Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2013
  • Online publication date: May 2013

10 - Subject-verb agreement


Agreement can be defined as a relationship of covariance between two or more sentential elements, as, for example, between subject and verb. In such a relationship, one element serves as the controller of the agreement relation, and one or more of the other sentential elements can be identified as the targets by virtue of some formal exponence that would not appear without this relationship. Handbooks of English usually agree that English has agreement between subject and verb at least in terms of person and number: I leave, he leave-s, the house stand-s here, the houses stand here. This agreement relation is only marked in the third person singular (non-past) by means of the suffix -s. We encountered another agreement relation in Chapter 3 in our discussion of systems of pronominal gender. Demonstrative pronouns show number agreement with their nominal heads (Chapter 5). Negative concord, as introduced in Chapter 9, may also be viewed as an agreement relation, though not a typical one. In the present chapter, we will be exclusively concerned with subject-verb agreement.


In his monograph on agreement, Corbett (2006: 1) begins his exposition by introducing a clearly false hypothesis – for didactic reasons, of course. According to this hypothesis, ‘grammatical information will be found only together with the lexical item to which it is relevant’. Corbett continues by stating that ‘[t]his hypothesis suggests a situation which is iconic, functional, sensible and understandable’. By way of illustration, he introduces English plural marking (dog/dogs) and the marking of the past tense (compute/computed), which fulfil the above criteria. Subject-verb agreement, and agreement in general, blatantly violates such a commonsensical perception of language as that which lies behind the above hypothesis. The main ‘problem’ of agreement is that it expresses information originating in another constituent. The verbal third person -s suffix of standard English mirrors information on the subject constituent.

Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2001. Was/were variation in non-standard British English today. English World-Wide 22(1). 1–21.
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language. London: Routledge.
Chambers, Jack K. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In Kortmann, Bernd (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 127–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, Viv. 1993. The grammar of southern British English. In Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, 214–42. London: Longman.
Godfrey, Elizabeth and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1999. Another piece of the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 11(1). 87–121.
Hudson, Richard. 1999. Subject-verb agreement in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(2). 173–207.
Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. (Lund Studies in English 103.) Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
Morgan, Jerry. 1984. Some problems of agreement in English and Albanian. In Brugman, Claudia, Maccauley, Monica, Dahlstrom, Amy, Emanatian, Michele, Moonwoman, Birch, and O’Connor, Catherine (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 233–47. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California.
Nevins, Andrew and Parrott, Jeffrey K.. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120(5). 1135–59.
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005. Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Schilling-Estes, Natalie and Wolfram, Walt. 1994. Convergent explanation and alternative regularization patterns: Were/weren't leveling in a vernacular English variety. Language Variation and Change 6(3). 273–302.
Tagliamonte, Sali. 1998. Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10(2). 153–91.
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell.
Further reading
Hay, Jennifer and Schreier, Daniel. 2004. Reversing the trajectory of language change: Subject-verb agreement with be in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 16(3). 209–36.
Jantos, Susanne. 2009. Agreement in Educated Jamaican English: A Corpus Investigation of ICE-Jamaica. University of Freiburg PhD dissertation.
McCafferty, Kevin. 2003. The Northern Subject Rule in Ulster: How Scots, how English? Language Variation and Change 15(1). 105–39.
McCafferty, Kevin. 2004. ‘[T]hunder storms is verry dangese in this countrey they come in less than a minnits notice…’: The Northern Subject Rule in Southern Irish English. English World-Wide 25(1). 51–79.
Smith, Jennifer and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1998. We was all thegither, I think we were all thegither: Was regularization in Buckie English. World Englishes 17(2). 105–26.
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Third person singular zero: African American vernacular English, East Anglian dialects and Spanish persecution in the Low Countries. Folia Linguistica Historica 18. 139–48.