Our results clearly illustrate the central role played by Animacy/Humanness in grammatical concordance in Arabic. Animacy has been very elegantly ingested in typographically varied languages such as Mandarin Chinese (Philipp, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Bisang – Schlesewsky, 2008), Polish (Szewczyk – Schriefers, 2011, 2013) and Tamil (Muralikrishnan, Schlesewsky, kessel-Born-Schlesewsky, 2015). It is therefore not surprising that humanity that goes beyond the animacy hierarchy (Comrie, 1989; Silverstein, 1976) is a very striking feature in Arabic that interacts with plurality and sex. Recall that standard Arabic requires that non-human male plurals (animated and inanimate) be treated as the third individual female noun with regard to an agreement, so that the canonical rule (i.e. the agreement between the adjective and the sex function agreement between the adjective and the noun) would be a violation. On the other hand, human male plurals require the canonical match model (i.e. the full match of features). This leads to a global distribution in standard Arabic, where DA (the exception) is as good and as frequent as (if not more) canonical convention (i.e. agreement) because animated and inanimate non-human speakers exceed the number of human speakers in the language. The result in a situation in which an injury to the position of the adjective according to a human nostun (i.e. DA instead of the necessary AI) would not constitute a real violation, because da in the language is as common as FA for this kind of nov.

However, as the full lexical access of the previous nameon would have indicated that it was human, this property makes DA a violation. In other words, the Animacy-Cue is more important and more important than the indications of agreement in this regard and, in fact, the two types of indicators are contradictory with regard to the correct paradigm of the agreement. Therefore, the treatment system must resolve this conflict in order to determine whether it is an offence. The complexity of this process contributes to the latency of the negativity effect. This complexity is further reinforced by the conventions of the spoken variety, which, for human names, are in accordance with the agreement requested by the Animacy Cue, but which is considerably variable for non-human subtanties. The variation in behaviour acceptance judgments for offences involving human actors confirms this fact. ka-barmatin a`rin, wa-bardin aky`in: wa-hiya alf-nun mufradatun `ayru`um`in wa-li-ḏālika waqa`at`if`tin li-l-afr`di wa-yuq`lu ay`n (a drop of mixed sperm) (this structure has the same shape as): ka-barmat a`r and bard aky`16: the adjectives are in singular form and not plural and therefore serve as adjectives of previous nouns. Another structure that can be found is nu-fatun ma`un. This species is also prohibited at lunchtime.