Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 a Stankovi Branimir eti agaepouto,rf 6fudta nls speakers English that found 16 ref. production, language in ment conjuncts. the of one neither by coordi- headed are to they comes rela- as it phrases, relevant when nated a specifically is operations order syntactic be for linear studies tion that not of (12–15) would number argued phrases a recently Yet have noun controllers. conjoined agreement it two possible structure syntax, equally the within latter that relations this expected linear-order Given purely is of asymmet- 1). scarcity is (Fig. the coordinations 7), (8–11) and of hierarchical (6, structure and operator internal ric symmetric the evi- a extensive that developed as dence has theory treated syntactic and in is research language whereas of it philosophy theory, the in semantic where sciences, language the relations. hierarchical on reliance syntactic is other norm of with the those where operate from relations, distinct may partially is morphology principles, opportunity own it agreement an its if offer whether (even therefore examine one verb Coordinations to closest the NP). linearly conjoined, second the subject are languages the with the that Slavic agree When (NPs) sometimes South order: phrases can that in linear noun shown Nonetheless, on two was based happy?” contains it agreement is ungrammat- 5, show coffee the ref. can as who not “Is such and woman forming work happy?” the thus coffee “Has hierar- closest, has the ical linearly who is the sentence woman the not the the of and beginning on highest, the the based happy,” chically to is moves question coffee that has yes–no who been verb lin- woman a not has “The forming sentence hierarchical, it declarative to when 4, generalizations. refers example, based ref. syntax hierarchically For by prefer that learners later as field order and the ear of 3 staple ref. a by highlighted English 2). (1, organization grammatical con- of and principles widespread, regular, sistent by governed and languages human I phrases noun coordinated syntax experimental from independent partly com- is which be of hierarchy. one syntactic steps, may of series morphology a The in agreement puted errors. that “attraction” found demonstrate as errors production results such of configurations kind comparable the with from distinct coordinate to and limited hierar- structures are over findings order these lan- However, linear structure. favor Slavic chical fact South in configurations, can on certain production in sites grammatical that research show results six and Experimental across methodology guages. identical used is An were order relation. linear design syntactic where relevant show a to methods also experimental July univer- use review grammatical We for a sal. (received as 2017 cherished 27, been November has approved structure and Hierarchical MA, Amherst, Amherst, at Massachusetts of 2017) University 21, Partee, H. Barbara by Edited Croatia 10000, Zagreb Serbia; Zagreb, 21000, of Sad University Novi Sciences, Sad, Novi of University Philosophy, 11794-4376; NY Herzegovina; Brook, Stony University, Brook Ni Stony of University Philosophy, of Faculty Ned www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712729115 syntax in Gold Willer hierarchy Jana over prevails linearity When iiino scooyadLnug cecs nvriyCleeLno,Lno CN1F ntdKingdom; United 1PF, WC1N London London, College University Sciences, Language and Psychology of Division hsatcew td h hnmnno ytci agree- syntactic of across found phenomenon is that the relation dependency study linguistic core we a ment, article this n nprle ihntefil fpyhlnusi tde fagree- of studies psycholinguistic of field the within parallel In in history long a has phrases coordinated of structure The in inversion auxiliary of patterns of demonstration the Since a Leko zad ˇ f etrfrCgiieSineo agae nvriyo oaGrc,Nv oia50,Slovenia; 5000, Gorica Nova Gorica, Nova of University Language, of Science Cognitive for Center e rn ak Maru Lanko Franc , | a oa Arsenijevi Boban , ytci agreement syntactic c ´ b Tina , | ot lvclanguages Slavic South Suligoj ˇ ,Ni s, ˇ 80,Serbia; 18000, s ˇ f si ˇ eeaTu Jelena , | c ˇ lctdlnug production language elicited f c ´ aj Mili Tanja , b i Batini Mia , e eateto nls,Fclyo hlspy nvriyo aaeo aaeo700 onaand Bosnia 71000, Sarajevo Sarajevo, of University Philosophy, of Faculty English, of Department sek ˇ c eateto igitc,Uiest fZdr aa 30,Croatia; 23000, Zadar Zadar, of University Linguistics, of Department h eateto ot lvclnugsadltrtrs aut fHmnte n Social and Humanities of Faculty literatures, and languages Slavic South of Department cev ´ h n nrwNevins Andrew and , c ´ c g ihe Becker Michael , Nata , aMili sa ˇ | iae 1,1) u hr smc escoslnusi evidence cross-linguistic less much is there but coor- 18), are that (17, a phrases dinated example noun in subject as postverbal conjuncts such for two attested cases widely of (as in closer phrase, verb noun linearly the coordinated the to the with agreement relative of verbal take because examples question can in this subject shown address the to an position also languages variable are of languages set Slavic of based South ideal agreement. hierarchically terms based reflect in linearly should or conflict morphology in grammatical verbal (as a whether subject posing preverbal thereby a agreement, in combined are example (N) neuter and (F) reduced be to errors.” cannot Slavic imperative “performance South to is in patterns it relevant order agreement, the mor- that linear of show Slavic computation of the South consequences for in important mattering agreement the conjunct Given linear phosyntax? is experimen- The how robust was error. therefore, tally of investigate, result to out the set partly we con- in question but and replicated based languages later grammar other findings partly of sidered of variety a set across a key and the missing), comprehension (e.g., “attrac- are phrases cabinets called noun the order, of to complement linear plural on the based with tion,” agreement of cases show 1073/pnas.1712729115/-/DCSupplemental at online information under supporting contains article This distributed is 1 article BY-NC-ND). (CC 4.0 access License NonCommercial-NoDerivatives open This Submission. Direct PNAS a is article This interest. of conflict wrote no declare A.N. authors and F.L.M., The B.A., and data; analyzed A.N. paper. the and F.L.M., Becker, M. B.A., J.W.G., N. uhrcnrbtos ...... n ..dsge eerh .. .Batini M. B.A., research; designed A.N. and F.L.M., B.A., J.W.G., contributions: Author owo orsodnesol eadesd mi:[email protected]. Email: addressed. be should correspondence whom To ...... S,BS,T. B.S., A.P.-S., I.M., N.M., T.M., F.L.M., N.L., M.K., C., rmas”tems tiigo hc steoerequiring one the is order. which linear to of reference striking direct “multiple most synchronous entertain the can grammars,” language a that sug- gesting strongly large- intraindividual, mostly A was preference. discovered target. distinct this Variation in linguistically their uniformity and remarkable after discovered geographically varieties or six over before controllers study either scale agreement come comparing for Slavic can design preference South that a in strong structures a with coordination show languages, in We strategy research. linear of the domi- from body order—stems The linear large structure. a a in tree-like words of measure counting a possible logically distance—e.g., other in the over nodes hierarchy of nance the only hierarchically counting measured by standardly is distance Syntactic Significance ˇ cevi nSuhSai agae ihtregnes hnfeminine when genders, three with languages Slavic South In ´ d c Nermina , ´ g a,1 vn Miti Ivana , ,teeaetoptnilnneal otolr of controllers nondefault potential two are there ii), PNAS Cordalija ˇ i c ´ | and b nt Peti-Stanti Anita , aur 6 2018 16, January .Coetcnuc agreement—i.e., conjunct Closest ii). g e b eateto nls tde,Fclyof Faculty Studies, English of Department aiaaKresi Marijana , eatetfrSrinlanguage, Serbian for Department . | www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. raieCmosAttribution- Commons Creative o.115 vol. . n ..promdresearch; performed J.T. and S., ˇ d eateto Linguistics, of Department c ´ h , c ´ c , | o 3 no. hsbeen i—has | 495–500 c, ´

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Experiment 2 was a speeded acceptability judgment test where participants were presented with a total of 138 sentences. Sixty- four were experimental stimuli, alongside 64 distractor items and an additional 10 anchoring items to allow participants to Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of coordination (9–11). establish clear endpoints of the grammaticality scale. Half of the experimental items were SV and the other half VS. There were eight conditions placed in both SV and VS configurations [all for closest-conjunct agreement in preverbal cases such as exam- gender combinations except masculine (M)+M] and two sen- ple ii. In South Slavic languages, both are possible, as shown in tences per condition. The stimuli were identical to those elicited these examples from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: in the production study. Twenty native speakers at each of six sites, with the same criteria outlined above, rated each agree- ment structure with a judgement from 1 to 5 for its degree of acceptability. The design and methodology of the three experiments were identical across sites, with local adaptation of vocabulary and morphosyntax orthogonal to agreement. Participants were ages 18–22 y, were not linguistics students, and were native speakers N.PL, neuter plural; F.PL, feminine plural. who grew up in the region tested. An earlier study (14) demonstrated that all three options— agreement with the first conjunct, agreement with the second Results conjunct, and default masculine plural agreement—are used in The “default” value for conjuncts with mixed genders is M plural, Slovenian. Here we broaden the scope of investigation to the and this is an option that is often suggested in prescriptive gram- entire western South Slavic linguistic branch shown in Fig. 2 mars, presumably avoiding the choice of privileging the gender of to verify the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon. either conjunct and rather opting for a default (or “last resort”) These languages are an ideal testbed for comparison of language value for the conjunction as a whole. Thus, for example, when distances and changes in progress as they include Slovenian as an &P in preverbal position has a combination such as N + M, well as three varieties that until recently were considered a sin- and we see M agreement on the verb, we cannot tell whether it gle language (Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian), but with the is default or closest conjunct agreement. However, in the com- dissolution of former Yugoslavia have become official national binations N + F and F + N, there are three distinct options: languages with independent prescriptive norms that occasionally first-conjunct agreement (hierarchical), closest-conjunct agree- aim to widen the gap between neighboring varieties, typically in ment (linear), and default agreement. Note that in postverbal the domain of the lexicon. (VS) contexts, the first conjunct is the closest conjunct. In SV contexts, therefore, linear agreement favors the second conjunct, Experiments while hierarchical agreement favors the first conjunct, as shown Three experiments were conducted. The methodology used in in Fig. 3, Left. In VS contexts, neither strategy favors the second experiments 1a and 1b, elicited production, involved coordi- conjunct, as shown in Fig. 3, Right. nated noun phrases. In elicited production, participants first see a model sentence, such as Prevod je ovjeren peˇcatom, “The trans- Linear Agreement Is Robust Across All Sites. The results showed lation [masculine singular (M.SG)] was authenticated (M.SG) that linear agreement was robustly found across all sites, as by seal.” They then see a replacement noun phrase, a coordi- shown in Fig. 4 for the preverbal [N&F] and [F&N] conditions. nated phrase (&P) in the target conditions, displayed onscreen, In fact, linear agreement trumps hierarchical agreement at least as Molbe i rjeˇsenja, “requests (F.PL) and decisions (N.PL).” After three times to one, across all six sites. seeing the replacement noun phrase, they were asked to sub- These results establish that closest conjunct agreement is stitute the subject of the model sentence with the replacement greatly preferred to highest conjunct agreement. As noted above, phrase and produce the new complete sentence, e.g., Molbe i however, default agreement (e.g., M plural) is an additional rjeˇsenja su ovjeren-i/-a/-e peˇcatom, “Requests (F.PL) and deci- last resort strategy available to speakers alongside highest and sions (N.PL) were authenticated (M.PL/N.PL/F.PL) by seal,” where the dependent variable is the gender ending they place on the verb in this new production. Responses were recorded, clas- sified, and tabulated. Additionally, production latency until they continued to the next item was measured. As an independent variable we included all nine &P combi- nations of the three genders, with six items per condition. The NPs involved were always inanimate and plural, and the depen- dent variable was the gender agreement on the participle. Inani- mates were chosen to allow all three genders to potentially con- trol agreement based on their position, without interference of semantic preferences for animacy-based gender. Plurals were chosen to ensure a match between the number of each individual conjunct and that of conjunction as a whole. We used 54 distrac- tor items (18 relative clauses, e.g., “the table that was broken”; 18 quantified noun phrases, e.g., “12 chairs”; and 18 “hybrid” nouns, e.g., ones with mismatching morphological and semantic gender). Experiment 1a focused on SV configurations (preverbal subject NPs), with 30 participants at each of the six sites as shown in Fig. 2. Experiment 1b focused on VS configurations (postver- bal subject NPs) of the same conditions, again with n = 30 at Fig. 2. Research sites for the South Slavic comparison. Map was created six sites. with R’s ggmap package, using Google Maps data.

496 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712729115 Willer Gold et al. Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 ilrGl tal. et Gold Willer in item first evi- the for provides role special structures particularly no postverbal high is in there extremely that the agreement dence However, linear sentence. of the is it in rate because item cases preverbal first in very out lin- themselves, the wins for conjunct conjuncts first preference of the terms particular that in but no agreement is interpretation hierarchical there second vs. that ear The claim choice. to based be would agreement hierarchically plural a M not default is that out—and linear wins that confirming truly postverbal structures, agreement in preverbal lower in is much it agree- is than agreement nondefault, structures default i.e., of rate first-conjunct, production The yield ment. distinct two both con- are that first there strategies the structures, postverbal on two in converge these junct both As strategies themselves. to controller coordination refer agreement the here within used as conjuncts agreement the “hierar- “linear” because and is this agreement hypothesis, chical” last By postverbal shows. a in 6 plummets Fig. as as drastically conditions, than agreement that default rather found of basis we (24), rate empirically the the conflict However, on herein). of whole proposed combinations) cases (as a N resort in features as + conjunct coordination the each F the reflecting of or by choice, computed based F default are hierarchically + that analyze of N kind to in a con- be plural as agreement M would (e.g., in One agreement hierarchy coordination. over given linearity trollers for preference ent (20–23). production real-time during compete that is “multiple grammars” mod- flexibility simultaneous of entertain grammatical indicative speakers individual generally where compati- whereby more els 19, and are latency, ref. results increase as These to found such 5. claims Fig. pro- with in for ble shown average overall as highest latency, the [N&F] duction the have Thus, controller, conditions them. agreement [F&N] among choose of and to choice time one more take than participants, literally which more in have models they overall with when an compatible found are and results These conditions mil- nine correlation in the time strong of situa- production each divergent average for most overall liseconds the the is compared matches We FN/NF always tion. of Finally, default level strategy. where next FM, other The MF, one NM, outcome. and MN, same hierarchical, is the linear, complexity yield condition, all this strategies Shannon for lowest default pro- as the 0.002, with the produc- of configurations over of [M&M] Entropy in uniformity computed com- found greatest is entropy are the tion Shannon default) whereby and responses, of duction closest, terms (highest, Suppose in mea- options conditions. pared we nine three study, all all for same that latencies the production Within the ones. sured preferred based often hierarchically are controllers to agreement linear agreement, for the among choices linear strategies. nondefault vs. as hierarchical conjuncts two on ques- research addi- specifically Our 100%). is the to tion up for adding responses responsible of rates (thereby tional agreement conjunct closest (Right VS in whereas converge. distinct, they are strategies two these verbal), 3. Fig. e scnie w lentv nepeain o h appar- the for interpretations alternative two consider us Let conjunct a choosing of production of phenomenon the For ihs bu)v.coet(e)areeti P.I V(Left SV In &Ps. in agreement (red) closest vs. (blue) Highest ρ 0.90, = P < .0 o h Vconditions. SV the for 0.005 (postverbal) ) (pre- ) e vraheacial lsroei upiig ie the given surprising, is cho- one is closer agreement hierarchically for a controller closer over linearly sen a that Attraction. finding from Distinct Is Agreement strategy. Linear possible grammatically a indeed is indicat- former a altogether, the with that conjunct agreement ing the with from compared absent agree- highly completely hierarchical more feature rated shows, still 7 is Fig. ment as Nonetheless, clos- linearly controller. a to est agree- out loses conjunct generally preverbal controller for hierarchical confirming least ment, at agreement, that, conjunct these results highest production of fact the all in con- than is [M&F] lower and ones, strategy, is [M&N], previous highest-rated [F&N], that [N&F], third conjunct the The in second ditions. as a N, or with F agreement either conjunct agreement default closest are and strategies on the highest-rated agreement next M in The of verb. as result agreement the the noun, closest deliver would M either agreement an where default or rated—particularly also conditions, [N&M] is highly and agreement [F&M] most of linearly controller is that the show when agreement 7, accept- Fig. conjunct in be conditions The based SV up actually study. the rating line for a would shown studies 2, results, experiment what production conducted we of of Therefore, impor- able. results judgments is the speakers’ that it with confirm Nonetheless, to prefer. tant arguably noun speakers coordinated strategies the within closest and itself. choice phrase the highest that rather between and controller is privileged a as sentence the bars. mean of SE with site per shown choice (n of preverbally percentage conditions, age [F&N] and [N&F] for agreement 4. Fig. ersin hno nrp frsosssgicnl rdcsproduction predicts significantly responses time, of entropy Shannon high- regression, (where diverge), condition agreement SV closest the and in est combinations gender nine the for ductions 5. Fig. rdcinsuisofradrc iwo h grammatical the of view direct a offer studies Production β 86, = rdcintm ssgicnl orltdwt nfriyo pro- of uniformity with correlated significantly is time Production ae fheacial ae hget s ierybsd(closest) based linearly vs. (highest) based hierarchically of Rates t = 4.10, P PNAS < 0.0001. | aur 6 2018 16, January n 8.I ul rse mixed-effects crossed fully a In 180. = | ssae bv,the above, stated As o.115 vol. 8) ihaver- with 180), = | o 3 no. | 497

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Fig. 7. Acceptability ratings for agreement as controlled by the closest (M), Fig. 6. Rates of default agreement in SV (preverbal coordination) vs. VS default, closest (F or N), highest, or no conjunct (n = 120), modeled as a (postverbal coordination) structures. Default agreement is produced signif- fully crossed mixed-effects regression with a five-level Helmert-coded pre- icantly more often in SV structures than it is in VS structures (41% vs. 5%, dictor. The combination of default and closest agreement is rated signifi- fully crossed and centered logistic mixed-effects linear model, t = 11.72, p < cantly higher than default agreement only. Closest agreement is rated sig- 0.0001). nificantly higher than agreement with highest, which in turn is rated higher than the baseline lack of agreement. All significant differences marked with * between the relevant columns. longstanding demonstration that syntactic operations, and indeed learners, typically prefer hierarchical over linear general- izations. At first blush, it might be tempting to relate our findings to the kind of performance errors found in agreement-attraction verbal subjects (compare Fig. 4) might lead one to ask whether production studies such as “The key to the cabinets are miss- &Ps have any internal hierarchical structure at all. Indeed, if ing” (16, 25); see also ref. 26 for an overview of comprehension &Ps lacked internal hierarchical structure, the entire question studies. However, the rate of linear agreement obtained in our of whether linearity trumps hierarchy becomes moot. However, results is much higher than that usually found in production stud- there is incontrovertible evidence based on our results that &Ps ies of attraction [around 13%, in a metaanalysis of 16 studies have internal hierarchical structure, as found in the comparisons (27)], suggesting it is a distinct phenomenon. In fact, we included between SV (preverbal) and VS (postverbal) structures. To see attraction configurations as well, to compare the two kinds of why this is so, consider what the results would be like if &Ps were structures, using the same elicited production technique; for flat structures, as shown in Fig. 10. If &Ps were flat, there should example, the model sentence Reklama je emitovana na radiju, be no difference in the rate of agreement with NP1 in preverbal “The advertisment (F.SG) was broadcasted (F.SG) on the structures vs. the rate of agreement with NP2 in postverbal struc- radio,” was paired with a replacement phrase featuring a postver- tures, as both are distal conjuncts (i.e., linearly farther away from bal subject in a relative clause, such as Pitanje koje su postavili the verb than the other conjunct), but both are “equally far” from sluˇsaoci, “The question (N.SG) that had asked (M.PL) the lis- the verb. By contrast, given a hierarchical structure for &Ps as in teners (M.PL),” where the M plural is linearly most rightward, Fig. 1, there should be a difference in the rate of agreement with but not hierarchically highest. The substitution could thereby NP1 in preverbal structures, which are still hierarchically favored, potentially result in linearly based attraction, such as Pitanje vs. the rate of agreement with NP2 in postverbal structures, which koje su postavili sluˇsaoci su emitovan-i na radiju, “The question are neither linearly nor hierarchically favored. that the listeners (M.PL) had asked (M.PL) were broadcasted The results demonstrate an asymmetry: NP1 agreement in (M.PL) on the radio.” Nonetheless, as Fig. 8 shows, linear agree- SV structures is greatly preferred to NP2 agreement in VS ment is greatly overshadowed by hierarchical agreement in these structures. Hierarchical structure is the way to encode asymme- attraction configurations, in stark contrast to the conjunct agree- try: Without hierarchy, structures would be flat, symmetric, and ment results in Fig. 4. Comparison of the rate of highest con- equally (dis)preferable for the distal conjunct, and recall that in junct agreement in coordination structures vs. its rate in attrac- the elicited production design, participants saw the entire con- tion configurations was significant in a fully crossed mixed-effects junction separately before producing VS agreement. Nonethe- logistic regression (z = 28.92, P < 0.0001), consistent with the less, in both production and perception, NP1 agreement in SV interpretation that linear agreement is distinct from agreement attraction in these languages and possibly beyond. Why should attraction show the expected preference for hierar- chical effects, whereas conjunction shows a preference for linear effects? We contend that the crucial factor is that the first con- junct in an &P is not the head of the &P and that hierarchy “fails” given the details of the structure of the &P. The two structures are compared in Fig. 9, where it can be seen that given a coor- dination structure, the higher NP1, is not the head of the whole phrase, and there is thus no reason for agreement to respect the hierarchy. By contrast, in an attraction structure based on a rela- tive clause, the noun projecting the higher NP1 is the head of the whole phrase, and agreement is therefore forced to respect the hierarchical structure. In short, the difference is that an &P is not headed by NP1, whereas an attraction structure is headed by the noun projecting NP1, and that makes all of the difference. Fig. 8. Rate of hierarchically based (highest) vs. linearly based (closest) However, at this point, the fact that NP2 has been overwhelm- agreement for attraction configurations, with average percentage of choice ingly chosen as a controller for agreement over NP1 with pre- shown per site with SE of mean bars.

498 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712729115 Willer Gold et al. Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 i.9. Fig. ilrGl tal. et Gold Willer Uni- at also (tested Gorica Nova of University institutions: research six at out Institutions. Research Methods and Materials representation processing. in and morphophonology, the predominant more of to becomes stage order interface linear second where the this at until delayed computation, be agreement whatso- therefore import can inanimate semantic and no for ever herein—has hand—particularly used stimuli other a the the Gram- nouns, in plurality. on computed a gender, deterministically compose matical singulars be inter- two can verbal whereby and and conjunction, nominal 36) both (35, of pretation semantics is information for Number relevant gender. highly for only occurs agreement based syntactic into late very grammar only of enters models (34). computations information with linear compatible oper- which are of in results above. order outlined these patterns the such, stages, agreement in As two multiple these variation the to individual yielding respect the ations with for applied is accounts it order, this linear where of in determination vary its computation. particular, may realize of in to stage operations, target later other a the If during to then form, controller form, phonological a rel- morphological specific from with stage, features syntax second the of the copies interface while the grammat- phrases, of for two a evant interface between establishes only the form, link logical for ical and relevant semantics computation, one with that the syntax suppose of particular, multi- In stage into 27). split earlier (14, is operations that of to operation stages according syntactic ple approach a an is (32, favor agreement results syntax which the some hierarchical that with of contend We models possibilities, 33). classic of within agreement model entirely in restricted variability efforts cur- is the a A model it within to errors. how strategies such, attraction is As focus than avail- research phenomenon pattern. rent readily different agreement most clearly highest-rated the a closest- the common, for and most 31 able, the and based 30, proved linearly com- coordinations, 13, agreement For syntactic refs. gender. into in also agreement effects see conjunct linear distance; admitting credence of lend of putations coordina- type necessity of this structure the of specific and to results the ones, elicited to hierarchical due Experimentally is override tions. this factors argued linear demonstra- have is where we been it case position world, has a preverbal the in agreement bly of 29), closest-conjunct corner (28, small documented postverbal well one While princi- in one can. grammar, in it the least of At corner hierarchy? pled override linearity can Where Discussion &Ps. specific in the stake nonetheless of at because headedness can precisely of that factors, kind Coordination linear one 11. by role but overturned Fig. a structure, be still in hierarchical is shown a there as involves nonetheless, agreement, 4, hierarchical Fig. for in shown as agreement, 11. Fig. NP in to shown as preferred tures, greatly is structures (Left uhamdlalw st drs h usino h linearly why of question the address to us allows model a Such hierarchical over preferred is agreement linear while Thus, s trcin(Right attraction vs. ) oprsno h eaiepstoso NP of positions relative the of Comparison h he xeiet 1,1,ad2 eecarried were 2) and 1b, (1a, experiments three The structures. ) 2 gemn nV struc- VS in agreement 1 n NP and 2 ncoordination in he edr msuie eiie n etr eeetrdi 3× a in entered were 1b). neuter) (experiment and feminine, postverbally (masculine, and genders 1a) Three (experiment preverbally = binations mean Materials. (age: and 36%) Design = M 64%, = per F 25 we y). (sex: 20.28 and 2, or demographics 20 experiment comparable voluntary (between of For students was site) participation. undergraduate participation their 133 the their for altogether in recruited credits Either degree course language. university received the a local they attended pursuing the variety, not logistical language of were local 1b. for study and the and school, where of ses- 1a secondary Slovenian, speakers experiments experimental local native of for all two exception recruited were the in were the They in 1b participants with participated different experiment was apart, y) reasons participant wk and 18.65 Each 1 1a = institutions. sions mean research experiment six (age: on the 25%] tested of = each (M) at males experiments 75%, literal = (F) from resulted created have Participants. was spe- could materials of that of gender mismatches set in gender parallel variation translation. a any to Slovenian, avoid research due For to across items. lexical uniformity lexical mostly ensure cific were to adapted Ni They minimal later Sarajevo, were Zadar, was locations. of adaptations and those The Croatian i.e., variety, Zagreb Sad. language of target variety the neutral to first the was material in Experimental created varieties. neutral local institutions’ research Language. linguistics for sciences. for tested language individuals the approval adult and institutional which healthy general of with the experiments each behavioral institutions, under research experiments six their all conducted across implemented of was University cedure and Ni of Herzegovina; University and and Zadar, Sad Bosnia of Novi Sarajevo, University and of Zagreb University of Croatia; University Slovenia; Ljubljana), of versity flat. 10. Fig. nV 30 s .0 ul rse n etrdmxdefcslna oe in model linear mixed-effects centered and crossed fully lme4, 2.00, vs. (3.02 VS in 11. Fig. n etrdlgsi ie-fet iermdli lme4, crossed in fully P 3%, model vs. linear (14% mixed-effects VS logistic in centered is and it than often more significantly produced is (Right ment < .01.Dsa gemn nS srtdsgicnl ihrta tis it than higher significantly rated is SV in agreement Distal 0.0001). β = ecnaeo itlpoutos(Left productions distal of Percentage xetddfeecsbtenS n Scniin f&swere &Ps if conditions VS and SV between differences Expected 1.02, h agaeue nteeprmn a dpe othe to adapted was experiment the in used language The o rvra s oteblsrcue.Dsa gemn nSV in agreement Distal structures. postverbal vs. preverbal for ) neprmn ,3 rt rscn-ersuet sx females [sex: students second-year or first- 30 1, experiment In t = 8.92, PNAS xeiet aad1 etdnn edrcom- gender nine tested 1b and 1a Experiments P < ,Sri.Asnl xeietldsg n pro- and design experimental single A Serbia. s, ˇ | 0.0001). aur 6 2018 16, January n aig fdsa agree- distal of ratings and ) | o.115 vol. β = | 1.72, o 3 no. ,adNovi and s, ˇ t = | 7.01, 499

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES factorial design with the two conjuncts as factors. For each condition, 6 Procedure. In experiments 1a and 1b, participants were tested individually. experimental items were created, amounting to a total of 54 stimulus items. Each participant was seated in a sound-isolated or quiet room. Examples Only inanimate plural count nouns were used in coordinations to ensure were displayed on a monitor in black on a white background in 12-point control over the number feature while manipulating gender and to avoid font size. Materials were presented on the screen using IbexFarm (37), a differences between neuter and nonneuter genders in the potential influ- free on-line experimental tool and platform. Participants were asked to read ence of biological gender. The nouns that were conjoined were from the and produce the experimental sentences with a loud and clear pronuncia- same semantic field and each one was individually compatible with the tion and were encouraged to speak at a natural pace. Response produc- predicate in the model sentence. Nouns were carefully chosen not to form tion was recorded by Audacity, using a built-in microphone, onto the com- idiomatic coordinations or collocations with the verb or each other (see puter in a .wav format. The digitally recorded responses were hand coded by SI Appendix, Experiment 1 for the full list of examples). An additional 54 native speakers according to their agreement endings and agreement fea- fillers were used in the experiment that did not involve conjoined noun tures. Responses were coded as correct responses when the model sentence phrases. Participants were first presented a model sentence that used a sim- was correctly repeated and contained the inflected participle, the exact par- ple nonconjoined masculine singular noun with a zero suffix both on the ticiple used in the model sentence, or a semantically similar one. Any sec- noun and on the agreeing verbal participle. All model sentences were made ond production of an inflected participle that differed from the first one on the same template: Subject(Noun) + Aux + Participle + Preposition + as a result of autocorrection was transcribed but these were not consid- Noun for experiment 1a and Preposition + Noun + Aux + Participle + Sub- ered in the analysis. Responses were coded as agreement errors when the ject(Noun) for experiment 1b. Prepositional phrases (adjuncts) were added sentence produced met all of the above criteria for correct responses but at the beginning or the end of the model sentence to fill in the slot in the the participant produced ambiguous or unintelligible agreement. Responses intonation contour taken by the subject in the other condition and to make were coded under miscellaneous responses when incorrect words were pro- the postverbal condition sound natural. The mean length in characters of duced, the sentence was interrupted, word order was changed, or when no the model sentence and the conjuncts was the same across all nine con- response was provided. Only uniquely correct responses were considered in ditions (model sentence mean, 28 characters with spaces/10 syllables; con- the analysis. junction mean, 18 characters with spaces/8 syllables). Eighteen comprehen- Experiment 2 was conducted simultaneously by all participants at each sion questions appeared after the replacement phrase to keep participants site in a computer lecture room. Experimental trials were preceded by engaged. The number of comprehension questions was balanced across eight practice examples and 10 anchoring items varying in grammaticality. conditions. Anchoring items were used to allow participants to create a benchmark of Experiment 2 was a rating study in which 128 sentences were presented grammaticality to be used on the experimental items that followed. For all in random order, with 64 experimental items and 64 fillers. For the exper- experiments, consent forms and a comprehensive biographic questionnaire imental items, the sentences from experiments 1a and 1b were chosen aimed to obtain information about the participants’ native language variety as the basis of design (see SI Appendix, Experiment 2 for the full list of were administered off-line. examples). There were 32 experimental conditions (16 postverbally, 16 pre- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The authors thank the PNAS editor, two anonymous verbally), with 2 sentences for each. On top of the genders of the two PNAS reviewers, D. Almeida, R. Bhatt, N. Chomsky, J. Lidz, and J. Mer- conjuncts, another factor was the gender agreement shown on the verb. chant for their insightful comments. This work was partially supported by Participants were shown the sentence for 3,500 ms and were then asked to Leverhulme Trust Grant 512900 (to A.N.) and by Slovenian Research Agency give an acceptability judgment for it on the next screen. Grants P6-0382 and J6-7282 (to F.L.M.).

1. Baker M (2008) The Syntax of Agreement and Concord (Cambridge Univ Press, Cam- 20. Roeper T (1999) Universal bilingualism. Biling Lang Cogn 2:169–186. bridge, UK). 21. Kroch A, Taylor A (1997) Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation 2. Chung S (1998) The Design of Agreement (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago). and language contact. Parameters of Morphological Change, eds van Kemenade A, 3. Chomsky N (1975) Reflections on Language (Pantheon, New York). Vincent N (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 297–235. 4. Crain S, Nakayama M (1987) Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 22. Yang C (2003) Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language (Oxford Univ Press, 63:522–543. Oxford). 5. Corbett G (1983) Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic 23. Sells P, Rickford J, Wasow T (1996) An optimality theoretic approach to variation in (Croom Helm, London). negative inversion in AAVE. Nat Lang Ling Theor 14:591–627. 6. Montague R (1973) The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. 24. Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM (2000) Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Lan- Philosophy, Language, and Artificial Intelligence, eds Kulas J, Fetzer JH, Rankin TL guage 76:759–798. (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp 141–162. 25. Haskell TR, MacDonald MC (2005) Constituent structure and linear order in language 7. Partee B, Rooth M (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning Use production: Evidence from subject verb agreement. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn and Interpretation of Language, eds Bauerle R, Schwarze C, von Stechow A (Walter 35:891–904. de Gruyter, Berlin), pp 361–383. 26. Wagers M, Lau E, Phillips C (2009) Agreement attraction in comprehension: Repre- 8. Goodall G (1983) A three-dimensional analysis of coordination. Chicago Ling Soc sentations and processes. J Mem Lang 61:206–237. 19:146–154. 27. Eberhard KM, Cutting JC, Bock K (2005) Making syntax of sense: Number agreement 9. Munn A (1992) A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. Linguist Rev 9:1–26. in sentence production. Psychol Rev 112:531–559. 10. Johannessen JB (1993) Coordinate-alpha and Unbalanced Coordination, ESCOL’93 28. Aoun J, Benmamoun E, Sportiche D (1994) Agreement, word order, and conjunction (Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY), in some varieties of Arabic. Ling Inq 24:195–220. pp 153–162. 29. Larson B (2013) Arabic conjunct-sensitive agreement and primitive operations. Ling 11. Kayne R (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Inq 44:611–631. 12. Marusiˇ cˇ F, Nevins A, Saksida A (2007) Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. Formal 30. Benmamoun E, Bhatia A, Polinsky M (2010) Closest conjunct agreement in head final Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, eds Compton R, Goledzinowska M, Savchenko U languages. Ling Variat Yearb 9:67–88. (Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, MI), pp 210–227. 31. Mitchley H (2015) Agreement and coordination in Xitsonga, Sesotho and Isixhosa: An 13. Bhatt R, Walkow M (2013) Locating agreement in grammar: An Argument from optimality theoretic perspective. MA thesis (Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South agreement in conjunctions. Nat Lang Ling Theor 31:951–1013. Africa). 14. Marusiˇ cˇ F, Nevins A, Badecker W (2015) The grammars of conjunction agreement in 32. Boskoviˇ c´ Zˇ (2009) Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Nat Lang Ling Theor Slovenian. Syntax 18:39–77. 27:455–496. 15. Bruening B, Al Khalaf E (2015) Linear order in syntax: Selection in coordination. 33. Murphy A, Puskarˇ Z, Closest Conjunct Agreement is an Illusion: Evidence from gender Available at http://udel.edu/∼bruening/Downloads/SelectionInCoordination4.1.1.pdf. agreement in Serbo-Croatian. Nat Lang Linguist Theory, in press. Accessed December 20, 2017. 34. Berwick R, Chomsky N (2011) The biolinguistic program: The current state of its evo- 16. Bock K, Miller C (1991) Broken agreement. Cogn Psychol 23:45–93. lution. The Biolinguistic Enterprise, eds di Sciullo A-M, Boeckx C (Oxford Univ Press, 17. McCloskey J (1986) Inflection and conjunction in modern Irish. Nat Lang Ling Theor Oxford), pp 19–41. 4:245–281. 35. Corbett G (2000) Number (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,UK) . 18. Doron E (2005) VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. modern 36. Veselinova L (2013) Verbal number and suppletion. The World Atlas of Language Hebrew. Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Dead Languages, ed Katalin Structures Online, eds Dryer MS, Haspelmath M (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary E´ (Mouton, Berlin), pp 239–264. Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany). 19. Hwang H, Kaiser E (2014) Having a syntactic choice is not always better: The effects 37. Drummond A (2011) IbexFarm, Version 0.2.7. Available at spellout.net/ibexfarm/. of syntactic flexibility on Korean production. Lang Cogn Neurosci 29:1115–1131. Accessed December 13, 2017.

500 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712729115 Willer Gold et al. Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021