Consider the derivation of John eats the apples.

(1) [CP C [TP John T [v*P John v*-eats [VP eat [DP the apples]]]]] [uφ] [φ] [uφ] [φ]

The bracket notation above, where the words in boldface type indicate copy/trace.

The phi-feature of the apples and uphi-feature of eat agree. This agreement is not morphologically realized in English.
The phi-feature of John and uphi-feature of T agree. This agreement is realized on the verb eat by -s morpheme. But how? the verb is never in agree relation with John.

Untill Chomsky (1995), Minimalist Program,

  • 3
    Funny, it doesn't look minimal.
    – jlawler
    Nov 23, 2013 at 1:09
  • Adger 2003, 6.3.3. Subject-verb agreement, pp. 220-222. BTW what makes you say that "the verb is never in Agree relation with John?"
    – Alex B.
    Nov 23, 2013 at 5:07
  • There seems to be no stage in which the verb enters Agree relation with the subject, doesn't it?
    – user2765
    Nov 23, 2013 at 12:23

1 Answer 1


The mechanism of Agree(ment) has been redefined since Chomsky 1995. Since Chomsky 2000, 2001, it does not rely on Spec-Head agreement anymore. Regarding the relation between the subject and V, if suggest to have a look at Pesetsky & Torrego 2007, who give important references and develop a slightly different, but influential departure from Chomsky's 2000, 2001 definition. Adger 2003 is a good book, but note that his version of agreement is non-standard (as it work up- and downwards).


Chomsky, Noam (2000): “Minimalist inquiries: e framework”. In: Roger Martin & David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, eds.: Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–156.

Chomsky, Noam (2001): “Derivation by phase”. In: Michael Kenstowicz, ed.: Ken Hale, a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adger, David (2003): Core Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego (2007): “Thee syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. In: Simin Karimi & Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins, eds.: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 262–294. doi: 10.1075/la.101.14pes.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.