Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Meters., and Scontras, G. (2015). The brand new differential logo out of number and sex inside Foreign-language. Linguist. Rev. thirty two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you will Kikstra, Grams. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological affects for the construction of topic-verb arrangement. Mem. Cogn. 30, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you can Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Family relations and you may colleagues: plurality, control, plus the design of DP. Nat. Lang. thirteen, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you will Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and you will differences when considering phrase-structure and you may morphosyntactic violations during the Foreign-language: a conference-relevant potentials research. Lang. Cogn. Techniques. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. M., Garcia-Albea, J. E., and Sanches-Casas, R. (1999). Gender-amount dissociation from inside the phrase development from inside the Spanish. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you will Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and Lexicon – Common Incompletness,” when you look at the Proceedings of your own Corpus Linguistics Appointment, eds P. Danielsson and you will Yards. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, An excellent., and you can Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Appeal mistakes within the intercourse agreement: Research off Russian,” during the Legal proceeding Specialized Ways to Slavic Linguistics: The third Indiana Conference, eds S. Franks, ainsi que al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College or university Drive), 162–175.
). “Last conjunct contract in Slovenian,” during the Legal proceeding from Formal Answers to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, Yards. Goledzinowska, and you may U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Books), 210-227.
Mitic, I., and you will Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you can optionality of contract models in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct arrangement. A good J. Gen. Linguist. 4:six.
Nevins, A beneficial., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you will Phillips, C. (2007). The brand new part away from function-number and have-type in control Hindi verb contract violations. Attention Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and you may Murphy, Good. (2015). “Nearest conjunct agreement when you look at the serbo-croatian: a tip-buying membership,” for the Subjects in 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, G., Butterworth, B., and you may Garrett, Meters. F. (1996). Subject-verb arrangement when you look at the Foreign-language and you can English: differences in the fresh role out-of abstract limits. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Becker, M., Cordalija, N., Kresic, M., ainsi que al. (2018). Whenever linearity prevails more than hierarchy inside sentence structure. PNAS 115, 495–500. doi: /pnas.1712729115
New four rationally possible combinations as well as their functions is illustrated for the (21)
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, M., Leko, Letter., ainsi que al. (2016). Morphosyntactic creation of coordination agreement for the Southern area Slavic–a relative data. J. Slavic Linguist. 24, 187–224.
That it point describes some tech concerns about the choices made in the appearance of the experiment, inside light of your unique attributes regarding Sc morphology. It is lined up mainly of these seeking the fresh new theoretic and you may detailed linguistic, in place of psycholinguistic areas of the analysis.
Within fresh build, i’ve capitalized toward proven fact that within the South carolina NSg nouns stop in a choice of -age or in -o, which their plural results in -an excellent, if you are at the same time FSg nouns trigger -good, as well as their plural models result in -e. It production a great crossed, yet , unfinished syncretism.
The mixture out of NSg and FPl allows for the synthesis of restricted pairs anywhere between an excellent syncretic and you will a non-syncretic group of nouns, given that mix of NPl and FSg makes it possible for one options, that is syncretic.
I made use of minimal pairs as with (20a) inside our crucial stimulus. Brand new picked option, but not, allows for a couple of sub-choices, based and that sex–amount integration comes once the earliest, and you can and that since past conjunct. This is determined by another similar consideration.
The verb contains the endings: -o having NSg, -an as NPl and you may FSg, or -age to own FPl – i.e., you are able to differentiate NSg regarding FPl into verb. As a result, apart from the unambiguously default male conclude -i, when a verb for the -e is introduced, we were sure it was FPl, of course an effective verb into the -o was put, i know it absolutely was NSg. But not, whenever a great verb when you look at the -a was actually produced – kissbrides.com have a peek at this web site it absolutely was unsure if it try plural, agreeing from inside the intercourse towards the first conjunct (NPl), or it had been only one and you may assented inside the gender toward past conjunct (FSg).