Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:29:26.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Subject-verb agreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Peter Siemund
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access

Summary

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.

Overview

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
Varieties of English
A Typological Approach
, pp. 195 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2001. Was/were variation in non-standard British English today. English World-Wide 22(1). 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1999. Subject-verb agreement in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(2). 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. (Lund Studies in English 103.) Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew and Parrott, Jeffrey K.. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120(5). 1135–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005. Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 1998. Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10(2). 153–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Subject-verb agreement
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Subject-verb agreement
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Subject-verb agreement
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.011
Available formats
×