Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, M., and Scontras, G. (2015). The latest differential expression regarding count and you can sex inside Foreign language. Linguist. Rev. thirty-two, 703–737.
Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and Kikstra, Grams. Yards. (2003). Morphophonological influences towards design off topic-verb contract. Mem. Cogn. 31, 1316–1326.
Heycock, C., and you will Zamparelli, Roentgen. (2005). Family unit members and acquaintances: plurality, control, and the build regarding DP. Nat. Lang. 13, 201–270.
Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, Meters., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you will Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and you will differences between phrase-structure and you will morphosyntactic abuses into the Foreign-language: a meeting-relevant potentials studies. Lang. Cogn. Processes. 18, 113–142.
Igoa, J. M., Garcia-Albea, J. Age., and you will Sanches-Casas, R. (1999). Gender-matter dissociation within the phrase production from inside the Foreign-language. Ital. J. Linguist. 11, 163–196.
Krstev, C., and you may Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and you can Lexicon – Shared Incompletness,” inside the Procedures of your Corpus Linguistics Conference, eds P. Danielsson and you will M. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.
Malko, An effective., and you will Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Interest problems when you look at the gender arrangement: Proof out-of Russian,” during the Procedures Authoritative Remedies for Slavic Linguistics: The 3rd Indiana Meeting, eds S. Franks, et al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan School Force), 162–175.
). “Last conjunct arrangement for the Slovenian,” for the Proceedings regarding Formal Answers to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, M. 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 arrangement models in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct arrangement. An effective J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.
Nevins, A good., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and Phillips, C. (2007). The fresh new part away from function-number and feature-type in running Hindi verb contract violations. Mind Res. 1164, 81–94.
Puskar, Z., and you can Murphy, An effective. (2015). “Nearest conjunct agreement inside the serbo-croatian: a tip-ordering account,” inside Topics from the InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. 92, eds A good. Assmann, S. Financial, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you will Elizabeth. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.
Vigliocco, Grams., Butterworth, B., and you can Garrett, Yards. F. (1996). Subject-verb contract when you look at the Spanish and you may English: variations in the role out-of conceptual constraints. Knowledge 61, 261–298.
Semant
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Meters., Becker, M., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Yards., et al. (2018). When linearity is available more than hierarchy into the syntax. PNAS 115, 495–five-hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115
The five realistically you are able to combinations as well as their attributes are portrayed inside the (21)
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Meters., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, Meters., Leko, Letter., et al. (2016). Morphosyntactic production of dexterity agreement within the Southern area Slavic–a relative research. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty-four, 187–224.
That it section clarifies specific tech issues about your options made in the design of our very own try, for the white of special properties out-of Sc morphology. It’s lined up primarily for those finding brand new theoretical and you will descriptive linguistic, rather than psycholinguistic regions of the research.
Inside our experimental build, we have capitalized for the proven fact that in South carolina NSg nouns avoid in a choice of -elizabeth or even in -o, and that the plural leads to -a great, when you find yourself meanwhile FSg nouns trigger -a good, and their plural models trigger -e. It output a great crossed, but really partial syncretism.
The mixture off NSg and you will FPl enables the synthesis of restricted sets ranging from an effective syncretic and you can a non-syncretic collection of nouns, while the mixture of NPl and you will FSg enables only 1 opportunity, that is syncretic.
I put limited sets such as (20a) within our crucial stimulus. New selected solution, but not, makes it possible for one or two sub-possibilities, based and this sex–amount combination arrives just like the very first, and you will hence because history conjunct. This was dependant on several other similar idea.
The new verb bears brand new endings: -o for NSg, -an as NPl and FSg, or -age to own FPl – we.elizabeth., you can differentiate NSg from FPl for the verb. Thus, aside from the unambiguously standard male stop -i, when good verb when you look at the -elizabeth try lead, we had been certain that it actually was FPl, and if an excellent verb in the -o was brought, we know that it was NSg. But not, whenever a beneficial verb in the -a got lead – https://kissbrides.com/thai-women/tak/ it was uncertain if it are plural, agreeing inside gender towards the first conjunct (NPl), otherwise it had been only one and you may consented in the gender to your past conjunct (FSg).