Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Meters., and you may Scontras, Grams. (2015). This new differential logo regarding amount and you may intercourse inside Spanish. Linguist. Rev. thirty-two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you will Kikstra, Grams. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological impacts for the construction out-of topic-verb arrangement. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you may Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Household members and you may acquaintances: plurality, control, additionally the framework out of DP. Nat. Lang. thirteen, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and you can differences when https://datingmentor.org/siberian-chat-rooms/ considering phrase structure and morphosyntactic violations when you look at the Foreign-language: a meeting-associated potentials analysis. Lang. Cogn. Procedure. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. Yards., Garcia-Albea, J. Elizabeth., and Sanches-Casas, Roentgen. (1999). Gender-amount dissociation in sentence creation in Foreign language. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you can Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and Lexicon – Mutual Incompletness,” when you look at the Process of Corpus Linguistics Fulfilling, eds P. Danielsson and you may Meters. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, A great., and you may Slioussar, N. (2013). “Destination mistakes in the gender agreement: Proof off Russian,” in the Legal proceeding Official Ways to Slavic Linguistics: The 3rd Indiana Conference, eds S. Franks, ainsi que al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press), 162–175.
). “Last conjunct arrangement during the Slovenian,” within the Proceedings off Certified Solutions to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, M. Goledzinowska, and U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Products), 210-227.
Mitic, We., and Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you can optionality away from arrangement activities inside Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct contract. A great J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.
Nevins, Good., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and Phillips, C. (2007). Brand new role out of element-matter and have-input operating Hindi verb agreement abuses. Brain Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and Murphy, An excellent. (2015). “Nearest conjunct agreement in serbo-croatian: a tip-buying membership,” inside Information during the InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. 92, eds Good. Assmann, S. Bank, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you can E. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, Grams., Butterworth, B., and you may Garrett, Yards. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement inside Foreign-language and you can English: differences in this new character of conceptual limitations. Cognition 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Becker, Yards., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Meters., et al. (2018). When linearity is out there more hierarchy inside syntax. PNAS 115, 495–five hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
The brand new five realistically you’ll be able to combinations in addition to their characteristics is portrayed inside the (21)
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Meters., Leko, Letter., mais aussi al. (2016). Morphosyntactic production of coordination contract within the South Slavic–a relative research. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty-four, 187–224.
That it point explains some tech issues about the options built in the appearance of all of our try out, from inside the white of one’s special characteristics regarding South carolina morphology. It is aligned generally for these trying to find the theoretical and you will detailed linguistic, in place of psycholinguistic regions of the research.
In our experimental framework, you will find capitalized to your proven fact that inside Sc NSg nouns prevent in both -e or in -o, and therefore their plural ends in -a good, while you are at the same time FSg nouns result in -an excellent, in addition to their plural versions trigger -age. That it productivity good crossed, yet partial syncretism.
The combination of NSg and you will FPl makes it possible for the forming of minimal pairs anywhere between a beneficial syncretic and a non-syncretic collection of nouns, while the mix of NPl and you can FSg enables just one options, which is syncretic.
I put minimal sets as in (20a) in our critical stimulus. This new chosen alternative, however, makes it possible for a few sub-possibilities, dependent on and therefore gender–count consolidation happens because the basic, and you can and that because history conjunct. It was dependant on another similar planning.
The latest verb carries the new endings: -o for NSg, -an as NPl and you can FSg, or -elizabeth for FPl – we.elizabeth., you’ll differentiate NSg from FPl with the verb. Thus, apart from the unambiguously default masculine conclude -we, whenever an effective verb into the -e try brought, we had been certain that it was FPl, of course, if a verb into the -o is delivered, i know that it was NSg. However, whenever an excellent verb in -an is put – it absolutely was not sure in the event it was plural, agreeing from inside the gender toward very first conjunct (NPl), or it absolutely was singular and you can agreed inside sex towards past conjunct (FSg).
