A third striking possibility is that quantification could reduce the sensitivity to infringements. Inter-vocal studies have shown that plural quantization of an NP can actually reduce the likelihood of a plural agreement on a predicate. For example, plural numerical quantization of a noun occurs in many languages with the singular mark on the noun itself and with the singular predikat chord (Corbett, 2000). In these cases, the plural agreement on nouns, verbs and other predicates is redundant with the fictitious plurality that is clearly expressed on the quantifier. Some have suggested that typological models such as this in language may arise from processing considerations when language forms are shaped by processing requirements (e.g.B. Hawkins, 2011; MacDonald, 2013). In fact, some studies show that redundant morphosyntax in highly volatile languages can lead to difficulties in comprehension and processing (Caballero & Kapatsinski, in printing; Harris & Samuel, 2011), and that several brands can be particularly expensive if other information is already available (Caballero & Kapatsinski, in print; Kail, 1989). In addition, studies conducted in English on populations with limited processing capacity have also shown that redundant lexical and grammatical markings can impair comprehension (e.g.B. children with language disabilities: Montgomery, 2000) or cannot be treated at all (e.g.B. understanding of the non-indigenous language: VanPatten, 2004). Therefore, a reflection on the economics of transformation could lead to a decrease in sensitivity to the overconception of numbers in a verb (where it is a redundant mark) if the number is expressed more strongly in the NP itself (where it is semantically relevant).
Kreiner, H., Garrod, S., &Sturt, P. (2013). The overreality of numbers in the comprehension of sentences: the relationship between grammatical and conceptual factors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 829-874. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.667567 The results of this study clearly show that clear quantification influences the perception of subject-verb conformity violations in English. Behavioral measures (precision of judgment of the sentence hypothesis) and electrophysiological measures (amplitude P600) converged by finding that sensitivity to verbs vulnerable to conformity increases when the verb is preceded by an NP subject with a clear plural quantification. Our results are most consistent with the prediction/consultation of the concordance described in the introduction (Dillon et al., 2013; Tanner et al., 2014; Wagers et al., 2009). According to this approach, morphosyntaketic sensitivity – indicated here by the amplitude of the P600 and the accuracy of acceptance – is a function of both the quality of the predictive signal and the quality of the call signal. In the present study, quantified noun phrases contained stronger indications of NP plurality than PRs with a numerical determinant(s) for both prediction and consultation. This raises the additional question of whether the zero results of pluraterification included in Eberhard`s study may be due to a lack of sensitivity to quantification effects due to structural failures. Two empirical results oppose this.
First, the lack of effect of plural quantification in the results of Eberhards (1997) cannot be reduced to the fact that the quantified NP was incorporated, as its results showed robust effects of sinified PRs in integrated positions. Since the structural distances were identical under the singularly and pluralistic conditions, the decay quantities should have been identical under both conditions within the meaning of the MM model. Second, if multilateification influenced understanding and production in the same way and Eberhard`s zero result was simply due to decay (and our positive result due to a lack of disintegration), one would expect to see a tendency to greater power of attraction in the quantified plural than in the unidentified state in the production data, even if it does not reach any statistical significance. . . .