Table V.

Example sentences from the Aphasia study

	+Grammatical	−Grammatical
−MOV	a. It seems to Sally that the father rewards himself	b. It seems to Sally that the father rewards herself
+MOV	c. The father seems to Sally ◂ to reward himself	d. The father seems to Sally ◂ to reward herself

All sentences contained reflexives, hence a Binding relation. Half the sentences contained a Movement relation. The grammatical status of sentences––which subjects were asked to judge––was manipulated by changing the gender of the reflexive, which led to a Match or a MisMatch in grammatical gender agreement between the reflexive and its correct antecedent. Each sentence featured 2 different‐gender, potential antecedents to the reflexive (see Supplementary Materials at http://freud.tau.ac.il/~yosef1/ for more details about stimulus construction, and a complete list of stimuli). A reflexive requires a local antecedent, hence in the absence of Movement (a), a gender match between the reflexive and the closest potential antecedent leads to grammaticality; a mismatch leads to ungrammaticality (b). When confounded with Movement, the situation is reversed: Now a gender match with a distant antecedent leads to grammaticality [due to the mediation of the gap that is linked to both the antecedent and the reflexive, (c)]; a gender match with the closest antecedent (d) leads to ungrammaticality because of the intervening gap.