Hubbry Logo
Agreement (linguistics)Agreement (linguistics)Main
Open search
Agreement (linguistics)
Community hub
Agreement (linguistics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Agreement (linguistics)
Agreement (linguistics)
Agreement (linguistics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In linguistics, agreement or concord (abbreviated agr) occurs when a word changes form depending on the other words to which it relates.[1] It is an instance of inflection, and usually involves making the value of some grammatical category (such as gender or person) "agree" between varied words or parts of the sentence.

For example, in Standard English, one may say I am or he is, but not "I is" or "he am". This is because English grammar requires that the verb and its subject agree in person. The pronouns I and he are first and third person respectively, as are the verb forms am and is. The verb form must be selected so that it has the same person as the subject in contrast to notional agreement, which is based on meaning.[2][3]

By category

[edit]

Agreement generally involves matching the value of some grammatical category between different constituents of a sentence (or sometimes between sentences, as in some cases where a pronoun is required to agree with its antecedent or referent). Some categories that commonly trigger grammatical agreement are noted below.

Person

[edit]

Agreement based on grammatical person is found mostly between verb and subject. An example from English (I am vs. he is) has been given in the introduction to this article.

Agreement between pronoun (or corresponding possessive adjective) and antecedent also requires the selection of the correct person. For example, if the antecedent is the first person noun phrase Mary and I, then a first person pronoun (we/us/our) is required; however, most noun phrases (the dog, my cats, Jack and Jill, etc.) are third person, and are replaced by a third person pronoun (he/she/it/they etc.).

Number

[edit]

Agreement based on grammatical number can occur between verb and subject, as in the case of grammatical person discussed above. In fact the two categories are often conflated within verb conjugation patterns: there are specific verb forms for first person singular, second person plural and so on. Some examples:

  • I really am (1st pers. singular) vs. We really are (1st pers. plural)
  • The boy sings (3rd pers. singular) vs. The boys sing (3rd pers. plural)

Again as with person, there is agreement in number between pronouns (or their corresponding possessives) and antecedents:

  • The girl did her job vs. The girls did their job

Agreement also occurs between nouns and their specifier and modifiers, in some situations. This is common in languages such as French and Spanish, where articles, determiners and adjectives (both attributive and predicative) agree in number with the nouns they qualify:

  • le grand homme ("the great man") vs. les grands hommes ("the great men")
  • el hombre alto ("the tall man") vs. los hombres altos ("the tall men")

In English this is not such a common feature, although there are certain determiners that occur specifically with singular or plural nouns only:

  • One big car vs. Two big cars
  • Much great work vs. Many great works

Gender

[edit]

In languages in which grammatical gender plays a significant role, there is often agreement in gender between a noun and its modifiers. For example, in French:

  • le grand homme ("the big man"; homme is masculine) vs. la grande chaise ("the big chair"; chaise is feminine)

Such agreement is also found with predicate adjectives: l'homme est grand ("the man is big") vs. la chaise est grande ("the chair is big"). However, in some languages, such as German, this is not the case; only attributive modifiers show agreement:

  • der große Mann ("the big man", with inflection) vs. der Mann ist groß ("the man is big", without)

In the case of verbs, gender agreement is less common, although it may still occur, for example in Arabic verbs where the second and third persons take different inflections for masculine and feminine subjects. In the French compound past tense, the past participle – formally an adjective – agrees in certain circumstances with the subject or with an object (see passé composé for details). In Russian and most other Slavic languages, the form of the past tense agrees in gender with the subject, again due to derivation from an earlier adjectival construction.

There is also agreement in gender between pronouns and their antecedents. Examples of this can be found in English (although English pronouns principally follow natural gender rather than grammatical gender):

  • The man reached his destination vs. The ship reached her/its destination

For more detail see Gender in English.

Case

[edit]

In languages that have a system of cases, there is often agreement by case between a noun and its modifiers. For example, in German:

  • der gute Mann ("the good man", nominative case) vs. des guten Mann(e)s ("of the good man", genitive case)

In fact, the modifiers of nouns in languages such as German and Latin agree with their nouns in number, gender and case; all three categories are conflated together in paradigms of declension.

Case agreement is not a significant feature of English (only personal pronouns and the pronoun who have any case marking). Agreement between such pronouns can sometimes be observed:

  • Who came first – he or his brother? vs. Whom did you see – him or his brother?

Alliterative agreement

[edit]

A rare type of agreement that phonologically copies parts of the head rather than agreeing with a grammatical category.[4] For example, in Bainouk:

katama-ŋɔ

river-prox.

in-ka

this

/

/

katama-ā-ŋɔ

river-pl-prox.

in-ka-ā

these

katama-ŋɔ in-ka / katama-ā-ŋɔ in-ka-ā

river-prox. this / river-pl-prox. these

In this example, what is copied is not a prefix, but rather the initial syllable of the head "river".

By language

[edit]

Languages can have no conventional agreement whatsoever, as in Japanese or Malay; barely any, as in English; a small amount, as in spoken French; a moderate amount, as in Greek or Latin; or a large amount, as in Swahili.

English

[edit]

Modern English does not have a particularly large amount of agreement, although it is present.

Apart from verbs, the main examples are the determiners “this” and “that”, which become “these” and “those” respectively when the following noun is plural:

this woman — these women
that dog — those dogs

All regular verbs (and nearly all irregular ones) in English agree in the third-person singular of the present indicative by adding a suffix of either -s or -es. The latter is generally used after stems ending in the sibilants sh, ch, ss, or zz (e.g. he rushes, it lurches, she amasses, it buzzes.)

Present tense of to love:

Person Number
Singular Plural
First I love we love
Second you love you love
Third he/she/it loves they love

In the present tense (indicative mood), the following verbs have irregular conjugations for the third-person singular:

  • to have: has
  • to do: does
  • to say: says

Note that there is a distinction between irregular verb conjugations in the spoken language and irregular spellings of words in the written language. Linguistics generally concerns itself with the natural, spoken language, and not with spelling conventions in the written language. The verb to go is often given as an example of a verb with an irregular present tense conjugation, on account of adding "-es" instead of just "-s" for the third person singular conjugation. However, this is merely an arbitrary spelling convention. In the spoken language, the present tense conjugation of to go is entirely regular. If we were to classify to go as irregular based on the spelling of goes, then by the same reasoning, we would have to include other regular verbs with irregular spelling conventions such as to veto/vetoes, to echo/echoes, to carry/carries, to hurry/hurries, etc. In contrast, the verb to do is actually irregular in its spoken third-person singular conjugation, in addition to having a somewhat irregular spelling. While the verb do rhymes with shoe, its conjugation does does not rhyme with shoes; the verb does rhymes with fuzz.

Conversely, the verb to say, while it may appear to be regular based on its spelling, is in fact irregular in its third person singular present tense conjugation: Say is pronounced /seɪ/, but says is pronounced /sɛz/. Say rhymes with pay, but says does not rhyme with pays.

The highly irregular verb to be is the only verb with more agreement than this in the present tense.

Present tense of to be:

Person Number
Singular Plural
First I am we are
Second you are you are
Third he/she/it is they are

In English, defective verbs generally show no agreement for person or number, they include the modal verbs: can, may, shall, will, must, should, ought.

In Early Modern English agreement existed for the second person singular of all verbs in the present tense, as well as in the past tense of some common verbs. This was usually in the form -est, but -st and -t also occurred. Note that this does not affect the endings for other persons and numbers.

Example present tense forms: thou wilt, thou shalt, thou art, thou hast, thou canst. Example past tense forms: thou wouldst, thou shouldst, thou wast, thou hadst, thou couldst

Note also the agreement shown by to be even in the subjunctive mood.

Imperfect subjunctive of to be in Early modern English
Person Number
Singular Plural
First (if) I were (if) we were
Second (if) thou wert (if) you were
Third (if) he/she/it were (if) they were

However, for nearly all regular verbs, a separate thou form was no longer commonly used in the past tense. Thus the auxiliary verb to do is used, e.g. thou didst help, not *thou helpedst.

Here are some special cases for subject–verb agreement in English:

Always Singular

  • Indefinite pronouns like one, all, everyone, everything, everybody, nothing, nobody, anyone, anything, anybody, another, etc. are treated as singular.[5] (at least in formal written English)

- All's well that ends well.

- One sows, another reaps.

- Together Everyone Achieves More–that's why we're a TEAM.

- If wealth is lost, nothing is lost. If health is lost, something is lost. If the character is lost, everything is lost.

- Nothing succeeds like success.

Exceptions: None is construed in the singular or plural as the sense may require, though the plural is commonly used.[5] When none is clearly intended to mean not one, it should be followed by a singular verb. The SAT testing service, however, considers none to be strictly singular.[6]

- None so deaf as those who don't hear.

- None prosper by begging.

  • The pronouns neither and either are singular although they seem to be referring to two things.
  • Words after each, every, and many a are treated as singular.[5]

- Every dog is a lion at home.

- Many a penny makes a pound.

- Each man and each woman has a vote.

Exceptions: When the subject is followed by each, the verb agrees to the original subject.

- Double coincidence of wants occurs when two parties each desire to sell what the other exactly wants to buy.

  • A measurement or quantity is treated as singular.[5]

- Thousand dollars is a high price to pay.

Exceptions: Ten dollars were scattered on the floor. (= Ten dollar bills)

Exceptions: Fraction or percentage can be singular or plural based on the noun that follows it.

- Half a loaf is better than no bread.

- One in three people globally do not have access to safe drinking water.

  • A Question with who or what takes a singular verb.

- Who is to bell the cat?

- A food web is a graphical representation of what-eats-what in an ecosystem.

  • A mathematical expression is treated as singular.

- Two and two is four.

Always Plural

  • Two or more subjects joined by and take a plural verb.[5]

- The MD and the CEO of the company have arrived.

- Time and tide wait for none.

- Weal and woe come by turns.

- Day and night are alike to a blind man.

Exceptions: If the nouns, however, suggest one idea or refer to the same thing or person, the verb is singular.[5]

- The good and generous thinks the whole world is friendly.

- The new bed and breakfast opens this week.

- The MD and CEO has arrived.

Exceptions: Words joined to a subject by with, in addition to, along with, as well (as), together with, besides, not, etc. are parenthetical and the verb agrees with the original subject.[5]

  • A quantity expressing a certain number of items is plural. E.g.- dozen, score[5]

- One cow breaks the fence, and a dozen leap it.

- A dozen of eggs cost around $1.5.

- 1 mole of oxygen react with 2 moles of hydrogen gas to form water.

  • A Phrase of the form The+Adjective is plural.

- The rich plan for tomorrow, the poor for today.

  • Some words appear singular but are plural: police, cattle, etc.[5]

- Where the cattle stand together, the lion lies down hungry.

  • When the word enemy is used in the sense of armed forces another nation a plural verb is used.

Singular or Plural

  • When subjects are joined by or, nor, not only...but also, etc. the verb agrees with the nearer subject.[5] (Rule of Proximity)

- Success or failure depends on individuals.

- Neither I nor you are to blame.

- Either you or he has to go.

(But at times, it is considered better to reword such grammatically correct but awkward sentences.)

  • Objects with two parts such as dresses like trousers, pants, gloves, breeches, jeans, tights, shorts, pajamas, drawers, etc. and instruments like scissors, tweezers, shears, binoculars, tongs, glasses, specs, bellows, pincers, etc. take a plural verb when used in the crude form and are singular when used with a pair of.[5]
  • A collective noun is singular when thought of as a unit and plural when the individuals are considered.[5]

- The jury has arrived at a unanimous decision.

- The committee are divided in their opinion.

- His family is quite large.

- His family have given him full support in his times of grief.

- There's a huge audience in the gallery today.

- The audience are requested to take their seats.

Exceptions: British English, however, tends to treat team and company names as plural.

- India beat Sri Lanka by six wickets in a pulsating final to deliver World Cup glory to their cricket-mad population for the first time since 1983. (BBC)[7]

- India wins cricket World Cup for 1st time in 28 years. (Washington Post)[8]

  • Phrases like more than one, majority of are singular or plural based on the noun it modifies.

- There's more than one way to skin a cat.

  • Pains and means can be singular or plural but the construction must be consistent. In the sense of wealth, means always takes a plural verb.[5] Barracks, headquarters, whereabouts, and aims can take a singular verb, as well as the plural verb.

Latin

[edit]

Compared with English, Latin is an example of a highly inflected language. The consequences for agreement are thus:

Verbs must agree in person and number, and sometimes in gender, with their subjects. Determiners and adjectives must agree in case, number and gender with the nouns they modify.

Sample Latin verb: the present indicative active of portare (portar), to carry:

porto - I carry
portas - you [singular] carry
portat - he carries
portamus - we carry
portatis - you [plural] carry
portant - they carry

In Latin, a pronoun such as "ego" and "tu" is only inserted for contrast and selection. Proper nouns and common nouns functioning as subject are nonetheless frequent. For this reason, Latin is described as a null-subject language.

French

[edit]

Spoken French always distinguishes the second person plural, and the first person plural in formal speech, from each other and from the rest of the present tense in all verbs in the first conjugation (infinitives in -er) other than aller. The first person plural form and pronoun (nous) are now usually replaced by the pronoun on (literally: "one") and a third person singular verb form in Modern French. Thus, nous travaillons (formal) becomes on travaille. In most verbs from the other conjugations, each person in the plural can be distinguished among themselves and from the singular forms, again, when using the traditional first person plural. The other endings that appear in written French (i.e.: all singular endings, and also the third person plural of verbs other than those with infinitives in -er) are often pronounced the same, except in liaison contexts. Irregular verbs such as être, faire, aller, and avoir possess more distinctly pronounced agreement forms than regular verbs.

An example of this is the verb travailler, which goes as follows (the single words in italic type are pronounced /tʁa.vaj/):

  • je travaille
  • tu travailles
  • il travaille
  • nous travaillons, or on travaille
  • vous travaillez
  • ils travaillent

On the other hand, a verb like partir has (the single words in italic type are pronounced /paʁ/):

  • je pars
  • tu pars
  • il part
  • nous partons, or on part
  • vous partez
  • ils partent

The final S or T is silent, and the other three forms sound different from one another and from the singular forms.

Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns that they modify in French. As with verbs, the agreements are sometimes only shown in spelling since forms that are written with different agreement suffixes are sometimes pronounced the same (e.g. joli, jolie); although in many cases the final consonant is pronounced in feminine forms, but silent in masculine forms (e.g. petit vs. petite). Most plural forms end in -s, but this consonant is only pronounced in liaison contexts, and it is determinants that help understand if the singular or plural is meant. The participles of verbs agree in gender and number with the subject or object in some instances.

Articles, possessives and other determinants also decline for number and (only in the singular) for gender, with plural determinants being the same for both genders. This normally produces three forms: one for masculine singular nouns, one for feminine singular nouns, and another for plural nouns of either gender:

  • Definite article: le, la, les
  • Indefinite article: un, une, des
  • Partitive article: du, de la, des
  • Possessives (for the first person singular): mon, ma, mes
  • Demonstratives: ce, cette, ces

Notice that some of the above also change (in the singular) if the following word begins with a vowel: le and la become l′, du and de la become de l′, ma becomes mon (as if the noun were masculine) and ce becomes cet.

Hungarian

[edit]

In Hungarian, verbs have polypersonal agreement, which means they agree with more than one of the verb's arguments: not only its subject but also its (accusative) object. Difference is made between the case when there is a definite object and the case when the object is indefinite or there is no object at all. (The adverbs do not affect the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I love somebody or something unspecified), szeretem (I love him, her, it, or them, specifically), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, us, you, someone, or something unspecified), szereti (he loves her, him, it, or them specifically). Of course, nouns or pronouns may specify the exact object. In short, there is agreement between a verb and the person and number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often refers to the person more or less exactly).

See Definite and indefinite conjugations

The predicate agrees in number with the subject and if it is copulative (i.e., it consists of a noun/adjective and a linking verb), both parts agree in number with the subject. For example: A könyvek érdekesek voltak "The books were interesting" ("a": the, "könyv": book, "érdekes": interesting, "voltak": were): the plural is marked on the subject as well as both the adjectival and the copulative part of the predicate.

Within noun phrases, adjectives do not show agreement with the noun, though pronouns do. e.g. a szép könyveitekkel "with your nice books" ("szép": nice): the suffixes of the plural, the possessive "your" and the case marking "with" are only marked on the noun.

Scandinavian languages

[edit]

Adjectives

[edit]

In the Scandinavian languages, adjectives (both attributive and predicative) are declined according to the gender, number, and definiteness of the noun they modify. In Icelandic and Faroese, adjectives are also declined according to grammatical case, unlike the other Scandinavian languages.

In some cases in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, adjectives and participles as predicates appear to disagree with their subjects. This phenomenon is referred to as pancake sentences.

Examples (Norwegian)
[edit]
Agreement of the adjective «liten»(small) in Norwegian
Masculine Feminine Neuter Plural Definite (strong inflection)
Liten Lita Lite Små Lille
  • En liten gnist (a small spark)
  • Ei lita hytte (a small cabin)
  • Et lite tre (a small tree)
  • De små barna (the small children)
  • Flammen er liten (the fire is small)
  • Hytta er lita (the cabin is small)
  • Treet er lite (the tree is small)
  • Barna er små (the children are small)
  • Den lille gutten (the small boy)

Participles

[edit]

In Norwegian nynorsk, Swedish, Icelandic and Faroese the past participle must agree in gender, number and definiteness when the participle is in an attributive or predicative position. In Icelandic and Faroese, past participles would also have to agree in grammatical case.

In Norwegian bokmål and Danish it is only required to decline past participles in number and definiteness when in an attributive position.

Slavic languages

[edit]

Most Slavic languages are highly inflected, except for Bulgarian and Macedonian. The agreement is similar to Latin, for instance between adjectives and nouns in gender, number, case and animacy (if counted as a separate category). The following examples are from Serbo-Croatian:

živim u malom stanu "I live in a small apartment" (masculine inanimate, singular, locative)
živim u maloj kući "I live in a small house" (feminine, singular, locative)
imam mali stan "I have a small apartment" (masculine inanimate, singular, accusative)
imam malu kuću "I have a small house" (feminine, singular, accusative)
imam malog psa "I have a small dog" (masculine animate, singular, accusative)

Verbs have 6 different forms in the present tense, for three persons in singular and plural. As in Latin, subject is frequently dropped.

Another characteristic is agreement in participles, which have different forms for different genders:

ja sam jela "I was eating" (female speaking)
ja sam jeo "I was eating" (male speaking)

Swahili

[edit]

Swahili, like all other Bantu languages, has numerous noun classes. Verbs must agree in class with their subjects and objects, and adjectives with the nouns that they qualify. For example: Kitabu kimoja kitatosha (One book will be enough), Mchungwa mmoja utatosha (One orange-tree will be enough), Chungwa moja litatosha (One orange will be enough).

There is also agreement in number. For example: Vitabu viwili vitatosha (Two books will be enough), Michungwa miwili itatosha (Two orange-trees will be enough), Machungwa mawili yatatosha (Two oranges will be enough).

Class and number are indicated with prefixes (or sometimes their absence), which are not always the same for nouns, adjectives and verbs, as illustrated by the examples.

Sign languages

[edit]

Many sign languages have developed verb agreement with person. The ASL verb for "see" (V handshape), moves from the subject to the object. In the case of a third person subject, it goes from a location indexed to the subject to the object, and vice versa. Also, in German Sign Language not all verbs are capable of subject/object verb agreement, so an auxiliary verb is used to convey this, carrying the meaning of the previous verb while still inflecting for person.

In addition, some verbs also agree with the classifier the subject takes. In the American Sign Language verb for "to be under", the classifier a verb takes goes under a downward-facing B handshape (palm facing downward). For example, if a person or an animal was crawled under something, a V handshape with bent fingers would go under the palm, but if it was a pencil, an 1-handshape (pointer finger out) would go under the palm.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Agreement (linguistics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , agreement is a grammatical process whereby certain elements in a sentence, such as verbs, adjectives, or pronouns, morphologically replicate or match specific features of a controller element, typically a or , including categories like , number, , and case, within a defined syntactic domain. This replication establishes formal dependencies that signal syntactic relationships and contribute to sentence coherence across languages. Agreement manifests in two primary domains: within the (e.g., determiners and adjectives agreeing with the head noun in and number) and within the (e.g., verbs agreeing with subjects in and number). These patterns vary cross-linguistically, with rich agreement systems in languages like Spanish or contrasting with sparser ones in English or Chinese, influenced by factors such as morphological complexity and syntactic structure. Theoretically, agreement has been analyzed in frameworks like the Minimalist Programme, where it arises from an "Agree" operation that probes and values φ-features (, number, ) between a probe (e.g., a tense head) and a goal (e.g., a ), extending beyond mere morphology to broader syntactic dependencies. Debates in the field center on whether agreement is primarily syntactic—driven by abstract formal features—or semantic, incorporating real-world referential properties, with psycholinguistic evidence showing that languages with rich morphology (e.g., Spanish) process agreement more robustly than those with poorer systems (e.g., English). Diachronically, agreement features often emerge through processes, such as the reanalysis of pronouns into verbal affixes, and play a key role in functions like tracking. Typological studies highlight variations, including optional or ambiguous agreement in some languages, underscoring the interplay of , semantics, and in its realization.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

In , agreement refers to the systematic covariation in the morphological form of words or morphemes within a phrase or sentence, driven by shared grammatical features such as , number, , or case. This process ensures that elements like subjects and predicates, or modifiers and heads, align in their inflectional properties to reflect syntactic and semantic relationships. For example, in English, the singular subject "the " triggers the singular form "barks" in the sentence "The barks," while the plural "the s" requires the plural "bark" in "The s bark," illustrating how agreement maintains grammatical coherence. Within , agreement functions as a core syntactic operation involving the matching or valuation of phi-features—formal representations of person, number, and gender—between a probe (such as a tense head) and a goal (such as a ). This mechanism, central to the , resolves uninterpretable features on functional heads by identifying and copying valued features from nominal elements, thereby licensing the derivation and contributing to the interpretation of sentence structure. Phi-features thus serve as the interface between morphology and , enabling agreement to enforce feature uniformity across constituents. Agreement is distinct from the related concept of concord, which denotes a broader pattern of inflectional , often within nominal phrases (such as between determiners, adjectives, and nouns), whereas agreement typically involves cross-phrasal feature matching, as in subject-verb relations. This distinction highlights agreement's role in establishing syntactic dependencies beyond mere local coordination.

Historical Development

The concept of agreement in traces its earliest systematic formulation to ancient Indian grammatical traditions, particularly in 's Aṣṭādhyāyī (circa 500 BCE), a foundational text that codifies rules for morphology and . In this work, describes processes such as sandhi—euphonic combinations at word boundaries—and inflectional paradigms (vibhakti) that require matching of grammatical features like (liṅga), number (vacana), case (vibhakti), and (puruṣa) across syntactic constituents. These rules ensure harmonic feature alignment in verbal and nominal forms, laying the groundwork for understanding agreement as a mechanism of morphological consistency within sentences. In the Western linguistic tradition, the notion of agreement emerged prominently in the study of during . of Caesarea, in his comprehensive Institutiones Grammaticae (early CE), articulated principles of concordia (concord), emphasizing the agreement between subjects and verbs in , number, and as essential to syntactic construction. 's treatment, influenced by earlier Greek and Roman grammarians like Apollonius Dyscolus, positioned concord as a core syntactic relation, distinguishing it from while highlighting its role in maintaining grammatical coherence in inflected languages. This framework dominated medieval and grammatical scholarship, serving as a model for analyzing agreement in . The 19th and early 20th centuries saw agreement integrated into , with providing a rigorous, descriptive approach in his seminal book . Bloomfield conceptualized agreement as a form-function matching process, classifying it into types such as concord (feature sharing between modifier and head, like adjective-noun agreement), (dependency-induced ), and (pronominal indexing of arguments). His emphasis on observable formal patterns over semantic interpretation shifted focus toward empirical analysis of agreement as a distributional , influencing American descriptive and establishing it as a key element of grammatical structure. The generative paradigm marked a transformative shift in the mid-20th century, with Noam Chomsky's The Minimalist Program (1995) redefining agreement as an operation involving the percolation and valuation of phi-features (person, number, and gender) within a hierarchical syntactic structure. In this framework, agreement arises through probe-goal relations, where uninterpretable features on functional heads like tense (T) seek and value matching interpretable features on nominals, eliminating earlier mechanisms like specifier-head agreement in favor of a more economical, feature-driven system. This innovation, building on Chomsky's prior work in , positioned agreement as central to , influencing subsequent research on feature checking and syntactic economy.

Types and Mechanisms

Morphological Agreement

Morphological agreement refers to the overt marking of shared grammatical features between a controller (such as a ) and a target (such as a or ) through changes in word form, typically involving affixes, modifications, or stem alternations. This process ensures that elements like , number, , or case are morphologically realized to indicate , distinguishing it from purely syntactic relations by its visible inflectional effects. Two primary morphological processes underpin agreement: fusion and agglutination. In fusion, a single portmanteau encodes multiple features simultaneously, as seen in Russian where the suffix -aja on adjectives marks both feminine and singular number (e.g., krasiv-aja knig-a 'beautiful book.F.SG'). Agglutination, by contrast, employs distinct affixes for each feature, allowing clearer separation, as in the Bantu language Babanki where prefixes and suffixes independently signal class and number agreement on verbs (e.g., prefixes for , suffixes for tense). A common illustration appears in Spanish subject- agreement, where the hablar 'to speak' inflects for and number: hablo (1st singular, 'I speak') uses the -o to mark singular first , while hablamos (1st plural, 'we speak') adds -amos for . Such affixation reflects the controller's features through systematic stem-vowel alternations and endings, ensuring overt harmony in the . Less common strategies include and suppletion. involves partial repetition of the stem to signal agreement, particularly for features, as in Somali adjectives where the form dabaq-dabaq ah (reduplicated 'long') agrees in plurality with a , unlike the singular dabaq ah. Suppletion occurs when entirely unrelated forms replace expected inflections to encode agreement, such as in Shipibo-Konibo verbs where number triggers suppletive stems (e.g., singular jo- 'come' vs. plural joni- 'come.PL'). These rarer mechanisms highlight the diversity of morphological strategies beyond standard affixation.

Syntactic Agreement

Syntactic agreement constitutes a core structural relation in , wherein elements such as verbs or probes establish dependency relations with goals like subjects or nouns through the valuation and checking of morphosyntactic features. This process enforces congruence in features such as , number, and across syntactic constituents, independent of their morphological realization. In this framework, agreement operates as an abstract syntactic mechanism that links disjoint elements within a hierarchical , ensuring clause-level coherence. Central to contemporary analyses is the Agree operation within the , as formulated by Chomsky (2000), which posits that a probe with uninterpretable features searches its c-command domain for a matching bearing interpretable features, subject to locality constraints like the Phase Impenetrability Condition. This operation enables feature valuation without necessarily involving movement, distinguishing it from earlier government-based accounts. The Agree relation is constrained such that the probe must c-command the , and no interveners block the search, thereby limiting agreement to structurally defined domains. Key phenomena illustrate the scope of syntactic agreement, contrasting local clausal patterns—where a directly agrees with its subject in the same , as in standard subject-verb configurations—with long-distance agreement, which spans beyond immediate local domains, such as across specifiers or into embedded clauses. For instance, in languages like Tsez, a matrix may exhibit long-distance agreement with an absolutive argument embedded under a postposition, bypassing potential interveners due to the goal's structural . Such cases highlight how Agree can operate over greater distances when locality conditions are met, often involving quirky case or information-structural factors. Exceptions to syntactic agreement arise in specific configurations, notably raising constructions and expletive subject environments, where the expected feature valuation fails, leading to default forms or partial agreement. In English, for example, expletive "there" in raising infinitivals like "There seems to be several problems" typically triggers singular agreement on the matrix despite a associate, reflecting a failure of the associate to value the probe's features fully. Similarly, in certain raising predicates, the embedded subject does not propagate its features upward, resulting in defective agreement patterns that underscore the operation's fallibility under intervention or phase boundaries. These exceptions demonstrate that while Agree is a fundamental syntactic primitive, it is not infallible and interacts with broader derivational constraints.

Grammatical Categories

Person and Number

In , is a that encodes the role of participants in a , distinguishing between the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), and entities neither speaker nor addressee (third person). First-person forms typically reference the speaker alone or in combination with others, second-person forms reference the addressee, and third-person forms reference external referents. Some languages further subdivide the first-person into inclusive and exclusive forms, where the inclusive includes both speaker and addressee (e.g., "we" encompassing "you and I"), while the exclusive includes the speaker but excludes the addressee (e.g., "we" meaning "I and others, but not you"). Number, another fundamental grammatical category, expresses distinctions in the quantity of referents associated with nouns, pronouns, or verbs, primarily through singular (one entity) and plural (more than one). Additional number values occur in various languages, including dual (exactly two), trial (exactly three), and paucal (a small, indefinite number, often 3–5). Number marking can also differentiate collectivity, which treats a group as a unified whole (e.g., a team acting together), from distributivity, which emphasizes individual actions within the group (e.g., each member acting separately). Person and number interact in agreement systems through hierarchies that prioritize certain features, often ranking person over number such that higher-ranked persons (e.g., first over third) determine verbal inflection even if number mismatches occur. This person-number hierarchy, proposed as a universal tendency, posits that first person outranks second, which outranks third, influencing agreement in polypersonal verbs where multiple arguments' features compete. For instance, in languages with hierarchical agreement, a first-person object may trigger first-person verbal marking over a third-person subject. In , verb agreement illustrates person-number interactions, particularly with collective nouns denoting groups, which often trigger third-person singular feminine agreement but can shift to plural marking in distributive contexts to emphasize participation. For example, the collective noun jamaʿa ("group") typically agrees with a singular in third person (e.g., jamaʿatun katabat "the group wrote").

Gender and Case

In linguistic agreement systems, gender serves as a classificatory feature for , determining the form of associated words such as adjectives, pronouns, and verbs. Grammatical gender systems typically involve arbitrary classes that trigger agreement, distinct from natural , which aligns with biological sex and is more semantically motivated. Languages exhibit a range of values, with two-gender systems (often masculine-feminine) being the most common globally, while others feature up to 20 or more classes, as seen in where classes function analogously to and control extensive agreement patterns on modifiers and predicates. Case, another core , encodes the syntactic or semantic role of nouns (e.g., for subjects, accusative for direct objects, genitive for possession) and often requires agreement on dependent elements like adjectives. In languages with rich case systems, such as those in the Indo-European family, adjectives inflect to match the noun's case, ensuring concord across the . This agreement helps disambiguate roles in flexible word orders, with common cases including dative (for indirect objects) and (for means or accompaniment). Gender and case frequently interact through , where morphological markers fuse both features into single forms, complicating agreement resolution. For instance, in Russian, adjective endings blend and case distinctions, such as the nominative singular masculine form -yj versus feminine -aja, which must align with the controlling while navigating case-driven variations across paradigms. This fusion can lead to partial neutralization, where certain forms are ambiguous between cases but preserve cues. Many systems display markedness asymmetries, where one —often masculine or neuter—serves as the default or unmarked form, applied in contexts of or . This default usage reflects a broader pattern in which the unmarked requires fewer morphological distinctions and is semantically broader, accommodating non-specific or mixed referents, as opposed to the more restricted marked like feminine.

Other Categories

Alliterative agreement refers to a system in which grammatical agreement between a controller (typically a ) and its target (such as an or ) is realized through matching of initial sounds or prefixes, rather than through semantic categories like or number alone. This phenomenon challenges the principle of phonology-free syntax by incorporating phonological features into agreement morphology. In languages like Landuma (an Atlantic language spoken in ), alliterative agreement manifests in noun phrases where adjectives and possessives replicate the initial consonant or vowel of the head noun's prefix, as in bàŋ kà-bàŋ ('two houses', where the matches the noun's class prefix kà-). Similar patterns occur in other , such as Baïnounk Gujaher, where agreement is partly alliterative and tied to noun classes, with modifiers echoing the head noun's initial sound to indicate syntactic relations. Although less common in , elements of alliterative concord appear in poetic or nominal constructions in some Afroasiatic varieties, but the most robust examples remain in Niger-Congo families. In historical Indo-European contexts like , alliteration primarily structures poetic meter rather than core grammatical agreement, though it influences nominal compounding in sagas. Honorific or agreement involves the marking of social or through morphological concord between elements, often on or nouns, to reflect the status of the subject, object, or addressee relative to the speaker. In Korean, subject honorification is a key example, where the agrees with the subject's high status via the -si-, as in sensayng-nim-kkeyse wa-si-ess-eyo ('The came', with -si- honoring the subject) contrasting with non-honorific sensayng-nim-i o-ass-eyo. This is analyzed as syntactic agreement, where a feature on the subject probes and values the 's , similar to or agreement, but driven by sociopragmatic factors. Addressee honorification further extends this, with endings like -supni-ta marking for the listener, as in kibun-i iss-supni-ta ('You feel good', polite form). Korean's system is complex, integrating phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic elements, and is optional in about 40% of contexts, allowing variation based on intimacy or formality. Such agreement underscores cultural norms of , with high-impact studies emphasizing its bidirectional probing mechanism. Evidentiality agreement entails verb forms aligning with the speaker's source of information about an event, encoding whether is direct (witnessed) or indirect (inferred or reported), often integrated with tense and aspect. In Turkish, this is grammaticalized through suffixes on the stem: the direct evidential -DI for firsthand observation, as in Ali gel-di ('Ali came', speaker saw it), versus the indirect evidential -mIş for non-witnessed events, as in Ali gel-miş ('Ali (reportedly) came' or 'Ali has come (inferred)'). The -mIş form decomposes into epistemic (indirect source) and aspectual (perfective or ) components, functioning as a propositional operator that presupposes the evidence type and interacts with or . Subtypes include inferential -mIş (speaker commitment to ) and reportative -mIş (neutral ), with reduplication like -mIş-mIş signaling disbelief, as in Ali gel-miş-miş ('Ali supposedly came, but I doubt it'). This marking ensures the "agrees" with the evidential context, distinguishing Turkish from languages without such obligatory encoding, and highlights its role in epistemic modality. Negation agreement, or polarity agreement, involves concord where negative elements trigger specific morphological or syntactic adjustments in verb forms, often through negative concord systems where multiple negatives reinforce a single negation. In French, the standard negation ne...pas encircles the auxiliary in compound tenses, but polarity effects arise in negative concord with n-words (indefinites like rien 'nothing' or personne 'nobody'), which must co-occur with ne...pas to express sentential negation, as in Je n'ai rien vu ('I saw nothing', where rien agrees in polarity with ne). While past participle agreement in French follows standard gender/number rules with preceding direct objects (e.g., Je l'ai vue 'I saw her'), negation influences polarity-sensitive items, such as the proximity effect where closer n-words to the verb facilitate concord, and expletive ne in comparatives like Il est plus grand que je ne pensais ('He is taller than I thought', non-truth-conditional ne). This system exhibits non-strict negative concord, allowing double negation interpretations in some contexts, and reflects diachronic shifts via from preverbal to postverbal emphasis.

Agreement by Parts of Speech

Subject-Verb Agreement

Subject-verb agreement is a fundamental grammatical process in which the finite verb in a clause inflects to match the grammatical features of its subject, primarily in person, number, and sometimes gender. This matching ensures syntactic harmony within the clause, reflecting the subject's properties onto the predicate. For instance, in English, a third-person singular subject requires the verb to take the -s suffix in the present tense, as in "She runs," while a plural subject does not, as in "They run." In languages with richer verbal morphology, such as Spanish, verbs also mark person distinctions, yielding forms like corro (I run) versus corre (he/she runs). Gender agreement may apply in certain contexts, as seen in Arabic where the verb agrees with a feminine subject via a suffix, e.g., katabat (she wrote) versus kataba (he wrote). Complexities arise in constructions involving multiple potential controllers, such as coordinate subjects, where locality effects can influence agreement. In , closest agreement (CCA) is prevalent, with the verb often agreeing with the nearest in the linear order rather than the entire conjunction. For example, in the phrase "Ram aur aayii" (Ram and Sita came.fem), the verb aayii agrees in and number with the feminine , the rightmost , due to the head-final structure of the . This pattern contrasts with default or full agreement in other languages and highlights how syntactic position can override hierarchical structure in agreement resolution. CCA is asymmetric in Hindi-Urdu, applying more readily to objects than subjects, further complicating the process. In scenarios of or creole formation, subject-verb agreement often undergoes attrition, resulting in partial or invariant forms. Colloquial (CSE), a contact variety influenced by topic-prominent languages like Chinese and Malay, frequently omits the third-person singular -s, leading to constructions such as "He don't like it" instead of "He doesn't like it." This variability reflects reduced morphological marking, with -s appearing in only about 8-25% of obligatory contexts, signaling a shift toward analytic structures over inflectional agreement. Similar patterns occur in creoles, where historical substrate influences simplify agreement paradigms, as in Bislama's optional subject-verb marking derived from English and . Inverse agreement represents another deviation, particularly in ergative languages like those of the Mayan family, where the verb's agreement is driven by the object rather than the subject under certain conditions. In , a direct-inverse system operates on a person/animacy hierarchy ( participants > third person singular > plural/NS), such that when the object outranks the subject, the verb uses agent-focus morphology to cross-reference the higher-ranked object. This object-driven pattern inverts the nominative-accusative norm, adapting agreement to prominence and argument structure. Parallels exist with adjective-noun agreement in attributive contexts, but subject-verb agreement specifically targets clausal predicates.

Adjective-Noun Agreement

Adjective-noun agreement involves the systematic covariation of morphological features on adjectives with those of the nouns they modify, typically including , number, and case in languages that mark these categories. This process ensures that attributive adjectives, which directly modify the noun within the , reflect the controller noun's properties, distinguishing it from predicative uses where agreement may vary. In languages like German, attributive adjectives precede the noun and inflect for the noun's gender, number, and case, with the specific paradigm (strong, weak, or mixed) determined by the presence and type of determiner. For instance, "der rote Wagen" (the red car, masculine nominative singular) contrasts with "die rote Katze" (the red cat, feminine nominative singular), where the adjective "rot" takes the weak ending "-e" in both due to the definite article. Position plays a key role, as prenominal attributive adjectives in German require full inflectional agreement, unlike predicative adjectives which often take a simpler form. French exemplifies postnominal adjective placement, where most attributive adjectives follow the noun and agree obligatorily in and number, but not case. Examples include "un grand chat" (a , masculine singular) and "une grande chatte" (a big female cat, feminine singular), with the adjective "grand" adding "-e" for feminine forms. This fixed postnominal position contrasts with German's prenominal one, influencing but not the core agreement mechanism, which remains consistent across positions. When multiple adjectives stack to modify a single noun, each must independently agree with the noun's features, creating coordinated inflectional patterns. In German, for example, "der gute alte Mann" (the good old man, masculine nominative singular) features both "gut" and "alt" in the weak paradigm, matching the noun "Mann" in , number, and case. Similarly, in French, stacked postnominal adjectives like "une maison grande et belle" (a big and beautiful house, feminine singular) both take feminine endings to align with "maison." In analytic languages such as English, adjective-noun agreement has been largely lost, with adjectives remaining uninflected regardless of the noun's , number, or case; thus, "the red car" and "the red house" use the same form "red." This absence reflects a broader typological shift toward fixed and reduced morphology, contrasting with the rich agreement systems in synthetic languages like German and French.

Pronoun Agreement

In , pronoun agreement with antecedents requires matching in key grammatical features such as , number, and to ensure clear across clauses. For example, in English, the pronoun "she" in "The woman read her letter" agrees with the antecedent "the woman" in third-person singular feminine form, facilitating reference resolution without ambiguity. This matching is a core mechanism of anaphora, distinguishing pronouns from full phrases by relying on shared features for interpretability. Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns exhibit stricter agreement constraints, as they must bind to antecedents within a limited syntactic domain while matching in , number, and . In English, "herself" in "The girl praised herself" agrees fully with the singular feminine antecedent "the girl," reflecting self-reference. Similarly, in Spanish, the invariable reflexive "se" in "Ella se lava" (She washes herself) agrees with the subject in and number through its placement and interpretation, though its form does not morphologically mark gender. Reciprocal pronouns like English "each other" require plural antecedents, as in "The students helped each other," enforcing mutual agreement. These forms highlight how agreement enforces locality and reflexivity in pronominal systems. The binding theory, introduced by Chomsky, formalizes these agreement constraints through Principles A, B, and C, which govern the distribution of anaphors, pronouns, and referring expressions relative to their antecedents. Principle A mandates that anaphors like reflexives be bound by a c-commanding antecedent within their minimal governing category, ensuring local agreement; Principle B bars pronouns from such local binding to avoid overlap with anaphors; and Principle C prohibits pronouns from c-commanding their antecedents, preventing reverse agreement. This tripartite framework, central to generative syntax, accounts for cross-linguistic patterns in pronominal agreement and . Recent innovations in pronoun agreement address inclusivity, particularly through gender-neutral forms. In English, the singular "they" serves as an epicene agreeing with singular antecedents of indeterminate or non-binary gender, as in "A doctor should respect their patients." Empirical studies confirm that "they" is interpreted as gender-neutral, encompassing non-binary referents while maintaining number agreement flexibility, and its use has historical roots dating back centuries with growing acceptance in modern usage.

Cross-Linguistic Examples

Indo-European Languages

In , agreement patterns vary significantly across branches and historical stages, reflecting a general trend from rich inflectional systems in ancient languages to more reduced morphology in modern ones. These languages typically feature subject-verb agreement in and number, with additional categories like and case appearing in nominal agreement, particularly in adjectives and nouns. English exemplifies minimal agreement, primarily limited to subject-verb concord in number and, to a lesser extent, , with no obligatory or case marking on verbs or adjectives. For instance, singular take singular verb forms (e.g., "the runs"), while plural take plural forms (e.g., "the dogs run"), but third-person singular adds a distinctive -s ending (e.g., "he runs" vs. "they run"); agreement is absent except in pronouns like "he/she/it." Case is not morphologically marked in nouns or adjectives, relying instead on and prepositions for syntactic roles. Latin, a classical Indo-European , displays rich agreement across categories. Verbs agree with their subjects in (first, second, third) and number (singular, plural), as seen in forms like amo ("I love," first singular) versus amatis ("you [plural] love," second plural). Adjectives agree with the nouns they modify in (masculine, feminine, neuter), number, and case (nominative, accusative, etc.), for example, vir fortis ("brave man," masculine nominative singular) or puella fortis ("brave girl," feminine nominative singular). This fusional morphology encodes multiple features in single endings, enabling flexible without loss of . In French, a Romance , agreement is partial but systematic. Verbs conjugate to agree with the subject in and number, such as je parle ("I speak," first singular) versus nous parlons ("we speak," first ). Adjectives and past participles agree in and number with the nouns or pronouns they modify, often requiring endings like -e for feminine (e.g., grand maison, "big house") or -s for (e.g., grandes maisons, "big houses"); however, agreement on past participles is restricted, occurring mainly with direct objects preceding the verb in compound tenses (e.g., les maisons que j'ai vues, "the houses that I have seen"). Although Hungarian belongs to the Uralic family rather than Indo-European, it is sometimes discussed alongside European languages due to areal influences. It features possessor agreement on nouns, where suffixes mark the person and number of the possessor (e.g., ház-am, "my house," first singular), and verbs show congruence with both subject and definite object in person and number (e.g., látom a házat, "I see the house," with -om indicating first singular definite object agreement).

Non-Indo-European Languages

Non-Indo-European languages exhibit a wide range of agreement systems, often diverging significantly from the fusional patterns common in Indo-European families, with some showing robust morphological agreement in , number, and case, while others rely minimally on inflectional marking and instead use particles or for syntactic relations. In such as and Hebrew, verbs typically agree with their subjects in and number, reflecting a strict syntactic dependency that extends to adjectives and pronouns. For instance, in , a feminine singular subject triggers a feminine singular form, as in katabat al-bint al-kitāb ("the wrote the "), where the katabat agrees in and number with al-bint. This agreement system is a core feature of Semitic verbal morphology, where prefixes and suffixes encode , , and number simultaneously, though variations occur in dialects with partial agreement collapse. Uralic languages, such as Finnish and Hungarian, demonstrate agreement primarily through case and number marking on adjectives and nouns, with verbs showing limited subject agreement but more extensive object agreement in certain branches. In Finnish, adjectives must agree with the nouns they modify in case and number but not in , since Finnish lacks ; for example, iso talo ("big house") becomes isossa talossa ("in the big house") in the , where both and inflect identically for case and number. Hungarian extends this to possessive agreement, where verbs and nouns mark possession through suffixes that agree in person and number, as in könyvem ("my book") influencing verb forms in certain constructions. Some like feature optional object-verb agreement, where definite objects trigger verbal suffixes indicating person and number, distinguishing them from subject agreement patterns. In contrast to these systems, Japanese represents a with virtually no morphological agreement, relying instead on postpositional particles to indicate without inflectional changes on verbs or adjectives for subject features. Japanese verbs inflect for tense, aspect, and but remain invariant with respect to the person, number, or of the subject, as seen in Watashi ga hon o yonda ("I read the book"), where the verb yonda does not change regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural. This lack of agreement extends to adjectives, which precede nouns without matching in case or number, highlighting Japanese's head-final structure and particle-based syntax over fusional morphology. agreements exist in specific contexts, such as object honorification, but these are pragmatic rather than grammatical in the traditional sense. These examples from Semitic and illustrate how non-Indo-European agreement can be highly integrated into verbal and nominal morphology, often tying into broader systems of case and definiteness, whereas isolating languages like Japanese minimize such marking, emphasizing contextual cues for interpretation.

Bantu and Agglutinative Languages

In , such as , agreement is primarily governed by a system that categorizes s into around 11 to 18 classes, often paired for singular and plural forms, with agreement markers realized as prefixes on verbs, adjectives, and pronouns to reflect the class of the head . This system extends beyond simple gender or number, incorporating semantic categories like , where class 1/2 typically denotes humans in singular (m-tu "person") and plural (wa-tu "people") forms, respectively. Verbs agree with the subject via class-specific pronominal prefixes, as in the class 1 example m-tu a-na-soma ("the person reads"), where a- is the subject agreement prefix for class 1, and adjectives or demonstratives follow suit with concord prefixes like m- for class 1 or wa- for class 2. Pronouns also inflect accordingly, such as yu-le ("that one," class 1) or wa-le ("those," class 2), ensuring cohesive reference across the . A of Bantu agreement is its alliterative , where the initial consonants of class prefixes recur in agreement markers, creating phonological cohesion that reinforces grammatical class identity. For instance, in class 1/2, the nasal m- (singular) and labial wa- (plural) prefixes on s extend to similar consonantal onsets in verbal and adjectival concords, as seen in m-tu m-zuri a-na-soma ("the reads"), where m- harmonizes across the noun and adjective. This alliterative pattern, rooted in Proto-Bantu morphology, aids in parsing complex sentences by linking agreeing elements through shared initial sounds, though exceptions occur with animate nouns overriding morphological class for semantic agreement. Agglutinative languages like Hungarian and Turkish exemplify agreement through sequential suffixation, where multiple affixes stack onto roots to encode features such as and number, often distinguishing subject from object. In Hungarian, an Uralic , verbs obligatorily agree with subjects in and number via suffixes, as in lát-ok ("I see," 1st singular), while object agreement in (but not number) applies to definite or pronominal objects, such as lát-om ő-t ("I see him/her," with 1st singular object suffix -om). Nouns further mark possession through suffixes reflecting the possessor's and number, e.g., eset-é-m ("my case," 3rd singular possessive suffix -é-m for 1st possessor), which parallels verbal agreement in precision but operates on nominal bases. This dual agreement system highlights Hungarian's tolerance for stacking affixes without fusion, allowing clear feature layering. Turkish, a Turkic agglutinative language, similarly employs verb-final suffixes to mark subject agreement in person and number, added sequentially after tense-aspect-mood markers, as in gel-di-m ("I came," root gel- + past -di- + 1st singular -m) or gid-iyor-uz ("we are going," root gid- + progressive -iyor + 1st plural -uz). Unlike Hungarian's object agreement, Turkish focuses on subject-verb harmony without object suffixes, but the agglutinative structure permits complex chains, such as gel-se-k-ti ("if we had come," conditional -se- + 1st plural -k + past -ti), where affixes accumulate to convey layered grammatical information. This sequential affixation in both Hungarian and Turkish underscores agglutinative efficiency in encoding agreement, contrasting with Bantu prefixal systems while sharing a reliance on morphological markers for syntactic cohesion.

Agreement in Sign Languages

Non-Manual Markers

Non-manual markers in sign languages play a crucial role in expressing agreement features such as and number, particularly on verbs, through the use of facial expressions, head movements, eye gaze, and body postures that accompany manual signs. These markers are obligatory in many contexts to convey grammatical agreement, distinguishing them from affective or prosodic uses, and they occur across verb classes, including plain verbs that lack manual morphology. In (ASL), for instance, non-manual markers realize syntactic agreement by associating with spatial loci representing arguments' phi-features (, number). Eye and head tilt are primary non-manual markers for object and subject agreement, respectively. Eye directs toward the spatial locus of the object argument, beginning before the and extending over it, thereby licensing null objects and marking second- or third-person agreement; for example, in ASL, the "JOHN SEE MARY" includes toward Mary's locus to indicate object agreement. Head tilt, meanwhile, orients toward the subject's locus, with an overt tilt for non-first-person subjects or a neutral (default) position for first-person perspectives, as in "JOHN GIVE MARY BOOK" where the tilt signals subject agreement from the outset of the . These markers can co-occur, with head tilt preceding , and their presence strengthens agreement even without manual directionality. Mouth configurations, while less central to phi-feature agreement, may contribute through mouthing or shapes in specific contexts, though they more commonly support or role-related functions. Role shift, also known as constructed action, involves the signer embodying the perspective of a subject or object to mark agreement through non-manual shifts, such as changes in orientation, eye , and expressions, effectively shifting deictic reference. In ASL, this allows verbs to inflect from a first-person viewpoint even when reporting third-person actions; for example, in narrating "I give to you," the signer may direct to the addressee's locus while performing "GIVE-TO-YOU," incorporating role shift to align with second-person agreement. This mechanism parallels spatial uses but emphasizes for immersive agreement marking.

Spatial Agreement

Spatial agreement in sign languages refers to the grammatical use of signing space to indicate relationships between verbs and their arguments, primarily through the establishment of referential loci (R-loci) for referents. Signers assign specific locations in the space in front of them to represent entities or locations, creating a locative indexing system where these loci serve as anchors for verb . For instance, in Israeli Sign Language (ISL), the verb "give" is inflected by directing its movement from the R-locus of the giver (often near the signer's body) to the R-locus of the receiver, thereby marking subject-object agreement spatially. This system leverages the to encode grammatical roles without relying on spoken morphological affixes. However, there is in the literature on whether these spatial modifications represent true syntactic agreement or a modality-specific integration of and . Sign languages classify verbs based on their capacity for spatial agreement, typically into plain, spatial (or directional), and inflecting (or person-agreement) types. Plain verbs, such as "work" in (ASL), lack spatial modification and are signed in a neutral position regardless of arguments. Spatial verbs, like "put" or "move," inflect directionally to indicate locative arguments or paths between R-loci, emphasizing movement toward or from specific locations rather than person features. Inflecting verbs, such as "help" or "give," combine path movement and hand orientation modulation to agree with person or number, directing the sign's trajectory between subject and object R-loci. These classifications highlight how spatial agreement integrates syntactic and semantic information through gesture-like modifications. A key feature of spatial agreement is the spatial governing R-loci placement, where first- and second-person referents are positioned closer to the signer (often along the X-axis, side-to-side) compared to third-person loci, which extend further into space (along the Z-axis, forward). This hierarchy influences verb inflection, with person agreement prioritizing the X-axis for interpersonal relations, while spatial verbs may initially use the Z-axis for locative distinctions before converging on referential uses in some languages. In younger ISL signers, X-axis usage for person agreement reaches 42%, contrasting with older signers' preference for Z-axis at 60%, reflecting generational shifts in spatial conventions. Non-manual markers, such as eye gaze, can integrate with these spatial inflections to reinforce agreement. Examples illustrate the conditional nature of spatial agreement. In (BSL), indicating verbs like "give" often modify directionally for referential but frequently omit agreement—such as subject indexing—in non-referential or inanimate contexts, where the verb may be signed neutrally or with partial modification, underscoring optionality driven by animacy and referentiality. This variability distinguishes spatial agreement from more obligatory systems in spoken languages, adapting to the visual-gestural modality's flexibility.

Theoretical Perspectives

Typological Variation

In , agreement systems vary significantly across languages in terms of marking locus, morphological richness, feature asymmetries, and universal constraints. A primary distinction lies between head-marking and dependent-marking strategies. In head-marking languages, the head—typically the —incorporates features from its dependents, such as subject or object agreement in , number, or ; for instance, verbs in Tzutujil (a Mayan ) directly encode pronominal arguments on the stem itself. Dependent-marking, by contrast, places the burden on dependents, as seen in adjectival agreement where adjectives inflect to match the noun's features, or in case systems where nouns mark their syntactic role relative to the head. Many combine both, but areal patterns emerge: head-marking predominates in the and parts of , while dependent-marking is more common in and . This variation influences how are expressed, with head-marking often allowing greater flexibility in . Agreement morphology also differs in richness, correlating with syntactic properties like pro-drop. Languages with rich verbal agreement—featuring distinct inflections for multiple categories such as , number, and —license null subjects because the verb morphology recovers the omitted argument's features; Italian illustrates this with its six unique present indicative endings (e.g., parlo 'I speak', parli 'you speak', parla '(s)he speaks'), enabling pro-drop as in "Parla italiano" '(S)he speaks Italian'. In poor-agreement languages, verbal inflections are limited and ambiguous, necessitating overt subjects and rigid ; English, with only a single distinct marker (-s for third-person singular), prohibits pro-drop, as "*Speaks Italian" is ungrammatical without a subject. This rich-poor continuum extends beyond pro-drop to overall reliance on morphology versus for encoding arguments. Feature asymmetries further diversify agreement systems, particularly between gender and number. In many languages, gender agreement depends on number, with gender distinctions collapsing in the plural; Russian exemplifies this, where singular nouns show three genders but plurals lack gender marking entirely, conforming to Greenberg's universal 37, according to which a language never has more gender categories in non-singular numbers than in the singular (illustrating the broader principle in Universal 36 that gender systems presuppose number marking). This creates an asymmetry where number provides a foundational layer, often emerging earlier in the development of agreement systems, while gender follows and is more contextually restricted. Such patterns vary by family: in Bantu languages, noun class (encompassing gender-like categories) aligns closely with number. Universal principles like Corbett's Agreement Hierarchy capture cross-linguistic regularities in these variations. The hierarchy orders targets as attributive > predicate > > , predicting that semantic agreement—driven by a controller's inherent meaning (e.g., natural or collectivity)—becomes increasingly likely over syntactic agreement (based on formal or form) as one ascends the scale. For example, in English, a like "family" triggers syntactic singular agreement in attributives ("this family") but semantic plural in predicates ("have arrived"), while personal pronouns strongly favor semantic control. This monotonic constraint explains why languages permitting choice between agreement types show consistent biases: attributives rigidly follow syntactic rules, but pronouns allow semantic overrides, informing typological predictions about controller-target mismatches.

Psycholinguistic Aspects

In the acquisition of agreement features, children typically master number agreement before gender agreement across various languages. This pattern emerges early in development, with number marking often appearing robustly by age 2–3, while gender agreement shows more variability and errors persisting into later stages, particularly for opaque or arbitrary gender assignments. For instance, in German-speaking children, longitudinal studies reveal that subject- number agreement is largely accurate in simple clauses from around 24 months, but gender agreement on determiners and adjectives lags, influenced by phonological cues rather than semantic consistency. Errors in agreement become more pronounced in complex clauses, where children omit or misapply inflectional markers, as evidenced in analyses of naturalistic speech data showing non-finite forms and infinitives in embedded contexts until approximately age 4. These findings, drawn from seminal corpus-based , underscore a developmental where core agreement features like number are prioritized over less salient ones like gender. During real-time language , agreement features are computed incrementally, but errors such as attraction phenomena can disrupt this, leading to illusory . In subject- agreement, interveners like nouns in prepositional phrases trigger attraction errors, where the agrees with the local noun rather than the head, as in the ungrammatical sentence "The key to the cabinets are rusty," which elicits reduced disruption in reading times compared to non-attracting mismatches. Eye-tracking and self-paced reading experiments demonstrate that these errors arise from feature interference during retrieval, with attractors causing momentary of incorrect number morphology, though ultimate reanalysis occurs. This effect is robust in English and extends to other languages with rich agreement, highlighting how relies on parallel of multiple features rather than strict linear . Such online measures reveal that agreement resolution is highly sensitive to structural distance and morphological salience. Neurolinguistic investigations using event-related potentials (ERPs) have identified distinct brain responses to agreement violations, providing insights into the of . Subject-verb or noun-adjective mismatches typically elicit a left anterior negativity (LAN) around 300–500 ms post-stimulus, interpreted as reflecting costs for feature mismatch detection, followed by a posterior P600 component (600–800 ms), associated with syntactic reanalysis or repair. These biphasic patterns are observed in languages like German, Spanish, and English, with LAN amplitude modulated by violation complexity and P600 by the need for structural revision. Functional magnetic resonance imaging () studies complement this by showing activation in left and posterior during agreement tasks, linking ERP effects to broader networks for morphological integration. Impairments in these components appear in populations with language disorders, such as or , where reduced LAN/P600 amplitudes correlate with persistent agreement errors. In bilingual contexts, transfer effects from the (L1) significantly influence agreement processing in the second language (L2), particularly for speakers with typologically distant language pairs. For Spanish L1-English L2 bilinguals, the rich gender and number morphology of Spanish facilitates faster detection of English subject-verb agreement violations compared to Asian language backgrounds lacking such features, but it can also lead to overgeneralization errors, such as unnecessary plural marking on English verbs. Online processing studies show that heritage Spanish-English speakers exhibit L1 transfer in gender resolution, with Spanish's semantic gender cues aiding but occasionally causing interference in English's minimal system, evident in longer reading times for mismatched sentences. These effects are more pronounced in unbalanced bilinguals, where L1 dominance predicts error rates, though increased L2 exposure mitigates transfer over time.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325776431_Agreement_in_grammar_and_discourse_A_research_overview
  2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-romance-linguistics/agreement/C6B287562A165B0BA9C92BE8BD644EA1
  3. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/254
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384108001605
  5. https://omer.lingsite.org/files/Preminger-Phi-feature-agreement-in-syntax-vignette.pdf
  6. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/11173/
  7. https://web.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/hyderabad.pdf
  8. https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2355915.pdf
  9. https://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~langendoen/AgreementInBloomfield.pdf
  10. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262533283/the-minimalist-program/
  11. https://www.blackwellpublishing.co.uk/content/BPL_Images/Content_Store/WWW_Content/9780631226949/11Chap09.pdf
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027796007135
  13. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-500
  14. https://wals.info/chapter/80
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/grammatical-agreement
  16. https://eggschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Syntactic-Agreement2_EGG.pdf
  17. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-952-advanced-syntax-spring-2007/9f8a608c5dbdebc17fad85a6031e7429_minimalist_hdt.pdf
  18. https://stefankeine.com/papers/LDA_overview.pdf
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4048024
  20. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5341/
  21. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/68196/770757548-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
  22. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/schutze.pdf
  23. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262526173/agreement-and-its-failures/
  24. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-544
  25. http://www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/person.html
  26. https://apics-online.info/parameters/15.chapter.html
  27. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-61
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3819043/
  29. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hierarchies-of-person.pdf
  30. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/illa:vol3n14/illa_vol3n14_filimonova.pdf
  31. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/9834/
  32. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-43
  33. https://academic.oup.com/book/61440/chapter/534762539
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-generative-syntax/agreementand-case/3A209D00E2B25DBD3FEE9AFFF08B538E
  35. https://fscj.pressbooks.pub/engcomp1/chapter/agreement-linguistics/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9122017/
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/network-morphology/syncretism/F73ED362AB75A5D5449ACBBF41A6FF34
  38. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5228/
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38414156_Closest_Conjunct_Agreement_in_Head-Final_Languages
  40. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/75506453-68d2-4453-a5ec-6f49a29bb051/download
  41. https://jakobleimgruber.ch/dbFile/53/u-e5ff/LLC.pdf
  42. https://people.ucsc.edu/~aissen/PUBLICATIONS/aissen-agtfoc.pdf
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/417057
  44. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstreams/20b4191d-f69f-54bd-8149-13fb3f7bcb3c/download
  45. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/slrf/2010/paper2622.pdf
  46. https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/BindingPresupp2.pdf
  47. https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/borealis/article/view/5934
  48. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110884166/html
  49. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4542
  50. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/agreement
  51. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/subject_verb_agreement.html
  52. https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat-reading-and-writing/x0d47bcec73eb6c4b:digital-sat-grammar-practice/x0d47bcec73eb6c4b:fss-sva/a/fss-grammar-guide-subject-verb-agreement
  53. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/agreement-adjectives
  54. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/verb-endings
  55. https://laits.utexas.edu/tex/gr/adj2.html
  56. https://language-easy.org/french/grammar/verbs/verb-agreement/
  57. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01paynechisarik.pdf
  58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.164.1.0033
  59. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-536
  60. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/254/2088/1777-1
  61. http://mitp-content-server.mit.edu:18180/books/content/sectbyfn?collid=books_pres_0&id=8116&fn=9780262513555_sch_0001.pdf
  62. https://www2.iath.virginia.edu/swahili/oldversion/oldswahili.html
  63. https://journals.flvc.org/sal/article/download/107456/102776/
  64. https://d-nb.info/1250186501/34
  65. https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/32/paper3171.pdf
  66. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/synt.12210
  67. https://uva.theopenscholar.com/files/uva-lingletes-linguistic-challenge-website/files/turkish--modified-version.pdf
  68. https://louis-xiv.bu.edu/pub/asl/disserts/Bahan96.pdf
  69. https://lillomartin.linguistics.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1112/2016/11/Lillo-Martin_Meier_2011a_f.pdf
  70. https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.468/
  71. https://lillomartin.linguistics.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1112/2020/06/Person-vs-spatial-agreement-Final-Revision.pdf
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3595197/
  73. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5075/
  74. https://wals.info/chapter/25
  75. https://www.jstor.org/stable/415601
  76. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/oso/viewentry/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-610
  77. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/45/4/571/580/The-Rich-Agreement-Hypothesis-Rehabilitated
  78. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2024-0072/html
  79. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/agreement-hierarchy/400E4AEDE60D4CD3CDB5AAF0FFD22675
  80. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/9164/
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749596X09000448
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006899308015308
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098383/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.