Subject-Verb Agreement Error Handling using NLP: A Literature Review

Ieee account.

  • Change Username/Password
  • Update Address

Purchase Details

  • Payment Options
  • Order History
  • View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

  • Communications Preferences
  • Profession and Education
  • Technical Interests
  • US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
  • Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
  • Contact & Support
  • About IEEE Xplore
  • Accessibility
  • Terms of Use
  • Nondiscrimination Policy
  • Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Subject-Verb Agreement | Examples, Rules & Use

Subject-Verb Agreement | Examples, Rules & Use

Published on April 30, 2019 by Fiona Middleton . Revised on April 18, 2023.

Subject-verb agreement means that the subject of the sentence matches the verb describing its action. This helps your reader understand who or what is doing something and makes your writing easier to read.

First, identify the subject (the person or thing doing the action) and the verb (the action word) in a sentence. If the subject is singular, the verb describing its action should be singular. If the subject is plural , the verb should be plural.

While subject-verb agreement is easy in simple sentences like these, it can become tricky in more complex sentences. This article teaches you the most important rules and common mistakes.

Table of contents

Compound subjects, subjects separated from verbs, indefinite pronouns, subjects that come after the verb, numbers and amounts, collective and uncountable nouns, abbreviations and acronyms.

Sometimes two or more subjects are linked to one verb. These are called compound subjects. To decide whether to use a singular or plural verb, consider how the subjects are linked.

Subjects linked with “and”

When subjects are linked with and , use a plural verb.

A bicycle and a pedestrian were involved. The goose and the chickens eat early in the morning.

Exception : When the two nouns don’t refer to separate things but to a single entity, use a singular verb.

The new bed and breakfast opens this week. Macaroni and cheese is a delicious meal.

Subjects linked with “or”

When singular subjects are linked with or , either…or , nor , neither…nor , use a singular verb.

Just a card or a balloon is enough. Either the measurement or the calculation has created a problem.

If all the subjects are plural, use a plural verb.

Either the measurements or the calculations have created a problem.

If the compound subject contains both singular and plural nouns, the verb takes the form of the closest subject.

Neither the batteries nor the machine operates as intended.

Check for common mistakes

Use the best grammar checker available to check for common mistakes in your text.

Fix mistakes for free

Often the verb does not directly follow the subject, which can lead to agreement mistakes. Make sure to match the verb with the correct subject, especially in long sentences with phrases or clauses in between subject and verb.

“As well as” and other tricky phrases

The phrase as well as is not the same as the conjunction and . Subjects linked by and  always take a plural verb. In contrast, phrases like as well as , in addition to , or along with are not linked to the verb. If the subject is singular, the verb should stay singular.

These refer to non-specific persons, places, and things (e.g., someone , other , anyone , anything , somewhere , every , none ).

Most indefinite pronouns are treated as singular subjects. However, some are always treated as plural, as they refer to multiple items or amounts.

Certain indefinite pronouns may be treated as either singular or plural, depending on whether they refer to multiple items or to a proportion of a single item.

Sometimes the subject follows the verb, especially when the sentence begins with there or here . In this case,  there is not the subject – the true subject should be identified and matched with the correct verb form.

There are many gaps in the literature. Here is the answer .

Note : Identifying the true subject can be difficult when using these phrases in a long sentence, which can be confusing for your readers, so be careful when starting a sentence in this way.

When using  numbers, percentages or proportions , the correct form of verb agreement depends on exactly what you’re referring to. It’s helpful to look beyond the numbers and find the true subject.

If you’re referring to a specific number or amount of something, match the verb with the noun rather than the number.

Only 25% of the measurements are reliable. Three meters of wire surrounds the core. Over 300 civilians reside in the area.

This also applies when the number refers to an unnamed noun.

I invited 10 people to the party, but only nine are coming. 30% say they will vote in the next election.

If the subject of the sentence is a number referring to a unified quantity of something, use a singular verb.

One thousand dollars is too much. In fact, 63% is a better result than expected.

Proportions

Terms that describe a proportion of something are usually followed by “of” (such as most of ). First look at the noun you are describing to determine if it’s singular or plural, then match it to the verb.

The majority of the samples are contaminated. The majority of the sample is contaminated. One third of the participants were given the placebo .

It can be hard to work out whether to treat collective and uncountable nouns as singular or plural.

Collective nouns

A collective noun refers to a group of people or things as a singular whole (e.g., population , team , committee , staff ). The form of verb depends on the style of English you are using.  US English  tends to use a singular verb, while UK English tends to use a plural verb. This also applies to the names of companies and organizations.

However, in both styles of English, this rule is somewhat flexible depending on whether you want to emphasize the actions of the collective as a whole or the individual actions of its members.

*A singular verb makes more sense here, as the emphasis is on the company as a unified entity.

**A plural verb makes more sense here, as the emphasis is on the individual staff members.

Uncountable nouns

These nouns describe abstract concepts or masses that can’t be counted (e.g., research , power , water  and vegetation ). They take a singular verb.

This  equipment is unusable. The research goes  smoothly. Water flows through the streets.

Note :  Data is technically a plural noun, but it is widely treated as an uncountable noun, so it is acceptable to use either the singular or plural verb form.

This research aims  to gather additional data on bee behaviour, which is currently lacking. Data were collected over a period of three months.

Abbreviations and acronyms usually take a singular verb. If you’re unsure, check if the full version of the acronym or abbreviation is a singular, plural or collective noun, and refer to the rules above. It’s most important to use one form of agreement consistently.

The country’s GDP correlates with its birth rate. The RPM falls rapidly. In addition to oil, HNS are a common form of cargo.

In the examples above, RPM (“revolutions per minute”) refers to a stand-alone number, so it takes a singular verb.  HNS (“hazardous and noxious substances”), on the other hand, is used to describe multiple things, so it takes a plural verb.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

Middleton, F. (2023, April 18). Subject-Verb Agreement | Examples, Rules & Use. Scribbr. Retrieved February 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/subject-verb-agreement/
Aarts, B. (2011).  Oxford modern English grammar . Oxford University Press.
Butterfield, J. (Ed.). (2015).  Fowler’s dictionary of modern English usage  (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Garner, B. A. (2016).  Garner’s modern English usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Fiona Middleton

Fiona Middleton

Other students also liked, verb tenses in academic writing | rules, differences & examples, using abbreviations and acronyms.

Use of cookies

Lund University uses cookies to ensure that the website functions properly and to improve your experience.

Read more in our cookie policy

  • AWELU contents
  • Writing at university
  • Different kinds of student texts
  • Understanding instructions and stylesheets
  • Understanding essay/exam questions
  • Peer review instructions
  • Dealing with feedback
  • Checklist for writers
  • Research writing resources
  • Administrative writing resources
  • LU language policy
  • Introduction
  • What characterises academic writing?
  • The heterogeneity of academic writing
  • Three-part essays
  • IMRaD essays
  • How to get started on your response paper
  • Student literature review
  • Annotated bibliography
  • Three versions of the RA
  • Examples of specificity within disciplines
  • Reviews (review articles and book reviews)
  • Popular science writing
  • Research posters
  • Grant proposals
  • Writing for Publication
  • Salutations
  • Structuring your email
  • Direct and indirect approaches
  • Useful email phrases
  • Language tips for email writers
  • Writing memos
  • Meeting terminology
  • The writing process
  • Identifying your audience
  • Using invention techniques
  • Developing reading strategies
  • Taking notes
  • Identifying language resources
  • Choosing a writing tool
  • Framing the text: Title and reference list
  • Structure of the whole text
  • Structuring the argument
  • Structure of introductions
  • Structure within sections of the text
  • Structure within paragraphs
  • Signposting the structure
  • Using sources
  • What needs to be revised?
  • How to revise
  • Many vs. much
  • Other quantifiers
  • Quantifiers in a table
  • Miscellaneous quantifiers
  • Adjectives and adverbs
  • Capitalisation
  • Sentence fragment
  • Run-on sentences
  • What or which?
  • Singular noun phrases connected by "or"
  • Singular noun phrases connected by "either/or"
  • Connected singular and plural noun phrases
  • Noun phrases conjoined by "and"
  • Subjects containing "along with", "as well as", and "besides"
  • Indefinite pronouns and agreement
  • Sums of money and periods of time
  • Words that indicate portions
  • Uncountable nouns
  • Dependent clauses and agreement
  • Agreement with the right noun phrase
  • Some important exceptions and words of advice
  • Atypical nouns
  • The major word classes
  • The morphology of the major word classes
  • Words and phrases
  • Elements in the noun phrase
  • Classes of nouns
  • Determiners
  • Elements in the verb phrase
  • Classes of main verbs
  • Auxiliary verbs
  • Primary auxiliary verbs
  • Modal auxiliary verbs
  • Meanings of modal auxiliaries
  • Marginal auxiliary verbs
  • Time and tense
  • Simple and progressive forms
  • The perfect
  • Active and passive voice
  • Adjective phrases
  • Adverb phrases
  • Personal pronouns
  • Dummy pronouns
  • Possessive pronouns
  • Interrogative pronouns
  • Indefinite pronouns
  • Quantifiers
  • Prepositions and prepositional phrases
  • More on adverbials
  • The order of subjects and verbs

Subject-Verb agreement

  • Hyphen and dash
  • English spelling rules
  • Commonly confused words
  • Differences between British and American spelling
  • Vocabulary awareness
  • Useful words and phrases
  • Using abbreviations
  • Register types
  • Formal vs. informal
  • DOs & DON'Ts
  • General information on dictionary use
  • Online dictionary resources
  • What is a corpus?
  • Examples of the usefulness of a corpus
  • Using the World Wide Web as a corpus
  • Online corpus resources
  • Different kinds of sources
  • The functions of references
  • Paraphrasing
  • Summarising
  • Reference accuracy
  • Reference management tools
  • Different kinds of reference styles
  • Style format
  • Elements of the reference list
  • Documentary note style
  • Writing acknowledgements
  • What is academic integrity?
  • Academic integrity and writing
  • Academic integrity at LU
  • Different kinds of plagiarism
  • Avoiding plagiarism
  • About Awelu

lund university logo

  • Start here AWELU contents Student writing resources Research writing resources Administrative writing resources LU language policy
  • Genres Introduction The Nature of Academic Writing Student writing genres Writing in Academic Genres Writing for Publication Writing for Administrative Purposes
  • Writing The writing process Pre-writing stage Writing stage Rewriting stage
  • Language Introduction Common problems and how to avoid them Selective mini grammar Coherence Punctuation Spelling Focus on vocabulary Register and style Dictionaries Corpora - resources for writer autonomy References
  • Referencing Introduction Different kinds of sources The functions of references How to give references Reference accuracy Reference management tools Using a reference style Quick guides to reference styles Writing acknowledgements
  • Academic integrity What is academic integrity? Academic integrity and writing Academic integrity at LU Plagiarism

The basic subject-verb agreement rule in English is very simple. It states that a singular subject takes a singular verb, while a plural subject takes a plural verb. However, there are a few problems with this formulation of the rule that need to be mentioned. To begin with, the rule makes it sound as if each and every verb has one singular form that is used with all singular subjects and one plural form that is used with all plural subjects. This is not true. If we disregard the verb be and the modal auxiliaries, all verbs have one form that is used in the third person singular, that is, with the pronouns he , she , and it , and with subjects that could be replaced by one of these three pronouns, as in example (1) below, and one form that is used with all other subjects, i.e. first and second person singular subjects (2) and all types of plural subjects (3):

(1) My sister has a baby.
(2) I have a headache and you have one too.
(3) They know her well.

The rule also makes it sound as if plural agreement is of importance in all tenses. This is not true either. Except for the case of the verb be , subject-verb agreement only takes place in the present tense. So, what we really need to remember, if we simplify the situation somewhat, is to put an - s on the verb in the third person singular (and to use the correct forms of be , have , do , and verbs like try and deny , which become tries and denies in the third person singular). However, one problem remains. How do we know in each and every case whether the subject is (third person) singular or plural? In most cases, this is not a problem, since if the subject is a single person, animal, or thing, we have singular agreement, and if the subject is more than one person, animal, or thing, we have plural agreement. In other words, as pointed out above, if he , she , or it could be used instead of the subject, we have (third person) singular agreement, but if we could use they instead of the subject, we have plural agreement. This is what is illustrated in the box below. In the examples in the box, as well as in the examples used to illustrate the rules below, the relevant subjects appear within square brackets, while the heads of the relevant subject noun phrases and the first verb (i.e. the agreeing verb) of the verb phrase appear in boldface. 

[ She / He / it ] talks . = Singular subject and singular verb

The pronouns she , he , and it are examples of third person singular subjects, and the - s on talks indicates that talks is a third person singular verb.

[ They ] talk. = Plural subject and plural verb

No - s on the verb, since the subject they is plural.

[The kid ] talks . = Singular subject and singular verb

The subject the kid is third person singular, since the head of the noun phrase functioning as the subject is the third person singular noun kid . Therefore we use the third person singular verb form talks .

[The teachers ] talk . = Plural subject and plural verb

No - s on the verb, since the head of the noun phrase functioning as the subject is the plural noun teachers .

However, there are several cases where the facts are more complicated than this. Otherwise, subject-verb agreement would not be such a big issue for people writing in English. Some of the more important of those more complicated cases will now be listed and exemplified, and, in some cases, briefly discussed. Before we turn to this discussion it must be stated very clearly that when we say that the subject and the verb must agree with each other, we mean - in the case of noun phrase subjects - that the head word of the noun phrase must agree with the first verb of the verb phrase .

Subject-Verb Agreement

(1) den hård e mannen 'the hard man' (2) den hård a kvinnan 'the hard woman' (3) en grön bil 'a green car' (4) två grön a bilar 'two green cars' (5) Den här frukten är god. 'this fruit is nice' (6) De här frukterna är god a. 'these fruits are nice' 
(7) He is my brother.
(8) *He are my brother.
(9) *Hus en var stor t . 'the houses were big'

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

27 Mini-Grammar Review: Subject Verb Agreement

Subjects and verbs must agree in two ways: number (singular or plural) and person (first, second, or third). These two general rules hold through all the different subject/verb guidelines. As a rule, plural subjects end in – s  and plural verbs do not end in – s . In this section, the noun is in  bold  and the verb is in  italic .

Pairing Verbs with Singular and Plural Subjects

Many sentences have subjects and verbs that appear side by side. The subjects in these sentences are often clearly singular or plural, and they clearly determine the needed verb form.

Matching Subjects and Verbs That Are Separated by Other Words

When words fall between a subject and verb, the singular/plural state of the subject is sometimes confusing. Always make sure you are matching the verb to the subject and not to one of the words between the two.

Joining Plural Verbs to Compound or Double Subjects

Compound subjects joined by the word “and” are plural since there is more than one of them. Double subjects joined by “or” or “nor” match to a verb based on the status of the subject closest to the verb.

Pairing Singular Verbs with Titles and Collective Subjects

Regardless of the singular or plural nature of the words within a title, the title is considered one unit; thus it is a singular noun. Similarly,  collective nouns , such as “committee,” function as singular nouns regardless of how many people or things might actually make up the collective noun.

Teaming Singular Verbs with Indefinite Subjects

Whether an indefinite subject is singular or plural depends on whether the  indefinite noun  has a singular or plural meaning on its own or based on the rest of the sentence.

Choosing Verbs When the Subject Comes after the Verb

The standard sentence format in English presents the subject before the verb. In reversed sentences, you need to find the subject and then make sure it matches the verb. To find the subject, fill the following blank with the verb and then ask the question of yourself: who or what _____?

Deciding If Relative Pronouns Take a Singular or Plural Verb

Relative pronouns , such as  who ,  which ,  that , and  one of , are singular or plural based on the pronoun’s  antecedent . You have to look at the antecedent of the relative clause to know whether to use a singular or plural verb.

Matching Singular Subjects to Gerunds and Infinitives

Gerunds  are nouns formed by adding – ing  to a verb. Gerunds can combine with other words to form gerund phrases, which function as subjects in sentences. Gerund phrases are always considered singular.

Infinitives  are the “to” forms of verbs, such as  to run  and  to sing . Infinitives can be joined with other words to form an infinitive phrase. These phrases can serve as the subject of a sentence. Like gerund phrases, infinitive phrases are always singular.

Recognizing Singular Subjects That Look Plural and Then Choosing a Verb

Some subjects appear plural when they are actually singular. Some of these same subjects are plural in certain situations, so you have to pay close attention to the whole sentence.

“Making sure subjects and verbs agree” adapted by Dr. Karen Palmer from Saylor Academy and licensed by CC BY NC SA .

The Worry Free Writer Copyright © 2020 by Dr. Karen Palmer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Subject-Verb Agreement Review

Subjects and verbs and how they “agree.”, how subjects and verbs agree..

We know that a sentence needs a verb and a noun (or pronoun) to be complete. Nouns or pronouns that perform the action of the verb are called the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is the “doer” of the action

The main rule about subject-verb agreement is this: the verb must always agree with the subject in number. So, a singular subject needs a singular verb, and a plural subject needs a plural verb.

In the sentence “ Dogs eat,” the verb, eat , is in the correct plural form according to the subject, dogs . So, we can say that the subject and the verb “agree.” Let’s look at an example where the subject and verb do not agree:

In this example, the singular verb, eats , is not correct because the subject, dogs, is plural. However, if we made the subject singular, eats would be the correct form of the verb. See below:

The dog eats.

Remember, the subject and verb in a sentence must always agree in number.

Practice Problems

There ___ mice in this house.

Writing Center Home Page

OASIS: Writing Center

Grammar: subject-verb agreement, subject–verb agreement rules.

Key : subject = yellow, bold ; verb = green, underline

Subjects and verbs must agree in number. In addition to the explanations on this page, also see the post on Subject—Verb Agreement .

Example: She writes every day. Exception: When using the singular "they," use plural verb forms. Example: The participant expressed satisfaction with their job. They are currently in a managerial role at the organization.

Example: They write every day.

Sometimes, however, it seems a bit more complicated than this.

Example: The doctoral student and the committee members write every day.

Example : The percentage of employees who called in sick and the number of employees who left their jobs within 2 years   are reflective of the level of job satisfaction.

Example: Interviews are one way to collect data and allow researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of participants.

Example: An assumption is  something that is generally accepted as true and  is an important consideration when conducting a doctoral study.

Example: The student , as well as the committee members, is excited.

Example: The student with all the master’s degrees is very motivated.

Example: Strategies that the teacher uses to encourage classroom participation include using small groups and clarifying expectations.

Example: The focus of the interviews was nine purposively selected participants.

Example: The chairperson or the CEO approves the proposal before proceeding.

Example: The student or the committee members write every day.

Example: The committee members or the student writes every day.

Example: Each of the participants  was willing to be recorded.

Example:  Neither   alternative hypothesis  was  accepted.

Example: I will offer a $5 gift card to  everybody who  participates  in the study.

Example: No one   was  available to meet with me at the preferred times.

Example: Education   is  the key to success.

Example: Diabetes affects many people around the world.

Example: The information obtained from the business owners was relevant to include in the study.

Example:   The research I found on the topic was limited.

Example: The earnings  for this quarter  exceed  expectations.

Example: The proceeds  from the sale  go  to support the homeless population in the city.

Example: Locally produced goods   have the advantage of shorter supply chains.

Example: There is  little  administrative support .

Example: There are many factors  affecting teacher retention.

Example: The group meets every week.

Example: The committee agrees on the quality of the writing.

However, the plural verb is used if the focus is on the individuals in the group. This is much less common.

Example: The committee participate in various volunteer activities in their private lives.

Subject–Verb Agreement Video Playlist

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

  • Grammar for Academic Writers: Advanced Subject–Verb Agreement (video transcript)
  • Common Error: Subject–Verb Agreement (video transcript)

Related Resources

Webinar

Knowledge Check: Subject–Verb Agreement

Didn't find what you need? Search our website or email us .

Read our website accessibility and accommodation statement .

  • Previous Page: Verb Forms: "-ing," Infinitives, and Past Participles
  • Next Page: Transitive and Intransitive Verbs
  • Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

  • Academic Residencies
  • Academic Skills
  • Career Planning and Development
  • Customer Care Team
  • Field Experience
  • Military Services
  • Student Success Advising
  • Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

  • Center for Social Change
  • Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
  • Office of Degree Acceleration
  • Office of Research and Doctoral Services
  • Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

  • Doctoral Writing Assessment
  • Form & Style Review
  • Quick Answers
  • ScholarWorks
  • SKIL Courses and Workshops
  • Walden Bookstore
  • Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
  • Student Safety/Title IX
  • Legal & Consumer Information
  • Website Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Accessibility
  • Accreditation
  • State Authorization
  • Net Price Calculator
  • Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

logo-type-white

Subject-Verb Agreement: Definition, Examples, & Exercises

  • The Albert Team
  • Last Updated On: April 10, 2023

literature review on subject verb agreement

Nobody likes conflict, and that includes sentences! We know that every sentence requires a subject and a predicate , but we also have to make sure that these two agree with one another. In the grammar world, this is called subject-verb agreement . 

The two places where subjects and verbs most often disagree are in number and tense. If the subject is plural, then the verb also has to be plural. Likewise, if the subject is singular, then the verb must also be singular. This seems like a no-brainer, but things can get complicated when you are talking about money, time, collective nouns, indefinite pronouns, and interrupting phrases. 

When you’re ready, test yourself with a quiz   and practice with our high-quality, standards-aligned questions .

What We Review

The Basics of Subject-Verb Agreement

The Basics of Subject-Verb Agreement

What is Subject-Verb Agreement?

Subject-verb agreement refers to the relationship between the subject and predicate of the sentence. Subjects and verbs must always agree in two ways: tense and number. For this post, we are focusing on number, or whether the subject and verb are singular or plural.

For example:

  • The light in the lamppost flickers each night.

In this sentence, the subject light is singular ; therefore, the verb that describes the action of the subject must also be singular : flickers. 

If the subject was plural , the verbs would have to change form to agree with the subject.

For example: 

  • The lights in the lampposts flicker each night.

In this sentence, since the subject is now plural, the -s has to be removed from the verb in order to have subject-verb agreement .

subject-verb agreement

Subject-Verb Agreement and Money

Money is tricky when it comes to subject-verb agreement because there are specific rules for referring to an amount of money versus dollars or cents themselves. 

For example; since this sentence refers to an amount of money, a singular verb is used: 

  • Five thousand dollars was deposited at the bank this morning.

On the flip side, this second sentence refers to dollars themselves , so a plural verb is needed instead: 

  • Five thousand dollar bills were deposited at the bank this morning.

Do you see how the interpretation of the sentence changes when the writer refers to physical dollar bills instead of a lump sum of money? 

In reading the first sentence, I imagined a check written out for five thousand dollars being handed to a bank teller. In the second sentence however, I imagined someone lugging several bags into the bag, each filled with one-dollar bills.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject-Verb Agreement and Time

The rules for time are very similar to the rules for money when it comes to subject-verb agreement . 

Just as a singular verb is used with an amount of money, a singular verb is also used with a period of time. 

  • The 1920’s is the backdrop for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby.

However, even though a plural verb is used when referring to individual dollar bills or coins, we normally do not refer to individual units of time since time is abstract. Therefore, singular verbs are always used instead of plural verbs whenever a writer refers to a period of time or a unit of measurement. 

  • 225 pounds is the maximum weight that I can deadlift right now.

Subject-Verb Agreement

Subject-Verb Agreement and Collective Nouns

Collective nouns, or nouns that name groups composed of members, use either singular or plural verbs based on the context of the sentence. 

When collective nouns like family, squad, or committee act in unison in a sentence, a singular verb is used. 

  • The committee votes to build a new park downtown.

When collective nouns act individually or separately from the group, a plural verb is used. 

  • The herd of cows are running sporadically in every direction.

Subject-Verb Agreement and Indefinite Pronouns

Even though indefinite pronouns are nonspecific, most of these pronouns can still be divided into singular and plural categories. 

However, for indefinite pronouns that can be either singular or plural depending on the sentence, writers must reference a different noun in the sentence to find out whether a singular or plural verb is needed. 

Always singular example: 

  • Does anybody want to take Precalculus with me this semester?

Always plural example: 

  • Several kittens need to be adopted this weekend.

When an indefinite pronoun like some, more, none, or all is used, writers must refer to the noun or noun phrase immediately following this pronoun to know whether the verb is singular or plural. 

  • None of my clothes are clean. (the verb is plural because clothes is plural) 
  • None of the pizza is left. (the verb is singular because pizza is singular)

Subject-Verb Agreement

Subject-Verb Agreement and Interrupting Phrases

Sometimes it can be difficult to know whether a verb should be singular or plural because it is so far away from the subject of the sentence. It is easy to be confused by appositive phrases, prepositional phrases, or direct objects and think that these indicate the number of the verb. This is not the case! The subject is the only noun that decides if the verb is singular or plural. 

  • Chris Hemsworth , one of many successful actors in Hollywood, has an intense workout regimen.

In this sentence, even though the appositive phrase uses the plural noun actors , the subject, Chris Hemsworth , is still singular, which means that the verb “ has” must also be singular. 

Here is another example: 

  • The knot-hole in the tree, typically full of treasures for Scout and Jem, was instead filled with cement.

In this sentence, it can be tricky to find the true subject since there are several prepositional phrases that interrupt the subject and verb. Even though there are many nouns, both singular and plural, the true subject, knot-hole , is singular, so the singular verb was is needed.

3 Tips for Understanding Subject-Verb Agreement 

Here are some important tips to help you understand Subject-verb agreement :

literature review on subject verb agreement

Tip #1. Objects and appositives can never be the subject of the sentence

  • Jacob , one of my next door neighbors, is a werewolf.

In this sentence, Jacob , not “ neighbors” , is the subject of the sentence, because “ neighbors ” is part of the appositive phrase.

Tip #2. When referring to sums of money or collective nouns acting in unison, a singular verb is used

  • The herd of bison is grazing in the field. 

In this sentence, because the bison are acting as a unified group, the verb is singular.

Tip #3. Regardless of where it is in the sentence, the subject always determines whether a verb is singular or plural

  • Her palms sweaty and mind racing, she begins her descent down the mountain. 

In this sentence, the subject does not appear until the middle of the sentence. Do not get tricked by modifiers like this participial phrase!

Applying the Basics: Subject-Verb Agreement Review & Practice

Now that you understand how subject-verb agreement functions in sentences, review the anchor chart below and complete the review to fully understand how to reach subject-verb agreement in your own writing.

The Ultimate List of Subject-Verb Agreement

Refer to the graphic below to learn the different types of Subject-Verb Agreement :

Note: subjects are underlined, and verbs are italicized.

The Ultimate List of Subject-Verb Agreement

This list, obviously, does not include all possible scenarios of subject-verb agreement; however, it is meant to be used as a guide to help writers navigate subject-verb agreement.

Subject and Verb Agreement Exercises and Review 

Now that you know how to make subjects and verbs agree, test your ability to find the subjects and verbs that agree in number. 

Select the subject and verb in the sentences below. Remember, subjects and verbs must agree in number; meaning, if the subject is singular, then the verb must also be singular.

Subject and Verb Agreement Sentence Tree

1. Mouse Finbar’s main weakness was cake. 

In this sentence, weakness is the singular subject of the sentence, which means that the verb, was , must also be singular.

2. Ruby Roundhouse knew that the only way to save her friends was to win a dance fight. 

In this sentence, there are two clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The subject and verb of the first clause are singular: Ruby Roundhouse knew . The subject and verb of the second clause are also singular: way and was . However, since there are two clauses with two separate verbs, we have to make sure that there is also agreement in tense. Since the verb “ knew” is in past tense, the verb “ was” must also be in past tense.

3. Spencer , Fridge , and Martha were separated from the group during the attack.

In this sentence, the subject ( Spencer, Fridge, and Martha ) is plural because three different people are included. Therefore, the verb phrase ( were separated ) must also be plural.

4. In Jumanji: The Next Level, a new character , Ming, is introduced. 

In this sentence, character is the singular subject. It is difficult to find the true subject because there is both a prepositional phrase and an appositive; however, since character is the true singular subject, the verb “ is” must also be singular.

5. In order to win the game, Jumanji , the characters were instructed to return the Jaguar’s Eye to its home.  

In this sentence, characters is the plural subject, and were instructed is the plural verb. 

Pro tip : Subjects and verbs within the same clauses must agree with one another in number, while verbs in separate clauses within the same sentence must agree with one another in tense. 

For additional practice, check out Subject-Verb Agreement content on Albert.

Try for Yourself: Subject-Verb Agreement Quiz

literature review on subject verb agreement

Feeling confident in your understanding of Subject-Verb Agreement ? 

Take this short six-question quiz to see what you’ve learned:

1. True or False: subjects and verbs must always agree in both number and tense

  • Answer: False 
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! While subjects and verbs must always agree in number, tense is reserved for verbs only as nouns in the English language cannot denote tense. 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! Remember, subjects and verbs must always agree in number, tense is reserved for verbs only as nouns in the English language cannot denote tense.

2. Can noun objects be the subject of a sentence? 

  • Answer: No  
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! Direct objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions can never be the subject of a sentence! 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! Remember, direct objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions can never be the subject of a sentence.

3. In this sentence, should the verb be a singular “is” or a plural “are”? 

They is/are attempting to bake bread from scratch. 

  • Answer: Plural “are” 
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! Since the subject, “they”, is plural, the verb must be the plural “ are ”. 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! Remember, if the subject is plural, then the verb must also be plural.

4. In this sentence, are the noun and verb singular or plural? 

Racoons are sometimes called “trash pandas” due to their habit of going through people’s garbage. 

  • Answer: Plural 
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! The subject “ racoons ” and the verb phrase “ are called ” are both plural. 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! The subject “ racoons ” and the verb phrase “ are called ” are both plural, not singular.

5. In this sentence, are the noun and verb singular or plural? 

Mark , one of my best friends, was cast in our upcoming drama. 

  • Answer: Singular  
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! In this sentence, Mark is the subject, not friends . Therefore, the verb was cast is also singular. 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! In this sentence, Mark is the subject, not friends . Remember that nouns in appositive phrases cannot be the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the verb was cast is also singular.

6. In this sentence, is the singular verb “was” or the plural verb “were” needed? 

Ten thousand dollars was/were demanded by the thieves for the return of the jewel. 

  • Answer: Singular verb “was” 
  • Correct Explanation: That’s right! This is a tricky one. Remember, when referring to a sum of money, a singular verb is used. When referring to actual dollar bills, a plural verb is used. 
  • Incorrect Explanation: Sorry, that’s not right! Remember, when referring to a sum of money, a singular verb is used. When referring to actual dollar bills, a plural verb is used. 

For additional practice with subject-verb agreement, check out our practice on Albert: Subject-Verb Agreement .

Teacher’s Corner for Subject-Verb Agreement

Even though subjects and verbs are the foundation of every complete sentence, students can still struggle to locate subjects and verbs in sentences as well as understand why and how they should agree with one another. Once you have a clear understanding of where your students stand, the Common Core English Language Progressive Skills Chart is a helpful tool for building on your students’ knowledge, regardless of where they may be. 

For specific standards on subject-verb agreement , check out the Common Core State Standards website. 

Albert’s Subject-Verb Agreement Practice provides several activities that each focus on a different type of subject-verb agreement, from Simple Subject-Verb Agreement to more advanced Indefinite Pronouns . Once students have practiced each type of subject-verb agreement , assessments are also provided to check student retention.

Summary for Subject Verb Agreement

It can be tricky to find both the main subject and the main verb of a sentence, especially if there are distracting objects, modifiers, or verbs acting like other parts of speech. Once you have determined the action or state of being that is described in the sentence, then you have to find out who or what is performing the action or experience the state of being. Finally, you must make sure that both the subject and the verb agree in number because if they do not, it can be very difficult to understand what is being communicated. 

Be sure to check out our grammar course for more subject-verb agreement practice. 

You can also access over 3,400 high-quality questions that address nearly every grammatical concept.

Need help preparing for your Grammar exam?

literature review on subject verb agreement

Albert has hundreds of grammar practice questions with detailed explanations to help you master concepts.

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Physics I score calculator

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

literature review on subject verb agreement

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

literature review on subject verb agreement

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

literature review on subject verb agreement

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

literature review on subject verb agreement

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

literature review on subject verb agreement

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

literature review on subject verb agreement

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

Interested in a school license?

literature review on subject verb agreement

Bring Albert to your school and empower all teachers with the world's best question bank for: ➜ SAT® & ACT® ➜ AP® ➜ ELA, Math, Science, & Social Studies aligned to state standards ➜ State assessments Options for teachers, schools, and districts.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency

Subject-verb agreement is a computation that is often difficult to execute perfectly in the first language (L1) and even more difficult to produce skillfully in a second language (L2). In this study, we examined the way in which bilingual speakers complete sentence fragments in a manner that reflects access to both grammatical and conceptual number. In two experiments, we show that bilingual speakers are sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number in the L1 and grammatical number agreement in the L2. However, only highly proficient bilinguals are also sensitive to conceptual number in the L2. The results suggest that the extent to which speakers are able to exploit conceptual information during speech planning depends on the level of language proficiency.

In languages like English and Spanish, if the subject is singular, the verb must be singular; if the subject is plural, the verb must be plural. Although agreement between the subject and verb of a sentence might seem as if it should follow a very simple rule, even highly proficient speakers producing sentences in their native language make agreement errors more often than might be expected. One factor that complicates the production of subject-verb agreement is that grammatical number and conceptual number do not always match. Past research has used a sentence completion task to examine the consequence of grammatical and conceptual mismatches in the production of subject-verb agreement (e.g., Bock and Miller, 1991 ; Vigliocco, Butterworth, and Garrett, 1996 ; Nicol, Teller, and Greth, 2001 ). In this task, speakers are given a sentence fragment and are asked to produce a possible completion. For example, when shown the fragment, “The drawing on the posters,” the participant might complete the sentence by adding “was colorful.” Of interest is that the subject of the sentence can refer to either a single referent or multiple referents. Consider the examples below:

  • (1) The author of the novels (Single-Referent Mismatch)
  • (2) The drawing on the posters (Distributive-Referent Mismatch)

Here the number of the head noun phrase (NP) is mismatched with that of the local NP in both cases. The verb to be produced must agree with the head NP in number. Although the grammatical number is the same in both examples (i.e., singular), the conceptual number differs. In the first case, our conceptual interpretation is that there can be only a single author that wrote several novels. In the second case, we understand that each of the posters has a drawing and that there are, therefore, multiple drawings, one corresponding to each poster. In the sentence completion task, the most critical dependent measure is the rate of subject-verb agreement errors (e.g., “The author of the novels are clever” and “The drawing on the posters are colorful”) relative to responses to control preambles in which the number of the nouns in the complex NP matches such as “The author of the novel is clever” and “The drawing on the poster is colorful,” respectively. If speakers are sensitive to the conceptual number in representing the subject phrase in the production of subject-verb agreement, the rate of subject-verb agreement errors should be higher for the distributive-referent than for the single-referent because the plural notional number of the distributive-referent presents a conflict with the grammatical number of the phrase. In contrast, if speakers are not sensitive to the conceptual number in representing the subject when computing subject-verb agreement and rely only on grammatical number, the rate of agreement errors should be no different for these two fragment types.

In early research on this topic, there was a suggestion that the production of subject-verb agreement in English was unlike other languages in that speakers were sensitive to grammatical number only (e.g., Bock and Miller, 1991 ; Vigliocco, Butterworth, and Semenza, 1995 ; Vigliocco, Butterworth, and Garrett, 1996 ; Vigliocco, Hartsuiker, Jarema, and Kolk, 1996 ). However, subsequent research has shown that native English speakers, like speakers of Spanish, Italian, French, and Dutch, appear to be sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number (e.g., Eberhard, 1999 ; Bock, Eberhard, and Cutting, 2004 ).

If an individual is bilingual in two languages that compute grammatical and conceptual number similarly, then bilingualism itself might not be expected to affect the ability to produce agreement correctly in each language. Only a small number of studies have examined the production of subject-verb agreement in bilinguals. In each case, these studies show that bilinguals appear to exploit grammatical and conceptual information in each of their languages (e.g., Nicol et al., 2001 ; Nicol and Greth, 2003 ; Van Hell and Mensies, 2004 ). An aspect of the bilingual results that is notable is that the sensitivity to grammatical and conceptual number has been observed for late bilinguals ( Nicol and Greth, 2003 ), for early bilinguals ( Nicol et al., 2001 ), and for both speaking and writing ( Van Hell and Mensies, 2004 ). The only exception to this general pattern has been reported for bilinguals who speak native languages such as Chinese in which there is no comparable computation of subject-verb agreement in number. A recent study of the comprehension of subject-verb agreement in English for Chinese-English bilinguals also provides evidence for sensitivity to agreement in offline but not in online measures ( Jiang, 2004 ) and in event-related potential but not in behavioral measures ( Chen, Shu, Liu, Zhao, and Li, 2007 ). Nicol and Greth (2003) argued that bilinguals tend to transfer agreement strategies from the first language (L1) to the L2. If the L1 does not easily enable transfer to occur, then the acquisition of agreement in the L2 will presumably be more difficult.

In addition to constraints that are imposed by distinct cross-language preferences, there is another respect in which the performance of bilinguals may differ for their two languages. Recent studies suggest that even for relatively proficient bilinguals, the L2 is likely to be processed less automatically (e.g., Segalowitz and Hulstijn, 2005 ) and to make additional demands on cognitive resources compared to the L1 (e.g., Miyake and Friedman, 1998 ; Hasegawa, Carpenter, and Just, 2002 ; Michael and Gollan, 2005 ). A number of past studies of individuals speaking their native language have shown that skill in producing subject-verb agreement is influenced by available working memory resources. Hartsuiker, Kolk, and Huinck (1999) found that Dutch aphasics, hypothesized to have severely reduced cognitive resources, were sensitive to grammatical but not conceptual number in producing subject-verb agreement (but see Vigliocco and Zilli, 1999 ). A control group of unimpaired Dutch speakers showed sensitivity to both grammatical and conceptual number. In a study of Dutch university students, Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen (2006) reported further evidence for a role of working memory resources in computing subject-verb agreement. In the presence of an increased memory load, individuals with low speaking span committed more agreement errors than high span individuals. However, unlike aphasics, the overall performance on the subject-verb agreement task was affected by cognitive resources but not specifically the sensitivity to conceptual number; agreement errors were simply higher overall under conditions of reduced resources. Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen proposed that cognitive resources do not affect the mapping of conceptual information to lemmas and/or the maintenance of the mapping but rather a secondary control process that checks for the presence of conflict in agreement. In the presence of an additional memory load or relatively reduced working memory span, participants will effectively skip the control process and therefore make an increased number of agreement errors. They speculate that only when cognitive resources are pathologically limited (e.g., for aphasics), will the mapping of conceptual number or the maintenance of that mapping itself be impaired.

Unlike aphasics, bilinguals are certainly not pathologically impaired. To the contrary, there is recent evidence suggesting that life experience as a bilingual confers a set of cognitive benefits, specifically to executive control functions (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, Klein, and Viswanathan, 2004 ). However, in addition to the potentially increased memory demands on processing in the L2, bilinguals may also experience some constraints in their ability to fully compute the conceptual nuances that are normally available quite automatically in the L1 (e.g., Finkbeiner, Forster, Nicol, and Nakamura, 2004 ; Kotz and Elston-Güttler, 2004 ; Silverberg and Samuel, 2004 ). For example, using a semantic priming paradigm with both RT and ERP measures, Kotz and Elston-Güttler showed that even advanced L2 learners were sensitive only to associative relations but unable to exploit categorical information whereas early bilinguals and native speakers were sensitive to both associative and categorical information. If the computation of subject-verb agreement is indeed a two stage process, as Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen (2006) propose, the consequences of bilingualism for processing in the L2 should be evident at each of these stages. At the first stage, there may be restrictions on the range of conceptual representations that can be accessed and maintained. At the second stage, the ability to verify agreement in a post-hoc check may be limited by available cognitive resources in L2. When bilinguals attain a sufficiently high level of proficiency in the L2 ( Nicol et al., 2001 ) and/or are living in a bilingual environment in which there is a high degree of support for the L2 ( Nicol and Greth, 2003 ; Van Hell and Mensies, 2004 ), either or both of the two hypothesized processing components may be completed adequately. The question we address in the present paper is whether bilinguals who differ in their relative proficiency in the L2 will also differ in their sensitivity to grammatical and conceptual number in producing subject-verb agreement.

If bilinguals transfer agreement strategies from the L1 to the L2, as Nicol and Greth (2003) propose, then the ability to compute subject-verb agreement in the L2 in an online task should be a function of whether the bilingual has skilled access to that computation in the L1. Hoshino, Dussias, and Kroll (in preparation) tested the transfer hypothesis by examining the performance of Japanese-English bilinguals on a sentence completion task in English, their L2. The results showed that although Japanese speakers do not have a similar construction in their L1, they were able to successfully compute grammatical number. These findings suggest that a simple version of cross-language transfer from the L1 to the L2 does not account for L2 performance. Likewise, the two-stage model of subject-verb agreement proposed by Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen (2006) was intended to account for the performance of aphasic patients and non-aphasic adults who differ in available working memory resources. Although the results in that study were complex, they are consistent with a model in which cognitive resources must be recruited to enable sensitivity to conceptual number. However, as noted above, the two stages, one involved in the mapping and maintenance of grammatical and conceptual information and the other engaging a later checking mechanism, do not themselves make differential predictions about the role of cognitive resources constrained by language proficiency. Either or both stages might suffer in the absence of sufficient resources.

In the present paper, we test the hypothesis that access to conceptual number is more easily disrupted when cognitive resources are stressed by virtue of the cognitive load imposed by processing in an L2. This hypothesis is based on the observation that virtually no past subject-verb agreement studies fail to observe effects of grammatical number whereas effects of conceptual number are apparently vulnerable to brain damage ( Hartsuiker et al., 1999 ; but see Vigliocco and Zilli, 1999 ), and relative imageability of the head noun ( Eberhard, 1999 ). As noted earlier, recent studies of subject-verb agreement in English suggest that English functions much like other languages with respect to sensitivity to conceptual number, although the initial studies on this topic suggested otherwise (e.g., Bock and Miller, 1991 ). However, critical to the present hypothesis, the result in those early studies was always the same: English speakers were sensitive to grammatical but not conceptual number. Taken together, the empirical evidence suggests that the computation of conceptual number will be more affected by the availability of cognitive resources than the computation of grammatical number. Note that this hypothesis is agnostic with respect to debates concerning the independence or interaction between syntactic and semantic information during the planning of spoken sentences (e.g., Vigliocco and Hartsuiker, 2002 ). Conceptual information may be more vulnerable to disruption due to the nature of the required computation rather than to the sequencing with which that information is available.

In the present study, we tested this hypothesis by examining the consequences of proficiency in the L2 for bilinguals performing a sentence completion task in both English and in Spanish. In two experiments, we compared the production of subject-verb agreement for a group of less proficient English-Spanish bilinguals (Experiment 1) and a group of less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals (Experiment 2) with a group of more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals (Experiment 2). If the degree to which bilinguals require additional cognitive resources to process the L2 is a function of proficiency, then we predicted that the highly proficient bilinguals would be more likely to show sensitivity to both grammatical and conceptual number agreement in their L2, whereas bilinguals who are only relatively proficient in the L2 would show sensitivity to grammatical number but not to conceptual number. We also expected bilinguals to demonstrate sensitivity to grammatical and conceptual number in the L1 regardless of their L2 proficiency. In L1, they should produce more subject-verb agreement errors for the distributive-referent mismatch preambles (e.g., “the drawing on the posters”) than for the single-referent mismatch ones (e.g., “the author of the novels”).

Experiment 1: English-Spanish Bilinguals

Participants.

Forty-two English-Spanish bilinguals participated in Experiment 1 for payment. The participants were all native speakers of English who spoke Spanish as an L2 and were living in an environment in which English was predominant at the time of testing. Their self-assessed abilities in English and Spanish are provided in Table 1 . Four participants were excluded from all analyses due to poor performance on the sentence completion task (less than 30 % overall accuracy in either or both of their languages). The remaining 38 participants were included in the data analyses.

Characteristics of English-Spanish Bilinguals in Experiment 1.

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

Sentence completion task

Sixty-four pairs of sentence preambles consisting of a singular head NP followed by a modifying PP were developed in English and in Spanish. In one of each pair, the grammatical number of the head NP was mismatched with that of the adjunct NP within the PP modifier (e.g., The author of the novels ), whereas in the other one the grammatical number of the head NP was matched with that of the adjunct NP (e.g., The author of the novel ). Thus, there were four types of preambles in this experiment, as shown in (3) and (4). The Spanish materials were translations of the English sentences that were checked by a native Spanish speaker. In Spanish, the gender of the head NP and the adjunct NP as well as gender agreement between the head NP and the adjunct NP were counterbalanced. The complete list of the experimental preambles is provided in the Appendix .

  • a′. La autora de las novelas
  • b. The author of the novel (Single-Referent, Match Control)
  • b′. La autora de la novela
  • a′. El dibujo de los carteles
  • b. The drawing on the poster (Distributive-Referent, Match Control)
  • b′. El dibujo del cartel

In addition to these experimental preambles, 64 pairs of fillers consisting of a plural head NP followed by a modifying PP were developed. In one of each pair, the grammatical number of the head NP was matched with that of the adjunct NP (e.g., The rooms in the apartments ), whereas in the other of each pair the grammatical number of the head NP was mismatched with that of the adjunct NP (e.g., The rooms in the apartment ). None of the fillers was the same as the experimental preambles.

Four 64-item lists were constructed and two lists were paired so that each participant received the critical conditions in the context of a different item in each of their languages, with lists counterbalanced across participants. In each list, there were 32 experimental items (eight items for each condition) and 32 filler items (16 items for each condition). All preambles were paired with an adjective that could modify the preamble NP plausibly (e.g., “fat” for “the author of the novels”). None of the adjectives was repeated. The order of the presentation of items was randomized for each participant.

The one difference between the English and Spanish materials was that in the Spanish version, adjectives were presented in their stems so that they could not carry information about number and gender (e.g., estresad_ instead of estresado/estresada). In other words, these Spanish adjectives were modified to play the same role in subject-verb agreement as English adjectives.

Language history questionnaire

A questionnaire was designed to obtain information about participants’ language learning experiences. The questionnaire asked participants about their native and home languages, the amount and type of their language learning experience, the length of living in target language cultures, and self-rated proficiency for each of the four language skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening in their L1 and L2. Proficiency was rated on a 10-point scale with 1 being not proficient and 10 being very proficient.

Participants were tested individually in a quiet room. They were seated in front of a computer monitor, a button box, a microphone connected to the computer, and an audiocassette tape recorder. Participants were given the sentence completion task in English first and then in Spanish. The English-first design was adopted to give the participants practice on the task before having to produce sentences in their less proficient L2. At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to complete the language history questionnaire.

In the sentence completion task, participants first received written instructions on the computer monitor. They were informed that each trial would begin with the presentation of an adjective which would then be replaced with the sentence preamble. Following the offset of the preamble, a beep signaled to the participant that they should initiate their response. Their task was to repeat the preamble and complete the sentence using the presented adjective as quickly as possible after the beep. One example was given in the instructions. However, no other instruction was given about the form of the responses. Eight practice trials preceded the actual experimental session to familiarize participants with the experimental procedure.

On each trial, as illustrated in Figure 1 , a fixation sign (+) was presented at the center of the computer screen. At the self-paced press of a button, the fixation sign was replaced with an adjective, which was present for 600 ms. A sentence preamble followed the adjective and remained on the computer screen for 1800 ms. A beep was inserted at the end of the presentation of the sentence preamble to signal the initiation of the response. Responses were recorded on tape. Because the task was self-paced, participants were required to press a button in order to proceed to the next trial.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms213501f1.jpg

An illustration of a trial in the sentence completion task.

Tape-recorded responses were transcribed for the critical sentence trials. Responses that the microphone did not detect were eliminated as technical errors. The rest of the responses were scored based on the following three categories for the purpose of the present paper: (1) Responses were scored as Correct if participants repeated the presented preamble correctly and completed a sentence in a sensible manner with a verb marked as singular. Even if they used a different adjective from the one provided, it was scored as correct if the completed sentence was semantically congruent; (2) responses were scored as Agreement Errors if participants repeated the presented preamble correctly but used a verb form that did not agree in number with the head NP of the preamble (i.e., marked a verb as plural); (3) responses were scored as Other Errors if participants made responses that did not meet any criteria that are described above. In the present paper, we focus on agreement errors because that has been the main dependent measure in past studies, but data for the other scoring categories are also reported.

A 2 × 2 analysis of variance was conducted by participants ( F 1) and by items ( F 2) on agreement errors, with number match (mismatch vs. match control) and distributivity (single-referent vs. distributive-referent) as independent variables. In the participant analyses, number match and distributivity were within-participants variables. In the item analyses, number match was a within-items variable, whereas distributivity was a between-items variable.

Results and Discussion

English (l1).

After trimming 256 trials for six excluded pairs of items based on the norming data (21.1 % of the data) 1 , 960 responses were scored according to the categories described above and mean percentages for each scoring category were computed. The distribution of responses in the different scoring categories for each experimental condition is given in Table 2 . Again, the focus in the analyses to be reported is on agreement errors.

Distribution of Response (in Percent) by Scoring Category in Experiment 1 (N = 38)

The main effect of number match emerged by participants and by items [ F 1(1, 37) = 14.49, MSE = 67.38, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 25.84, MSE = 8.36, p < .001]. The main effect of distributivity was marginally significant by participants [ F 1(1, 37) = 3.48, MSE = 33.36, p = .07; F 2(1, 50) = 2.29, MSE = 30.67, p > .10]. More critically, there was a significant interaction between number match and distributivity [ F 1(1, 37) = 7.51, MSE = 43.72, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 8.36, MSE = 25.40, p < .01]. A test of simple main effects showed that more agreement errors were produced for distributive-referent mismatched items than for single-referent mismatched items [ F 1(1, 37) = 6.09, MSE = 68.54, p < .05; F 2(1, 50) = 5.62, MSE = 50.09, p < .05]. However, the difference between the two matched control conditions was only marginally significant [ F 1(1, 37) = 3.15, MSE = 8.54, p = .08; F 2(1, 50) = 3.19, MSE = 6.01, p = .08].

The important result in this analysis is that a significant interaction was obtained between number match and distributivity, with the performance of English-Spanish bilinguals impaired for the distributive-referent mismatched condition but not for the single-referent mismatched condition. Like the results reported by Nicol and Greth (2003) , the present findings suggest that English-Spanish bilinguals are sensitive to the conceptual as well as grammatical number of the subject phrase in their L1 English.

Spanish (L2)

After trimming 244 trials for the six excluded pairs of items (20.1 % of the data), 972 responses were scored according to the categories described above and the distribution of responses in the different scoring categories for each experimental condition is given in Table 2 . Only the analyses on agreement errors are reported below.

The main effect of number match was reliable both by participants and by items [ F 1(1, 52) = 11.25, MSE = 68.92, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 17.88, MSE = 26.25, p < .001] with more agreement errors for number mismatched items than for number matched items. As can be seen in Table 2 , the main effect of distributivity and the interaction between number match and distributivity were not significant [ F 2(1, 50) = 1.19, MSE = 26.25, p > .10 for the interaction between number match and distributivity; all the other F s < 1].

These results suggest that contrary to Nicol and Greth (2003) , the English-Spanish bilinguals were not sensitive to the distributive number of the subject phrase, but only to the grammatical number in Spanish, their L2. The most plausible explanation for the lack of an interaction between number match and distributivity in Spanish is that the English-Spanish bilinguals in the present study may not have been as highly proficient in Spanish as those in Nicol and Greth’s study. The participants in this experiment had taken 4.6 semesters of Spanish at the college level on average and 26 out of 38 participants had taken it for less than six semesters. This contrasts with the English-Spanish bilinguals in Nicol and Greth’s study, who had taken at least six semesters of Spanish. Furthermore, the English-Spanish bilinguals in the present study lived in the environment where Spanish was rarely used in everyday life, whereas those in Nicol and Greth’s study lived in the environment where both English and Spanish were widely spoken.

In Experiment 2, we examined the performance of Spanish-English bilinguals, who like the English-Spanish bilinguals, were late bilinguals but who varied in their level of proficiency in English as the L2. Using an independent measure of L2 skill, the Spanish-English bilinguals were grouped by their relative proficiency in English. If the absence of a conceptually distributive number effect in Spanish in Experiment 1 was due to the properties of the translation materials in Spanish, then neither group should show the interaction between number match and distributivity in Spanish although it is the their L1. Alternatively, if the lack of the effect in Spanish in Experiment 1 was due to the participants’ level of proficiency, then Spanish-English bilinguals should show the effect in Spanish, their L1, but the effect in English, their L2, should depend on their proficiency.

Experiment 2: Spanish-English Bilinguals

Sentence completion task and language history questionnaire.

The materials were identical to Experiment 1 except for the format of the language history questionnaire, which was modified for nonnative speakers of English.

Lexical decision task in English

A lexical decision task in English was included in Experiment 2 as an independent on-line proficiency measure. Forty English words and 40 English pseudohomophones were taken from Azuma and Van Orden (1997) . The order of the presentation of items was randomized for each participant.

Participants performed the sentence completion task followed by the lexical decision task in English. They completed the language history questionnaire at the end of the experiment.

The procedure was identical to Experiment 1 except that the order of the two language blocks was counterbalanced. Because the participants in this experiment were living in the L2 environment at the time of testing and more proficient in the L2, we followed the convention of counterbalancing the order of the language blocks in the sentence completion task.

Participants first received written instructions on the computer monitor. They were informed that strings of letters would be presented one at a time on the computer screen. Their task was to decide whether each string was a real English word or not. At the beginning of each trial, a fixation sign (+) was presented for 500 ms at the center of the computer screen. When the fixation sign was replaced with the string of letters, participants were required to judge whether the string was a real English word, and to indicate their decision by pressing the “yes” button on the left, if it was a real word, or the “no” button on the right, if it was not a real word. After they responded, a fixation sign appeared for 500 ms and the next string of letters was presented. Ten practice trials preceded the experimental session.

The scoring procedure was identical to Experiments 1.

After trimming RTs for correct responses that were less than 300 ms or greater than 3000 ms, RTs that were 2.5 standard deviations above or below the mean were identified as outliers and excluded from the analyses. Finally, we calculated accuracy for correct responses again.

Fifty-two Spanish-English bilinguals participated in Experiment 2 for payment. However, data from 17 participants were excluded from the analyses because they did not perform the lexical decision task in the L2 English which was used to divide Spanish-English bilinguals into two proficiency groups. The remaining 35 participants were all native speakers of Spanish who learned English as an L2 and had been living in the United States at the time of testing. These 35 Spanish-English bilinguals were divided into two proficiency groups based on the performance of the lexical decision task in the L2 English. Because the median accuracy for nonwords was 85.0 %, we grouped those whose nonword accuracy was 85 % or higher as more proficient and those whose nonword accuracy was less than 85 % as less proficient. Table 3 provides a direct comparison between more proficient and less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals. The comparison makes clear that the more proficient group performed more accurately in the English lexical decision task and had lived longer in an English-speaking environment than the less proficient group. Furthermore, the mean ratings for L1 were significantly higher than those for L2 regardless of the proficiency group [ t (17) = 4.01, p < .01 for more proficient group and t (12) = 7.10, p < .001 for less proficient group] 2 , reflecting the fact that Spanish was still their dominant language even for more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals although they were living and working in an English-speaking environment.

Characteristics of More and Less Proficient Spanish-English Bilinguals in Experiment 2.

A 2 × 2 × 2 analysis of variance was conducted by participants ( F 1) and by items ( F 2) on agreement errors, with number match (mismatch vs. match control), distributivity (single-referent vs. distributive-referent), and proficiency group (more proficient vs. less proficient) as independent variables. In the participant analyses, number match and distributivity were within-participants variables, whereas proficiency group was between-participants variables. In the item analyses, number match and proficiency group were within-items variables, whereas distributivity was a between-items variable. In the following section, we consider the performance in the L1 Spanish followed by the performance in the L2 English.

Spanish (L1)

After trimming 212 trials for six excluded pairs of items (18.9 % of the data), 908 responses were scored with the same criteria as Experiments 1 and mean percentages for each scoring category were computed. The distribution of responses in the different scoring categories for each experimental condition is provided in Table 4 . In the analyses reported below, we focus on agreement errors.

Distribution of Response (in Percent) by Scoring Category in Experiment 2 (N = 35)

The main effect of number match was reliable by participants and by items [ F 1(1, 33) = 12.13, MSE = 89.97, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 24.43, MSE = 70.07, p < .001]. The main effect of distributivity was also significant by participants and by items [ F 1(1, 33) = 7.69, MSE = 57.07, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 9.32, MSE = 69.37, p < .01]. Critically, these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between number match and distributivity [ F 1(1, 33) = 10.49, MSE = 33.91, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 8.25, MSE = 70.07, p < .01]. A test of simple main effects showed that more agreement errors were produced for distributive-referent mismatched items than for single-referent mismatched items [ F 1(1, 34) = 9.35, MSE = 85.49, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 10.17, MSE = 58.82, p < .001]. However, the difference between the two matched control conditions was only marginally significant [ F 1(1, 34) = 1.00, MSE = 2.92, p > .10; F 2(1, 50) = 1.00, MSE = 2.37, p > .10]. Neither main effect of proficiency group nor other interactions was significant [ F 2(1, 50) = 1.00, MSE = 61.76, p > .10 for proficiency; F 2(1, 50) = 1.61, MSE = 70.35, p > .10 for the interaction of number match and proficiency; all the other F s < 1].

An important result in Experiment 2 is that, like the performance of the English-Spanish bilinguals in Experiment 1, all bilinguals showed the interaction between number match and distributivity in their L1. The results are consistent with the performance of Spanish monolinguals in the past studies ( Vigliocco, Butterworth, and Garrett, 1996 ). Furthermore, these data demonstrate that the failure to obtain the effect of distributivity in Experiment 1 was not due to the Spanish translations of the materials. These results suggest that if speakers are proficient in the target language, they will be sensitive to the distributive as well as grammatical number of the subject phrase during the process of subject-verb agreement. However, it is also possible that speakers are sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number only in their L1. To determine whether proficiency modulates the interaction between number match and distributivity in their L2, we now consider the performance of these more and less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals in their L2 English.

English (L2)

After trimming 217 trials for six excluded pairs of items (19.4 % of the data), 903 responses were scored with the same criteria as Experiments 1 and mean percentages for each scoring category were computed. The distribution of responses in the different scoring categories for each experimental condition is provided in Table 4 . Again, only the analyses on agreement errors are reported below.

The main effect of number match was significant by participants and by items [ F 1(1, 33) = 33.29, MSE = 92.25, p < .001; F 2(1, 50) = 28.04, MSE = 168.60, p < .001]. The main effect of distributivity or proficiency group or the interaction between number match and distributivity or between number match and proficiency group did not emerge [ F 2(1, 50) = 1.01, MSE = 124.77, p > .10 for proficiency; all the other F s < 1]. However, the interaction between distributivity and proficiency group was significant by participants [ F 1(1, 33) = 5.12, MSE = 85.87, p < .05] and marginally significant by items [ F 2(1, 50) = 3.99, MSE = 124.77, p = .05]. More importantly, there was a significant three-way interaction of number match, distributivity, and proficiency group [ F 1(1, 33) = 8.41, MSE = 63.22, p < .01; F 2(1, 50) = 5.05, MSE = 124.49, p < .05]. To follow-up the significant three-way interaction, separate 2 (number match) x 2 (distributivity) ANOVAs were run for each proficiency group. For the more proficient group, the interaction between number match and distributivity was significant [ F 1(1, 19) = 5.63, MSE = 74.97, p < .05; F 2(1, 50) = 5.00, MSE = 97.46, p < .05], such that more agreement errors were produced for distributive-referent mismatched items than for single-referent mismatched items [ F 1(1, 19) = 5.63, MSE = 149.95, p < .05; F 2(1, 50) = 5.00, MSE = 194.92, p < .05] but there was no difference between the two matched control conditions [ F s < 1]. For the less proficient group, the interaction between number match and distributivity was also significant by participants but not by items [ F 1(1, 14) = 3.42, MSE = 47.28, p = .09; F 2 < 1]. If anything, however, this interaction was opposite to the one for the more proficient group, such that the less proficient bilinguals tended to produce more agreement errors for single-referent mismatched items than for distributive-referent mismatched items [ F 1(1, 14) = 1.98, MSE = 129.75, p > .10; F 2 < 1].

An important result in this analysis is that a significant interaction between number match and distributivity was obtained in the L2 English for more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals, but not for less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals. This interaction indicates that the performance of more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals was impaired more for distributive-referent preambles than for single-referent preambles. Contrary to the finding in Experiment 1 that the English-Spanish bilinguals did not show sensitivity to conceptual number in their L2 Spanish, the more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals were sensitive to both grammatical and conceptual number of the subject phrase during the process of subject-verb agreement in their L2 English. Similar to the English-Spanish bilinguals in Experiment 1, on the other hand, the less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals showed sensitivity only to the grammatical number. These results suggest that speakers are able to access to the conceptually distributive number of the preamble in the L2 if they are highly proficient in the target language.

General Discussion

In two experiments, we elicited subject-verb number agreement errors to test whether bilinguals’ access to conceptual information during the computation of subject-verb agreement is modulated by the level of language proficiency. The signature finding taken as evidence for the sensitivity to the conceptual number of the subject phrase is a higher rate of subject-verb agreement errors for distributive-referent items than for single-referent items when the head noun and the local noun are mismatched in number. In both experiments, all bilingual speakers showed sensitivity to both grammatical and conceptual number in their L1. However, bilinguals who were relatively, but not highly proficient in the L2, failed to demonstrate sensitivity to conceptual number. That finding held regardless of whether Spanish or English was the L2. In contrast, the more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals in Experiment 2 produced a pattern of results in L2 that was identical to their performance in L1, with sensitivity to both grammatical and conceptual number. Taken together, these results suggest that adequate cognitive resources are required to maintain the conceptual representation of the subject during the computation of subject-verb number agreement.

As described earlier, Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen (2006) proposed a two-stage model for the production of subject-verb agreement, such that cognitive resources do not influence the first stage of mapping the conceptual information to lemmas but the second stage of checking the presence of conflict in agreement. They further argue that the processing at the first stage is impaired only when cognitive resources are pathologically limited. How can we determine whether the failure of the English-Spanish bilinguals in Experiment 1 and the less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals in Experiment 2 to process the conceptual number in their L2 is due to a problem with the mapping and/or maintenance of conceptual number at the first stage of processing or in checking for conflict at the second stage of processing?

Studies of both comprehension and production in bilinguals have shown that the slower time course associated with the L2 reflects greater vulnerability to interference from competing information (e.g., Van Heuven, Dijkstra, and Grainger, 1998 ; Costa and Caramazza, 1999 ). To establish the locus of the observed effects for the English-Spanish bilinguals and less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals in the present study, we needed to first determine whether these bilinguals were able to represent the conceptual number accurately. It is possible that the English-Spanish bilinguals and less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals did not appreciate the distributive-referent readings in the L2.

To examine the possibility of the incomplete representation of the conceptually distributive number in bilinguals whose L2 proficiency is not high enough, an independent group of 14 English-Spanish bilinguals who were sampled from the same population as Experiment 1 performed an off-line questionnaire task. The mean self-rated L2 proficiency for this group of English-Spanish bilinguals was 6.4 out of 10, which did not differ from 6.5 for the English-Spanish bilinguals in Experiment 1 [ t < 1]. The off-line questionnaire included 26 single-referent mismatch (e.g., la autora de las novelas [the author of the novels]) and 26 distributive-referent mismatch preambles (e.g., el dibujo de los carteles [the drawing on the posters]) from the sentence completion task. In the off-line questionnaire, the participants were asked to judge the preambles according to whether they refer to one thing or more than one thing with “1” being “one thing” and “2” being “more than one thing.” 3 The mean for each preamble was computed. The mean for distributive-referent preambles was significantly higher than for single-referent preambles [ t (14) = 7.81, p < .001, 1.62 vs. 1.21 respectively], showing that although the English-Spanish bilinguals were not highly proficient in L2 Spanish, they can indeed distinguish between single-referent and distributive-referent readings in the off-line task. 4 This result suggests that less proficient bilinguals can represent the conceptually distributive number accurately in their L2 when the task demand is low (i.e., off-line) and that the mapping and maintenance of the conceptual number can be interfered when the task demand is high (i.e., online).

If the locus of the effect of the conceptual agreement is at the second checking stage, higher proficiency should lead to a greater distributivity effect in the context of a smaller grammatical number effect because more errors can be detected and corrected. In contrast, if the conceptual number is lost at the first stage, the size of the distributive number effect can be independent of the size of the grammatical number effect. We calculated the effect sizes of the sensitivity to the conceptually distributive number (i.e., the interaction between number match and distributivity) and to the grammatical number (i.e., the main effect of number match) in the L1 Spanish and in the L2 English for more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals. It is important to note that more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals were the only group in the present study which showed the sensitivity to the grammatical number as well as the conceptual number in the on-line sentence completion task. The effect size of the conceptual number effect was similar in both languages (η 2 = .22 for L1 Spanish and η 2 = .23 for L2 English), whereas the effect size of the grammatical number effect was smaller in L1 Spanish (η 2 = .27) than in L2 English (η 2 = .54). These results suggest that the size of the distributive number effect is independent of the size of the grammatical number effect and the locus of the effect of the conceptual agreement appears to be at the first stage rather than the second stage.

The critical finding in the present study is that the dissociation between the on-line and off-line tasks resembled that of Hartsuiker et al.’s (1999) aphasic patients who demonstrated sensitivity to the conceptual number during off-line processing but not during on-line processing. As described in the introduction, Hartsuiker and Barkhuysen (2006) assume that an additional memory load or relatively reduced working memory span affects the second control stage of checking the presence of conflict in agreement and the first stage of mapping and maintaining the conceptual number can be constrained only when cognitive resources are pathologically limited. If greater demands on the computation of subject-verb agreement in less proficient L2 are more analogous to pathologically limited cognitive resources in aphasics, it is possible to assume that the mapping and maintenance of the conceptual number can be impaired in on-line processing. In other words, the limited cognitive resources appear to affect not only the second stage but also the first stage, such that when the bilingual’s L2 proficiency is not high enough, the mapping and/or maintenance of the conceptual number is constrained and the checking mechanism is impaired. That is, when the task is less demanding, even less proficient bilinguals can represent and maintain the conceptual number for processing. However, once the task becomes more demanding, the conceptual number is lost at an earlier stage in the process.

In conclusion, the two experiments reported here indicate that the ease of access to the conceptual number of a subject phrase during the process of subject-verb agreement is constrained by level of language proficiency. We have argued that the sensitivity to the conceptual number depends upon the extent to which cognitive resources are available to the individual speaker and how easily the linguistic information facilitates conceptual access. The pattern of data suggests that there is an intricate interplay between cognitive resources and language processing. A goal in future research will be to examine the precise consequences of L2 proficiency in more detail and to better understand its relation to cognitive resources. It will also be critical to identify factors that may indirectly determine the cognitive resources that are available to perform a given task in a given language. Resolving these issues holds implications for models of language processing, for models of how the bilingual’s two languages interact with one another, and for models of how cognitive resources are recruited in planning well-formed utterances.

Acknowledgments

This study was completed by the first author as a master’s thesis under the direction of the second and third authors. The research reported in this paper was supported in part by NSF Grant BCS-0418071 and NIH Grant R01-HD053146 to Judith F. Kroll, by NIH Grant HD50629 and NSF Grant BCS-0821924 to Paola E. Dussias, and by NSF Dissertation Grant BCS-0518814 to Noriko Hoshino and Judith F. Kroll. We thank James Burns, Natalie De Rosa, Mark Minnick, Judith Pirela, and Raul Rios for research assistance. Preliminary results were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, and the 4 th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon.

Appendix. Stimuli for Sentence Completion Task

Note . The items excluded from analyses are indicated with an asterisk.

1 A group of 10 English monolinguals judged all the single-referent and distributive-referent mismatched items according to they refer to one thing or more than one thing with “1” being “one thing” and “2” being “more than one thing.” The mean for each preamble was computed. Six distributive-referent mismatched items whose mean rating was smaller than 1.4 and six single-referent mismatched items whose mean rating was 1.5 or greater than 1.5 and their matched controls were excluded from all the analyses.

2 Two more proficient Spanish-English bilinguals and two less proficient Spanish-English bilinguals did not answer the questions on the self-assessed ratings of proficiency.

3 Participants were also told that multiple items may all be identical so that they understood a token reading.

4 The ratings in English by English monolinguals and those in Spanish by English-Spanish monolinguals were correlated ( r = .632, p < .001) and this correlation also suggests that the lack of sensitivity to the distributive reading in the on-line task in a less proficient language is unlikely to result from “misjudged” items.

  • Azuma T, Van Orden GC. Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language. 1997; 36 :484–504. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Klein R, Viswanathan M. Bilingualism, aging and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging. 2004; 19 :290–303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bock K, Eberhard KM, Cutting JC. Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004; 51 :251–278. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bock K, Miller CA. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology. 1991; 23 :45–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chen L, Shu H, Liu Y, Zhao J, Li P. ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2007; 10 :161–174. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Costa A, Caramazza A. Is lexical selection language specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 1999; 2 :231–244. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Eberhard KM. The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language. 1999; 41 :560–578. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Finkbeiner M, Forster K, Nicol J, Nakamura K. The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004; 51 :1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hartsuiker RJ, Barkhuysen PN. Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2006; 21 :181–204. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hartsuiker RJ, Kolk HHJ, Huinck WJ. Agrammatic production of subject-verb agreement: The effect of conceptual number. Brain and Language. 1999; 69 :119–160. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hasegawa M, Carpenter PA, Just MA. An fMRI study of bilingual sentence comprehension and workload. NeuroImage. 2002; 15 :647–660. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hoshino N, Dussias PE, Kroll JF. Unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania State University; University Park: Producing subject-verb agreement: Does L1 syntax influence L2 performance? (in preparation) [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jiang N. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2004; 25 :603–634. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kotz SA, Elston-Güttler K. The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2 as revealed by reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2004; 17 :215–235. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Michael EB, Gollan TH. Being and becoming bilingual: Individual differences and consequences for language production. In: Kroll JF, De Groot AMB, editors. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 389–410. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Miyake A, Friedman NF. Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In: Healy AF, Bourne LE, editors. Foreign language learning: psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998. pp. 339–364. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nicol J, Greth D. Production of subject-verb agreement in Spanish as a second language. Experimental Psychology. 2003; 50 :196–203. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nicol J, Teller M, Greth D. Production of verb agreement in monolingual, bilingual and second-language speakers. In: Nicol J, editor. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2001. pp. 117–133. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Segalowitz N, Hulstijn J. Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In: Kroll JF, De Groot AMB, editors. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 371–388. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Silverberg S, Samuel A. The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004; 51 :381–398. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van Hell J, Mensies M. Subject-verb agreement in beginning L2 learners and fluent bilinguals. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society of America; Minneapolis, MN. November 18–21.2004. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Van Heuven WJB, Dijkstra A, Grainger J. Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language. 1998; 39 :458–483. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vigliocco G, Butterworth B, Garrett MF. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition. 1996; 61 :261–298. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vigliocco G, Butterworth B, Semenza C. Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language. 1995; 34 :186–215. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vigliocco G, Hartsuiker RJ. The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128 :442–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vigliocco G, Hartsuiker RJ, Jarema G, Kolk HHJ. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1996; 11 :407–442. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vigliocco G, Zilli T. Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1999; 28 :623–648. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

What Is Subject-Verb Agreement?

Matt Ellis

Subject-verb agreement is the grammatical rule that the verb or verbs in a sentence must match the number, person, and gender of the subject; in English, the verb needs to match just the number and sometimes the person. For example, the singular subject it and the plural subject they use different versions of the same verb: “it goes . . . ” and “they go . . . ”

Learning the rules for subject-verb agreement can be difficult at first, but with enough practice, you’ll find they start to make more sense. Below, we explain everything you need to tackle any subject-verb agreement exercises you come across, including demonstrations of how they work with lots of subject-verb agreement examples.  Give your writing extra polish Grammarly helps you communicate confidently Write with Grammarly

What is subject-verb agreement?

Subject-verb agreement, also called “subject-verb concord,” refers to matching the subject and verb of a sentence in tense, aspect, and mood (abbreviated as TAM), which translates to number, person, and gender. 

English doesn’t use grammatical gender (except for pronouns ), and only the verb be changes based on whether it’s first, second, or third person. That means most English subject-verb agreement is about quantity: if the subject is singular, the verb must be singular; if the subject is plural, the verb must be plural. 

Even this can get confusing, though, because talking in the first-person singular (“I climb the fence”) uses the same verb format as talking in the first-person plural (“We climb the fence”). Aside from the verb be , subject-verb agreement in English adapts verbs to the third-person singular (“It climbs the fence”). 

Usage and subject-verb agreement examples

Basically, most subjects except third-person singular use the standard form of a verb in the present tense. 

The dogs roll in the mud. 

I need to catch my breath. 

You look like a celebrity! 

However, if the subject is third-person singular, you must use the singular form of the verb when speaking in the present tense. Most of the time, this means adding an -s to the end of the verb. 

The dog roll s in the mud. 

She need s to catch her breath. 

He look s like a celebrity!

If the verb ends in -x , – ss , – sh , – ch , – tch , or – zz , you add – es to the end to match the third-person singular. 

My snake hiss es to say “I love you.” 

She only match es with creeps in online dating. 

If the verb ends in a consonant + y , remove the y and add – ies to match the third-person singular. 

Atlas carr ies the world on his shoulders. 

The new drone fl ies higher than the old one. 

However, with words that end in a vowel + y , follow the normal format and add only – s to make the third-person singular. 

My roommate stay s in his bedroom from morning to night. 

With the exception of the verb be , these guidelines apply to irregular verbs as well as regular verbs .  

Our father eats with the ferocity of a tiger. 

So why does the verb be have so many exceptions? The most common verb in English, be doesn’t just represent a general state of existence; it’s also an auxiliary verb necessary for the continuous tenses. 

In English, be is the only verb that changes based on the person. If you’re using the verb be , alone or as part of a continuous tense, the subject-verb agreement rules require that you match both the number and the person . Here’s a quick reminder of how to conjugate be in the singular and plural of each person: 

Considering how frequently be is used in English, it’s best to memorize this chart so you can apply the proper subject-verb agreement instinctively. 

You are always welcome in our home. 

I am running a marathon tomorrow. 

It is raining even though it is sunny. 

If the subject-verb agreement rules seem complicated, there is some good news: the simple past and simple future don’t change based on the number or person of the subject . Both singular and plural subjects use the same form for those tenses. 

They will be here tomorrow. 

He will be here tomorrow. 

The potatoes grew overnight!

The potato grew overnight! 

The only exception is, again, the verb be , which changes between was and were based on the subject in the simple past tense. 

I was young once.

We were young once. 

On the other hand, the perfect tenses change their auxiliary verb depending on the number of the subject. Singular subjects use has , and plural subjects use have . 

They have not seen the movie yet, so no spoilers. 

She has not seen the movie yet, so no spoilers. 

That covers the basics for subject-verb agreement in English. Still, there are some particularly difficult areas and more precise rules for special situations, which we explain below. 

Advanced subject-verb agreement rules

Here’s a list of some additional subject-verb agreement rules to clear up the more problematic areas. If you’re still confused, review the subject-verb agreement examples to see how they work. 

1 When using the negative form in the present tense, only the verb do needs to match the subject. 

She does not like reading before bed. 

She likes reading before bed. 

2 Likewise, in questions that involve the word do , only do needs to match the subject. 

Do you know where the train station is? 

Does anyone know where the train station is? 

3 If the subject consists of multiple nouns joined by the conjunction and , treat the subject as plural and use the plural form of the verb. 

Lucas and Maxine are in love!

Only Lucas is in love. 

However, some common phrases that form a single unit can act as singular. 

This bed and breakfast is delightful! 

4 If the subject consists of multiple singular nouns joined by or , treat the subject as singular. 

Penne or rigatoni works fine for the recipe. 

However, if the subject consists of multiple plural nouns joined by or , treat the subject as plural. 

Cats or dogs make good friends. 

If there’s a combination of singular and plural nouns joined by or , the verb follows the number of the final one listed. 

The teacher or the students have to inform the principal. 

The students or the teacher has to inform the principal. 

5 If there is more than one active verb, as with compound predicates , all the verbs must agree with the subject. 

After work, I go shopping, pick up the kids, cook dinner, and then relax for the night. 

6 Mass nouns , otherwise known as “uncountable nouns” or “noncount nouns,” act as singular subjects. 

Love makes the world go around. 

7 Collective nouns can be either singular or plural, depending on whether they act together or separately. 

[Together, singular] The team goes to practice at 4:00. 

[Separately, plural] The team go to their own homes after practice. 

8 Verbs used in alternative forms, such as gerunds , infinitives , or participles , do not need to follow subject-verb agreement. However, the main verbs of the sentence still do. 

The coach makes running mandatory. 

The coaches make running mandatory. 

9 Unless you’re using an appositive or other descriptive phrase, do not put a comma between subjects and verbs .

The holiday is becoming a total disaster. 

The holiday, which I was looking forward to, is becoming a total disaster. 

10 The words each and every count as singular when they’re used as the subject, even if they’re followed by multiple nouns. 

Each window and door needs to be sealed. 

Every doctor, nurse, and technician gets free training here. 

11 Likewise, these words always act as singular subjects, even when they describe more than one thing:

Everybody loves using correct grammar! 

Either blue or green works for the wallpaper color. 

12 If additional phrases come between the subject and the verb, the verb must still agree with the subject. These sentences can be tricky, so be careful. 

A group consisting of Professor Lidenbrock, the Icelandic guide Hans Bjelke, and the professor’s nephew Axel departs for the volcano. 

Be particularly careful of subjects that use the phrase “one of . . . ” The word one is singular, even when followed by plural nouns. 

One of the world’s leading scientists still has trouble speaking in public. 

13 In the active vs. passive voice debate, the verb in the passive voice still follows whatever word acts as the subject. 

They pay the electric bill online. 

The electric bill is paid by them online. 

14 When choosing between “ there is . . . ” and “there are . . . ,” the verb should match the number of the noun that follows it. The same goes for sentences beginning with “here . . . ”

There is a new map in the DLC. 

There are new maps in the DLC. 

15 Similarly, words that indicate a portion, including percentages, use the number of the noun they describe. This noun is typically the object of the phrase “of . . . ”

All of the book is ruined!

All of the books are ruined!

Some of the film is funny. 

Some of the films are funny. 

Fifty percent of the house is made of wood. 

Fifty percent of the houses are made of wood. 

16 When referring to distances, periods of time, or amounts of money—taken as a whole—use the singular form of the verb. 

Twenty dollars is too much for IMAX! 

17 Be careful of nouns that exist only in the plural form; they sometimes act as singular. 

The news has been depressing lately. 

Politics is getting too combative. 

However, some of these nouns act as plural. 

The scissors do not work. 

If a plural noun is preceded by the word pair , treat the subject as singular because pair is singular.  

The pair of scissors does not work. 

Subject-verb agreement FAQs

Subject-verb agreement is the grammatical rule that the subject and verb in a sentence should use the same number, person, and gender. With the exception of the verb be , in English subject-verb agreement is about matching the number. 

How does subject-verb agreement work?

In English, if a subject is singular, use the singular form of the verb; if the subject is plural, use the plural form of the verb. The only exception to this rule is the verb be , which uses different forms based on both number and person. 

What are examples of subject-verb agreement?

Look at these two sentences: “Cats make great pets” and “A cat makes a great pet.” The plural subject cats uses the plural form of the verb without – s at the end ( make ). The singular subject a cat uses the singular form of the verb with -s at the end ( make s ). 

literature review on subject verb agreement

  • How it works

The Basics of the Subject-Verb Agreement

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 18th, 2021 , Revised On August 24, 2023

The subject and the verb in a sentence are usually placed next to each other. The verb explains the subject’s action and clarifies what or who is doing something. The subject-verb agreement makes it easier for the readers to understand the context of the sentence and the words within it.

Find the subject (the thing or the person doing something) and the verb (a word describing the action of the subject) in a sentence. You will notice that a singular subject accompanies a singular verb. Similarly, when the subject is plural, the verb linked to it will also be plural.

The subject-verb agreement is simple to apply in straightforward and short  sentences  like the ones shown in the above table, but it can be tricky in more complicated and longer sentences. Continue to read this article to learn about the basic rules of the subject-verb agreement and typical mistakes.

Compound Subjects

When two or more subjects are connected to one  verb , they are called compound subjects. Look how the subjects are related to figure out whether a singular or plural verb will be the most appropriate choice.

Here are the rules to base your decision:

Subjects Connected With “And”

Make sure to use a plural verb when subjects are connected to each other with ‘and’.

  • Mike and Emma completed their assignment in due time.
  • A car and a motorbike were involved in the accident.

In some cases, you may see two or more nouns put together to form a single entity. Use a singular verb when two nouns appear together, referring to the same thing.

  • Mac and cheese burger is the best
  • The new bed and breakfast are getting popular in the neighborhood.

Subjects Connected With “Or”

Use a singular verb when the subjects are connected with neither—nor, nor, either—or, or.

  • Just the coal or the wood is enough.
  • Either he or she causes this situation.

However, use a plural verb if the subjects are also plural.

  • Either the students or the tutors are responsible for the poor results.

In some cases, you may notice both singular and plural nouns together in the compound subject. The verb is expressed in the form of the subject next to it.

When the Subject and Verb Aren’t Together

Often the subject and verb in a sentence aren’t together, which means the verb doesn’t directly follow the subject. In such cases, it is easy to tie up the verb with an incorrect subject. This particularly applies to longer sentences with multiple clauses and phrases.

  • The rules of the university are
  • A basket of baby kittens was in the garage.
  • A large number of researchers, each of whom is an expert in their field of study, is gathering for the annual science conference.
  • The rules of the university are strict.
  • Many researchers, each of whom is an expert in their field of study, are gathering for the annual science conference.

Confusing Phrases Like “As Well As”

Phrases like “As well as” are pretty different from the conjunction and. While the subjects connecting through “and” take a plural form, you cannot put phrases like “along with”, “in addition to”, and “as well as” alongside the verb.

The verb will be used in the singular form if the subject is singular.

  • Mark and his classmates leaves the classroom.
  • Mark, along with his classmates, leave the classroom.
  • The faculty of the department, as well as the Dean, is keen to initiate the project.
  • Mark and his classmates leave the classroom.
  • Mark, along with his classmates, leaves the classroom.
  • The faculty of the department, as well as the Dean, are keen to initiate the project.

Indefinite Pronouns

Treat indefinite  pronouns  (none, every, somewhere, anything, no one, someone, anyone, anywhere, other) as singular subjects unless they refer to multiple things or amounts. Indefinite nouns are non-specific things, persons, and places.

Some indefinite pronouns can be regarded as either singular or plural depending on whether they discuss a part of a single item or multiple items.

When the Verb Comes Before Subjects

In some cases, the verb appears before the subject in a sentence, particularly when the sentence starts with “here” and “there’. The correct subject must be found and matched with the proper form of a verb. Here and there cannot be the subjects.

  • There are many types of research.
  • Here is a response to your query.

In longer sentences that contain multiple clauses and phrases, identifying the correct subject can be a bit of a challenge. To avoid confusion, make sure to be extra careful when beginning a sentence with “here” or “there”.

Quantities, Numbers, and Amounts

When working with quantities, numbers, figures, and percentages, the correct verb agreement hinges on what you are discussing. Make sure to look past the numbers and amounts to identify the true subject.

Always match the verb with the noun when talking about a specific quantity or number.

  • Only 50% of the total participants have agreed to respond.
  • Two inches of wire from the left side surrounds the core.
  • More than 200 soldiers were killed in the war.

Proportions

In the English language, when we describe a part or portion of something, it takes the form of “most of”, “the majority of”, “some of”, “one-third of”, etc. To avoid mistakes, determine whether the noun you aim to describe is singular or plural, and then match it to the verb.

  • The majority of the participants of the study were females.
  • Most of the research in this field is unreliable.
  • Two-thirds of the participants were given access to SurveyMonkey.

Uncountable and Collective Nouns

It can be challenging to figure whether to treat uncountable and collective nouns as singular or plural.

Uncountable Nouns

Uncountable nouns define intangible ideas or messes uncountable in nature, such as poverty, popularity, research, water, and more. They use a singular verb.

  • This research is unreliable.
  • Water flows down the river.
  • The popularity of university X is increasing.

P.S: The term “data” can take either a singular or plural form of the verb, even though it is a plural noun.

  • This research aims to collect data on the use of bamboo as an alternative to plastic products. Data was collected over a period of 3 months.

Collective Nouns

Collective nouns refer to a group of things or people as a single solid unit: team, committee, union, organization, staff, faculty, etc. Whether it takes singular o plural nouns depends on the style of the English language. While British English uses a plural verb with collection nouns, U.S. English tends to take a singular verb. This rule applies to the names of organizations and business firms.

However, the rule is flexible in both styles of English. You can refer to the actions of the collection noun as the individual actions or a whole depending on what best fits the context.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and acronyms take a singular verb. Find out whether the full version of the acronym or abbreviation is a singular, plural, or collection noun. Apply the rules above to ensure correct subject-verb agreement.

  • The DNA is cell’s cytoplasm
  • The RPM falls rapidly.
  • The NDA was signed by the employee.
  • In addition to oil, HNS is a common form of cargo.

In the examples above, RPM (“revolutions per minute”) refers to a stand-alone number, so it takes a singular verb. HNS (“hazardous and noxious substances”), on the other hand, is used to describe multiple things, so it takes a plural verb.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many rules are there in subject-verb agreement.

Subject-verb agreement has a few key rules:

  • Singular subjects take singular verbs.
  • Plural subjects take plural verbs.
  • Use “s” for third-person singular subjects.
  • Collective nouns vary based on context.
  • Singular indefinite pronouns need singular verbs.
  • Compound subjects can be singular or plural.

You May Also Like

The article presents the basic word order rules and sentence structure templates for avoiding common “adjectives and adverbs” mistakes in forming English sentences.

Parallel structure is the continuation of a single form of grammar in two or more parts of a sentence. Learn to use parallel structure in writing with examples.

Pronouns are words that make reference to both specific and nonspecific things and people. This article explains the use of pronouns in academic writing with examples

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

DMCA.com Protection Status

COMPANY DETAILS

Research-Prospect-Writing-Service

  • How It Works

IMAGES

  1. Subject Verb Agreement Rules and Useful Examples • 7ESL

    literature review on subject verb agreement

  2. Subject and Verb Agreement: Using Literature Lesson Plan for 7th

    literature review on subject verb agreement

  3. Subject Verb Agreement: Match Your Words

    literature review on subject verb agreement

  4. Subject-Verb Agreement

    literature review on subject verb agreement

  5. Subject-verb agreement (With example)

    literature review on subject verb agreement

  6. Subject-Verb Agreement Study Guide

    literature review on subject verb agreement

VIDEO

  1. Subject-Verb Agreement

  2. Subject Verb Agreement

  3. Subject Verb Agreement

  4. 120 Tricky Examples of Subject Verb Agreement (English Grammar Lesson)

  5. Grammar Series: Subject Verb Agreement Mini Lesson with Examples

  6. Subject-Verb Agreement in Academic Writing

COMMENTS

  1. PDF A Study of Subject-Verb Agreement: From Novice Writers to Expert ...

    The researcher tried to investigate the difficulties in the use of subject-verb agreement in their writing and also to determine remedial actions that need to be taken in order to overcome their difficulties in using subject-verb agreement correctly in their written performance. 2. Literature review

  2. (PDF) A Study of Subject-Verb Agreement: From Novice ...

    A Study of Subject-Verb Agreement: From Novice Writers to Expert Writers Authors: Surina Nayan Universiti Teknologi MARA Kamaruzaman Jusoff University of Malaya Abstract Students in higher...

  3. An Analysis of Subject-verb Agreement Errors on Students' Writing

    The findings of the research are as follow: 1) Students' subject and verb agreements' errors viewed surface taxonomy's perspective are in the form of misformation, omission, and addition, while...

  4. PDF Grammatical Competence of Junior High School Students

    The study determined the level of grammatical competence of 177 Junior High School students and on the design and development of a supplementary learning material to enhance the grammatical competence of the students along subject-verb agreement. the study revealed that students favored textbooks as their preferred reading material at home.

  5. Subject-Verb Agreement Error Handling using NLP: A Literature Review

    In this paper, a comprehensive review has been provided of the existing literature on Subject-Verb Agreement error detection and correction in Natural Language Processing. This review study focuses on key techniques that are used in Rule-based, Machine learning, and Deep learning approaches to detect and correct the errors.

  6. PDF Attending to the Grammatical Errors of Students using Constructive ...

    subject verb agreement rules, they are still not able to write without committing subject verb agreement errors in their writings. The grammatical errors in the English of students at the university level range from subject-verb ... 1.1. Literature Review The teaching of grammar occupies a central part in the teaching and learning of a language ...

  7. PDF A Study of Grammatical Errors of Subject Verb Agreement in Writing Made

    The term 'subject-verb agreement' (SVA) refers to the rules of grammar in English where the subject usually agrees or matches with the verb (or verbs) used in a sentence. In reference to this grammatical rule, subject-verb agreement means that the subject and the verb must agree in case and in number in the same sentence.

  8. Subject-Verb Agreement

    Subject-verb agreement means that the subject of the sentence matches the verb describing its action. This helps your reader understand who or what is doing something and makes your writing easier to read. First, identify the subject (the person or thing doing the action) and the verb (the action word) in a sentence.

  9. (Pdf) an Analysis on The Subject-verb Agreement Errors in Writing

    Likewise, Napitulu (2017) demonstrates that S-V agreement becomes the second dominant problem found in the writing of undergraduate students at the department of English literature at Methodist ...

  10. PDF A Quantitative Approach Analysis on Subject-Verb Agreement Problem

    This research also relates to subject-verb agreement errors and their solutions. It is mostly based on the Rebecca Elliott definition, a singular verb comes with singular subject and a plural verb comes with plural object. Other definitions are also considered during the analysis of data. Literature Review

  11. Subject-Verb agreement

    The basic subject-verb agreement rule in English is very simple. It states that a singular subject takes a singular verb, while a plural subject takes a plural verb. However, there are a few problems with this formulation of the rule that need to be mentioned. To begin with, the rule makes it sound as if each and every verb has one singular ...

  12. Mini-Grammar Review: Subject Verb Agreement

    Subjects and verbs must agree in two ways: number (singular or plural) and person (first, second, or third). These two general rules hold through all the different subject/verb guidelines. As a rule, plural subjects end in - s and plural verbs do not end in - s. In this section, the noun is in bold and the verb is in italic.

  13. PDF The Analysis of Subject-verb Agreement Errors on Stu ' Writing

    among students in the level of a beginner is a subject-verb agreement, which is the inability to match the form of the subject and the verb following it. Subject-verb agreement refers to the use of subject and verb which must be in line in singular and plural (Eastwood, 1994: 191). If the subject is in the singular form, the verb

  14. Subject-Verb Agreement Review

    Subject-Verb Agreement Review How Subjects and Verbs Agree. We know that a sentence needs a verb and a noun (or pronoun) to be complete. Nouns or pronouns that perform the action of the verb are called the of the sentence. The of the sentence is the "doer" of the action

  15. Academic Guides: Grammar: Subject-Verb Agreement

    When a compound subject contains both a singular and a plural noun or pronoun joined by "or" or "nor," the verb should agree with the part of the subject that is closest to the verb. This is also called the rule of proximity. Example: The student or the committee members write every day. Example: The committee members or the student writes ...

  16. PDF An Analysis of Students' Ability In Using Subject-Verb Agreement

    The errors in subject-verb agreement that has been found such as the students are still confused in applying subject-verb agreement rules and their lack of knowledge of the rules of the target language is the main factor causing the written production errors. Then, another research about subject-verb agreement by

  17. Subject-Verb Agreement: Definition, Examples, & Exercises

    Need help preparing for your Grammar exam? The Basics of Subject-Verb Agreement What is Subject-Verb Agreement? Subject-verb agreement refers to the relationship between the subject and predicate of the sentence. Subjects and verbs must always agree in two ways: tense and number.

  18. (Pdf) a Study of Grammatical Errors of Subject Verb Agreement in

    This makes subject-verb agreement in English seen simple, but errors (Alahmadi, 2019; Stapa & Malaysia, 2010) like the ones underlined in (1) are not uncommon in the writing of high school and ...

  19. Does Philippine English subject-verb agreement exist in academic

    Subject-verb agreement is an overlooked grammatical aspect of Philippine English especially in academic registers. This study analyses Philippine English subject-verb agreement in published research articles (RAs) written by Filipino researchers across disciplines. Using Bautista's subject-verb agreement framework and D'Souza's ...

  20. Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on

    Abstract. Subject-verb agreement is a computation that is often difficult to execute perfectly in the first language (L1) and even more difficult to produce skillfully in a second language (L2). In this study, we examined the way in which bilingual speakers complete sentence fragments in a manner that reflects access to both grammatical and ...

  21. What Is Subject-Verb Agreement? Definition and Examples

    Subject-verb agreement is the grammatical rule that the verb or verbs in a sentence must match the number, person, and gender of the subject; in English, the verb needs to match just the number and sometimes the person.

  22. The Basics of the Subject-Verb Agreement

    The verb explains the subject's action and clarifies what or who is doing something. The subject-verb agreement makes it easier for the readers to understand the context of the sentence and the words within it. Find the subject (the thing or the person doing something) and the verb (a word describing the action of the subject) in a sentence.

  23. Subject-Verb Agreement

    "The basic rule of sentence agreement is simple: A subject must agree with its verb in number. Number means singular or plural." (Rozakis, 2003, p. 62) The subject may be either singular or plural, and the verb selection should match the subject.