Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Yards., and you will Scontras, G. (2015). Brand new differential representation from amount and you will intercourse from inside the Spanish. Linguist. Rev. thirty-two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, R., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you can Kikstra, Grams. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological has an effect on to the structure of topic-verb agreement. Mem. Cogn. 30, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you may Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Members of the family and associates: plurality, coordination, in addition to build of DP. Nat. Lang. thirteen, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you will Rubia, F. (2003). Parallels and you will differences when considering phrase structure and you will morphosyntactic abuses into the Foreign language: an event-relevant potentials research. Lang. Cogn. Procedure. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. Meters., Garcia-Albea, J. E., and you can Sanches-Casas, Roentgen. (1999). Gender-number dissociation in the phrase manufacturing in Foreign language. Ital. J. Linguist. 11, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you can Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and you may Lexicon – Common Incompletness,” for the Proceedings of your Corpus Linguistics Fulfilling, eds P. Danielsson and you can Yards. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, An effective., and you may Slioussar, N. (2013). “Appeal errors into the intercourse agreement: Proof out of Russian,” in the Process Certified Remedies for Slavic Linguistics: The 3rd Indiana Meeting, eds S. Franks, et al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press), 162–175.
). “Last conjunct agreement in Slovenian,” into the Legal proceeding out-of Formal Methods to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, Yards. Goledzinowska, and You. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Books), 210-227.
Mitic, I., and you may Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you will optionality of contract habits when you look at the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct arrangement. An excellent J. Gen. Linguist. 4:six.
Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you may Phillips, C. (2007). The brand new part off 
element-amount and have-input running Hindi verb arrangement violations. Brain Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and you can Murphy, A beneficial. (2015). “Closest conjunct arrangement in serbo-croatian: a rule-buying membership,” in Information on InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. ninety five, eds A. Assmann, S. Lender, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you can E. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Garrett, Meters. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Foreign language and you can English: differences in the brand new part out-of abstract limitations. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Becker, Yards., Cordalija, N., Kresic, M., mais aussi al. (2018). When linearity exists over steps for the sentence structure. PNAS 115, 495–five-hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
This new five realistically you can combinations as well as their functions try portrayed inside (21)
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Yards., Leko, N., mais aussi al. (2016). Morphosyntactic creation of coordination contract into the Southern area Slavic–a comparative investigation. J. Slavic Linguist. 24, 187–224.
This section clarifies certain tech issues about the choices manufactured in the design of the experiment, in the light of your own unique services away from South carolina morphology. It’s aimed mainly of these in search of the theoretic and descriptive linguistic, instead of psycholinguistic aspects of the analysis.
Inside our experimental build, i have capitalized for the fact that inside the South carolina NSg nouns stop in both -age or in -o, and therefore their plural ends in -an excellent, if you find yourself meanwhile FSg nouns cause -an excellent, in addition to their plural forms end in -age. It output an effective entered, yet unfinished syncretism.
The combination from NSg and you may FPl enables the forming of limited pairs between a syncretic and you may a non-syncretic group of nouns, because the blend of NPl and you may FSg makes it possible for singular options, that is syncretic.
I used limited sets as with (20a) within our vital stimulus. The new chose choice, although not, enables a couple of sub-possibilities, according to which sex–count consolidation will come since the earliest, and you may which because the last conjunct. This is determined by another equivalent believe.
The brand new verb bears the fresh endings: -o getting NSg, -a concerning NPl and you will FSg, or -e for FPl – i.elizabeth., possible distinguish NSg of FPl with the verb. Consequently, besides the unambiguously default male finish -we, when a good verb into the -age is actually brought, we were sure it actually was FPl, of course a verb in the -o is actually delivered, we realized it absolutely was NSg. But not, when an effective verb in the -an is brought – it absolutely was unclear when it are plural, agreeing for the sex to your basic conjunct (NPl), otherwise it actually was one and assented for the sex towards the past conjunct (FSg).
