View source for Subject (grammar)

{{Short description|Person or thing about whom a sentence is made}}
{{Globalize |date=October 2016 |discuss=Talk:Subject (grammar)#Globalize }}
A '''subject''' is one of the two main parts of a [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] (the other being the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]], which modifies the subject).{{Grammatical categories}}

For the simple [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] ''John runs'', ''John'' is the subject, a person or thing about whom the statement is made. 

Traditionally the subject is the word or [[phrase]] which controls the [[verb]] in the [[clause]], that is to say with which the verb [[Agreement (linguistics)|agrees]] (''John <u>is</u>'' but ''John and Mary <u>are</u>''). If there is no verb, as in ''Nicola{{snd}} what an idiot!'', or if the verb has a different subject, as in ''John{{snd}} I can't stand him!'', then 'John' is not considered to be the grammatical subject, but can be described as the ''[[Topic and comment|topic]]'' of the sentence.

While these definitions apply to simple English sentences, defining the subject is more difficult in more complex sentences and languages. For example, in the sentence ''It is difficult to learn French'', the subject seems to be the word ''it'', and yet arguably{{According to whom|date=September 2019}} the real subject (the thing that is difficult) is ''to learn French''. A sentence such as ''It was John who broke the window'' is more complex still. Sentences beginning with a [[Locative case|locative]] phrase, such as ''There is a problem, isn't there?'', in which the [[tag question]] ''isn't there?'' seems to imply that the subject is the [[adverb]] ''there'', also create difficulties for the definition of subject.<ref>Comrie (1989), pp. 105–106.</ref>

In languages such as [[Latin language|Latin]] and [[German language|German]] the subject of a verb has a form which is known as the [[nominative case]]: for example, the form 'he' (not 'him' or 'his') is used in sentences such as ''<u>he</u> ran'', He ''broke the window'', He ''is a teacher'', He ''was hit by a motorist''. But there are some languages such as [[Basque language|Basque]] or [[Greenlandic language|Greenlandic]], in which the form of a [[noun]] or [[pronoun]] when the verb is [[Intransitive verb|intransitive]] (''he ran'') is different from when the verb is [[Transitive verb|transitive]] (''he broke the window''). In these languages, which are known as [[Ergative–absolutive language|ergative]] languages, the concept of subject may not apply at all.

==Technical definition==
The subject ([[list of glossing abbreviations|glossing abbreviations]]: {{sc|'''sub'''}} or {{sc|'''su'''}}) is, according to a tradition that can be traced back to [[Aristotle]] (and that is associated with [[phrase structure grammar]]s), one of the two main [[constituent (linguistics)|constituents]] of a [[clause]], the other constituent being the [[predicate (grammar)|predicate]], whereby the predicate says something about the subject.<ref>See Conner (1968:43ff.) for a discussion of the traditional subject concept.</ref><ref>The division of the clause into a subject and a predicate is a view of sentence structure that is adopted by most English grammars, e.g. Conner (1968:43), Freeborn (1995:121), and Biber et al. (1999:122).</ref> According to a tradition associated with [[predicate logic]] and [[dependency grammar]]s, the subject is the most prominent overt [[argument (linguistics)|argument]] of the predicate. By this position all languages with arguments have subjects, though there is no way to define this consistently for all languages.<ref>See Tesnière (1969:103-105) for the alternative concept of sentence structure that puts the subject and the object on more equal footing since they can both be dependents of a (finite) verb.</ref> Even in languages such as English, there is not always a perfect match between the semantic [[predicand]] and the subject, as a predicate may be predicated on an argument in another clause (see [[Raising (syntax)|raising]]).

From a functional perspective, a subject is a phrase that conflates [[nominative case]] with the [[topic (grammar)|topic]]. Many languages (such as those with [[Ergative–absolutive language|ergative]] or [[Austronesian alignment]]) do not do this, and by this definition would not have subjects.

All of these positions see the subject determining person and number [[agreement (grammar)|agreement]] on the [[finite verb]], as exemplified by the difference in verb forms between ''he eats'' and ''they eat''. The stereotypical subject immediately precedes the finite verb in declarative sentences and represents an [[Agent (grammar)|agent]] or a theme. The subject is often a multi-word [[Constituent (linguistics)|constituent]] and should be distinguished from [[parts of speech]], which, roughly, classify [[words]] within constituents.

In the example sentences below, the subjects are indicated in boldface.
# '''The dictionary''' helps me find words.
# Strangely enough, '''ice cream''' appeared on the table.
# '''The man who is sitting over there''' told me that he just bought a ticket to Tahiti.
# '''Nothing else''' is good enough.
# '''That nothing else is good enough''' shouldn't come as a surprise.
# '''To eat six different kinds of vegetables a day''' is healthy.
# Despite her objections, '''he''' sold us ten bags of clothes.

== Forms of the subject ==
{{linguistics}}
The subject is a constituent that can be realized in numerous forms, many of which are listed in the following table:

{| class="wikitable"
|-  
| Noun (phrase) or pronoun || '''The large car''' stopped outside our house.
|-
| A [[gerund]] (phrase) || '''His constant hammering''' was annoying.  
|-
| A ''to''-infinitive (phrase)|| '''To read''' is easier than to write.
|-
| A full ''that''-clause || '''That he had traveled the world''' was known to everyone.
|-
| A free relative clause || '''Whatever he did''' was always of interest.
|-
| A direct quotation || '''I love you''' is often heard these days.
|-   
| Zero (but implied) subject || Take out the trash!
|-
| An [[Syntactic expletive|expletive]]|| '''It''' is raining.
|-
| A [[cataphor]]ic ''it'' || '''It''' was known to everyone that he had traveled the world. 
|-
|A preposition phrase
|'''After lunch''' is too late.
|}

==Criteria for identifying subjects==
There are several criteria for identifying subjects:<ref>See Biber et al. (1999:123) for a similar list of criteria for identifying subjects.</ref>

#<u>Subject-verb agreement</u>: The subject agrees with the finite verb in person and number, e.g. ''I am'' vs. ''*I is''.<ref>For basic discussions of subject-verb agreement, see for instance Barry (1998:68f.), Fergusson and Manser (1998:36f.), and Jurafsky and Martin (2000:366f.).</ref>
#<u>Position occupied</u>: The subject typically immediately precedes the finite verb in declarative clauses, e.g. ''Tom laughs''.
#<u>Semantic role</u>: A typical subject in the active voice is an agent or theme, i.e. it performs the action expressed by the verb or when it is a theme, it receives a property assigned to it by the predicate.

Of these three criteria, the first one (agreement) is the most reliable. The subject agrees with the finite verb in person and number (and sometimes in gender as well). The second and third criterion are merely strong tendencies that can be flouted in certain constructions, e.g.
#'''Tom''' is studying chemistry. <small>- The three criteria agree identifying ''Tom'' as the subject.</small>
#Is '''Tom''' studying chemistry? <small>- The 1st and the 3rd criteria identify ''Tom'' as the subject.</small>
#'''Chemistry''' is being studied (by Tom). <small>- The 1st and the 2nd criteria identify ''Chemistry'' as the subject.</small>

In the first sentence, all three criteria combine to identify ''Tom'' as the subject. In the second sentence, which involves the [[subject-auxiliary inversion]] of a [[yes/no-question]], the subject immediately follows the finite verb (instead of immediately preceding it), which means the second criterion is flouted. And in the third sentence expressed in the passive voice, the 1st and the 2nd criterion combine to identify ''chemistry'' as the subject, whereas the third criterion suggests that ''by Tom'' should be the subject because ''Tom'' is an agent.
{{ordered list|start=4|<u>Morphological case</u>: In languages that have case systems, the subject is marked by a specific case, often the nominative.|<u>Omission</u>: Many languages systematically omit a subject that is known in discourse.}}

The fourth criterion is better applicable to other languages, the exception being the subject and object forms of pronouns, ''I/me'', ''he/him'', ''she/her, they/them''.

The fifth criterion is helpful in languages that typically drop pronominal subjects, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Latin, Greek, Japanese, and Mandarin. Though most of these languages are rich in verb forms for determining the person and number of the subject, Japanese and Mandarin have no such forms at all. This dropping pattern does not automatically make a language a [[pro-drop language]]. In other languages, like English and French, most clauses should have a subject, which should be either a noun (phrase), a pronoun, or a clause. This is also true when the clause has no element to be represented by it. This is why verbs like ''rain'' must have a subject such as ''it'', even if nothing is actually being represented by ''it''. In this case, ''it'' is an [[Syntactic expletive|expletive]] and a [[dummy pronoun]]. In imperative clauses, most languages elide the subject, even in languages which typically requires a subject to be present, e.g.

*Give it to me.
*Dā mihi istud. (Latin)
*Me dá isso. (Brazilian Portuguese)
*Dá-me isso. (European Portuguese)
*Dámelo. (Spanish)
*Dammelo. (Italian)

==Coordinated sentences==
One criterion for identifying a subject in various languages is the possibility of its omission in coordinated sentences such as the following:<ref>Discussion in Comrie (1989), pp.111ff.</ref> The man hit the woman and [the man] came here.

In a passive construction, the patient becomes the subject by this criterion: The woman was hit by the man and [the woman] came here.

In ergative languages such as the nearly extinct Australian language [[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]], in a transitive sentence it is the patient rather than the agent that can be omitted in such sentences: ''Balan d<sup>y</sup>ugumbil baŋgul yaraŋgu balgan, banin<sup>y</sup>u'' 'The man (''bayi yara'') hit the woman (''balan d<sup>y</sup>ugumbil'') and [she] came here'

This suggests that in ergative languages of this kind the patient is actually the subject in a transitive sentence.

==Difficult cases==
There are certain constructions that challenge the criteria just introduced for identifying subjects. The following subsections briefly illustrate three such cases: 1) existential ''there''-constructions, 2) [[inverse copular construction]]s, and 3) [[subject-verb inversion|locative inversion]] constructions.

===Existential ''there''-constructions===
Existential ''there''-constructions allow for varying interpretations about what should count as the subject, e.g.
#'''There'''{{'}}s problems.
#There are '''problems'''.

In sentence 1, the first criterion (agreement) and the second criterion (position occupied) suggest that ''there'' is the subject, whereas the third criterion (semantic role) suggests rather that ''problems'' is the subject. In sentence 2, in contrast, agreement and semantic role suggest that ''problems'' is the subject, whereas position occupied suggests that ''there'' is the subject. In such cases then, one can take the first criterion as the most telling; the subject should agree with the finite verb.<ref>For a discussion of the subject status of existential ''there'', see Biber et al. (1999:944).</ref>

===Inverse copular constructions===
Another difficult case for identifying the subject is the so-called ''[[inverse copular constructions]]'', e.g.<ref>For in depth studies of inverse copular constructions, see Moro (1997) and Mikkelsen (2005).</ref>
#'''The boys''' are a chaotic force around here.
#'''A chaotic force around here''' is the boys. <small>- Inverse copular construction</small>

The criteria combine to identify ''the boys'' as the subject in sentence 1. But if that is the case, then one might argue that ''the boys'' is also the subject in the similar sentence 2, even though two of the criteria (agreement and position occupied) suggest that ''a chaotic force around here'' is the subject. When confronted with such data, one has to make a decision that is less than fully arbitrary. If one assumes again that criterion one (agreement) is the most reliable, one can usually identify a subject.

===Locative inversion constructions===
Yet another type of construction that challenges the subject concept is locative [[Subject-verb inversion|inversion]], e.g.
#'''Spiders''' have been breeding under the bed.
#Under the bed have been breeding '''spiders'''. <small>- Locative inversion</small>
# *Where have been breeding '''spiders'''? <small>- Failed attempt to question the location</small>
#Where have '''spiders''' been breeding? <small>- Successful attempt to question the location</small>

The criteria easily identify ''spiders'' as the subject in sentence 1. In sentence 2, however, the position occupied suggests that ''under the bed'' should be construed as the subject, whereas agreement and semantic role continue to identify ''spiders'' as the subject. This is so despite the fact that ''spiders'' in sentence 2 appears after the string of verbs in the canonical position of an object. The fact that sentence 3 is bad but sentence 4 is good reveals that something unusual is indeed afoot, since the attempt to question the location fails if the subject does not immediately follow the finite verb. This further observation speaks against taking ''spiders'' as the subject in sentence 2. But if ''spiders'' is not the subject, then the sentence must lack a subject entirely.

==Subject-less clauses==
The existence of subject-less clauses can be construed as particularly problematic for theories of sentence structure that build on the binary subject-predicate division. A simple sentence is defined as the combination of a subject and a predicate, but if no subject is present, how can one have a sentence? Subject-less clauses are absent from English for the most part, but they are not unusual in related languages. In German, for instance, impersonal passive clauses can lack a recognizable subject, e.g.

{{interlinear|indent=3
| Gestern wurde nur geschlafen.
| yesterday was only slept
| 'Everybody slept yesterday.'}}

The word ''gestern'' 'yesterday' is generally construed as an adverb, which means it cannot be taken as the subject in this sentence. Certain verbs in German also require a dative or accusative object instead of a nominative subject, e.g.

{{interlinear|indent=3
| Mir graut davor.
| me-DAT {is uneasy} {about it}
| 'I am uneasy about it.'}}

Since subjects are typically marked by the nominative case in German (the fourth criterion above), one can argue that this sentence lacks a subject, for the relevant verb argument appears in the dative case, not in the nominative.

Impersonal sentences in Scottish Gaelic can occasionally have a very similar form to the first German example where an actor is omitted. In the following sentence, the word ‘chaidh’ ("went") is an auxiliary carrying tense and is used in an impersonal or passive constructions. The word ‘falbh’ ("leaving") is a verbal noun.

{{interlinear|indent=3
| Chaidh falbh
| went leaving
|'They/Everybody left.'}}

==Subjects in sentence structure==
The subject receives a privileged status in theories of sentence structure. In those approaches that acknowledge the binary division of the clause into a subject and a predicate (as is the case in most [[phrase structure grammar]]s), the subject is usually an immediate dependent of the root node, whereby its sister is the predicate. The object, in contrast, appears lower in the structure as a dependent of the/a verb, e.g.<ref>Phrase structure trees similar to the ones produced here can be found in numerous introductory texts to grammar and syntax, e.g. Payne (2011).</ref>

[[File:Subjects 1.1.png|Subjects 1.1|center]]

Subjects are indicated using blue, and objects using orange. The special status of the subject is visible insofar as the subject is higher in the tree each time than the object. In theories of syntax that reject the initial division (as is the case in most [[dependency grammar]]s), the subject is nevertheless also granted a privileged status insofar as it is an immediate dependent of the finite verb. The following trees are those of a dependency grammar:<ref>Dependency trees similar to the ones produced here can be found in *Ágel et al. (2003/6).</ref>

[[File:Subjects 2.png|Subjects 2|center]]

The subject is a dependent of the root node, the finite verb, in both trees. The object, in contrast, appears lower in the second tree, where it is a dependent of the non-finite verb. The subject remains a dependent finite verb when subject-auxiliary inversion occurs:

[[File:Subjects 3.png|Subjects 3|center]]

The prominence of the subject is consistently reflected in its position in the tree as an immediate dependent of the root word, the finite verb.

==See also==
{{Wiktionary|subject}}
* [[Complement (linguistics)]]
* [[copula (linguistics)|Copula]]
* [[Grammatical case]]
* [[Object (grammar)]]
* [[Preparatory subject]]
* [[Quirky subject]]
* [[Sentence (linguistics)]]
* [[Subjective (grammar)]]
* [[Term logic]]
* [[Traditional grammar]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}

== References ==
{{refbegin|30em}}
*Ágel, V., L. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. Heringer, and H. Lobin (eds.) 2003/6. ''Dependency and valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research''. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
*Barry, A. 1998. ''English Grammar: Language as Human Behavior''. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
*Biber, D. et al. 1999. ''Longman Grammar of spoken and written English''. Essex, England: Pearson Education limited. 
*Collins ''Cobuild English Grammar'' 1995. London: HarperCollins Publishers. 
*Comrie, Bernard (1981, 2nd ed. 1989) [http://202.121.96.130/download/20150430215829207.pdf ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology'']. University of Chicago Press.
*Conner, J. 1968. ''A Grammar of Standard English''. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 
*Fergusson, R. and M. Manser 1998. ''The Macmillan Guide to English Grammar''. London: Macmillan.  
* Hale, K.; Keyser, J. (2002). "Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure", ''Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 39,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
*[[Daniel Jurafsky|Jurafsky, D.]] and J. Martin 2000. ''Speech and Language Processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition''. New Delhi, India: Pearson Education. 
*Mikkelsen, L. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication, and equation. ''Linguistics Today'' 85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Moro, A. 1997. ''The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure'', Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
*Payne, T. 2011. ''Understanding English Grammar''. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
*Tesnière, L. 1969. ''Éleménts de syntaxe structurale''. 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck.
{{refend}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Syntactic entities]]