Normally, one would apply for several scholarships, and hope to be offered two or three, so it would be normal to say 'any scholarships'.'Any' can be either singular or plural depending on the context. If you use a singular noun, you don't need 'any', just use 'a'. Is a negative, so if you want to use 'any', it would be usage 3, 'plural nouns'.
We also compare the behavioral findings with the predictions of four computational implementations of the Marking & Morphing account. The findings are discussed in the context of three models of agreement (Marking & Morphing, competition and controller misidentification), which differ in the extent to which they allow the influence of non-syntactic factors on agreement. In addition, we investigate the effect of morphophonological homophony onto the participants’ productions of agreeing forms.
On this view, agreement computations are a process of reconciliation of the conceptual number of a noun phrase (NP) and grammatical number specifications of morphemes that constitute the phrase ( Bock, Eberhard, Cutting, Meyer, & Schriefers, 2001 Eberhard, Cutting, & Bock, 2005), the results of which are then transmitted to agreeing elements (e.g. One approach assumes that the mechanisms governing agreement are primarily syntactic in nature, with some early and constrained input from non-syntactic information. Despite the typical speed and accuracy with which agreement is computed, the mapping between a subject noun phrase and its agreeing verb is a complex one in many languages, and language production researchers have repeatedly studied this relationship as a window into sentence production processes.Within this research, there are two general views on the nature of the cognitive processes that compute agreement. Her utterance is a relatively rare example of a conscious contemplation of subject-verb agreement, which usually proceeds rapidly and without reflection during language production. In informal English, you usually use the plural form of the verb 'were' as follows: If any of the devices were not switched off, do something.Rosemary: Some biscuits or a piece of cake… ‘goes’ or ‘go’ better with an afternoon tea?A reader asks, If a countable noun comes after any, then should it the noun be singular or plural Like the indefinite article a/an, the word any derives from a form of the Old English word for one.Primarily an adjective, it is also used as a pronoun.In this quote, the speaker expresses indecisiveness about whether the verb should be singular ( goes) or plural ( go) for the subject noun phrase biscuits or cake. The use of the singular form of the verb 'was' after 'any of the devices' in the sentence presented is correct grammatically, but it's more formal.
On this view, conceptual properties influence number information on the NP ( marking), but in the subsequent morphing process, computing agreement on the verb is a syntactic operation, via hierarchical feature passing. Hence in the above example, the plural feature of the morpheme s would support the conceptually plural marking of the noun phrase, and during morphing the plural feature would be transmitted to the verb, resulting in the cats are pl. During morphing, which is the process of activating representations supporting phonological encoding, the number features resulting from marking are reconciled with number specifications of the NP morphemes in the lexicon ( cat s pl) and then transmitted to agreeing elements. To use a simple example, in the clause the cats are asleep this process would involve an evaluation of whether the message refers to single or multiple entities, and in the case of multiple feline animals it would result in marking the NP as plural. In the Marking and Morphing account of these processes ( Eberhard et al., 2005), agreement computation starts with an evaluation of the notional number of the NP, and through marking the resulting number feature is transmitted to the root of the subject noun phrase. Gillespie & Pearlmutter, 2011 Solomon & Pearlmutter, 2004), reflecting the view that abstract grammatical features are transmitted through a hierarchical syntactic structure.
Bybee & McClelland, 2005 Goldberg, 2006), and it is also consistent with linguistic treatments of agreement that emphasize the influence of semantic factors (e.g. This type of account is generally consistent with linguistic approaches that do not draw such a clear distinction between the lexicon and syntax as is held in the Marking and Morphing view (e.g. MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994 McRae, Spivey-Knowlton, & Tanenhaus, 1998 Spivey, Tanenhaus, et al., 1998 Trueswell & Tanenhaus, 1994), and it embodies the theoretical account in implementing syntactic features as the strongest constraint.A second approach views agreement computations as emerging from competition between alternative forms during the process of mapping between the message and its phonological form. The computational implementation of the account ( Eberhard et al., 2005) models agreement as essentially a constraint satisfaction process (e.g.
Further, the competition account predicts that conflicting information from different sources will increase processing time and/or variability of responses. On this view, the conceptual and grammatical information together influence agreement computations agreement is not viewed as a process of first using conceptual information in marking and later transmitting grammatical features in morphing. For example, conceptually plural but grammatically singular nouns such as family will promote the use of plural verbs because conceptual plurality in English is correlated with plural verb form use ( Haskell & MacDonald, 2003). In competition accounts, different sources of information, including non-syntactic factors, influence the choice of agreeing elements to the extent that they are correlated with the agreeing form ( Haskell & MacDonald, 2003 Thornton & MacDonald, 2003).
A class of children) but also non-collective, singular noun-headed, NPs, e.g. For example, previous encounters with the phrases such as a trio of violinists and a committee of opera directors paired with plural verbs increase the likelihood of producing plural verbs with other collective (e.g. Furthermore, this account also emphasizes the role of learning from previous experiences with distributional patterns in the language. The competition account also shares features with constraint satisfaction models in psycholinguistics, particularly in the hypothesis that several different factors simultaneously influence agreement computations ( MacDonald et al., 1994 Trueswell & Tanenhaus, 1994).
The controller misidentification account thus focuses on the morpho-syntactic processes involved in identifying the agreement controller, and also suggests that the relevance of different morpho-syntactic features will depend on the type of agreement. According to the controller misidentification account, the local NP is more likely to be misidentified as the agreement controller when it shares features used in identifying the sentence subject (e.g. Number but not case ambiguous: die Stellungnahme sg zu den dat sg,pl Demonstrationen pl - the position on the demonstrations). Number and case ambiguous: die Stellungnahme sg gegen die nom,acc sg,pl Demonstrationen pl - the position against the demonstrations, vs.
0 kommentar(er)
