Jacek Witkoś IFA UAM Poznań/IN WSZ Konin, [e-mail]

On Agreement

Agreement in English

Three Criteria of determining subjecthood:

1. The Noun Phrase (NP) that determines concord with the auxiliary verb or the lexical verb is the subject:

1. The boy has (*have) kicked the ball(s).

2. The boys have (*has) kicked the ball(s).

2. The NP, or another constituent, that participates in the Subject/Auxiliary Inversion is the subject:

1. The girl has seen the boy.

2. Has the girl seen the boy?

3. *Has the boy the girl seen?

3. A pronoun referring to the subject appears in question tags and determines agreement within the tag:

1. The commander of the soldiers has commenced the ceremony, hasn't he?

2. The cadets from the first squad have taken the oath, haven't they?

Although Agreement is taken to be the most universal and reliable criterion of subjecthood, it seems to break down in four types of situations:

4. The subject happens to be a constituent different from NP:

1. Under the bed is a good place to hide.

2. Is under the bed a good place to hide?

3. That John won all the six medals in the Olympics surprised everyone.

4. ?Did that John won all the six medals in the Olympics surprise everyone?

5. There is an expletive pronoun in the subject position:

1. It has surprised everyone that John won all the six medals in the Olympics.

2. Has it surprised everyone that John won all the six medals in the Olympics?

3. There is a jacket on the chair.

4. Is there a jacket on the chair?

5. There is a jacket on the chair, isn't there?

6. There are two jackets on the chair.

6. The subject is a NP but its plural form is identical to that of the singular, is of foreign origin or is an aggregate noun:

1. The sheep has/have just had a lamb.

2. The carp is/are hungry.

3. The craft has/have landed safely.

4. The chassis was/were caked with mud.

5. The acoustics of this room are impressive.

6. The acoustics of the 19^th century has left me unimpressed.

7. The police/the cattle have ruined our fence.

8. The money/the news is in the centre of his world.

9. The committee have/has voted against the motion.

10. The committee constitutes a tiny element of the legislative apparatus.

11. M.U. have taken the lead very early in the game.

12. Philadelphia has been shorthanded for the best part of the second period.

7. The subject NP is either a complex NP or a coordinate structure with conjuncts differing in number:

1. The boys' selection of the songs has amazed all present at the ceremony.

2. The purpose of these sessions are to introduce and familiarize the staff with the new manual.

3. They pointed out that public perception of the universities and the arts are changing.

4. Any ship or aircraft which penetrates the specified zone will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be attacked.

5. His brother and the subsequent editor of his papers were with him at his deathbed.

6. His brother and the subsequent editor of his papers was with him at his deathbed.

7. Neither he nor his wife has/have arrived.

8. Either my nose or my teeth are broken.

9. Either my teeth or my nose is broken.

Default agreement in Polish:

8. Default agreement (3 p.sg.neut.) in Polish shows with subjects preceded by a higher numeral (from five up to ten) or some phrases referring to quantities:

1. (Dwie) dziewczynki piły kawę z mlekiem.

2. (Dwadzieścia) pięć dziewczynek piło kawę z mlekiem.

3. Zawodnicy grali z zaangażowaniem.

4. Wielu zawodników grało z zaangażowaniem.

9. Default agreement appears in constructions where the nominal subject does not appear in Nominative but in some other case:

1. Było nam żal Piotra i Marii.

2. Kosmonautom było niewygodnie w kapsule lądownika.

3. Książki były na stole.

4. Książek nie było na stole.

10. A very irregular and interesting agreement pattern in Polish emerges in some more complex constructions with higher numerals, fractions and coordinate constructions with a combination of different numbers:

1. Tysiące żołnierzy zostały zabite.

2. Tysiące żołnierzy zostało zabitych.

3. Dwa tysiące kibiców czekały na mecz.

4. Dwa tysiące kibiców czekało na mecz.

5. Trzy czwarte arbuza zostały zjedzone.

6. Trzy czwarte arbuza zostało zjedzone.

7. Ten tysiąc listów został już wysłany.

8. Tych tysiąc listów zostało już wysłanych.

9. Te tysiąc listów zostało już wysłane.

10. %Dobre było dziewięć samochodów.

11. Dziewięć samochodów było dobrych/*dobre.

12. Trzy i pół roku były/było stracone.

13. Część ludzi została/zostało na przystanku.

14. Magnateria jest chciwa i zazdrosna o swe wpływy.

15. Wszyscy Państwo są już przy stole.

16. Wujostwo przyjechali saniami.

17. Chłopiec ani dziewczyna nie przeczytali książki.

Sources:

Alexander, C. 2002. An Analysis of Non-Prototypical Concord in Polish and English. Ms. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990. A Student's Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Przepiórkowski, A. 2002. A Hierarchy of Polish Genders. Talk presented at the GliP 5 Conference, Warsaw 30.11.01.12.2002.

Saloni Z. and M. Świdziński. 1985. Składnia współczesnego języka polskiego. Warsaw: PWN.

Wardhaugh, R. 1995. Understanding English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

1

---