Subject-verb Agreement
Inverse copular constructions where the inverted predicative expression is a noun phrase are particularly noteworthy, in part because subject-verb agreement can (at least in English) be established with the pre-verb predicative NP as opposed to with the post-verb subject NP, e.g.
-
- a. The pictures are a problem.
- b. A problem is/??are the pictures.
-
- a. Those kids are an annoyance.
- b. An annoyance is/??are those kids.
In the inverse copular constructions, the copula agrees with the singular predicative expression to its left as opposed to with the plural subject to its right. Interestingly, this phenomenon seems to be limited to English (and possibly French); it does not occur in related languages such as German, e.g.
-
- a. Die Bilder sind ein Problem.
- 'The pictures are a problem.'
- a. Die Bilder sind ein Problem.
-
- b. Ein Problem sind/*ist die Bilder.
- 'A problem are/is the pictures.'
- b. Ein Problem sind/*ist die Bilder.
Nor does it occur in some Romance languages, e.g. Italian:
-
- a. Queste foto del muro sono la causa della rivolta.
- 'These photos on the wall are the cause of the revolt.'
- a. Queste foto del muro sono la causa della rivolta.
-
- b. La causa della rivolta sono/*รจ queste foto del muro.
- 'The cause of the revolt are/is the photos on the wall.'
- b. La causa della rivolta sono/*รจ queste foto del muro.
The fact that English (unlike German and Italian) demands subject-verb agreement to occur with the pre-verb NP generates confusion about what should qualify as the subject NP. From a morphological point of view, the pre-verb NP in inverse copular constructions should count as the subject, but from the perspective of information structure (e.g. definiteness, old information, specificity), the post-verb NP should be the subject.
Read more about this topic: Inverse Copular Constructions
Famous quotes containing the word agreement:
“Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with ‘the world’; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous. Rather—speaking loosely and without trying to answer either Pilate’s question or Tarski’s—a version is to be taken to be true when it offends no unyielding beliefs and none of its own precepts.”
—Nelson Goodman (b. 1906)