In this experiment, we committed to studying gender-marking mechanisms by inviting participants to assess the grammatical acceptance of sentences that, under different conditions, violate gender agreement. The reason for this is that the more acceptable the bad agreement is in each condition, the more treaty violations should be more accepted. Conditions varied according to gender (female vs. male) and number (one vs. two) of stakeholders. We also included a simple plural condition in which there was only one plural reference point (female or male). This condition allows us to directly compare treaty violations with associated NPs (z.B. it bicchiere e il cappello `the glass and the hat`) and contractual violations with pluralistic subtantitives (z.B. i bicchieri `the glasses`). These two conditions require a pluralistic agreement, but only the first implies the integration of different gender characteristics beyond the names. On the other hand, agreement with a plural substrate – as is the case with a single noun – involves only a lexical node. In this way, it is possible to check whether the different lexical entries with several plurals are treated as the combination of two singular lexical entries with regard to the chord process.

The past participates when used with avere, never changes with the subject of reconciling. However, it must correspond to the object in sentences in which this is expressed by a climatic pronoun of the person (z.B. Hai mangiato la mela? – Se, ho mangiata (Did you eat the apple? – Yes, I ate it)). If the object is expressed instead by a climatic prognosis of the first or second person, the agreement is optional: Maria! Ti ha chiamato / Giovanni chiamata? – No, no mi ha chiamato / chiamata (Maria! Did Giovanni call you? – No, he didn`t). It could be argued that the stated pattern of reaction effects is due to the adoption of a reaction strategy by the subjects. In particular, it may be that once they recognized an object with a male name, participants reacted without further treatment of the second object. As soon as they realized that two objects were being presented (instead of one) and that one of them was a man, they interrupted the subsequent processing of the second object and responded with the male plural. For this reason, the difference between male-congruous and mixed conditions could be explained by the fact that participants randomly choose the object they want to see first. This argument, however, has difficulty explaining the pattern of findings in error rates. This argument predicts that as long as two female objects are identified, the level of accuracy would not vary compared to other conditions. Contrary to this prediction, errors in female congruent-sexual disease were consistently higher than other conditions in both experiments. Cinque, G.

(1999). Adverbs and functional minds: an inter-linguistic perspective. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedmann, N., Grodzinsky, Y. (1997). Stretched and consistent in agrammatic production: the syntatic tree cut down. Brain and Language, 56, 397-425. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1795 Fyndanis, V., Varlokosta, S., Tsapkini, K. (2012).

Agrammatic production: interpretable characteristics and selective bending. Lingua, 122, 1134-1147. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.05.004 Thompson, C.K., Shapiro, L.P., Tait, M. E., Jacobs, B.J., Schneider, S.L., Ballard, K. (1995). A system of linguistic analysis of agrammatic linguistic production. Brain and Language, 51, 124-127. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2052 Wang, H., Yoshida, M., Thompson, C.