In Hungarian, verbs have a polypersonal concordance, which means that they correspond to more than one of the arguments of the verb: not only its subject, but also its object (accusative). There is a difference between the case where a particular object is present and the case where the object is indeterminate or if there is no object at all. (Adverbs have no influence on the form of the verb.) Examples: Szeretek (I love someone or something indeterminate), szeretem (I love him, she, or her, or her, specifically), szeretlek (I love you); szeret (he loves me, me, you, someone or something indeterminate), szereti (he loves him, her or her especially). Of course, names or pronouns can specify the exact object. In short, there is agreement between a verb and the person and the number of its subject and the specificity of its object (which often refers more or less precisely to the person). A rare type of arrangement that phonologically copies parts of the head instead of agreeing with a grammatical category.  For example, in Bainouk: While the subject-verb chord is simple in simple sentences like this, it can be difficult in more complex sentences. This article teaches you the most important rules and common mistakes. The very irregular verb is the only verb with more coherence than this one in the contemporary form. Previous studies have shown that listeners at an early stage of meaning building take speech wrinkles into account (Van Berkum et al., 2008; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al., 2013). The inconsistencies of the spokesperson, such as the biologically improbable statement that I am pregnant, uttered by a male voice, triggered a greater N400 than the same sentence uttered in the more likely context of a female voice (Van Berkum et al., 2008).
Similarly, the false political statements of a known politician triggered an N400 greater than the same statements produced by a famous news anchor or a control speaker, such as an unknown professor, as an unknown professor (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al., 2013). On the other hand, stereotypical beliefs about a speaker in self-referential statements such as the wearing of male-produced lipsticks have led to a greater P600 compared to the same expression produced by a woman (Lattner and Friederici, 2003). These studies suggest that injuries of stereotypical role substrates (e.g. B the use of lipstick relating to a man; Lattner and Friederici, 2003) are likely to trigger a P600 (z.B. Osterhout et al., 1997), while semantic and pragmatic offences (as in Van Berkum et al., 2008) trigger a rather N400 (z.B. Irmen et al., 2010). This study is a valuable complement to this line of research and shows that the treatment of grammatical contracts can be modulated in a similar way with pragmatic aspects (i.e. linguistic physical/social information), which leads to an N400. Although syntactic treatment (for example.
B Hanulekova et al., 2012) also observed linguistic effects, this was not the nature of the pragmatic agreements used in this study. Syntactic gender errors, such as the incorrect use of determinants in Dutch. B lead to a P600 when produced by a native speaker, but not when produced by a non-native speaker with a foreign accent, indicating that late positivity can be modulated by participants` conclusions on the language performance of speakers. However, this study deals with pragmatic agreement between the sexes and provides a direct assessment of the role of speech erticity in the development of correct synoptic phrases at the surface level. The results showed that the sex processing of a spokesperson modulate syntactic processing: violations of speaker-based chords triggered a larger N400 than that of a speaker-based matching agreement. This indicates that listeners integrate conceptual/semantic information through a speaker during syntactic processing, comparable to speaker integration during semantic processing.