Common use of Stimuli Clause in Contracts

Stimuli. Three genders were entered in a 3×3 factorial design with Conj1 (three lev- els: masculine, feminine, and neuter) and Conj2 (three levels: masculine, feminine, and neuter) as factors. This resulted in nine possible coordinated conjunct combinations. A set of six items per condition was created, amount- ing to a total of 54 stimulus items. The nouns used in coordinations were all inanimate plural nouns; no mass nouns were used. Plural number in both conjuncts was kept constant to ensure control over the number feature while manipulating gender. The choice of inanimates was to avoid any difference between neuter and nonneuter genders in terms of the real-world contribu- tions of semantic or biological gender that would arise if animates had been used. The nouns in the conjunction were chosen from the same semantic field and each was compatible with the predicate in the model sentence in which the agreement would be expressed. None of the nouns formed idiomatic co- ordinations or collocations with the verb or each other. The stimuli appeared as (conjoined) substitute phrases for the subject in the model sentence (see section 3.1.5 below). A set of six model sentences (preambles) for each of the nine stimulus con- ditions was paired with the stimuli, amounting to a total of 54 model sentence items. Model sentences used as primes for the stimuli-replacement phrases contained a simple nonconjoined masculine singular noun with a zero suf- fix so as to reduce potential morphological priming by the model subject’s affix. All model sentences contained an equal number and type of constitu- ents: Noun/Subject, Aux + Participle, Preposition + Noun. The order of the five constituents differed in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, the subject noun phrase preceded the predicate: [Subject Aux + Participle Preposi- tion + Noun]. In Experiment 2, the subject noun phrase followed the predicate: [Preposition + Noun Aux + Participle Subject]. Prepositional phrases (adjuncts) were added at the beginning or the end of the model sentence to fill in the slot in the intonation contour taken by the subject in the preverbal condition and to make the postverbal condition sound natural. The adverbials were added in such a way that the linear adjacency between the subject and the predicate was not disrupted.7 Gender and number agreement was always expressed by the participle suffix. Number agreement was also expressed by the auxiliary. The mean length in characters of the model sentence was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 28 characters with spaces/10 syllables). The mean length in characters of the conjunction was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 18 characters with spaces/8 syllables). 7 Positioning the adverb so that it disrupts the adjacency of the subject and the verb would have provided further insight and potentially a clear-cut argument for the dis- tributed approach. However, as the aim of this experiment was to obtain baseline data, only two factors were manipulated, the gender value and subject-verb order. There- fore, we leave the position of the adverbial for future experiments. See Xxxx-Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx 2016 for research in this direction.

Stimuli. Three genders were entered in a 3×3 factorial design with Conj1 (three lev- els: masculine, feminine, and neuter) and Conj2 (three levels: masculine, feminine, and neuter) as factors. This resulted in nine possible coordinated conjunct combinations. A set of six items per condition was created, amount- ing to a total of 54 stimulus items. The nouns used in coordinations were all inanimate plural nouns; no mass nouns were used. Plural number in both conjuncts was kept constant to ensure control over the number feature while manipulating gender. The choice of inanimates was to avoid any difference between neuter and nonneuter genders in terms of the real-world contribu- tions of semantic or biological gender that would arise if animates had been used. The nouns in the conjunction were chosen from the same semantic field and each was compatible with the predicate in the model sentence in which the agreement would be expressed. None of the nouns formed idiomatic co- ordinations or collocations with the verb or each other. The stimuli appeared as (conjoined) substitute phrases for the subject in the model sentence (see section 3.1.5 below). A set of six model sentences (preambles) for each of the nine stimulus con- ditions was paired with the stimuli, amounting to a total of 54 model sentence items. Model sentences used as primes for the stimuli-replacement phrases contained a simple nonconjoined masculine singular noun with a zero suf- fix so as to reduce potential morphological priming by the model subject’s affix. All model sentences contained an equal number and type of constitu- ents: Noun/Subject, Aux + Participle, Preposition + Noun. The order of the five constituents differed in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, the subject noun phrase preceded the predicate: [Subject Aux + Participle Preposi- tion + Noun]. In Experiment 2, the subject noun phrase followed the predicate: [Preposition + Noun Aux + Participle Subject]. Prepositional phrases (adjuncts) were added at the beginning or the end of the model sentence to fill in the slot in the intonation contour taken by the subject in the preverbal condition and to make the postverbal condition sound natural. The adverbials were added in such a way that the linear adjacency between the subject and the predicate was not disrupted.7 Gender and number agreement was always expressed by the participle suffix. Number agreement was also expressed by the auxiliary. The mean length in characters of the model sentence was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 28 characters with spaces/10 syllables). The mean length in characters of the conjunction was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 18 characters with spaces/8 syllables). 7 Positioning the adverb so that it disrupts the adjacency of the subject and the verb would have provided further insight and potentially a clear-cut argument for the dis- tributed approach. However, as the aim of this experiment was to obtain baseline data, only two factors were manipulated, the gender value and subject-verb order. There- fore, we leave the position of the adverbial for future experiments. See XxxxPeti-Xxxxxxx Stantić and Xxxxx Tušek 2016 for research in this direction.

Stimuli. Three genders were entered in a 3×3 3*3 factorial design with Conj1 (three lev- elslevels: masculine, feminine, and neuter) and Conj2 (three levels: masculine, feminine, and neuter) as factors. This resulted in nine possible coordinated conjunct combinationscombinations used for stimuli. A set of six items per condition was created, amount- ing amounting to a total of 54 stimulus items. The nouns used in coordinations were all inanimate nouns in plural nounsnumber; no mass nouns were used. Plural number in both conjuncts was kept constant to ensure control over the number feature while manipulating gender. The choice of inanimates was to avoid any difference between neuter and nonneuter non-neuter genders in terms of the real-world contribu- tions contributions of semantic or biological gender that would arise if animates had been used. The nouns in the conjunction were chosen from the same semantic field and each was compatible with the predicate in the model sentence in on which the agreement would be expressed. None of the nouns formed Nouns did not form idiomatic co- ordinations coordinations or collocations with the verb or each other. The In the experimental design, stimuli appeared as (conjoined) substitute phrases for the subject in the model sentence (see section 3.1.5 Procedure below). A set of six model sentences (preambles) for each of the nine stimulus con- ditions conditions was paired with the stimuli, amounting to a total of 54 model sentence items. Model sentences used as primes for the stimuli-stimuli replacement phrases contained a simple nonconjoined non-conjoined masculine singular noun with a zero suf- fix so as suffix, to reduce potential morphological priming by the model subject’s affix. All model sentences contained an equal number and type of constitu- entsconstituents: Noun/SubjectSubject(Noun), Aux + Participle, Preposition + Noun. The order of the five constituents differed in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, the subject noun phrase preceded the predicate: [Subject Aux + Participle Preposi- tion + NounAux+Participle Preposition+Noun]. In Experiment 2, the subject noun phrase followed the predicate: [Preposition + Noun Aux + Participle Preposition+Noun Aux+Participle Subject]. Prepositional phrases (adjuncts) were added at the beginning or the end of the model sentence to fill in the slot in the intonation contour taken by the subject in the preverbal condition condition, and to make the postverbal condition sound natural. The adverbials were added in such a way so that the linear adjacency between the subject and the predicate was not disrupted.7 Gender and number agreement was always expressed by on the participle (suffix). Number agreement was also expressed by on the auxiliary. The mean length in characters of the model sentence was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 28 characters with spaces/10 syllables). The mean length in characters of the conjunction was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 18 characters with spaces/8 spaces/ 8 syllables). 7 Positioning the adverb so that it disrupts the adjacency of the subject and the verb would have provided further insight and potentially a clear-cut argument for the dis- tributed approach. However, as the aim of this experiment was to obtain baseline data, only two factors were manipulated, the gender value and subject-verb order. There- fore, we leave the position of the adverbial for future experiments. See Xxxx-Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx 2016 for research in this direction.

Stimuli. Three genders were entered in a 3×3 factorial design with Conj1 (three lev- els: masculine, feminine, and neuter) and Conj2 (three levels: masculine, feminine, and neuter) as factors. This resulted in nine possible coordinated conjunct combinations. A set of six items per condition was created, amount- ing to a total of 54 stimulus items. The nouns used in coordinations were all inanimate plural nouns; no mass nouns were used. Plural number in both conjuncts was kept constant to ensure control over the number feature while manipulating gender. The choice of inanimates was to avoid any difference between neuter and nonneuter genders in terms of the real-world contribu- tions of semantic or biological gender that would arise if animates had been used. The nouns in the conjunction were chosen from the same semantic field and each was compatible with the predicate in the model sentence in which the agreement would be expressed. None of the nouns formed idiomatic co- ordinations or collocations with the verb or each other. The stimuli appeared as (conjoined) substitute phrases for the subject in the model sentence (see section 3.1.5 below). A set of six model sentences (preambles) for each of the nine stimulus con- ditions was paired with the stimuli, amounting to a total of 54 model sentence items. Model sentences used as primes for the stimuli-replacement phrases contained a simple nonconjoined masculine singular noun with a zero suf- fix so as to reduce potential morphological priming by the model subject’s affix. All model sentences contained an equal number and type of constitu- ents: Noun/Subject, Aux + Participle, Preposition + Noun. The order of the five constituents differed in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, the subject noun phrase preceded the predicate: [Subject Aux + Participle Preposi- tion + Noun]. In Experiment 2, the subject noun phrase followed the predicate: [Preposition + Noun Aux + Participle Subject]. Prepositional phrases (adjuncts) were added at the beginning or the end of the model sentence to fill in the slot in the intonation contour taken by the subject in the preverbal condition and to make the postverbal condition sound natural. The adverbials were added in such a way that the linear adjacency between the subject and the predicate was not disrupted.7 Gender and number agreement was always expressed by the participle suffix. Number agreement was also expressed by the auxiliary. The mean length in characters of the model sentence was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 28 characters with spaces/10 syllables). The mean length in characters of the conjunction was the same across all nine conditions (Mean: 18 characters with spaces/8 syllables). 7 Positioning the adverb so that it disrupts the adjacency of the subject and the verb would have provided further insight and potentially a clear-cut argument for the dis- tributed approach. However, as the aim of this experiment was to obtain baseline data, only two factors were manipulated, the gender value and subject-verb order. There- fore, we leave the position of the adverbial for future experiments. See XxxxPeti-Xxxxxxx Stantić and Xxxxx 2016 for research in this direction.