A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or MoU) is an agreement between two or more parties, which is described in a formal document. It is not legally binding, but it indicates that the parties are ready to move forward with a treaty. While it is rare to see soft things in the multilateral field, transnational air agreements are in fact soft. We studied two previously studied structures with natural phrases each containing two attractors: complex thematic modifiers with two PPs and complex object issues with a moving object head and its PP. In these structures, both attractors were found to give different degrees of attraction in the production of the sentence. As mentioned above, the hierarchically higher helicopter (`flights` in `Helicopter` for flights over the canyon) produces more interference in the presence of two PPs than the lower “canyons” in `The helicopter for flying over the gorges is low, Franck et al., 2002). Similarly in complex object issues, the attraction of the head of a complex moving object, higher up the tree (`patients` in `What patients of the doctor do you say the defendant lawyer?` What doctor patients do you say that defending the lawyer?) is stronger than the appeal of the same lexical element if it is in a lower position of the head modifier (`patient` in what patient`s doctor do you say? The doctor , which patients do you say that defending the lawyer?). The relevance of the examination of these two structures lies in a decisive difference in the structural position of the superior attractor. In complex object matters, the hierarchically higher object head occupies a specific position, command c via verb , : A knot X c-commands Y iff Y is dominated by the node of X`s sister. The c-command relationship has implications for a large number of morphosytative and interpretive processes, including agreement (but also engagement of anaphores, quantifying perimeter determination, etc.). On the other hand, the two PPs occupy dual modifier positions that preceded the verb in a linear way, without having a structural relationship with it. Finally, the attraction was found for both grammatical and non-grammatical sentences and was manifested as a punishment on the basis of a number of years.
This coincides with other studies using a method of grammar determination in German  and French . However, it contrasts with conclusions drawn from comprehension studies based on reading tasks where the existence of an unsytable characteristic facilitates the reading of non-grammatical sentences (, ,  see  for meta-analysis) and grammatical , ,. In agreement with Franck et al. , we propose that the difference be based on how the two tasks can differentiate the use of different indices or different mechanisms. When reading, the verb is represented with its concordance morphology, so that a characteristic agrees for use when consulting the subject to construct the structure of sentences is significant. This process is facilitated when the opponent has another characteristic, due to the lower draught horse between the verb and the attractor.