Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints

This paper reports studies of subject-verb agreement errors with speakers of Spanish and English; we used a sentence completion task, first introduced by Bock and Miller (1991). In a series of four experiments, we assessed the role of semantic information carried by the sentential subject in the induction of subject-verb agreement errors. For Spanish speakers, a sentence preamble such as la etiqueta score las botellas (the label on the bottles), which is usually interpreted to denote several labels, induced more agreement errors than preambles that normally denote a single entity. This finding replicates previous research with Italian (Vigliocco et al., 1995). English speakers, on the other hand, were not sensitive to this semantic dimension, as was found earlier by Bock and Miller (1991). This cross-linguistic difference is discussed in the framework of a modified version of the computational model of grammatical encoding proposed by Kempen and Hoenkamp (1987). In this version of the model agreement is computed through a unification operation instead of feature-copying, allowing for an independent retrieval of agreement features from the conceptual representation for the subject and the verb. We propose that languages differ in the extent to which the selection of the verb is controlled by features on the subject and features from the conceptual representation.

[1]  Judith Aissen,et al.  Agreement Controllers and Tzotzil Comitatives , 1989 .

[2]  G. Corbett The agreement hierarchy , 1979, Journal of Linguistics.

[3]  A. Ellis Progress in the psychology of language , 1985 .

[4]  A. W. Ellis Normality and pathology in cognitive functions , 1982 .

[5]  Greville G. Corbett,et al.  Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic , 1985 .

[6]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  An Information-Based Theory Of Agreement , 1988 .

[7]  A. L. Vanek Aspects of subject-verb agreement , 1970 .

[8]  Koenraad De Smedt,et al.  IPF: an incremental parallel formulator , 1990 .

[9]  J. Higginbotham,et al.  Opacity in NP , 1981 .

[10]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Comprehending Conceptual Anaphors in Spanish. , 1992, Language and cognitive processes.

[11]  R. Quirk A Grammar of contemporary English , 1974 .

[12]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Constructing Subject-Verb Agreement in Speech: The Role of Semantic and Morphological Factors , 1995 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[14]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities , 1993, Cognition.

[15]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  The Scope of Lexical Rules , 1982 .

[16]  K. Bock Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production , 1992 .

[17]  Martin Kay,et al.  Parsing in functional unification grammar , 1986 .

[18]  F. Heny,et al.  An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax , 1975 .

[19]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[20]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives , 1985 .

[21]  Koenraad J. M. J. De Smedt,et al.  Parallelism in incremental sentence generation , 1994 .

[22]  Jane Oakhill,et al.  How Natural are Conceptual Anaphors? , 1992, Language and cognitive processes.

[23]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[24]  Nigel Vincent,et al.  The Romance Languages , 1988 .

[25]  Peter Tiersma,et al.  Local and General Markedness , 1982 .

[26]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  POLITE PLURALS AND PREDICATE AGREEMENT , 1975 .

[27]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Subject and topic , 1979 .

[28]  H. B. Allen,et al.  A Functional Grammar , 1946 .

[29]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing , 1989 .

[30]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Meaning, sound and syntax in english number agreement , 1993 .

[31]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Comprehending Conceptual Anaphors. , 1991, Language and cognitive processes.

[32]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  An Incremental Procedural Grammar for Sentence Formulation , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

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

[34]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[35]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  A Framework for Incremental Syntactic Tree Formation , 1987, IJCAI.

[36]  M. Garrett Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[37]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Issues in Italian Syntax , 1981 .

[38]  K.J.M.J. De Smedt Incremental sentence generation: a computer model of grammatical encoding , 1990 .

[39]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar , 1986, CSLI Lecture Notes.

[40]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Lexical Representation and Process , 1991 .

[41]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Controlling number agreement on verbs and anaphors , 1992 .

[42]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Current research in natural language generation , 1990 .