Most Slavic languages are strongly curved, with the exception of Bulgarian and Macedonian. The correspondence is similar to Latin, for example, between adjectives and nouns in gender, number, case, and animacy (if counted as a separate category). The following examples come from Serbo-Croatian: Agreement usually involves agreeing the value of a grammatical category between different components of a sentence (or sometimes between sentences, as in some cases where a pronoun must correspond to its predecessor or speaker). Some categories that often trigger a grammatical match are listed below. There is also a correspondence in number. For example: Vitabu viwili vitatosha (Two books will suffice), Michungwa miwili itatosha (Two orange trees will suffice), Machungwa mawili yatatosha (Two oranges will suffice). The spoken French always distinguish the second person from the plural and the first person from the plural in the formal language from each other and from the rest of the present tense in all but all verbs of the first conjugation (infinitives in -er). The first-person form of the plural and the pronoun (nous) are now usually replaced by the pronoun on (literally: ”one”) and a third-person verb form of the singular in modern French. Thus, we work (formal) becomes work. In most verbs of other conjugations, each person can be distinguished in the plural from each other and singular forms, again if the first person of the traditional plural is used. The other endings that appear in written French (that is: all singular endings and also the third person plural of verbs except those with infinitives in -er) are often pronounced in the same way, except in connection contexts. Irregular verbs such as being, doing, going, and having have more pronounced chord forms than ordinary verbs. This detailed study of the interaction of klitika and chord in the field of ditransitives (and their interaction with passivation/elevation), based mainly on data from the Greek and Romance languages, also paved the way for a considerable amount of research at the time of tuning and clitic doubling.
The answer that B offers is based on the assumption that the personal characteristic is subject to a special structural locality condition. Taking Chomsky`s (1986) agreement as a precedent, but applying it only to personal agreement, B postulates that an objective can personally correspond to a first- or second-person controller only if the controller takes the specific or additional position of the target: ”agreement” is the grammatical phenomenon in which the form of an element, such as the noun ”horses”, forces a second element in the sentence, such as the verb ”gallop”, in a certain form, i.e. ”gallop” must correspond to ”horses” in number. Although matching phenomena are among the most well-known and best-studied aspects of grammar, some basic questions have rarely been asked, let alone answered. This book develops a theory of matching processes in language and explores why verbs correspond to subjects in person, adjectives match in number and gender, but not the person, and nouns do not match at all. Explaining these differences leads to a theory that can be applied to all parts of the language and to all languages. A study of match patterns found in Arabic, which is particularly relevant for match asymmetries in SV word positions relative to VS (see also Correspondence resolution in coordinations). For example, in Standard English, you can say that I am or that he is, but not ”I am” or ”he is”. Indeed, the grammar of the language requires that the verb and its subject correspond personally.
The pronouns I and he are the first and third person respectively, as are the verb forms on and is. The verbal form must be chosen in such a way that, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning, it has the same person as the subject. [2] [3] For example, in American English, the term ”United Nations” is treated in the singular for the purposes of the agreement, although it is formally plural. Case matching is not an essential feature of English (only personal pronouns and pronouns that have a case mark). The correspondence between such pronouns can sometimes be observed: adjectives coincide in gender and number with nouns that modify them in French. As with verbs, correspondences are sometimes displayed only in spelling, as forms written with different matching suffixes are sometimes pronounced in the same way (e.B. pretty, pretty); Although in many cases the final consonant is pronounced in the feminine forms, in the masculine forms it is silent (e.B. small vs. small). Most plural forms end in -s, but this consonant is pronounced only in connecting contexts, and these are determinants that help to understand whether the singular or plural is signified. The participles of verbs correspond in gender and number in some cases with the subject or object.
In this in-depth examination of the agreement in Chamorro (Malayo-Polynesian), Chung questions and refines some aspects of the standard minimalist treatment of the agreement, suggesting that what we understand as an agreement should actually be divided into two distinct relationships: one responsible for inserting two syntactic elements into a formal relationship with each other, and the other, which is responsible for the actual morphological covariance (if observed). Correspondence is a phenomenon in natural language in which the form of a word or morpheme covaries with the form of another word or sentence in the sentence. For example, in the English phrase John walks Fido every morning, the form of ”walks” is determined by the characteristics of the subject ”John”. This can be seen by replacing ”John” with an element whose relevant characteristics are different, as in We walk Fido every morning, resulting in a change in form from ”walks” to ”walk” (or alternatively a change from ”-s” to an empty morpheme, Ø). The agreement is perhaps the quintessence of the morphosyntactic phenomenon, because it is the morphological expression of a relationship that most researchers consider syntactic (but not entirely without dissent; see morphologically oriented approaches). In contemporary linguistic literature, the term agreement is used (somewhat unfortunately) to alternately refer to the phenomenon itself and the hypothetical grammatical mechanism that produces it. Unless otherwise stated, the term is used here only in the neutral and descriptive theoretical sense. Another point of terminological variability concerns the identity of the grammatical elements that make an agreement. Canonically, the term is used to describe the morphological covariance between a verbal element in a sentence (typically the bearer of the morphology of time/mood/aspect) and a nominal argument in the same sentence; but the term has also been used to describe many other covariant element (e.B pairings. nominal and their adjectival modifiers, names and their owners, pre-/postpositions and their complements, etc.; and more recently sequences of temporal effects, pronouns and their precursors, and even the relationship between several negative elements in a single sentence; see the recruitment agreement as an explanation for other phenomena).
The agreement is very common in all languages; At the same time, the languages of the world can differ significantly in the amount of matching morphology they have. At one end of the scale, a language like Mandarin has little canonical agreement to speak of; while languages such as Abkhaz, Basque, Icelandic and other robust patterns of correspondence between verbs and their arguments, nouns and their modifiers, etc. Although its name does not immediately reveal it, this article is a case study of the interaction of verbal tuning in Tagalog with the syntax of remote extraction and offers a fascinating perspective on the often expressed intuition that certain types of correspondence are necessary precursors for certain types of syntactic movement. .
