Agreement Gender

Keep in mind that you only become plural if it means “members of a specified group” (see 63. Restrictions on the use of “one”) – there is no plural for the meaning “people in general” (see 211 General Words for Man). On the other hand, the owner can only be used with this last meaning – see sentence c above. Also keep in mind that them and their gender differences are today often avoided (for the sake of equality) by using them-in any case. For more information on -self/selves, see 143. Subtleties of words “-self.” In the previous subsection, we argued that the match call patterns in understanding are due to the fact that heads with several characteristics and characteristics M are sensitive to attraction, i.e. they are generally correctly identified during the recovery process, while recovery of heads with other characteristics may be disrupted by the attractors. The results summarized by Franck (2015) show that the stability of the characteristics of the head should also be relevant to the attractiveness of agreements in production. This is also confirmed by the results of Nicol and Wilson (1999) to Yanukovych and Fedorova (2006), which suggest that heads with M characteristics are indeed more stable when we look at the production of encrypted chords in Russian. Based on this data, we do not expect errors in the MF and MN conditions in the production experiments on gender agreement, but that is not what we found. Friedman, Victor. 1996.

Sex, class and age in the Dagestanian highlands: Towards a uniform representation of the morphology of the agreement in Lak. In Howard I Aronson (note), linguistics in the non-Slavic languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics, volume 8, 187-199. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Vigliocco, G., and Zilli, T. (1999). Syntactic precision in the production of sentences: the case of conflict between the sexes in the spokespeople of the Italian language and undecided speakers. J. Psycholinguist. Res.

28, 623-648. Salamoura, A., and Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical sex in the bilingual lexicon: testimonies of Greek and German. Mr. Biling. long. Mr.

Cogn. 10, 257-275. doi: 10.1017/s136728907003069 As mentioned above, the “marking and morphing” model is incompatible with the appeal of gender agreements. We believe that the central mechanism that underlies the number and attractiveness of gender agreement in production is the same, which is why we are opting for the retrieval approach. Of course, in the case of the number of semantic factors influencing concordance, and their influence is expected to be recognized much more easily in production than in understanding: in production, we begin with the conceptual structure whereas that is our objective in understanding. Vigliocco and Franck (1999) have shown that errors in the attraction of gender chords are less common when head substitutions have conceptual and not purely grammatical genders. Semantic factors thus also play a role here, but given the relevant differences13 between number and sex, this role is different: they mainly reduce the size of the effect. It would be very interesting to assess their influence on the attractiveness of gender agreements in understanding: we expect it to be much smaller, as in the case of a numbers agreement. Thus, the differences between production and understanding observed by Tanner et al. (2014) may also be relevant to the interaction between the sexes, but the image revealed by our experiences cannot be explained by them. Let`s sum up the results of experiments 2a, 2b and 3.

The appeal of the gender chord has been observed with F heads and M or N attractors and with N heads and M or F attractors, but not with M heads and F or N tracers. This leads us to conclude that the attraction depends primarily on the characteristics of the head and not on the characteristics of the attraktor.