Reaching agreement

Bock, Kathryn; Middleton, Erica L.

doi:10.1007/s11049-011-9148-y

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meaning has been hypothesized to affect agreement computation by affecting the conceptual number of individual words as well as the subject NP as a whole (see, e.g., Bock & Middleton, 2011; Eberhard et al, 2005; and references therein), and the variety of semantically-rich content verbs used in previous RC conditions may have produced differences in conceptual number which reduced RC mismatch effects. For example, RCs with semantically-rich content verbs may be more likely to be interpreted as restrictive than PPs or RCs with less semantically-specific verbs (like those in Experiments 1 and 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production.

Gillespie

Pearlmutter

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syntactic structure has been considered an integral component of agreement computation in language production. In agreement error studies, clause-boundedness (Bock & Cutting, 1992) and hierarchical feature-passing (Franck et al., 2002) predict that local nouns within clausal modifiers should produce fewer errors than those within phrasal modifiers due to structural differences; however, Gillespie and Pearlmutter (2011b) suggest structure may play a more limited role. Two studies examined whether the clause-boundedness effect would occur when prepositional phrase modifiers and relative clause modifiers were matched in properties likely to influence timing of planning (Gillespie & Pearlmutter; Solomon & Pearlmutter, 2004). In both studies, more errors occurred for plural local nouns, but the clause-boundedness effect was not observed. These findings suggest that agreement computation during production does not involve a hierarchical component.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production.

Gillespie

Pearlmutter

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Staub (2009) argued that these findings supported the notion that the ambiguously-valued global number representation (e.g., a ‘slightly plural’ S(r) value) gives rise to uncertainty about the correct verb form, which in turn leads to longer RTs. Thus, in addition to accurately predicting effects on attraction rates of notional number (e.g., Bock, Carreiras, & Meseguer, 2012; Brehm & Bock, 2013), morphological richness (e.g., Foote & Bock, 2012; Lorimor, Bock, Zalkind, Sheyman, & Beard, 2008), and other factors (see Bock & Middleton, 2011, for a recent review), the MM model also correctly predicts symmetrical attraction effects during language production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction

Tanner

Nicol

Brehm

2014

Journal of Memory and Language

125

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attraction interference in language comprehension and production may be as a result of common or different processes. In the present paper, we investigate attraction interference during language comprehension, focusing on the contexts in which interference arises and the time-course of these effects. Using evidence from event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and sentence judgment times, we show that agreement attraction in comprehension is best explained as morphosyntactic interference during memory retrieval. This stands in contrast to attraction as a message-level process involving the representation of the subject NP's number features, which is a strong contributor to attraction in production. We thus argue that the cognitive antecedents of agreement attraction in comprehension are non-identical with those of attraction in production, and moreover, that attraction in comprehension is primarily a consequence of similarity-based interference in cue-based memory retrieval processes. We suggest that mechanisms responsible for attraction during language comprehension are a subset of those involved in language production.

show abstract

“…*the key to the cabinets were missing; e.g. Bock 2001;Bock & Middleton, 2011;Eberhard et al, 2005). Once again, further specification may allow predictions to be made and tested regarding patterns of behaviour that are more or less likely given the architecture and processing assumptions proposed here.…”

Section: Connected Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Paucal equates to 'few' in English, and indeed, while it is not grammatically marked in English, there may nevertheless be a PAUCAL conceptual node which would activate the determiner 'few' (see below). Bock and Middleton (2011) note that there is a perceptual basis for the conceptual and grammatical coding of number that lies in our perceptual capacity to automatically enumerate between one and three objects. With more than three objects, judgments of number depend on counting, although judgments of relative quantity still occur automatically in terms of approximate magnitudes (Hyde & Spelke, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The lexical-syntactic representation of number

Nickels

Biedermann

Fieder

et al. 2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Number is an important aspect of lexical syntax. While there has been substantial research devoted to number agreement at the level of the sentence, relatively less attention has been paid to the representation of number at the level of individual lexical items. In this paper, we propose a representational framework for the lexical syntax of number in spoken word production that we believe can account for much of the data regarding number in noun and noun phrase production. This framework considers the representation of regular and irregular nouns, and more unusual cases such as pluralia tantum (e.g. scissors), zero plurals (e.g. sheep) and mass nouns (e.g. garlic). We not only address bare noun production but also the production of determiner + noun phrases. While focusing on examples from English, we extend the framework to include languages with grammatical gender such as German.

show abstract

Reaching agreement

Cited by 38 publications

References 57 publications

Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production.

Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production.

The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction

The lexical-syntactic representation of number

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About