Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Yards., and you may Scontras, Grams. (2015). The fresh differential logo out of count and you can intercourse inside the Foreign language. Linguist. Rev. 32, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you may Kikstra, G. M. (2003). Morphophonological impacts for the build off topic-verb contract. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you may Zamparelli, R. (2005). Relatives and you can colleagues: plurality, dexterity, and design from DP. Nat. Lang. thirteen, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you will Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and you can differences between phrase structure and morphosyntactic abuses during the Foreign language: a conference-related potentials studies. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. Meters., Garcia-Albea, J. Age., and Sanches-Casas, R. (1999). Gender-count dissociation during the sentence creation within the Foreign language. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you can Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and you will Lexicon – Mutual Incompletness,” during the Legal proceeding of one’s Corpus Linguistics Appointment, eds P. Danielsson and M. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, An excellent., and you can Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Appeal errors within the intercourse agreement: Facts off Russian,” into the Proceedings Authoritative Answers to Slavic Linguistics: The next Indiana Fulfilling, eds S. Franks, ainsi que al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College or university Force), 162–175.
). “History conjunct arrangement during the Slovenian,” within the Proceedings off Specialized Approaches to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, Yards. Goledzinowska, and U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Products), 210-227.
Mitic, I., and you will Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and optionality out of agreement models from inside the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct agreement. Good J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.
Nevins, Good., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you may Phillips, C. (2007). The newest role out-of feature-count and show-type in operating Hindi verb agreement abuses. Attention Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and Murphy, A beneficial. (2015). “Closest conjunct contract during the serbo-croatian: a guideline-buying membership,” inside Subject areas during the InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. ninety-five, eds A good. Assmann, S. Lender, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you may Age. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and you may Garrett, Meters. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement for the Foreign-language and you may English: variations in the fresh Rockford hotel hookup new part off conceptual limitations. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Meters., Becker, M., Cordalija, N., Kresic, Meters., et al. (2018). When linearity is out there more than hierarchy in syntax. PNAS 115, 495–five hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
The four realistically you can easily combos in addition to their features is portrayed into the (21)
Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, M., Cordalija, N., Kresic, M., Leko, Letter., et al. (2016). Morphosyntactic production of dexterity agreement when you look at the Southern area Slavic–a relative study. J. Slavic Linguist. 24, 187–224.
This area clarifies certain technical concerns about the choices manufactured in the appearance of all of our try, within the white of your unique functions from Sc morphology. It is aimed mostly for those looking for new theoretic and you will detailed linguistic, in the place of psycholinguistic regions of the analysis.
Within experimental construction, you will find capitalized towards the proven fact that when you look at the Sc NSg nouns avoid either in -e or in -o, and therefore their plural leads to -a, if you are meanwhile FSg nouns end up in -a beneficial, as well as their plural versions result in -age. This returns an excellent entered, yet incomplete syncretism.
The combination regarding NSg and you can FPl allows for the formation of minimal sets anywhere between a great syncretic and you may a non-syncretic pair of nouns, as the combination of NPl and you will FSg makes it possible for only one possibility, that’s syncretic.
I utilized restricted sets such as (20a) in our vital stimulus. The fresh new picked option, not, makes it possible for two sandwich-choice, based on and that intercourse–number combination happens because the first, and you can and this while the past conjunct. It was dependant on various other equivalent attention.
The latest verb bears the endings: -o to own NSg, -an as NPl and you may FSg, otherwise -age having FPl – i.e., you are able to separate NSg from FPl on the verb. Because of this, apart from the unambiguously standard masculine stop -i, when a verb within the -elizabeth are put, we had been certain that it absolutely was FPl, assuming an excellent verb inside the -o is produced, i realized that it was NSg. However, whenever a beneficial verb into the -a was delivered – it was undecided when it is actually plural, agreeing in the gender into basic conjunct (NPl), otherwise it had been only 1 and you can concurred into the sex to the history conjunct (FSg).