Appendix: with the Assortment of the mixture off Gender–Amount Combos
Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Yards., and Scontras, G. (2015). Brand new differential expression of count and you may gender for the Foreign-language. Linguist. Rev. thirty two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, R., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you may Kikstra, G. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological has an effect on into design off subject-verb agreement. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you will Zamparelli, R. (2005). Members of the family and you will associates: plurality, dexterity, and also the framework regarding DP. Nat. Lang. 13, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, Yards., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and Rubia, F. (2003). Parallels and you can differences between phrase-structure and you may morphosyntactic violations for the Foreign-language: a meeting-associated potentials investigation. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. Yards., Garcia-Albea, J. E., and you can Sanches-Casas, Roentgen. (1999). Gender-amount dissociation when you look at the sentence design into the Language. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and you may Lexicon — Mutual Incompletness,” from inside the Procedures of the Corpus Linguistics Meeting, eds P. Danielsson and Yards. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, An excellent., and you may Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Destination errors within the sex agreement: Evidence from Russian,” when you look at the Procedures Specialized Solutions to Slavic Linguistics: The 3rd Indiana Meeting, eds S. Franks, ainsi que al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College or university Press), 162–175.
). “History conjunct agreement for the Slovenian,” within the Legal proceeding out of chicas escort San Jose Formal Remedies for Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, Meters. Goledzinowska, and you may You. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Guides), 210-227.
Mitic, We., and you may Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and optionality out-of arrangement designs in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct contract. An effective J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.
Nevins, A great., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you may Phillips, C. (2007). The fresh character out-of element-matter and show-input processing Hindi verb arrangement abuses. Notice Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and Murphy, Good. (2015). “Nearest conjunct contract into the serbo-croatian: a rule-buying membership,” within the Information during the InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. ninety-five, eds A. Assmann, S. Bank, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you may Elizabeth. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, Grams., Butterworth, B., and you may Garrett, Yards. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement within the Language and you may English: differences in this new character away from conceptual limits. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Becker, M., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Meters., mais aussi al. (2018). When linearity is available more steps when you look at the syntax. PNAS 115, 495–five hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
This new four realistically it is possible to combinations and their features try portrayed when you look at the (21)
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Meters., Leko, N., et al. (2016). Morphosyntactic production of dexterity agreement during the South Slavic–a relative analysis. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty four, 187–224.
Which section explains specific tech issues about the options made in the style of our check out, in the white of special characteristics out-of South carolina morphology. It is lined up mostly of these seeking the fresh theoretic and you will detailed linguistic, in the place of psycholinguistic aspects of the study.
Inside our experimental framework, i have capitalized on fact that in the Sc NSg nouns end in both -age or even in -o, hence their plural ends in -a great, when you are meanwhile FSg nouns bring about -an effective, in addition to their plural models end in -elizabeth. Which efficiency an effective entered, yet , partial syncretism.
The combination out of NSg and you will FPl allows the formation of minimal sets anywhere between a good syncretic and you can a non-syncretic group of nouns, because the mixture of NPl and you can FSg allows for just one opportunity, that’s syncretic.
We utilized restricted pairs like in (20a) within critical stimuli. The selected choice, although not, makes it possible for several sandwich-choices, dependent on which gender–count consolidation happens once the first, and you may which while the last conjunct. This was based on several other equivalent planning.
The fresh new verb bears the latest endings: -o getting NSg, -an as NPl and you may FSg, otherwise -e to own FPl – we.elizabeth., you’ll separate NSg from FPl towards verb. This means that, aside from the unambiguously default masculine conclude -we, when a beneficial verb inside the -e are produced, we were sure that it was FPl, incase good verb into the -o are lead, we know it absolutely was NSg. not, whenever an effective verb when you look at the -a had been lead – it had been uncertain in the event it is plural, agreeing into the intercourse towards the first conjunct (NPl), or it actually was only 1 and you will decided inside intercourse to the past conjunct (FSg).