subject-Only Extraction Restrictions from A¯ -Probing for the Closest DP

Given the potentially unusual nature of the idea that an A¯ -probe would be limited to attracting
the closest DP goal (7), as discussed above, we seek independent motivation for this possibility
in grammar from beyond its original application to syntactic ergativity. In this section, we present
two case studies of relativization in two nonergative languages, Turkish and Rejang, which we
claim are best analyzed as involving an A¯ -probe that can only attract the structurally closest DP.
This approach will allow us to account not only for the basic subject-only restriction on these A¯ –
processes, but also for its apparent exceptions.

Let us begin by detailing, in schematic terms, the behavior that we expect from A¯ -probing
for the closest DP (7).9 Here, we describe such probes as a particular version of a probe that
seeks a goal that bears both an A¯ -feature (e.g., [WH], [REL]) and an A-feature ([D]), which we
notate [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] in the general case. This probe is additionally required to match with a goal
that is the closest DP to the probe, where closest is defined as in the discussion of Agree in
Chomsky 2000:122, repeated here from (2):

(8) Closest

A potential goal G for probe P is closest if no other potential goal for P c-commands
G.

With [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] restricted to the closest DP, we expect extraction of DP2 in (9) to be

impossible: DP1 c-commands DP2 and therefore counts as structurally closer to the probe.

(9) *[PROBE:A+D] . . . [DP1 . . . [DP2[A] . . .

This logic makes two predictions. First, if a language has an independent mechanism for bringing
DP2 above DP1, we expect the probe to then be able to interact with DP2.

(10) [PROBE:A+D] . . . [DP2[A] . . . [DP1 . . . [(cid:2)DP2[A]

(cid:3) . . .

Second, if there is no c-command relationship between two DPs, we might expect either to be
extractable, as neither is closer to the probe than the other. (See again the definition of closest
in (8).) One such configuration would arise when DP2 is at the edge of DP1.

(11) [PROBE:A+D] . . . [DP1 DP2[A] . . . ] . . .

The possibility that two constituents in this configuration both count as closest for a higher probe
is also discussed and invoked in Pesetsky and Torrego 2001:363.

9 See Branan and Erlewine to appear for discussion of how probing of this form can be implemented in procedural

terms.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

We now present evidence from relativization in Turkish and Rejang that motivates the exis-
tence of A¯ -probing for the closest DP. In particular, we will show that the configurations in (10)
and (11) indeed allow for A¯ -extraction of DP2 in constructions that disallow extraction in the
configuration in (9). Neither language is morphologically ergative. We also situate our proposal
in relation to work (e.g., Van Urk and Richards 2015, Bossi and Diercks 2019, Colley and Pri-
voznov 2020, Scott 2021) that argues for probes of the form [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] yet allows those probes
to skip closer partial matches.

3.1 Turkish

Turkish has two forms for relative clauses, shown in (12), traditionally described as a subject/
nonsubject distinction (e.g., Underhill 1972, Hankamer and Knecht 1976). We follow Cagri (2005,
2009) in glossing these forms ‘subject relative’ (SR) and ‘nonsubject relative’ (NSR). Here, we
concentrate on the behavior of relativization with the SR suffix, which receives a simple analysis
as the exponent of a head that has an A¯ -probe specified to seek the closest DP. We will discuss
the syntax of NSR forms below.

(12) Two relative clause forms in Turkish

a. [

kãz-ã
sok-an ] arã
girl-ACC sting-SR bee
‘the bee that stung the girl’
(Cagri 2005:24, (15a))

] kãz
sok-tug˘-u
sting-NSR-3SG girl

b. [arã-nãn
bee-GEN
‘the girl that the bee stung’
(Jaklin Kornfilt, pers. comm.)

It is well-known that, under certain limited circumstances, nonsubjects may be extracted using
the SR form (see, e.g., Underhill 1972, Hankamer and Knecht 1976, Kornfilt 1984, 1997, 2000,
and subsequent work). For instance, object relativization with the SR form is possible in examples
such as (13a), where the subject is indefinite and in a low, immediately preverbal position.10 The
source for this relative clause in (13a) is therefore (13b), where the accusative object is the highest
DP in the clause. In contrast, object relativization across a high, nonindefinite subject must use
the NSR form, as in (12b).

10 Evidence for the low structural position of indefinite immediately preverbal subjects comes from their position
with respect to low adverbs. Taylan (1984) shows that a morphologically simple manner adverb must be immediately
preverbal, except when a caseless indefinite object follows it. Such adverbs have been used as a diagnostic for the edge
of the predicate domain (Kornfilt 1984, Kelepir 2001, O¨ ztu¨rk 2009). Low indefinite subjects also follow these adverbs.

(i) Ali-yi

fena arã sok-tu.

Ali-ACC badly bee sting-PAST
‘A bee stung Ali badly.’
(Sag˘-Parvardeh 2019:92n20)

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(13) Low indefinite subject makes object highest

a. Object relative with SR form

[

arã sok-an ] adam
bee sting-SR man

‘the man that a bee stung’

b. Source structure

Adam-ã arã sok-tu.
man-ACC bee sting-PAST
‘A bee stung the man.’
(Temu¨rcu¨ 2001:147, (199a); 146, (197a))

Temporal relatives may also be constructed with the SR form if the subject is a low, indefinite
subject, as in (14). This too is explained by our analysis for the SR probe, as temporal adjunct
DPs naturally occupy a position above low indefinite subjects.

(14) Temporal relatives with SR form
bomba patlay-an ] gu¨n
bomb explode-SR day

a. [

b. [

‘the day a bomb exploded’
yag˘-an ] gu¨n-ler
kar
snow rain-SR day-PL

‘the days it snowed’
(Cagri 2005:180, (62a–b))

Such examples show that the apparent subject orientation of the SR form is really a require-
ment to extract the closest nominal, rather than to extract the subject per se. We propose that the
SR form reflects the use of [PROBE:REL(cid:4)D] restricted to extract the closest nominal. Movement
of the object (DP2 in (15)) across a low, indefinite subject (DP1) allows for the SR probe to target
the object.

(15) [PROBE:REL+D] . . . DP2[REL] . . . [DP1 . . . (cid:2)DP2

(cid:3) . . .

Possessor relativization presents a further class of apparent exceptions to the subject orienta-
tion of SR relatives. Example (16a) shows that the possessor of a subject is extracted using the
SR form. Note that subjects in NSR clauses as in (16b) receive genitive case, as seen in the gram-
matical (12b), whereas subjects of SR clauses as in (16a) retain their unmarked, nominative case.

(16) Possessor-of-subject relative with SR form

[[

og˘l-u
gid-en] adam
] mekteb-e
son-POSS.3SG school-DAT go-SR man

b. *[[

‘the man whose son goes to school’
og˘l-u-un
] adam
] mekteb-e
son-POSS.3SG-GEN school-DAT go-NSR-3SG man

git-tig˘-i

(Underhill 1972:88, (4); 89, (6))

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

This possibility of possessor relativization is also explained by our analysis of SR as involving
A¯ -probing for the closest DP and our definition of closest in (8). Both the subject (DP1 in (17))
and its possessor (DP2) count as closest for the probe, as the former does not c-command the
latter.

(17) [PROBE:REL+D] . . . [DP1 DP2[REL] . . . ] . . .

Also as our approach predicts, SR relativization can target the possessor of an object if the
subject is in the low, immediately preverbal position (18). The derivation for (18) simply combines
movement of an object above an indefinite subject that stays low, illustrated in (15), with the SR
probe targeting the possessor of the highest DP, which counts as closest, as in (17). This derivation
is illustrated in (19).11

(18) Possessor-of-object relative with low subject, with SR form

[[

kãz-ãn-ã
] adam
girl-POSS.3SG-ACC bee sting-SR / *sting-NSR-3SG man

] arã (cid:2)sok-an / *sok-tug˘-u(cid:3)

‘the man whose daughter a bee stung’
(Hankamer and Knecht 1976:133, (36))

(19) [PROBE:REL+D] . . . [DP2 DP3[REL] . . . ] . . . [DP1 . . . (cid:2)DP2

(cid:3) . . .

In contrast, if the subject is higher than the object—whether a bare definite or a birka@ ‘some’
indefinite—relativization of the object’s possessor must take the NSR form.

(20) Possessor-of-object relative with high subject, with NSR form

[(birka@) arã-nãn [

some

bee-GEN

bacag˘-ãn-ã
] kãz
leg-POSS.3SG-ACC sting-NSR-3SG girl

] sok-tug˘-u

‘the girl whose leg the/some bee stung’
(Cagri 2005:99, (29a); 32, (25a))

b. *[(birka@) arã [
some

bee

bacag˘-ãn-ã
] sok-an ] kãz
leg-POSS.3SG-ACC sting-SR girl

‘the girl whose leg the/some bee stung’
(Cagri 2005:99, (29b); Jaklin Kornfilt, pers. comm.)

The behavior of relativization with the SR form shows the clear hallmarks of A¯ -probing for
the closest DP. SR relativization often targets subjects, which are generally highest in the clause,
but can also target nonsubjects when the subject is exceptionally low, as well as possessors of
the highest DP, which also count as closest. This suggests that SR forms are regularly subject-

11 This derivation constitutes an instance of “smuggling”; see Belletti and Collins 2021 for an overview. See also
Nakamura 1996 and Branan 2018 for discussion of similar subextraction facts in Tagalog, compatible with Aldridge’s
(2004, 2008) account and the discussion of possessor subextraction here.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

oriented because the subject is regularly the highest DP in the clause, not because the SR form
specifically reflects other subjecthood properties of the goal.12

Next, we address the structure of relatives with NSR morphology and their relation to relatives
with SR morphology. The above data show that SR and NSR forms are in complementary distribution,
with the SR form appearing specifically where relativization can use A¯ -probing for the closest
DP, and the NSR form appearing otherwise.13 We propose that this reflects a preference for the
use of SR relativization where possible, which in turn reflects a more general and familiar pressure
for grammar to minimize probe-goal relations while maximizing featural matching.

Specifically, we propose that in any relative clause, the complex probe on the relative comple-
mentizer, [PROBE:REL(cid:4)D], probes first. If this joint probing finds a matching goal, that goal is
extracted and the complementizer then realizes SR morphology. If it does not find a match, the
head is able to probe separately as [PROBE:REL] and [PROBE:D]; the former process will attract a
[REL] goal that was inaccessible using A¯ -probing for the closest DP, and the latter will copy back
subject (cid:4)-features. The resulting complementizer will then be spelled out as the -DIK suffix with
subject (cid:4)-agreement, which is more generally the default form for nominalized finite embedded
clauses in the language. Here, use of the complex probe is privileged over use of two simple
probes, since a perfect match for the complex probe will check two features with only one probe-
goal relationship.

Probe interactions very similar to this have been proposed by Van Urk and Richards (2015)
for Dinka and by Bossi and Diercks (2019) for Kipsigis. In each case, there is a probe that seeks
a goal using a combination of A- and A¯ -features. If there is an accessible goal carrying both fea-
tures, the probe targets it, due to a principle that Van Urk and Richards (2015) call Multitasking.
But if this joint probing fails, the head instead probes separately for a goal with the A-feature
and a goal with the A¯ -feature.14 There are just two differences between these interactions in Dinka
and Kipsigis on the one hand and Turkish on the other. First, in Dinka and Kipsigis probing

12 For instance, SR morphology does not correlate with relativization of a nominal with a particular case form, either
as the result of agreement in case features (Chung 1982, 1994, 1998, Georgopoulos 1985, 1991, Pearson 2005, Rackowski
and Richards 2005) or as the result of the SR form reflecting a case-discriminating probe (Deal 2017). The SR probe’s
target is nominative in (12a), accusative in (13a), and genitive in (16) and (18).

A reviewer asks whether the difference between the SR and NSR forms could be viewed as an alternation in comple-
mentizer morphology akin to the French que/qui alternation. (This connection is also made in Kornfilt 2008.) Here, it
is relevant to note that subextraction from a subject does not trigger the qui form of the complementizer in French.

(i) Combien est-ce que tu

crois (cid:2)que / *qui(cid:3) [

how.many is-it
‘How many people do you think will come?’
(Starke 2001:45)

that you think que / *qui

de gens] viendront?
of people will.come

This clearly contrasts with the behavior of SR morphology in Turkish, which is also employed for subextraction from the
highest DP. Thus, analyses for the que/qui alternation and the like, which generally do not involve distinct probes (see
Pesetsky 2017 for an overview) cannot be directly imported for Turkish.

13 Cagri (2005:33n36) notes that there is some dialectal variation in the strength of this effect. This could be analyzed
as a difference among individual grammars in the strength of the preference we describe here, or in their underlying
structures.

14 These interactions could also be productively described in terms of the derivational “splitting” of heads or probes
(Martinovic´ 2015) or as reflecting a preference for their “bundling” (Erlewine 2018). See Erlewine 2018:sec. 4.4 (especially
note 32) for discussion of such ideas in prior literature.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

separately results in multiple movement, whereas in Turkish it results in movement of the [REL]
goal and (cid:4)-agreement with the DP. Second, in Turkish probing jointly for a goal with both A-
and A¯ -features requires A¯ -probing for the closest DP, whereas in Dinka and Kipsigis closer partial
matches can be skipped.15 Abstracting away from these two differences, however, the mechanism
that yields apparent “competition” between SR and NSR forms is equivalent to that proposed in
these prior works.16

Finally, we note that the ability of an unsatisfied complex probe such as [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] to
subsequently probe separately for A¯ – and D-goals must be subject to lexical variation, rather than
being a general property of complex probes. In particular, in the case studies we discuss below,
as well as those in section 5, we show that if A¯ -probing for the closest DP is unable to find a
suitable goal, the relevant A¯ -construction is simply impossible.

3.2 Rejang

Rejang is an Austronesian language spoken in southwest Sumatra. A¯ -extraction of DPs in the
language is limited to the highest nominal, whether or not that is the subject.17

Rejang is canonically SVO. Transitive verbs have two forms, active and passive. Active
themes and passive agents cannot be A¯ -extracted (with one exception, discussed below). For
example, transitive theme relativization requires first promoting the theme to subject position
using a passive.

(21) Rejang theme relativization requires passivization
[gi pelisi o m-akep

a. *tun

kelem ] o
last.night

person Cgi police the ACT-catch
‘the person that the police arrested last night’
tun
[gi
person Cgi
the
‘the person that was arrested by the police last night’
(McGinn 1998:362, (5b), (6))

t(cid:2)en(cid:3)akep pelisi
PASS-catch police

kelem ] o
last.night

the

There is evidence that this apparent subject-only restriction on extraction in Rejang is in fact
better described as a requirement that only the highest nominal may undergo extraction. Evidence
for this comes from three sources: agent cliticization, long-distance extraction, and extraction of
possessors, which we discuss in turn.

15 For other case studies proposing probes that target goals with both A- and A¯ -features that are not necessarily

closest DPs, see Colley and Privoznov 2020 on Khanty and Scott 2021 on Ndengeleko.

16 This effect also echoes Chomsky’s (1991, 1995) Fewest Steps principle (see also Collins 2001 and references
therein), which favors derivations with fewer steps. It may also be described as a violable version of Maximize Matching
Effects from Chomsky 2001.

17 Here, we rely heavily on the work of Richard McGinn, who conducted extensive fieldwork on Rejang for over
four decades but unfortunately passed away in 2018 (see Blust 2018). There are some empirical questions that we cannot
answer on the basis of McGinn’s existing publications; perhaps most importantly, there are no tests of island sensitivity
described in any work on Rejang that we have been able to access. Future fieldwork is necessary to provide this confirma-
tion.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

McGinn (1998:372ff.) notes one exception to the ban on active theme extraction: extraction

of active themes is possible if the agent subject is a clitic pronoun, as in (22).18

(22) Active theme wh-question across a pronominal subject

Jano [gi ko t(cid:2)em(cid:3)okoa
what Cgi 2SG ACT-buy
‘What did you buy?’
(McGinn 1989:208, (1b))

As McGinn argues, the agents in such cases are not conventional preverbal subjects, but instead
occupy a lower position and are cliticized to the verb. Consider the contrast between the baseline
canonical declarative in (23a) and the grammatical active theme relative in (23b), both with the
preverbal inchoative auxiliary mulae´ and the active verb ‘watch’. The canonical subject position
precedes preverbal tense/aspect auxiliaries (23a), but a pronominal agent may appear in immedi-
ately preverbal position (23b), which allows the active theme to be extracted. Note also that the
first person singular pronoun uku appears in the reduced form ku when immediately preverbal.

(23) Subject pronoun positions

a. Uku mulae´ t(cid:2)em(cid:3)oton pilem o.
ACT-watch movie the

1SG AUX
‘I began to watch the movie.’
b. pilem [gi mulae´ ku t(cid:2)em(cid:3)oton
movie Cgi AUX 1SG ACT-watch
‘the movie that I began to watch last night’
(McGinn 1998:373, (38); 372, (36))

kelem ] o
last.night

the

As McGinn (1989) notes, the structure here is reminiscent of the so-called passive type 2
in nearby Malayic languages (see, e.g., Chung 1976, Arka and Manning 1998). This is illustrated
with Indonesian in (24), where an agent of limited or reduced size (see Nomoto 2021) immediately
precedes the lexical verb and then allows for theme extraction.

(24) Theme relativization across a pronominal agent in Indonesian

CREL AUX 1SG write-APPL

Orang [yang sudah saya tulis-i
man
‘The man that I wrote a letter was your uncle.’
(Chung 1976:72, (91b))

surat ] adalah paman-mu.
letter be

uncle-2SG

However, importantly, the Rejang structures (22) and (23b) retain active voice morphology on
the verb, whereas no voice morphology appears in the Malayic structures exemplified by (24).
See McGinn 1989 for further discussion and comparison of these forms in Rejang and Malayic.

18 McGinn (1982:24, 1998:363–364) proposes that such wh-questions are pseudoclefts that involve relativization
over the gap, which explains the presence of the relative complementizer. Such pseudocleft strategies are common across
Austronesian verb-initial languages (Potsdam 2009).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Our proposal straightforwardly accounts for the possibility of active theme extraction with
agent cliticization in Rejang, as in (22) and (23b). It is well-documented that clitic arguments do
not intervene for extraction in the same way that full DPs do (McGinnis 1998, Anagnostopoulou
2003). Presumably, cliticization of an argument to the verb renders it invisible for higher [D]-
sensitive probes; or it is skipped, as it is not eligible for movement (see also Branan 2022). As
the subject is a clitic, the object is now the closest DP to the probe on C.

Next, we turn to long-distance relativization. First, we note that in nonextraction contexts,
embedded clauses take the complementizer bawo, in contrast to gi in the extraction examples
above. This alternation will be important for the discussion that follows.

(25) Complement clause with complementizer bawo
Alui m-adea’ [CP bawo Desi teko cen¯o’].
Alui ACT-say
‘Alui said that Desi came late.’
(McGinn 1998:359, (2a))

Desi come late

Long-distance subject extraction in Rejang comes in two forms. In one, the embedded clause
has the complementizer bawo, with a resumptive pronoun in its subject position (26a). In the
other, the embedded clause is headed by gi, with a subject gap (26b). In both cases, the higher
clause must appear in the passive.

(26) Two forms of long-distance subject relatives

a. tun

tuey [gi
PASS-say Alui
person old Cgi
‘the old person of whom it was said that he/she came late’

CP n-adea’ Alui [CP bawo si

3SG come late

teko cen¯o’]] o

the

b. tun

tuey [gi
person old Cgi
PASS-say Alui
‘the old person of whom it was said that he/she came late’
(McGinn 1998:368, (26), (28))

CP n-adea’ Alui [CP gi
Cgi

DP teko cen¯o’]] o
come late

the

We first consider these complementizer and gap/resumptive alternations. Both reflect strate-
gies for getting the nominal target for relativization to the edge of the embedded CP. The nominal
can be base-generated at the embedded clause edge and bind a local pronoun (26a) or it can move
from embedded subject position using the complementizer gi (26b).

As proposed by McGinn (1998:368–369), the entire embedded CP itself is then moved to
the higher subject position via passivization of ‘say’, although it is then pronounced to the right,
leaving the CP gap indicated in (26).19 Movement of the embedded clause to this higher subject
position causes the DP at the embedded clause edge to be the highest nominal in the clause, al-
lowing the relative complementizer gi to extract it.

19 See Rackowski and Richards 2005, Van Urk and Richards 2015, and Erlewine and Lim to appear for similar
analyses of long-distance extraction in Tagalog, Dinka, and Bikol, respectively. The postverbal position of the agent Alui
in (26) forms an argument against passive morphology simply appearing as a reflection of extraction across the verb.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(27)

The closest nominal may be in a clausal subject
[PROBE:REL+D] . . . [CP DP2[REL],i . . . (cid:2)DP2

(cid:3)/proi . . . ] . . . [DP1 . . . (cid:2)CP(cid:3) . . .

In addition, long-distance relativization may proceed across a higher active verb if the higher
verb’s agent is a preverbal clitic pronoun; see (28a–b). Per the discussion above, clitic pronouns
are skipped, making the highest DP in the embedded clause the closest DP for the higher A¯ –
probe. In (28a), this is the embedded subject. Example (28b) furthermore shows long-distance
theme relativization across multiple clitic pronouns, each complementizer along the way attract-
ing the closest DP, skipping an agent clitic.20

(28) Long-distance relativization over active verb with pronominal subject

t(cid:2)em(cid:3)anang Pak Lu’ea’
ACT-visit Mr. Headman last.night

kelem ]] o

the

a. tun

[gi ku m-adea’ [CP gi
Cgi

person Cgi 1SG ACT-say
‘the person that I said visited the headman last night’
b. filem [gi ko m-adea’ [CP gi mulae´ ko t(cid:2)em(cid:3)oton
2SG ACT-watch

movie Cgi 2SG ACT-say
‘the movie that you said that you began to watch last night’
(McGinn 1998:373, (37a–b))

Cgi AUX

kelem ]] o
last.night

the

Further evidence that the extraction restriction in Rejang reflects [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] on C, and is
not specifically limited to subjects, comes from possessor relatives. Possessor relativization in
Rejang is possible with a resumptive pronoun, but generally only for possessors of subjects.

(29) Possessor relativization with resumptive

[nyung *(ne)

[gi
tun
person Cgi nose
‘the person whose nose is long’

3SG.GEN long

] panjang] o

the

b. *tun

[gi Alui k(cid:2)em(cid:3)lea’ [ngenyan ne

]] o

person Cgi Alui ACT-see wife
Intended: ‘the person whose wife Alui saw’
(McGinn 1998:370, (33a–b))

3SG.GEN the

However, relativization of object possessors is possible if the subject is a clitic pronoun, as attested
in Dibul’s (2019) translation of the Quran into Rejang.

(30) Object possessor relativization over pronominal subject

api bae [de21 Keme m-anjang [omor ne
who only Cgi 1PL.EXCL ACT-long age
‘whomsoever We cause to live long’ (Quran 36:68; Shakir translation)
Literally: ‘whoever We lengthen their age’

3SG.GEN

]]

20 Both our account and the discussion in McGinn 1998 predict the availability of long-distance theme relativization

via passivization in both higher and lower clauses, but McGinn does not discuss examples of this form.

21 The form of the gi complementizer is subject to dialectal variation.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

These examples show that possessor relativization is locality-sensitive and does not reflect a
free process of pronominal binding. The use of the gi complementizer—which correlates with
movement, as illustrated in (26)—also supports the view that possessor relativization as in (29a)
and (30) involves extraction.

We can imagine two possible analyses for this possessor relativization: one where the target
of relativization originates in the possessor position, with its trace pronounced as the pronoun ne
(as in a recent proposal in Jeoung 2018 and as suggested by a reviewer), or with the target of
relativization being generated at the edge of the DP and locally binding the possessive pronoun.
In either case, the restriction of possessor relativization to possessors of the highest nominal
(normally the subject) is explained by our analysis as analogous to the long-distance extraction
facts above: the target in these cases is at the edge of the highest DP and therefore counts as
closest to the probe.

(31) The closest nominal may be in a nominal subject
[PROBE:REL+D] . . . [DP1 DP2[REL],i . . . N (cid:2)DP2

(cid:3)/proi] . . .

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

In sum, a close look at the apparent subject-only extraction restriction with the gi comple-
mentizer in Rejang—and the shape of its various exceptions—provides strong motivation for the
theory of probing presented here. Rejang allows for the extraction of nonsubject nominals across
clitic agents with gi, and it provides strategies to place nominals at the edge of subjects—both
nominal and clausal—causing those nominals to become the closest nominals to the probe and
therefore licit targets for extraction.

4 Evidence from Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) Typology

We now turn to the broader typology of extraction asymmetries for further evidence of the pos-
sibility of A¯ -probing for the closest DP (7). Our discussion will center around Keenan and Comrie’s
work on the typology of relativization (Keenan and Comrie 1977, 1979 (K&C), Comrie and
Keenan 1979). In this work, K&C claim that there exist languages with relativization strategies
that apply specifically to subjects but to no other types of arguments.22 As Deal (2015:698–699)
notes, such forms of relativization may be candidates for being analyzed as involving A¯ -probing
for the closest DP.

Revisiting all the subject-only relativization strategies identified by K&C, we note that the
level of detail they provide on individual languages is generally insufficient to determine whether
any of these relativization strategies are best analyzed as involving A¯ -probing for the closest DP.
Thankfully, however, more detailed subsequent studies exist for some of these languages. We
conclude that some but not all of K&C’s subject-only strategies provide further evidence for our
conjecture. This section thus serves two purposes: First, it highlights a few more case stud-

22 K&C discuss “strategies” of relativization, of which a particular language may have more than one. Individual
strategies are distinguished, for example, by whether they involve gapping, resumptive pronouns, or relative pronouns,
or by other morphosyntactic characteristics.

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

ies—from Arabic, Ma¯ori, and Toba Batak—which we take to provide strong supporting evidence
for the possibility that A¯ -probes may be restricted to the closest DP. Second, it serves as a note
of caution against taking K&C’s results to have already established the necessity of A¯ -probing
for the closest DP in grammar, thereby underscoring the motivation for this article.

In their survey, K&C report eleven languages with relativization strategies that can target
subjects but not other nominals: Northeast Aoba/Ambae, Arabic, Iban (Sea Dayak), Javanese,
Kera, Kiribati (Gilbertese), Malagasy, Ma¯ori, Minangkabau, Tagalog, and Toba Batak. Of these,
only Malagasy and Toba Batak are discussed in any detail in K&C 1977. With the exception of
Arabic and Kera (East Chadic), all of these languages are Austronesian.23

We first discuss Kiribati (Oceanic; VOS), which K&C describe as utilizing a gap strategy
for subject relatives (32a) but a pronoun strategy for object relatives (32b). (This same description
applies to Northeast Ambae (also Oceanic), Arabic, and Kera; we discuss Arabic below.) Object
pronouns appear on the verb with the linker -i-.24

(32) Kiribati relative clause data

a. te aine

are orea te mane
the woman REL hit
the man
‘the woman who hit the man’

b. te mane are oro-i-a

te aine

the man REL hit-TR-3SG the woman
‘the man that the woman hit’
(K&C 1979:337)

At first glance, such a language seems amenable to an analysis utilizing an A¯ -probe that targets
the closest DP: A¯ -extraction is limited to the structurally highest DP, the subject, and relativization
of other arguments necessitates the use of resumptive pronouns.

However, this view is challenged by data on long-distance object extraction in Sabel 2013.
In (33), fronting the embedded plural object ‘Mary and Tien’ triggers a third person plural pronoun
on the embedded verb ‘love’, as expected, but also on the higher verb ‘know’.

(33) Long-distance object movement in Kiribati

tangir-i-ia Rui.
Meeiri ao Tien aika
Mary and Tien REL.3PL 1PL know-TR-3PL that 3SG love-TR-3PL Rui
‘It’s Mary and Tien that we know that Rui loves.’
(Sabel 2013:18)

ata-i-ia

bwa e

23 Austronesian languages make up 11 out of 49 languages in K&C’s survey (1977:76–79, table 1) and thus may
be generally overrepresented in their study. Interestingly, K&C discuss Turkish but treat the SR and NSR forms as a single
strategy; see K&C 1979:348. They also note in passing that “many European languages (e.g. German, Russian, and Pol-
ish) have participial [relative clause]-forming strategies that apply only to subjects” (K&C 1977:70); see our footnote 8.
24 Following Harrison (1978), Sabel (2013) calls -i- a transitivity marker and we follow their glossing here. It is
possible that the verb orea in (32a) includes the third person singular object marker but without the transitivity marker,
as Sabel (2013) suggests. In fact, K&C (1979) gloss orea in (32a) as ‘hit-3SG’ and oroia in (32b) as ‘hit-him’. Here, we
follow Trussel (1979:140–145) in simply treating the verb as orea.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

On the basis of such examples, Sabel argues that the object “pronoun” on Kiribati object extraction
verbs is a form of agreement fed by successive-cyclic movement of the object. Thus, the difference
between subject and object relativization illustrated in (32) may simply be morphological. Kiribati
thus represents an instructive test case where further work on the language casts doubt on taking
K&C’s reported behavior as a natural candidate for an analysis using A¯ -probing for the closest
DP.25

K&C’s description of relativization as subject-only in Malagasy and Tagalog also does not
immediately necessitate A¯ -probing for the closest DP. Both are Philippine-type Austronesian
languages explicitly discussed by Aldridge (2004, 2008) as amenable to her analysis for syntactic
ergativity reviewed above. However, alternative approaches for these languages exist that do not
involve such an A¯ -probing restriction; see footnote 8.

In some cases, however, subsequent work on the subject-only relativization strategies identi-
fied by K&C has led to forceful arguments for A¯ -probing that is limited to the closest DP. Such
is the case for Toba Batak (Erlewine 2018), where relativization is limited to the subject (active
agent or passive theme), relativization of transitive themes being fed by passivization. (K&C also
give this same description for Iban, Javanese, and Minangkabau—all Indonesian-type Austrone-
sian languages (see footnote 1).) Although Cole and Hermon (2008) have proposed that this
restriction reflects the “frozen” nature of the nonsubject DP arguments, Erlewine (2018) shows
that, under certain circumstances, a subject DP and a nonsubject DP can be fronted simultaneously.
Erlewine argues that the basic extraction restriction thus must be due to A¯ -probing being limited
to the closest DP—with options for further probing leading to multiple extractions—rather than
being due to the general immobility of nonsubject DPs as Cole and Hermon propose.

Further work on Ma¯ori has also led to an analysis involving A¯ -probing for the closest DP.
Douglas (2018) discusses the fact that clefting in Ma¯ori—built from a kind of headless relative
clause—can only target subjects of verbal and prepositional phrase predicates, not subjects of
nominal predicates. He argues that this is because the Ma¯ori cleft construction uses A¯ -probing for
the closest DP; in this predicate-initial language, a nominal predicate is higher than its argument.
However, as with their description of Toba Batak, K&C’s initial description of Ma¯ori as having
a subject-only relativization strategy does not by itself force a limited A¯ -probing analysis; only
with further investigation can a decisive argument for restricted probing be made.

Finally, we discuss the analysis of relativization in Arabic due to Shlonsky (1992). Arabic
allows extraction of subjects but requires pronominal resumption for extraction of all other argu-
ments. Shlonsky proposes that Spec,CP in Palestinian Arabic is an A-position, rather than an A¯ –
position, and thereby obeys the locality profile of A-movement. Although not cast in the contempo-
rary probe-goal terms used here, Shlonsky’s analysis amounts to proposing that the A¯ -probe for
relativization must target the closest DP. Similar proposals have since been advanced for new-
information clefts in French (Belletti 2015) and topicalization in southern Bantu (Bliss and Storo-
shenko 2009, Pietraszko 2021), which target subjects.26

25 A reviewer notes that Sabel’s long-distance extraction facts are not replicated in Fijian, which otherwise exhibits

the same behavior as Kiribati. Presumably, this is a point of crosslinguistic variation.

26 We thank Asia Pietraszko (pers. comm.) for bringing these works on Bantu to our attention.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

In sum, although the evidence provided by K&C (1977, 1979; see also Comrie and Keenan
1979) is by itself generally insufficient to motivate the existence of A¯ -probing restricted to the
closest nominal, stronger arguments for proposals of this form have been subsequently developed
for three of the languages in their study—Arabic, Ma¯ori, and Toba Batak—all of which are,
again, clearly not ergative. These three case studies thus join our discussion of Turkish and Rejang
to form a compelling reason to think of A¯ -probing for the closest DP as a true possibility in
grammar, and not only in ergative languages. This evidence in turn indirectly supports the feasibil-
ity of Aldridge’s (2004, 2008) approach to syntactic ergativity presented in section 2.

5 Variation in Probing

We have now established that A¯ -probing for the closest DP is indeed a strategy employed by the
grammar of nonergative languages. At the same time, we know that languages also employ
relativized A¯ -probing that can skip intervening nominals without the matching A¯ -feature; see (1).
In this section, we turn to the nature of this variation. We show that A¯ -probing for the closest
DP is neither a language-level parameter nor a construction-level parameter. Instead, we argue
that this choice of restricted probing is made with respect to individual heads.

5.1 Haya

We begin by discussing relativization in Haya, a Bantu language of the Great Lakes region of
Africa. Haya demonstrates that heads at different positions in a single A¯ -construction can differ
in their choice to employ A¯ -probing for the closest DP or not.

Local relativization in Haya can target both subjects and objects.27

(34) Local relativization in Haya is unrestricted

a. embw’ e´-y-a-ly’

e´bitooke
REL-it-PAST-eat bananas

dog
‘the dog that ate the bananas’
b. ebitook’ eby’ e´mbwa´ y-a´-lya

bananas REL dog
‘the bananas that the dog ate’
(Duranti 1977:120, (1); 121, (13))

it-PAST-eat

Duranti (1977) shows that, in long-distance relativization of an object in Haya, the object
must be promoted to subject before undergoing further A¯ -movement to the final landing site in
the matrix clause, as demonstrated through the contrast in (35b–c).

(35) Long-distance theme relativization requires passivization

a. Kato´ n-a-tekele´z’

[CP aty’ o´mwa´a´na y-a-bon’

a´basha´ija].

Kato PRS-he-thinks
‘Kato thinks that the child has seen the men.’

C child

he-PAST-see men

27 The form of the relative marker in (34)–(35) varies due to agreement. In addition, in subject relatives such as

(34a), the relative marker prefixes to the verb.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

b. *abasha´ı´j’ [a´bo´ Kat’ a´-lı´-ku-te´kelez’ [CP aty’ o´mwa´a´na y-a´-boˆna

]]

C child

REL Kato he-be-to-think
men
‘the men that Kato thinks the child has seen’
abasha´ı´j’ [a´bo´ Kat’ a´-lı´-ku-te´kelez’ [CP ati ba-a-bon-w’
men
‘the men that Kato thinks have been seen by the child’
(Duranti 1977:129, (i)–(iii))

REL Kato he-be-to-think

C they-PAST-see-PASS child

o´mwa´ana]]

he-PAST-see

We can understand this effect as resulting from intermediate movement being driven by
[PROBE:REL(cid:4)D] on embedded C that must target the closest DP, even though the highest clause
of the relative is not restricted in this way.28 Promotion of an embedded object to subject position
through passivization causes the theme to be the highest nominal in the embedded clause, allow-
ing it to then be probed from above and thereby extracted.

For the analysis developed here, whether or not the extraction restriction obtains in a configu-
ration involving C is a function of the lexical items in the context. It is relatively common for
embedded complementizers to differ from matrix complementizers in terms of what they attract;
consider, for instance, the presence vs. absence of T-to-C movement and do-support in standard
English matrix and embedded questions. Haya, then, is a language in which the outermost relative
complementizer (abo in (35b–c)) simply probes for [REL], but the embedded complementizer ati
must find a [REL] target that is the closest DP. Only extraction out of clauses headed by ati exhibits
the subject-only restriction, even within a single long-distance extraction chain.

5.2 Late Archaic Chinese

Late Archaic Chinese (LAC) exhibits a number of extraction asymmetries that are attributable
to restricted A¯ -probing by [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D] as described here. At the CP level, Aldridge (2019)
shows that only subjects can be A¯ -extracted to the clause edge in LAC and therefore proposes
that these processes involve A¯ -probing for the closest DP. In the interest of space, we will not
review this evidence from movement to Spec,CP here. Instead, we call attention to a restriction
on the behavior of nonsubject wh-phrases that undergo A¯ -movement to a clause-medial position
in LAC (Aldridge 2010).

While the canonical word order of LAC is SVO, Aldridge (2010) shows that wh-objects in

LAC appear preverbally.29

(36) Clause-medial wh-fronting
]?

a. Wu´ she´i [qã¯

I who deceive
‘Who do I deceive?’

28 Other Bantu languages display similar subject-only restrictions on all clauses; see in particular Demuth and Harford

1999 and Henderson 2006 for more details on these and other patterns of relativization in Bantu.

29 We follow Aldridge 2010 and other literature on historical Chinese linguistics in presenting transcriptions based

on modern Mandarin pronunciations of the attested examples.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

b. Go¯ng she´i [yu`

xia¯ng

you who want appoint
‘Who do you want to appoint?’
(Aldridge 2010:2, (2b); 7, (12b))

As Aldridge (2010, 2019) notes, basic ditransitives in LAC take their theme as their second
object, in “V recipient theme” order. With certain verbs, there is also an option to bring the theme
in front of the verb using the object marker yãˇ. Aldridge (2010) observes that only the first object
of either of these ditransitive predicates can move; in particular, a theme wh-word in second
object position is left in situ as in (37a), whereas a theme wh-word that precedes the other internal
argument is then fronted as in (37b).

(37) Only first objects of ditransitives may undergo wh-movement

. . . [na`i wu´ ju¯n he´

do our lord what

b. Ke`

‘ . . . what will (this) do to our lord?’
[yãˇ
jia¯ng he´
you will what YI
‘What are you going to teach me?’
(Aldridge 2010:22, (49a); 23, (52a))

jia`o guaˇre´n]?
teach me

These facts support the view that A¯ -probing for the closest DP is an option for movement-
driving heads in general, and not just with C. In LAC, the head that triggers clause-medial move-
ment (perhaps v, following Aldridge 2010, 2019) bears [PROBE:WH(cid:4)D] restricted to seeking the
closest DP.30

5.3 Non-DP Movement in Tagalog and Rejang

The existence of A¯ -extraction constructions that must target the closest DP naturally leads to the
question of whether and how non-DP constituents can be A¯ -extracted. As we have argued, A¯ –
probing for the closest DP is not a language-level parameter. A language that utilizes [PROBE:
A¯(cid:4)D] in some configurations may also A¯ -move non-DPs, but we predict that this will involve
different heads or probes.

Here, we return to Tagalog—one of the languages that motivated the idea of A¯ -probing for
the closest DP in Aldridge’s work—and show that the extraction of DPs and the extraction of
non-DPs indeed behave differently, exemplified here with wh-questions. DP-fronting as in (38a)
must target the absolutive argument—here, the object of ‘play’—which appears with an ang case
marker in preverbal position. Fronting of a non-DP as in (38b) lacks this ang marker. In addition,

30 If the predicate-internal subject hypothesis holds of LAC, the agent may be base-generated in Spec,vP as well.
[PROBE:WH(cid:4)D] on v cannot attract the agent, which is already its specifier, making the first object of the ditransitive count
as its closest nominal goal. See Branan 2022.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

note that the second-position clitic pronoun (cid:3)nila encliticizes to the verb in (38a) but to the wh-
phrase itself in (38b). See Hsieh 2020a,b for in-depth work on these non-DP extraction construc-
tions in Tagalog.

(38) DP vs. non-DP wh-fronting in Tagalog

a. Ano ang tutugtugin (cid:3)nila

what ABS FUT.play
‘What are they going to play at the party?’

party
sa
ERG.3PL OBL party

b. Saan (cid:3)nila

tutugtugin ang bago(cid:3)ng kanta
where ERG.3PL FUT.play ABS new(cid:3)LK song
‘Where are they going to play the new song?’
(Hsieh 2020a:273, (1)–(2))

Structural differences are also observed between DP and non-DP extraction in Rejang. Recall
that relativization over DP arguments must target the closest DP. Such examples allow for an
optional relative pronoun before the complementizer, as in (39).31

(39) Rejang subject relative with optional relative pronoun

k(cid:2)en(cid:3)le´a Jon] ’o
PASS-see Jon the

tun [(api) di
man who Cgi
‘the man that was seen by Jon’
(McGinn 1982:20, (39))

Relativization in Rejang can also target prepositional objects. In such cases, a wh-containing PP
fronts to a position following the complementizer.

(40) Rejang prepositional object relative

tun [(cid:2)di(cid:3) [PP magea api ] (cid:2)*di(cid:3) Jon m-lie´
man Cgi
‘the man to whom Jon gave a book’
(McGinn 1982:21, (40i–ii))

who

Jon ACT-give book

bukew

] ’o
the

We can understand prepositional object relatives as in (40) as involving a separate, optional
process of PP-fronting described by McGinn (1982:10); this movement “smuggles” the relative
operator to a position above the subject for successful targeting by [PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D]. Although these
relative operators are normally optionally realized as a wh-word in Spec,CP (as in (39)), the mor-
phological needs of the preposition require that it be pronounced overtly next to the preposition
in (40).

Such structural differences between DP and non-DP extraction are unsurprising under our
account. As Aldridge 2004 and much subsequent work has argued for Tagalog, and as we have

31 These examples come from McGinn 1982, which gives Musi dialect forms, including di for the complementizer

corresponding to gi above.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

argued for Rejang, DP-movement takes place via an A¯ -probe that must target the closest DP,
[PROBE:A¯(cid:4)D]. As this probe cannot target non-DPs, a separate, second A¯ -probe—for instance,
simply [PROBE:A¯ ], potentially on a different functional head—must be involved in the fronting
of non-DPs.

An important remaining question is why these separate A¯ -probes cannot also target DPs,
potentially leading to the extraction of nonclosest DPs. One possibility, suggested by Erlewine
(2018) and Hsieh (2020a) for Toba Batak and Tagalog, respectively, is that the A¯ -probe that leads
to successful movement of non-DPs cannot target nonclosest DPs because doing so would bleed
case licensing on the fronted DP. For more details, see these accounts and the argumentation
there.

6 Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we argued that A¯ -probes can be restricted to target only the closest nominal, as
originally proposed by Aldridge (2004) as part of an analysis for syntactic ergativity. We showed
that this (possibly conceptually surprising) form of restricted A¯ -probing is well-attested in nonerga-
tive languages. Probing of this form in many languages gives rise to what at first glance may appear
to be a subject-only extraction restriction. However, on closer examination certain nonsubjects can
also be be extracted via processes that rearrange nominals as well as via subextraction from
highest nominals. We illustrated this type of extraction restriction in Turkish and Rejang in detail
and provided references to other work describing such facts in Arabic, Ma¯ori, and Toba Batak—all
nonergative languages.

Establishing the existence of A¯ -probing restricted to the closest DP contributes to the growing
literature on possible interactions between A- and A¯ -features in probe specifications (e.g., Van
Urk 2015, Van Urk and Richards 2015, Baier 2018, Erlewine 2018, Bossi and Diercks 2019,
Colley and Privoznov 2020, Coon, Baier, and Levin 2021, Scott 2021) and on the space of var-
iation therein. We furthermore clarified that A¯ -probing for the closest DP is a property of specific
probes on heads, rather than a language- or construction-level parameter. In particular, languages
with constructions that involve A¯ -probing for the closest DP often also have other strategies for
A¯ -extraction that are not so restricted.32 What this implies, then, is that these grammars must also
have mechanisms for choosing between different extraction strategies. We pointed to two such
mechanisms here: the ability of some complex probes to prefer full matches but optionally allow
partial matches (see discussion at the end of section 3.1) and the ability of certain movements to
bleed case licensing and therefore be unable to target DPs (section 5.3).

32 Further support for this view comes from the observation that, even among DP arguments, in many languages
some A¯ -extractions are more restricted than others in what arguments they can target. See, for example, the discussions
of differences between relativization and wh-movement in Chukchi (Paleo-Siberian) in Polinsky 1992, 2016, between
topicalization and focus/wh-movement in Bikol (Philippine) in Erlewine and Lim to appear, and between various A¯ –
constructions in Kaqchikel (Mayan) in Heaton 2017:chap. 13.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell

University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 10:966–995.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00075.x.

Aldridge, Edith. 2010. Clause-internal wh-movement in Archaic Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics

19:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-009-9054-z.

Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122:192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016

/j.lingua.2011.10.012.

Aldridge, Edith. 2017. Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog. Glossa 2. https://doi.org

/10.5334/gjgl.175.

Aldridge, Edith. 2019. Subject/non-subject movement asymmetries in Late Archaic Chinese. Glossa 4.

https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.743.

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Arka, Wayan, and Christopher D. Manning. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new
perspective. In Proceedings of the LFG98 conference, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King,
45–69. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Mu¨ller, and Philipp Weisser. 2015. Ergatives move too
early: On an instance of opacity in syntax. Syntax 18:343–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12034.

Baier, Nico. 2018. Anti-agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Belletti, Adriana. 2015. The focus map of clefts: Extraposition and predication. In Beyond functional se-

quence, ed. by Ur Shlonsky, 42–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belletti, Adriana, and Chris Collins. 2021. Introduction. In Smuggling in syntax, ed. by Adriana Belletti and

Chris Collins, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry

27:531–604.

Bliss, Heather, and Dennis Ryan Storoshenko. 2009. Grammaticalization of topic in Shona. Paper presented

at the 3rd International Conference on Bantu Linguistics.

Blust, Robert. 2010. Review: The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar by Alexander Adelaar
and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. Oceanic Linguistics 49:302–312. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.0.0058.
Blust, Robert. 2018. In memoriam: Richard Bernard McGinn, Jr., 1939–2018. Oceanic Linguistics 57:

496–502. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2018.0020.

Bossi, Madeline, and Michael Diercks. 2019. V1 in Kipsigis: Head movement and discourse-based scram-

bling. Glossa 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.246.

Branan, Kenyon. 2018. Attraction at a distance: A¯ -movement and case. Linguistic Inquiry 49:409–440.

https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00278.

Branan, Kenyon. 2022. Locality and antilocality: The logic of conflicting requirements. Linguistic Inquiry

Early Access. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00436.

Branan, Kenyon, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. To appear. Locality and (minimal) search. In The Cam-
bridge handbook of Minimalism, ed. by Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Evelina Leivada. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Cagri, Ilhan Merih. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Mary-

land.

Cagri, Ilhan Merih. 2009. Arguing against subject incorporation in Turkish relative clauses. Lingua 119:

359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.019.

Campana, Mark. 1992. A movement theory of ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Chen, Victoria. 2017. A reexamination of the Philippine-type voice system and its implications for Austro-

nesian primary-level subgrouping. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and

Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and param-
eters in comparative grammar, ed. by Robert Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax
in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,

1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistic Inquiry 7:41–87.
Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13:39–78.
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25:1–44.
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax 11:144–197. https://doi.org

/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00106.x.

Colley, Justin, and Dmitry Privoznov. 2020. On the topic of subjects: Composite probes in Khanty. In NELS
50, ed. by Mariam Asatryan, Yixiao Song, and Ayana Whitmal, 1:111–124. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association.

Collins, Chris. 2001. Economy conditions in syntax. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory,

ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 45–61. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Comrie, Bernard, and Edward L. Keenan. 1979. Noun phrase accessibility revisited. Language 55:649–664.

https://doi.org/10.2307/413321.

Coon, Jessica, Nico Baier, and Theodore Levin. 2021. Mayan agent focus and the ergative extraction con-
straint: Facts and fictions revisited. Language 97:269–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0019.
Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The role of case in A-bar extraction asym-
metries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14:179–242. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.2
.01coo.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Ergativity. In Syntax: Theory and analysis. An international handbook, ed. by Tibor

Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou, 654–707. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identification. Annual Review of Linguistics 2:

165–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040642.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination. In WCCFL 34, ed. by Aaron Kaplan,
Abby Kaplan, Miranda K. McCarvel, and Edward J. Rubin, 141–150. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.

Demuth, Katherine, and Carolyn Harford. 1999. Verb raising and subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Journal
of African Languages and Linguistics 20:41–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1999.20.1.41.
Dibul, Ahmad. 2019. Al Quran ngen tai ne lem Baso Jang [The Quran with its translation in Bahasa Rejang].

Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Curup [State College for Islamic Studies of Curup].

Douglas, Jamie. 2018. Ma¯ori subject extraction. Glossa 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.566.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1977. Relative clauses. In Haya grammatical structures, ed. by Ernest Rugwa Byaru-
shengo and Alessandro Duranti, 119–132. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak. Language 94:662–697. https://

doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0039.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Ergativity and Austronesian-type
voice systems. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa
deMena Travis, 373–396. Oxford Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780
198739371.013.16.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Cheryl Lim. To appear. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian

extraction restriction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1985. Variables in Palauan syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:59–94.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205414.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A′ binding in Palauan. Dordrecht:

Springer.

Hankamer, Jorge, and Laura Knecht. 1976. The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining
the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. In Papers from the Sixth Meeting of the North
Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. by Alan Ford, John Reighard, and Rajendra Singh, 2:123–135. Am-
herst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association.

Harrison, Shelley P. 1978. Transitive marking in Micronesian languages. In Second International Conference
on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, ed. by Stephen Wurm and Lois Carrington, 1067–1127.
Canberra: Australian National University, Pacific Linguistics.

Heaton, Raina. 2017. A typology of antipassives, with special reference to Mayan. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Hawai‘i.

Henderson, Brent. 2006. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: An update. In The history and typology
of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 7–16. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.

Hsieh, Henrison. 2019. Distinguishing nouns and verbs: A Tagalog case study. Natural Language and Lin-

guistic Theory 37:523–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9422-3.

Hsieh, Henrison. 2020a. Beyond nominative: A broader view of A¯ -dependencies in Tagalog. Doctoral dis-

sertation, McGill University.

Hsieh, Henrison. 2020b. On the structure of Tagalog non-DP extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth
Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA), ed. by Ileana Paul, 124–141.
London, ON: University of Western Ontario. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/afla/aflaxxvi.

Hsieh, Henrison. 2021. Locality in exceptional Tagalog A′-extraction. Ms., National University of Singapore.
Jeoung, Helen. 2018. Possessors move through the edge, too. Glossa 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.478.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical

Linguistics 35:1–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.001.

Kaufman, Daniel. 2017. Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. In The Oxford handbook of ergati-
vity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 589–628. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.24.

Keenan, Edward L. 2008. Voice and relativization without movement in Malagasy. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 26:467–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9049-x.

Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic

Inquiry 8:63–99.

Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language

55:333–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/412588.

Kelepir, Meltem. 2001. Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, Har-

vard University.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. In The
syntax of relative clauses, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, Andre´ Meinunger, and Chris Wilder,
121–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2008. Subject case and Agr in two types of Turkish RCs. In Proceedings of the 4th Work-
shop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, ed. by Suleyman Ulutas¸ and Cedric Boeckx, 145–168. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 55. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:55–101. https://doi.org

/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55.

Levin, Theodore. 2018. K’ichean syntactic ergativity: Locality and intervention in A′-movement. Ms., Na-

tional University of Singapore.

Martinovic´, Martina. 2015. Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence from the morphosyntax of the

Wolof clausal periphery. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
McGinn, Richard. 1982. Outline of Rejang syntax. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.
McGinn, Richard. 1989. The animacy hierarchy and western Austronesian languages. In Proceedings of the
Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Ken DeJong and Yongkyoon No, 207–217.
Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.

McGinn, Richard. 1998. Anti-ECP effects in the Rejang language of Sumatra. Canadian Journal of Linguis-

tics 43:359–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000841310002452X.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Murasugi, Kumiko. 1992. Crossing and nesting paths: NP movement in accusative and ergative languages.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Nakamura, Masanori. 1996. Economy of chain formation. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Nie, Yining. 2019. Raising applicatives and possessors in Tagalog. Glossa 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl

.941.

Nomoto, Hiroki. 2021. Bare passive agent hierarchy. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the
Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA), ed. by Henrison Hsieh and Keely New, 57–70.
London, ON: University of Western Ontario. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/afla/aflaxxvii.

Ordo´n˜ez, Francisco. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: A last resort strategy. Catalan Working Papers in

Linguistics 4:329–343.

O¨ ztu¨rk, Balkãz. 2009. Incorporating agents. Lingua 119:334–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10

.018.

Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation,

UCLA.

Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A′-element. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 23:381–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-1582-7.

Pesetsky, David. 2017. Complementizer-trace effects. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd ed., ed.
by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
/book/10.1002/9781118358733.

Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale:

A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355–425. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pietraszko, Asia. 2021. The coming apart of case and focus in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 39:579–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09481-z.

Polinsky, Maria. 1992. Relativization in Chukchi. In The non-Slavic languages of the USSR, ed. by Howard

I. Aronson, 241–262. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.

Polinsky, Maria. 2016. Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Syntactic ergativity. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd ed., ed. by Martin
Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.10
02/9781118358733.

Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesian verb-initial languages and wh-question strategies. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 27:737–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9078-0.

Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic

Inquiry 36:565–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice marking. In The
history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross,
17–62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Sabel, Joachim. 2013. Configurationality, successive cyclic movement, and object agreement in Kiribati and

Fijian. Linguistische Berichte 233:3–22.

Sag˘-Parvardeh, Yag˘mur. 2019. The semantics of number marking: Reference to kinds, counting, and optional

classifiers. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.

Scott, Tessa. 2021. Formalizing two types of mixed A/A¯ movement. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Parameterizing ergativity: An inherent case approach. In The Oxford handbook
of ergativity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis, 59–85. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.3.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23:443–468.
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Geneva.

Taylan, Eser Erguvanlç. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

Temu¨rcu¨, Ceyhan. 2001. Word order variations in Turkish: Evidence from binding and scope. Master’s the-

sis, Middle East Technical University.

Trussel, Stephen. 1979. Kiribati (Gilbertese): Grammar handbook. Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press.
Underhill, Robert. 1972. Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry 3:87–99.
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A Dinka Bor case study. Doctoral disserta-

tion, MIT.

van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive
cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46:113–155. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00177.
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory 15:181–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005796113097.

Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37:111–130.

https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321175.

Kenyon Branan
Leibniz-Zentrum fu¨r Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)

branan@leibniz-zas.de

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Department of English, Linguistics, and Theater Studies
National University of Singapore

mitcho@nus.edu.sg
Collegium for Advanced Studies
University of Helsinki

michaelyoshitaka.erlewine@helsinki.fi

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

d
o

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
2
1
5
0
8
0
9

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
9
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf