Non‐canonical agreement is canonical

This paper examines the phenomenon of cross‐clausal agreement, where the controller (trigger) of agreement and the agreement target seem to be in distinct local domains. It is argued that most instances of cross‐clausal agreement can be reduced to properly local agreement and are thus unproblematic for theories of agreement. A typology of such apparent violations is proposed. In addition, the paper considers a more challenging instance of cross‐clausal agreement where the controller and the target are indeed in distinct local domains (Long‐Distance Agreement, LDA). It is demonstrated that LDA involves the relationship between the periphery of the embedded clause and the embedding verb. The attested cases of LDA argue for the syntactic conception of agreement that closely resembles government.