Диссертация (Experimental study of several core concepts of theoretical morphology (on the material of russian) - regularity, syncretism, markedness), страница 25

(2013). What counts in grammatical number agreement?Cognition 128, 149–169. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.009Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M. R., and Provost, J. (1993). Psyscope: a newgraphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behav.Res.

Methods Instrum. Comput. 25, 257–271.Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: areconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 87–185.doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01003922Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., and Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusionprofiles for agreement and anaphora: experimental and modeling evidence.

J.Mem. Lang. 69, 85–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes ofsubject–verb agreement in English. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 560–578.Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., and Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense:number agreement in sentence production. Psychol.

Rev. 112, 531–559. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531Farkas, D., and de Swart, H. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of plurals.Semant. Pragmat. 3, 1–54. doi: 10.3765/sp.3.6Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. J. Eng. Linguist. 19, 309–317.Franck, J. (2015). “Attraction errors: novel insights into the relationship betweengrammar and processing,” in Talk Given at the “Agreement across Boards”Conference, (Zadar, Croatia).Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., Antón-Méndez, I., Collina, S., and Frauenfelder, U. H.(2008).

The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: a crosslinguistic study of form effects on agreement. Lang. Cogn. Process. 23, 329–374.doi: 10.1080/01690960701467993Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., and Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors inFrench and English: the role of syntactic hierarchy. Lang. Cogn. Process. 17,371–404. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000254Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org1957November 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1651Slioussar and MalkoGender Agreement Attraction in RussianSolomon, E. S., and Pearlmutter, N.

J. (2004). Semantic integration andsyntactic planning in language production. Cogn. Psychol. 49, 1–46. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.10.001Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: responsetime evidence. J. Mem. Lang. 60, 308–327. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.002Staub, A. (2010). Response time distributional evidence for distinctvarieties of number attraction. Cognition 114, 447–454. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.003Tanner, D., Nicol, J., and Brehm, L.

(2014). The time-course of feature interferencein agreement comprehension: multiple mechanisms and asymmetricalattraction. J. Mem. Lang. 76, 195–215. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003Van Dyke, J. A., and Johns, C. L. (2012). Memory interference as a determinantof language comprehension. Lang. Linguist.

Compass 6, 193–211. doi:10.1002/lnc3.330Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement inSpanish and English: differences in the role of conceptual constraint. Cognition61, 261–298.Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing subject-verbagreement in speech: the role of semantic and morphological factors.

J. Mem.Lang. 34, 186–215.Vigliocco, G., and Franck, J. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Genderagreement in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 40, 455–478.Vigliocco, G., and Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word orderin language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition 68,B13–B29.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgVigliocco, G., and Zilli, T. (1999). Syntactic accuracy in sentence production:the case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpairedspeakers. J.

Psycholinguist. Res. 28, 623–648.Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction incomprehension: representations and processes. J. Mem. Lang. 61, 206–237. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002Yanovich, I. (2012). “What can Russian gender tell about the semantics of phifeatures?,” in Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 21. Indiana University,Bloomington. Talk given at FASL 21, Indiana University.

Available onlineat: http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~yanovich/papers/Yanovich_FASL_2012_handout.pdfYanovich, I., and Fedorova, O. (2006). “Subject-verb agreement errors in Russian:head noun gender effect,” in Proceedings of “Dialog 2006”. Available online at:http://www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2006/materials/html/Yanovich2.htmConflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research wasconducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that couldbe construed as a potential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2016 Slioussar and Malko.

This is an open-access article distributedunder the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the originalauthor(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journalis cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.

No use, distribution orreproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.2058November 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1651Appendix E.Paper “Gender, declension and stem-final consonants: an experimentalstudy of gender agreement in Russian”Slioussar, N. (2018). Gender, declension and stem-final consonants: an experimentalstudy of gender agreement in Russian.

Computational Linguistics and IntellectualTechnologies, 17, 688-700.59GENDER, DECLENSION AND STEM-FINALCONSONANTS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDYOF GENDER AGREEMENT IN RUSSIANSlioussar N. A. (slioussar@gmail.com)Higher School of Economics, Moscow, and Saint-PetersburgState University, Saint-Petersburg, RussiaEvery adult native speaker of Russian knows that kon’ is masculine andlan’ is feminine, although 3rd declension nouns present some difficultiesin the first and second language acquisition. However, will the fact thatthese nouns are less frequent than masculine nouns ending in a consonantor feminine nouns ending in -a/ja play a role for online subject-predicateagreement processing? Or will subject-predicate agreement processingbe more problematic with subjects of a certain gender? Finally, some finalconsonants are more characteristic for feminine gender, while the othersfor masculine gender. Are speakers sensitive to this? We present two experiments addressing these questions.

We found that all three factors playa role, but for different tasks (online agreement processing or determiningthe gender of a novel word) and at different processing stages.Keywords: grammatical gender, declension, experimental, RussianРОД, СКЛОНЕНИЕИ КОНЕЧНЫЙ СОГЛАСНЫЙОСНОВЫ: ЭКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНОЕИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ СОГЛАСОВАНИЯПО РОДУ В РУССКОМ ЯЗЫКЕСлюсарь Н. А. (slioussar@gmail.com)НИУ ВШЭ, Москва, и СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург, Россия1. IntroductionThe gender of many Russian nouns cannot be determined from their inflectionalaffixes. But nouns are not distributed evenly among genders and declensions. Firstly,masculine nouns are in general more frequent than feminine and neuter (48% vs.35% and 17% forms in the grammatically disambiguated subcorpus of the Russian68860Gender, Declension and Stem-final ConsonantsNational Corpus (RNC, http://www.ruscorpora.ru)).

Secondly, a nominative singular form ending in -a/ja or with a zero inflection may be masculine or feminine, butthe former is much more likely to be feminine, while the latter is much more likelyto be masculine (more details about are given below). Thirdly, if the final consonantof a noun with a zero inflection is taken into account, we will see that, for example,most nouns ending in -s’ are feminine, while most nouns ending in -r’ are masculine.In this paper, we present two experimental studies exploring whether native speakers of Russian are sensitive to the distributional properties outlined above. The first experiment is dedicated to the online processing of gender agreement. In the second pilotexperiment, we study how participants determine the gender of real and nonce nouns.Now let us discuss the relevant properties of nouns in more detail.

Table 1 showsthe distribution of nouns among genders and declensions in the grammatically disambiguated subcorpus of the RNC. Masculine nouns ending in -a/ja and feminine nounswith a zero inflection are termed non-prototypical due to their low relative frequency.These nouns are known to be problematic for the L1 and L2 acquisition (e.g. [Janssen,2016]; [Rodina & Westergaard, 2012]; [Schwartz et al., 2015]; [Tseitlin 2000]). But[Rusakova 2013] who studied naturally occurring errors in spoken Russian found thatadult native speakers do not make more gender agreement errors with such nouns1.Still, what does not show up in the number of errors may influence online sentenceprocessing.

Experiment 1 is dedicated to this question.In this paper, we focus on consonant-final nouns. The distributional picture getsmore complex if the nature of the final consonant is taken into account. The genderof the words ending in /ž/, /š/, /č’/, /š’č’/ can be determined orthographically, whilewords ending in other non-palatalized consonant can be only masculine. No suchclues are available for the words ending in other palatalized consonants, but, as Table 2 shows, their distribution between the two genders varies greatly (to representboth the relative frequencies of different forms and the number of existing lemmaswe relied not only on the RNC, but also on the Grammatical Dictionary of the RussianLanguage [GDRL, Zaliznjak, 1987]).The majority of nouns ending in labials are feminine.