However, this differentiation is not so rigid and both cases can be used in the same way: a study in information models in Arabic, which is particularly relevant for chord asymmetries in the SV and VS word codes (see also the agreement resolution in The Coordinations). Note that the higher recall in the ERG-ERG language is based on the fact that the pa/null case marking systematically marked the purpose of the verbal agreement, not to reduce the effect on simple associative or statistical learning. There was no pattern in the relationship between case markers and actual shape turns. This is obviously the case in the no-pa version, where there was no un veiled fall marker, but it also applied to the pa version. Rather, the difference lies in the coherence with which pa-/null- marks the objective of a verbal agreement. Therefore, the effect must occur at a deeper level than mere associative learning of the relationships between surface forms, as opposed to the most implicit effects (for example. B Reber 1967) and statistics (Romberg – Saffran 2010) of learning research. The three languages can say to establish the same basic orientation, despite their remarkable differences, as in all three cases of transitive and intransitive subjects models in the same way in terms of dependent head or markers and patterns of different objects. Analysis of data from ignorant participants revealed a number of other key effects and interactions, but no sanctions on language.
Recall error rates were higher in case markers than for bends, 0.16 and 0.12, F (1, 44) – 7.72, p – 0.008, eta2 – 0.149, respectively. There were also more recall errors in transit rates than intransitive rates, respectively 0.16 and 0.12, F (1, 44) – 6.85, p – 0.012, eta2 – 0.13. The interaction between the type of morphema and the transitivity has moved closer to the meaning, F (1, 44) – 3.59, p – 0.065, eta2 – 0.075. The call for bending showed a greater difference between transitive and inexiscent rates (error rates of 0.155 and 0.088 respectively) than the recall of case markers (error rate of 0.168 and 0.150 respectively). This reflects the greater difficulty in matching the verb to the object in transitory sentences, which is clear from the ration data for ignorant participants.