The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 147-164

  Eberhard, Kathleen M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031067555     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2484     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. ALLERTON, D. J. (1992). Disagreement about agreement. English Studies, 5, 458-470.
2. BOCK, J. K., & CUTTING, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99-127.
3. BOCK, J. K., & EBERHARD, K. M. (1993). The meaning, sound, and syntax of English umber agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57-99.
4. BOCK, J. K., & MILLER, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45-93.
5. CAZDEN, C. B. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development, 39, 433-448.
6. CLARK, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). New York: Academic Press.
7. CLARK, H. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 76, 387-404.
8. CLARK, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic Press.
9. CLARK, H. H., & CARD, S. K. (1969). Role of semantics in remembering comparative sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 545-553.
10. CLARK, H. H., & STAFFORD, R. A. (1969). Memory for semantic features in the verb. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 326-334.
11. DELL, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
12. DELL, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 124-142.
13. ELMAN, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 18, 500-549.
14. ELMAN, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
15. FOWLER, H. W., & FOWLER, F. G. (1931). The King's English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
16. GREENBERG, J. (1966). Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.
17. HEARST, E. (1991). Psychology and nothing. American Scientist, 79, 432-443.
18. HINES, T. M. (1990). An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits. Memory & Cognition, 18, 40-46.
19. JAKOBSON, R. (1957). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb (Russian Language Project Report). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
20. JAKOBSON, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.
21. JAKOBSON, R. (Ed.). (1975). N. S. Trubetskoi's letters and notes. The Hague: Mouton.
22. KURTZMAN, H. S., & MACDONALD, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 242-279.
23. LAPOINTE, S. G. (1986). Markedness, the organization of Linguistic information in speech production, and language acquisition. In F. R. Eckman, E. A. Moravcsik, & J. R. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 219-239). New York: Plenum Press.
24. LAPOINTE, S. G., & DELL, G. S. (1989). A synthesis of some recent work in sentence production. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 107-156). Kluwer Academic.
25. LEVELT, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
27. MERVIS, C. B., & JOHNSON, K. E. (1991). Acquisition of the plural morpheme: A case study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 222-235.
28. MORTON, J. (1969). The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165-178
29. NICOL, J. L. (1995). Effects of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 507-516.
30. POLLARD, C., & SAG, I. A. (1991). Information-based syntax and semantics: Agreement, binding and control (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
31. QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G., & SVARTVIK, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
32. SCHRIEFERS, H. (1990). Lexical and conceptual factors in the naming of relations. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 111-142.
33. STEMBERGER, J. P. (1985). Bound morpheme loss errors in normal and agrammatic speech: One mechanism or two? Brain and Language, 25, 246-256.
34. STEMBERGER, J. P. (1991). Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The addition bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 161-185.
35. STRANG, B. M. H. (1966). Some features of S-V concord in present-day English. In I. Cellini & G. Melchiori (Eds.), English studies today: Fourth series (pp. 73-87). Rome, Italy: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
36. TIERSMA, P. M. (1982). Local and general markedness. Language, 58, 832-849.
37. TREISMAN, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255, 114B-125.
38. VAN DER MOLEN, H., & MORTON, J. (1979). Remembering plurals: Unit of coding and form coding during serial recall. Cognition, 7, 35-47.
39. VIGLIOCCO, G., BUTTERWORTH, B., & SEMENZA, C. (1995). Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186-215.
40. VIGLIOCCO, G., BUTTERWORTH, B., & GARRETT, M. F. (in press). Cross linguistic variability in subject-verb agreement errors. Cognition.
41. VIGLIOCCO, G., & NICOL, J. (1995). The role of syntactic tree structure in the construction of subject-verb agreement. Unpublished manuscript.
42. WAUGH, L. (1982). Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica, 38, 299-318.