Bond, Oliver, Greville G Corbett, Marina Chumakina and Dunstan Brown (note. Archi: Complexities of agreement from a cross perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The agreement often adds redundancy to languages. In addition, the agreement allows, in some languages, to change the order of words without resorting to the persons concerned. In Swahili, with its many classes of names, if the arguments of a verb have different classes, one can use a different order of words from the standard subject-verb object (SVO) because the agreement clearly indicates which words belong to the subject and which words belong to the objects. The frequent characteristics that can trigger a grammatical agreement are: the agreement, which is based on the supratogrammic figures mentioned above, is a formal agreement, contrary to a fictitious agreement that does so on the basis of meaning. The word « agreement, » if one refers to a grammatical rule, means that the words used by an author must be aligned with number and sex (if any). For more details on the two main types of agreements, please see below: Object-Verb-Accord and Noun Pronoun. Siewierska, Anna.
1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical marker: Why objects do not succeed. Folia Linguistica 33. 225-251. A comprehensive treatment of Morphosyntax Germanic bending systems, which are used in distributed morphology (DM; see Walnut 1997, citing morphological approaches; and Morris Halle and Alex Marantz, 1963, « Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, » in The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth L. Hale, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 11-176). Although this work does not involve concordance (but rather flexion in general), this work is decisive enough to determine the division of labour between morphology and syntax when dealing formally with chords in a minimalist/DM framework. The agreement is defined as the systematic covariance of one element with another. The most undisputed configuration of the agreement is that between a controller – an item that is defined for a value of an agreement functionality per se – and the purpose of the agreement is that it is the element that reflects a deferred functionality value of the controller. However, the distribution of concordance morphological markers is much wider than the controller and objective configurations: objectives can express match values for features that are not visible on the controller, and even show concordance morphologies in the absence of a lexical controller. A second source of variation is the fact that, in some contexts, one chooses between syntactic agreement (with the formal characteristics of the controller) and semantic agreement (with the semantic characteristics of the reference company).