Fuchs, Z., Polinsky, Yards., and Scontras, Grams. (2015). The latest differential sign from amount and you may sex in the Language. Linguist. Rev. 32, 703–737.

Hartsuiker, Roentgen., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and you will Kikstra, Grams. M. (2003). Morphophonological affects to your framework regarding topic-verb agreement. Mem. Cogn. 29, 1316–1326.

Heycock, C., and you may Zamparelli, R. (2005). Family and you can colleagues: plurality, dexterity, plus the structure out-of DP. Nat. Lang. 13, 201–270.

Hinojosa, J., Martin-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Munoz, F., and you may Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and you can differences when considering phrase structure and you can morphosyntactic abuses in the Foreign-language: a conference-relevant potentials analysis. Lang. Cogn. Procedure. 18, 113–142.

Igoa, J. Meters., Garcia-Albea, J. Age., and you may Sanches-Casas, Roentgen. (1999). Gender-number dissociation inside the sentence development during the Foreign language. Ital. J. Linguist. eleven, 163–196.

Krstev, C., and you can Vitas, D. (2005). “Corpus. and you will Lexicon – Mutual Incompletness,” for UЕѕiteДЌnГЅ obsah the Procedures of your own Corpus Linguistics Fulfilling, eds P. Danielsson and you may M. Wagenmakers, Liverpool.

Malko, An excellent., and you may Slioussar, Letter. (2013). “Appeal errors within the gender arrangement: Evidence away from Russian,” into the Process Specialized Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The next Indiana Appointment, eds S. Franks, et al. (Ann Arbor: Michigan College or university Press), 162–175.

). “Last conjunct agreement when you look at the Slovenian,” inside the Process regarding Specialized Approaches to Slavic linguistics 2006, eds Rpton, Meters. Goledzinowska, and you will U. Savchenko (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Books), 210-227.

Mitic, We., and you can Arsenijevic, B. (2019). Structural ambiguity and you can optionality regarding contract designs for the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian conjunct agreement. A beneficial J. Gen. Linguist. 4:6.

Nevins, Good., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., and you can Phillips, C. (2007). The latest character from element-count and show-enter in running Hindi verb agreement violations. Head Res. 1164, 81–94.

Puskar, Z., and you will Murphy, An excellent. (2015). “Nearest conjunct arrangement inside serbo-croatian: a guideline-purchasing membership,” for the Subjects within InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), Vol. 92, eds Good. Assmann, S. Financial, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser, and you can Age. Zimmermann (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig), 441–482.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb contract for the Language and you can English: differences in the latest part out of conceptual constraints. Cognition 61, 261–298.

Semant

Willer-Silver, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Becker, Meters., Cordalija, Letter., Kresic, M., mais aussi al. (2018). Whenever linearity is out there over hierarchy for the sentence structure. PNAS 115, 495–five hundred. doi: /pnas.1712729115

The four rationally it is possible to combos as well as their functions is actually portrayed into the (21)

Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic, B., Batinic, Yards., Cordalija, N., Kresic, Meters., Leko, Letter., et al. (2016). Morphosyntactic creation of control arrangement in Southern Slavic–a comparative data. J. Slavic Linguist. twenty four, 187–224.

This section describes some technical issues about the choices made in the design of our test, for the light of one’s special features away from Sc morphology. It is aligned mainly for these in search of the brand new theoretical and you may detailed linguistic, instead of psycholinguistic areas of the research.

Within experimental build, i’ve capitalized into simple fact that in the South carolina NSg nouns prevent in both -e or even in -o, and this its plural results in -a great, if you are meanwhile FSg nouns cause -an excellent, and their plural variations produce -age. That it yields an effective entered, yet , partial syncretism.

The combination from NSg and you can FPl enables the forming of minimal sets between good syncretic and you will a non-syncretic collection of nouns, because the blend of NPl and you can FSg makes it possible for just one chance, that’s syncretic.

We utilized restricted pairs such as (20a) within our vital stimulus. The new picked solution, but not, allows one or two sandwich-alternatives, dependent on hence intercourse–matter consolidation arrives as earliest, and which because past conjunct. This is dependant on some other similar consideration.

The fresh new verb carries the fresh endings: -o having NSg, -a for NPl and you will FSg, or -e for FPl – we.e., you can easily distinguish NSg off FPl on the verb. This is why, besides the unambiguously default masculine stop -we, when a great verb in -age is actually delivered, we had been sure it absolutely was FPl, incase a great verb during the -o are put, we know it was NSg. However, when good verb inside -an is brought – it had been undecided if this are plural, agreeing inside the gender with the very first conjunct (NPl), otherwise it actually was just one and you will conformed in sex towards the past conjunct (FSg).