Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction

It has been well established that subject–verb number agreement can be disrupted by local noun phrases that differ in number from the subject head noun phrase. In sentence production, mismatches in the grammatical number of the head and local noun phrases lead to agreement errors on the verb as in: the key to the cabinets are. Similarly, although ungrammaticality typically causes disruption in measures of sentence comprehension, the disruption is reduced when the local noun phrase has a plural feature. Using a forced-choice comprehension question method, we report two experiments that provide evidence that comprehenders were likely to misinterpret the number information on the head noun phrase when morphosyntactic number markings on the local noun phrase and verb did not match the head. These results are consistent with a growing body of research that suggests that comprehenders often arrive at a final interpretation of a sentence that is not faithful to the linguistic input.

[1]  Ting Qian,et al.  Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension , 2013, PloS one.

[2]  Nikole D. Patson,et al.  The mental representation of plural events , 2015, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. , 2005, Psychological review.

[4]  K. Bock,et al.  Broken agreement , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  M. Pickering,et al.  The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming , 2006 .

[6]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[7]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[8]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  Agreement Attraction in Comprehension: Representations and Processes. , 2009 .

[9]  K. Forster,et al.  Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension , 1997 .

[10]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Computation of semantic number from morphological information , 2005 .

[11]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations , 2013 .

[12]  Nikole D. Patson,et al.  Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy , 2002 .

[14]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing , 2007, Brain Research.

[15]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[16]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  Younger and Older Adults' "Good-Enough" Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences , 2006, Discourse processes.

[17]  Colin Phillips,et al.  5: Grammatical Illusions and Selective Fallibility in Real-Time Language Comprehension , 2011 .

[18]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French , 1996 .

[19]  H. Eichenbaum The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory , 2002 .

[20]  Matthew J. Rambert,et al.  Number Agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to Agree Collectively , 2006 .

[21]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory Distortion , 2004, Neuron.

[22]  Serdar Bozdag,et al.  Age-specific signatures of glioblastoma at the genomic, genetic, and epigenetic levels. , 2013, PloS one.

[23]  Roger Levy,et al.  A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input , 2008, EMNLP 2008.

[24]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. , 2006, Psychological review.

[25]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[26]  Robert S. Leiken,et al.  A User’s Guide , 2011 .

[27]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Laurel Brehm,et al.  The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. , 2014, Journal of memory and language.

[29]  D. Caplan,et al.  The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2007, Brain and Language.

[30]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Context Strengthens Initial Misinterpretations of Text , 2011 .

[31]  C. Clifton,et al.  Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension , 2008 .

[32]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension: 2703 , 1999 .

[33]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[34]  Emily S. Darowski,et al.  Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: evidence from a paraphrasing task. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  Kathleen M. Eberhard,et al.  The Marked Effect of Number on Subject–Verb Agreement☆ , 1997 .

[36]  Phillip J. Holcomb,et al.  Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences , 2006 .

[37]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice , 2012, Language Variation and Change.

[38]  Kathleen M. Eberhard,et al.  The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English☆☆☆ , 1999 .

[39]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  What counts in grammatical number agreement? , 2013, Cognition.

[40]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Effects of plausibility on structural priming. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  A. Staub On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[43]  C. Felser,et al.  Grammatical processing in language learners , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[44]  William Badecker,et al.  Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production : Evidence from gender and case in Slovak , 2007 .

[45]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Plausibility and grammatical agreement , 2003 .

[46]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Agreement Processes in Sentence Comprehension , 1999 .

[47]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints , 1996, Cognition.