Semantic Factors in the Production of Number Agreement

This paper examines the role of semantic factors in the production of subject–verb number agreement. As an ostensibly grammatical process, number agreement provides an interesting case for examining the flow and interaction of semantic and syntactic information through the language-production system. Using a sentence-completion task, agreement errors can be elicited from subjects by presenting them with sentence fragments containing a complex noun-phrase, in which the nonhead noun is plural (e.g., The key to the cabinets...WERE missing.). Previous research has demonstrated that the probability of making an error can be affected by varying the properties of the nouns in the complex noun phrase. By investigating which variables do and do not affect error rates, constraints on the flow of information through the production system can be inferred. In three experiments, we investigated the possible effects of three different semantic manipulations of the nouns in the complex NP: animacy, semantic overlap, and plausibility of modification by the sentence predicate. We found that both animacy and semantic relatedness had reliable effects on error rates, indicating that the mechanism involved in implementing agreement cannot be blind to semantic information. However, the plausibility with which each noun could serve as the subject of the sentence predicate had no effect on error rates. Taken together, these results suggest that while semantic information is visible to the agreement mechanism, there are still constraints on when this information can affect the process. Specifically, it may be the case that only information contained within the complex NP is considered for the purposes of implementing agreement.

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

[2]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Some structural properties of simple active and passive sentences , 1965 .

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

[4]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The perfect speech error , 1988 .

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

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

[7]  Kate Stewart,et al.  Starting points , 2020, SIGP.

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

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

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

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

[12]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech , 1983, Cognition.

[13]  M. F. Garrett,et al.  The Analysis of Sentence Production1 , 1975 .

[14]  J L Nicol Effects of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors , 1995, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

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

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

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