Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-cf4j5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-13T18:29:48.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender conflicts in German possessives: comparing inanimate to human reference reveals asymmetries – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

Christin Schütze Open the ORCID record for Christin Schütze [Opens in a new window] ,
Jürg Fleischer  and
Ulrike Domahs Open the ORCID record for Ulrike Domahs [Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Corrigendum
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , 2026 , e6
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

The incorrect versions of figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 were published in the original article. The correct versions of these figures are republished here.

Figure 1. Mean acceptability ratings (in %) for congruent (ihr) and incongruent (sein) sentences with human (no pattern) or inanimate (striped) feminine antecedents; error bars represent SD.

Figure 2. Mean RTs (in ms) for congruent (ihr) and incongruent (sein) sentences in short and long distances with human (no pattern) or inanimate (striped) feminine antecedents for sentence approvals (left panel) and rejections (right panel).

Figure 3. Mean reading times following a human (left side of the panels) or an inanimate antecedent (right side of the panels) through sentences with a short (left panel) or long distance (right panel) between the noun and the anaphoric pronoun. The possessive phrase containing congruent ihr or incongruent sein pronouns is shaded in grey. Dots indicate the congruent condition; triangles the incongruent.

Figure 4. Mean reading times at the possessive phrase containing congruent ihr or incongruent sein pronouns with human (solid line) or inanimate (dashed line) antecedents in short (left panel) or long distance (right panel) between noun and anaphoric pronoun. Dots indicate the congruent condition; triangles the incongruent; shades represent 95% CIs based on the standard error.

References

Schütze, C., Fleischer, J., & Domahs, U. (2025). Gender conflicts in German possessives: comparing inanimate to human reference reveals asymmetries. Language and Cognition. 17,e73. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2025.10032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Mean acceptability ratings (in %) for congruent (ihr) and incongruent (sein) sentences with human (no pattern) or inanimate (striped) feminine antecedents; error bars represent SD.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Mean RTs (in ms) for congruent (ihr) and incongruent (sein) sentences in short and long distances with human (no pattern) or inanimate (striped) feminine antecedents for sentence approvals (left panel) and rejections (right panel).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Mean reading times following a human (left side of the panels) or an inanimate antecedent (right side of the panels) through sentences with a short (left panel) or long distance (right panel) between the noun and the anaphoric pronoun. The possessive phrase containing congruent ihr or incongruent sein pronouns is shaded in grey. Dots indicate the congruent condition; triangles the incongruent.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Mean reading times at the possessive phrase containing congruent ihr or incongruent sein pronouns with human (solid line) or inanimate (dashed line) antecedents in short (left panel) or long distance (right panel) between noun and anaphoric pronoun. Dots indicate the congruent condition; triangles the incongruent; shades represent 95% CIs based on the standard error.