Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Yards., and you may Scontras, Grams. (2015). The newest differential symbolization out of amount and you will gender when you look at the Foreign-language. Linguist. Rev. thirty two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, R., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you can Kikstra, G. Meters. (2003). Morphophonological impacts with the structure off topic-verb arrangement. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Loved ones and you will acquaintances: plurality, dexterity, while the design from DP. Nat. Lang. 13, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, Yards., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you can Rubia, F. (2003). Parallels and you will differences between phrase structure and you will morphosyntactic violations from inside the Spanish: a conference-associated potentials research. Lang. Cogn. Processes. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. M., Garcia-Albea, J. Elizabeth., and you may Sanches-Casas, R. (1999). Gender-count dissociation when you look at the sentence manufacturing inside Foreign language. Ital. J. Linguist. 11, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you will Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and Lexicon – Shared Incompletness,” when you look at the Procedures https://datingmentor.org/cs/russiancupid-recenze/ of Corpus Linguistics Meeting, eds P. Danielsson and you may Yards. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, A., and you can Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Interest errors in the intercourse agreement: Proof out-of Russian,” from inside the Legal proceeding Certified Ways to Slavic Linguistics: The next Indiana Conference, eds S. Franks, et al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College or university Press), 162–175.
). “Past conjunct contract when you look at the Slovenian,” into the Legal proceeding off Formal Methods to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, M. Goledzinowska, and you may U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic E-books), 210-227.
Mitic, We., and Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you will optionality off contract patterns in the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct agreement. A good J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.
Nevins, An excellent., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you will Phillips, C. (2007). The fresh character out-of function-count and have-enter in control Hindi verb arrangement abuses. Mind Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and you may Murphy, A great. (2015). “Nearest conjunct contract in serbo-croatian: a guideline-purchasing membership,” within the Subjects in the InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. ninety-five, eds A. Assmann, S. Financial, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you can Elizabeth. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and you will Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement during the Spanish and you will English: differences in the newest part out of abstract restrictions. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Becker, M., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Yards., mais aussi al. (2018). Whenever linearity exists over steps into the syntax. PNAS 115, 495–five hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
The brand new five realistically you’ll be able to combos and their features is portrayed within the (21)
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Yards., Leko, N., ainsi que al. (2016). Morphosyntactic creation of control contract during the South Slavic–a comparative investigation. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty four, 187–224.
Which point describes some tech issues about your options produced in the style of the try out, in the light of one’s unique services out-of Sc morphology. It is lined up primarily for these finding the fresh new theoretic and you will descriptive linguistic, instead of psycholinguistic aspects of the research.
Inside our experimental design, i’ve capitalized toward undeniable fact that inside South carolina NSg nouns stop either in -elizabeth or even in -o, and that their plural results in -a beneficial, when you are at the same time FSg nouns produce -a, in addition to their plural variations lead to -elizabeth. This output a good crossed, but really unfinished syncretism.
The mixture of NSg and you may FPl allows the forming of limited pairs anywhere between good syncretic and a non-syncretic pair of nouns, given that combination of NPl and you will FSg enables only one chance, which is syncretic.
We utilized minimal sets as with (20a) inside our important stimulus. The newest selected alternative, yet not, makes it possible for two sandwich-solutions, based hence intercourse–count integration arrives as basic, and and this given that last conjunct. It was determined by another comparable attention.
The latest verb bears the brand new endings: -o getting NSg, -an as NPl and you will FSg, or -age for FPl – i.age., you are able to distinguish NSg out of FPl into the verb. Consequently, apart from the unambiguously default male stop -i, when a great verb into the -age are lead, we were certain that it was FPl, and if a beneficial verb within the -o was produced, i realized it was NSg. But not, whenever an excellent verb inside the -a got delivered – it absolutely was unclear when it try plural, agreeing inside sex with the earliest conjunct (NPl), otherwise it absolutely was just one and you will assented inside sex to your last conjunct (FSg).