1 The Anaphor Agreement Effect and Georgian Anaphors * Nino Amiridze Abstract Standard Binding Theory does not give a straightforward account for the subject anaphor gap. Rizzi’s (1990) Anaphor Agreement Effect and its modified version (Woolford (1999)) were designed to account for that gap. The paper deals with Georgian anaphors representing counter-examples for both versions of the Anaphor Agreement Effect. It argues that the explanation for the presence of subject anaphors in Georgian can be given neither within Reinhart and Reuland’s (1993) “Reflexivity” framework as it was previously suggested in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) and Everaert (2001) for Greek and Georgian. In fact there is more than only the internal structure of anaphors and the related anaphoric properties responsible for the existence of subject anaphors. 1. Anaphor Agreement Effect explaining a gap in the paradigm of anaphors Rizzi (1990) offers evidence from Italian and Icelandic to argue that anaphors that are in agreement with the verbal complex are ungrammatical. The Icelandic data in (1a) and the Italian example in (2a) illustrate that when an anaphor is marked by nominative and, thus, triggers agreement like any nominative NP does in these languages, the sentences are ungrammatical. But if the anaphors are marked by a case other than nominative (i.e., * I am grateful to Martin Everaert for his help on every stage of writing this paper. I have benefited from comments from Rusudan Asatiani, Olivier Bonami, Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr, Peter Cole, Gabriela Hermon, Torsten Leuschner, Lea Nash, Eric Reuland, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili, Kevin Tuite. I would also like to thank Xabier Artiagoitia and Itziar Laka for their help with Basque data and also everyone who participated in the discussion on Basque subject anaphors during December 2001 on the Basque linguistics e-list. This research was made possible through a grant of the Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS in the context of the Language in Use project.