Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy

We report two parallel experiments conducted in French and in English in which we induced subject-verb agreement errors to explore the role of syntactic structure during sentence production. Previous studies have shown that attraction errors (i.e., a tendency of the verb to agree with an immediately preceding noun instead of with the subject of the sentence) occur when a preverbal local noun disagrees in number with the subject head noun. The attraction effect was accounted for either by the proximity of the local noun to the verb in the linearised sentence (linear distance hypothesis) or by the processing simultaneity of the head and local nouns situated in the same clause (clause packaging hypothesis). In the current experiments, speakers were asked to complete complex sentential preambles. Contrary to the predictions of these two hypotheses, we found that agreement errors were more frequent following an intermediate modifier (e.g., *The threat-S to the presidents-P of the company-S ARE serious) than an immediately preverbal modifier (e.g., *The threat-S to the president-S of the companies-P ARE serious). It is suggested that attraction is determined by the syntactic distance between the interfering noun and the head noun at a stage of the grammatical encoding of the sentence during which syntactic units are organised into a hierarchical structure.

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

[2]  Patrick Lemaire,et al.  Cognitive Overload and Orthographic Errors: When Cognitive Overload Enhances Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. A Study in French Written Language , 1994 .

[3]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Language production : Grammatical encoding , 1994 .

[4]  Michel Fayol,et al.  Automatisme et contrôle dans la production écrite : les erreurs d'accord sujet verbe chez l'enfant et l'adulte , 1991 .

[5]  Carolyn B. Mervis,et al.  Acquisition of the plural morpheme : a case study , 1991 .

[6]  Otto Jespersen,et al.  The Philosophy of Grammar , 1924 .

[7]  Steven G. Lapointe Markedness, the Organization of Linguistic Information in Speech Production, and Language Acquisition , 1986 .

[8]  Michel Hupet,et al.  The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French: From novices to experts' errors , 1999 .

[9]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  WHAT'S IN A WORD? ON THE CHILD'S ACQUISITION OF SEMANTICS IN HIS FIRST LANGUAGE , 1973 .

[10]  G. Vigliocco,et al.  When Sex and Syntax Go Hand in Hand: Gender Agreement in Language Production , 1999 .

[11]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  Sentence processing , 1990 .

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

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

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

[15]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Cross linguistic variability in subject–verb agreement errors , 1996 .

[16]  Charles Clifton Language: An Invitation to Cognitive Science. Vol. 1 , 1990 .

[17]  M. Pickering,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , 1999 .

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

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

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

[21]  M. Garrett Processes in language production , 1988 .

[22]  J. Zwart The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[23]  R. Quirk,et al.  A university grammar of English , 1973 .

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

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

[26]  D. Terence Langendoen,et al.  An invitation to cognitive science. Volume 1: Language Ed. by Lila R. Gleitman and Mark Liberman (review) , 2015 .

[27]  Michel Hupet,et al.  Effects of semantic variables on the subject-verb agreement processes in writing , 1998 .

[28]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

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

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

[31]  C. Cazden The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. , 1968, Child development.

[32]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  When Sex Affects Syntax: Contextual Influences in Sentence Production , 2001 .

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

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

[35]  K. Bock An Effect of the Accessibility of Word Forms on Sentence Structures , 1987 .

[36]  J. Nicol,et al.  Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear? , 1998, Cognition.

[37]  Victoria A. Fromkin,et al.  The Non-Anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterances , 1971 .

[38]  John Morton,et al.  Remembering plurals: Unit of coding and form of coding during serial recall , 1979, Cognition.

[39]  Michel Fayol,et al.  Les erreurs d'accord sujet-verbe en production écrite , 1996 .

[40]  郑有志 谈谈A Grammar of Contemporary English对于分句与句子问题的若干处理 , 1993 .