Gender Agreement Attraction in Russian: Production and Comprehension Evidence

Slioussar, Natalia; Malko, Anton

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01651

Cited by 37 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This issue need to be checked, especially if we consider that plural 3DO clitics used in the two studies are unmarked for gender in French ("les"), while they are marked in Italian ("li" and "le"). That gender is a potential intervener in agreement operations has been shown in a study with Slovak by Badecker and Kuminiak (2007) and in a study with Russian by Slioussar and Malko (2016). In Slovak and Russian, we find gender agreement between past tense verbs and the subject of the sentence, and, when there is a gender mismatch between the subject and a local modifier occurring between the verb and the subject, the past tense verb tends erroneously to agree in gender with the local modifier as shown in the Slovak and Russian examples below.…”

Section: Interference In Subject-verb Agreement and The Role Of A Wormentioning

confidence: 83%

Agreement and Interference in Direct Object Clitic Production in Italian Monolingual Children

Arosio

Giustolisi

2019

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Italian speaking typically developing children optionally omit third person direct object clitics (3DO) until at least age 4 years. In a set of two studies, we investigated whether clitic omissions depend on intervention phenomena. We discussed a model of syntactic intervention in 3DO clitic production in which the subject of a sentence might intervene in clitic production at an intermediate stage of the sentence derivation, when the clitic moves from its initial merging position to a higher position above the subject. We argued that omissions and errors in 3DO clitic productions arise when retrieving from memory the clitic to achieve an agreement relation in a context of syntactic intervention. We argued that working memory limitations impact on the clitic retrieving operation cued by lexical and representational features. In Study 1, we elicited the production of third singular clitics in sentences with a full lexical subject. The third singular subject and the third singular clitic were matched or not in gender. Results of Study 1 showed that when there is a gender feature mismatch between the subject and the 3DO clitic children optionally make clitic gender errors or even replace the 3DO clitic with a post-verbal full DP. We argued that these results could be explained in an intervention model in which the external verb lexical argument (the lexical subject) is erroneously retrieved for achieving the agreement operation involving the movement of the clitic to its surface position. In Study 2 we investigated whether the problems in clitic production found in Study 1 depend on phonological priming or structural intervention. We elicited the production of third singular clitics in sentences with a silent pro subject. As in Study 1, the third singular subject and the third singular clitic were matched or not in gender. Results of Study 2 showed that in sentences with a mismatch in gender features between the null subject and the clitic, children tend to produce a clitic with the incorrect gender or to optionally replace it with a full lexical post-verbal DP, regardless of the gender of the target clitic. This suggests that a null subject intervenes in the same way a lexical subject does in the derivation of clitics and, consequently, that the gender features inherited by a null subject via its anaphoric link with its antecedent have the same grammatical status of gender features conveyed at a lexical level. Overall results indicate that the interference errors are not dependent on phonological attraction but rather have a structural nature and are modulated by short-term memory resources.

show abstract

Section: Interference In Subject-verb Agreement and The Role Of A Wormentioning

confidence: 83%

Agreement and Interference in Direct Object Clitic Production in Italian Monolingual Children

Arosio

Giustolisi

2019

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But whereas agreement errors have been widely studied in monolingual speakers 1 (Nicol, Forster, & Veres, 1997;Pearlmutter, Garnsey, & Bock, 1999;Acuña-Fariña, Meseguer, & Carreiras, 2014;Häussler, 2012;Tucker, Idrissi, & Almeida, 2015;Slioussar & Malko;Ristić, Molinaro, & Mancini, 2016), less is known about the comprehension of agreement in speakers whose native language differs from the societally dominant language, typically described as heritage speakers: bilingual speakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants and who were exposed to one language during childhood but then switched to the language of their host country (Scontras, Fuchs, & Polinsky, 2015). Here we use their agreement errors to examine whether number computations in a native language differ between monolingual and bilingual speakers, with the goal of better describing the mechanism that underlies the comprehension of agreement in the latter group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straight from the horse's mouth: agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors

Lago¹,

Gračanin-Yuksek²,

Şafak³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the comprehension of subject-verb agreement in Turkish-German bilinguals using two tasks. The first task elicited speeded judgments to verb number violations in sentences that contained plural genitive modifiers. We addressed whether these modifiers elicited attraction errors, which have supported the use of a memory retrieval mechanism in monolingual comprehension studies. The second task examined the comprehension of a language-specific constraint of Turkish against plural-marked verbs with overt plural subjects. Bilinguals showed a reduced application of this constraint, as compared to Turkish monolinguals. Critically, both groups showed similar rates of attraction, but the bilingual group accepted ungrammatical sentences more often. We propose that the similarity in attraction rates supports the use of the same retrieval mechanism, but that bilinguals have more problems than monolinguals in the mapping of morphological to abstract agreement features during speeded comprehension, which results in increased acceptability of ungrammatical sentences.

show abstract

“…The goal of Experiment 2 was to test the model predictions for the linear and nonlinear cue combination rules using self‐paced reading for reflexive‐antecedent dependencies like those in Table . Importantly, many studies have shown that self‐paced reading measures reliably index retrieval operations during real‐time dependency formation (e.g., Chen et al., ; Dillon, Chow, & Xiang, ; Jäger, Benz, Roeser, Dillon, & Vasishth, ; Kush & Phillips, ; Paape, ; Parker, Lago, & Phillips, ; Slioussar & Malko, ; Tucker & Almeida, ; Tucker et al., ; Van Dyke & McElree, ; Wagers et al., 2009; Xiang, Grove, & Giannakidou, ). To this end, Experiment 2 fit the processing disruptions generated by the (mis)matching targets to the model predictions generated in Experiment 1 to determine which cue combination is used to guide retrieval for reflexive processing.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Testing the Model's Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue Combinatorics in Memory Retrieval for Anaphora

Parker

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have shown that memory retrieval for real‐time language processing relies on a cue‐based access mechanism, which allows the cues available at the retrieval site to directly access the target representation in memory. An open question is how different types of cues are combined at retrieval to create a single retrieval probe (“cue combinatorics”). This study addresses this question by testing whether retrieval for antecedent‐reflexive dependencies combines cues in a linear (i.e., additive) or nonlinear (i.e., multiplicative) fashion. Results from computational simulations and a reading time experiment show that target items that match all the cues of the reflexive are favored more than target items that mismatch these cues, and that different degrees of mismatches slow reading times in comparable amounts. This profile is consistent with the predictions of a nonlinear cue combination and provides evidence against models in which all cues combine in a linear fashion. A follow‐up set of simulations shows that a nonlinear rule also captures previous demonstrations of interference from nontarget items during retrieval for reflexive licensing. Taken together, these results shed new light on how different types of cues combine at the retrieval site and reveal how the method of cue combination impacts the accessibility of linguistic information in memory.

show abstract

Gender Agreement Attraction in Russian: Production and Comprehension Evidence

Cited by 37 publications

References 44 publications

Agreement and Interference in Direct Object Clitic Production in Italian Monolingual Children

Agreement and Interference in Direct Object Clitic Production in Italian Monolingual Children

Straight from the horse's mouth: agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors

Cue Combinatorics in Memory Retrieval for Anaphora

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About