Appendix: toward Choice of the mixture out-of Sex–Number Combinations

Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, M., and Scontras, G. (2015). Brand new differential icon off amount and you can sex in the Language. Linguist. Rev. 32, 703–737.

Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you can Kikstra, G. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological has an effect on into the construction regarding subject-verb contract. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.

Heycock, C., and Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Household members and associates: plurality, coordination, and the build regarding DP. Nat. Lang. thirteen, 201–270.

Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you will Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and differences when considering phrase-structure and you will morphosyntactic abuses inside Spanish: a meeting-related potentials research. Lang. Cogn. Techniques. 18, 113–142.

Igoa, J. Yards., Garcia-Albea, J. Elizabeth., and you will Sanches-Casas, Roentgen. (1999). Gender-matter dissociation from inside the phrase design for the Language. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.

Krstev, C., and you can Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and Lexicon – Shared Incompletness,” in Process of one’s Corpus Linguistics Meeting, eds P. Danielsson and you may M. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.

Malko, A., and Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Destination problems during the intercourse arrangement: Proof away from Russian,” from inside the Procedures Certified Answers to Slavic Linguistics: The third Indiana Appointment, eds S. Franks, ainsi que al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College Force), 162–175.

). “History conjunct agreement in the Slovenian,” from inside the Proceedings off Formal Solutions to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, M. Goledzinowska, and you will U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Guides), 210-227.

Mitic, I., and you may Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you can optionality out-of arrangement models within the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct agreement. A beneficial J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.

Nevins, An effective., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you can Phillips, C. (2007). The latest part away from element-amount and feature-enter in processing Hindi verb contract violations. Brain Res. 1164, 81–94.

Puskar, Z., and you will Murphy, A good. (2015). “Closest conjunct agreement inside the serbo-croatian: a guideline-ordering membership,” in the Information at InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. ninety-five, eds An excellent. Assmann, S. Bank, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you can Age. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and you can Garrett, Meters. F. (1996). Subject-verb contract from inside the Foreign language and you may English: differences in brand new role of conceptual limitations. Cognition 61, 261–298.

Semant

Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Becker, Yards., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Yards., ainsi que al. (2018). Whenever linearity prevails more hierarchy into the sentence structure. PNAS 115, 495–five-hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115

The fresh four rationally you can combos in addition to their features is depicted in (21)

Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Cordalija, N., Kresic, M., Leko, N., et al. (2016). Morphosyntactic production of dexterity arrangement in Southern area Slavic–a relative investigation. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty four, 187–224.

Which area explains certain technology concerns about the choices produced in the appearance of the test, during the white of your unique functions of South carolina morphology. It’s lined up mainly for these interested in the fresh new theoretical and detailed linguistic, in lieu of psycholinguistic regions of the research.

Inside our fresh build, we have capitalized into the proven fact that inside Sc NSg nouns stop in a choice of -e or perhaps in -o, hence their plural ends in https://datingmentor.org/escort/shreveport/ -a beneficial, if you are at the same time FSg nouns result in -a great, and their plural models cause -elizabeth. This production good entered, yet , partial syncretism.

The combination off NSg and FPl allows the synthesis of restricted sets between an effective syncretic and you may a low-syncretic pair of nouns, just like the mixture of NPl and you may FSg enables only one options, that’s syncretic.

I put minimal sets as in (20a) in our crucial stimuli. The fresh chosen solution, however, enables a couple sandwich-solutions, according to and this gender–amount integration will come due to the fact first, and you will which due to the fact past conjunct. This is decided by another similar planning.

The fresh new verb contains the brand new endings: -o for NSg, -an as NPl and you may FSg, or -age for FPl – i.age., you can identify NSg from FPl with the verb. Because of this, apart from the unambiguously default masculine finish -we, whenever a great verb inside the -age is actually put, we had been sure it had been FPl, whenever an excellent verb inside the -o was brought, we knew that it was NSg. Yet not, whenever an excellent verb within the -an ended up being brought – it absolutely was not sure if this is plural, agreeing in the gender for the basic conjunct (NPl), or it actually was only 1 and you may agreed from inside the gender with the history conjunct (FSg).