In standard English, for example, you can say I am or it is, but not « I am » or « it is. » This is because the grammar of the language requires that the verb and its subject coincide personally. The pronouns I and him are respectively the first and third person, just as the verbs are and are. The verbage form must be chosen in such a way as to have the same person as the subject, unlike the fictitious agreement based on meaning. [2] [3] In American English, for example, the expression of the United Nations is treated as singular for the purposes of concordance, although it is formally plural. In nomine sentences, the adjectives do not show a match with the noun, although pronouns do. z.B. a szép k-nyveitekkel « with your beautiful books » (« szép »: nice): the suffixes of the plural, the possessive « your » and the fall marking « with » are marked only on the name. The agreement generally includes the matching of the value of a grammatical category between different elements of a sentence (or sometimes between sentences, as in some cases where a pronoun agrees with its predecessor or its reference opinion). Some categories that often trigger grammatical chords are listed below.
A complete treatment of Morphosyntax Germanic bending systems, which are used in distributed morphology (DM; see Walnut 1997, citing morphological approaches; and Morris Halle and Alex Marantz, 1963, « Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, » in The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth L. Hale, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 11-176). Although this work does not involve concordance (but rather flexion in general), this work is decisive enough to determine the division of labour between morphology and syntax when dealing formally with chords in a minimalist/DM framework. Such a concordance is also found with predictors: man is tall (« man is great ») vs. the chair is large (« the chair is large »). (In some languages, such as German. B, that is not the case; only the attribute modifiers show the agreement.) The results of my experience are in line with those of Michelson and with the law of general relativity. A rare type of arrangement that phonologically copies parts of the head instead of agreeing with a grammatical category. [4] For example, in Bainouk, the isolation of the list of works that should be considered « background » in a given field or subfield is clearly a highly subjective issue where it may be difficult (if not impossible) to reach consensus; however, these works, hopefully, will put, if not all works on agreement, that would merit such a name (see also Chomsky 2000 and Chomsky 2001, both cited as test-goal). Moravcsik 1978 is a groundbreaking typological study of the conformity of a large typological sample.
George and Kornfilt in 1981, Fassi Fehri in 1988, Bobaljik in 1995, Chung in 1998 and Rackowski and Richards 2005 are supposed to be case studies on agreement in certain languages (or language families), but they have proven to be very influential and important for the development of the theory of concordance in general.
