The main objective of this study was to test whether adult English as a mother tongue would be susceptible to injury from the S-V agreement, as has often been reported in previous studies, where there is generally a strong correlation between grammatical offences and the presence of (L) AN and/or P600 in adults L1 (Molinaro et al., 2011). However, we tried to verify whether these responses were modulated by the relative perception of S-V offences as a function of the expression position (medial vs. final) and the nature of the offence whether the verb had occurred without an S (failure to omission) or with a superfluous S (command error). We begin by reporting on the results of cluster-based permutation tests, which contrast the large medium forms of ERP waves in the grammatical state with those of the non-grammatical state (on the nature of the reduced chord and speech position). Grammar effects are used on nine representative electrodes (according to F3, Fz, F4 positions; C3, Cz, C4 and P3, Pz, P4 in a standard 10-20 configuration) of Figure 4, which also shows topographic maps that highlight the distribution and time of significant clusters. And be careful with and again – these conjunctions offer an alternative; They do not associate themselves with two things. This means that the verb is not automatically plural. So on what subject should the verb agree? Take a look at this sentence: This study used ERPS to study how Australian-English adults treated the S-V chord during audible comprehension of the sentence. The objective was to examine whether the effects of the NSA and P600 would vary depending on the relative position of perception related to the position of expression and the nature of the offence (verb).
Previous ERP studies on contract processing have shown that several aspects of experimental design (for example). B, the syntactic complexity of stimuli) can influence the online calculation of agree information (Molinaro et al., 2011). However, the possibility that perception may influence the calculation of the S-V agreement has not been systematically studied to date. In light of the results of previous S-V contract studies, we believe that S-V offences will cause LAN and/or P600 effects. However, we assume that the impact of these effects would be mitigated both by the position of expression (media versus final) and by the nature of the offence (failure of omission against the commission). Specifically, we predicted that the impact on higher conditions (control errors and expression terminations) would be more robust than for their counterparts. Rayner, K., and Clifton, C. Jr (2009). Language processing in the perception of reading and language is fast and incremental: implications for potential research related to events. Psychol. Psychol. 80, 4-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.05.002 Hasting and Kotz (2008), who studied the treatment of offences in German, also observed early lantern effects.