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

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 76, Issue , 2014, Pages 195-215

  Tanner, Darren ^a   Nicol, Janet ^b   Brehm, Laurel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Agreement; Language comprehension; Morphosyntactic processing; P600; Retrieval interference

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905463375     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Allen M., Badecker W., Osterhout L. Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes 2003, 18:405-430.
2. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
3. Badecker W., Kuminiak F. Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:65-85.
4. Barber H., Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:137-153.
5. Barr D.J. Analyzing "visual world" eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:457-474. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002.
6. Barr D.J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68:255-278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
7. Bock K., Carreiras M., Meseguer E. Number meaning and number grammar in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:17-37. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.008.
8. Bock K., Cutting J.C. Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:99-127.
9. Bock K., Dell G.S., Chang F., Onishi K.H. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 2007, 104:437-458. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003.
10. Bock K., Eberhard K. Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:57-99.
11. Bock K., Middleton E.L. Reaching agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2011, 29:1033-1069. 10.1007/s11049-011-9148-y.
12. Bock K., Miller C.A. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 1991, 23:45-97.
13. Brehm L., Bock K. What counts in grammatical number agreement?. Cognition 2013, 128:149-169. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.009.
14. Coulson S., King J.W., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1998, 13:21-58.
15. Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. <>. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
16. DeLong K.A., Urbach T.P., Kutas M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1117-1121. 10.1038/nn1504.
17. Dikker S., Rabagliati H., Farmer T.A., Pylkkänen L. Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science 2010, 21:629-634. 10.1177/0956797610367751.
18. Dikker S., Rabagliati H., Pylkkänen L. Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition 2009, 110:293-321. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008.
19. Dillon B., Mishler A., Sloggett S., Phillips C. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 69:85-103. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003.
20. Eberhard K. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 36:147-164.
21. Eberhard K. The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:560-578.
22. Eberhard K., Cutting J.C., Bock K. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 2005, 112:531-558.
23. Farmer T.A., Christiansen M.H., Monaghan P. Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103:12203-12208. 10.1073/pnas.0602173103.
24. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:469-495. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2660.
25. Ferreira F. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:164-203. 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7.
26. Ferreira F., Bailey K.G.D., Ferraro V. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2002, 11:11-15.
27. Fine A.B., Jaeger T.F., Farmer T.A., Qian T. Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(10):e77661. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661.
28. Foote R., Bock K. The role of morphology in subject-verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 2012, 27:429-461. 10.1080/01690965.2010.550166.
29. Franck J., Lassi G., Frauenfelder U.H., Rizzi L. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 2006, 101:173-216.
30. Franck J., Vigliocco G., Nicol J. Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes 2002, 17:371-404.
31. Frenck-Mestre C., Osterhout L., McLaughlin J., Foucart A. The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:528-536.
32. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., Mecklinger A. Temporal structure of syntactic processing: Early and late event-related potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1219-1248.
33. Friederici A.D., Mecklinger A., Spencer K.M., Steinhauer K., Donchin E. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11:305-323.
34. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N.J., Myers E., Lotocky M.A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 37:58-93.
35. Gennari S.P., MacDonald M.C. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition 2009, 111:1-23. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.006.
36. Gillespie M., Pearlmutter N.J. Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition 2011, 118:377-397. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.008.
37. Gillespie M., Pearlmutter N.J. Against structural constraints in subject-verb agreement production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2013, 39:515-528. 10.1037/a0029005.
38. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2001, 27:1411-1423.
39. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Levine W.H. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 2002, 13:425-430.
40. Hagoort P. Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:883-899. doi:10.1162/089892903322370807.
41. Hagoort P., Brown C.M. Gender electrified: ERP evidence on the syntactic nature of gender processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1999, 28:715-728.
42. Hagoort P., Brown C.M. ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38:1531-1549.
43. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Eletrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:194-205.
44. Hartsuiker R.J. Are speech error patterns affected by a monitoring bias?. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:856-891.
45. Hartsuiker R.J., Antón-Méndez I., van Zee M. Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:546-572.
46. Hartsuiker R.J., Schriefers H.J., Bock K., Kikstra G.M. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:1316-1326.
47. Haskell T.R., MacDonald M.C. Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:760-778. 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00010-X.
48. Haskell T.R., Thornton R., MacDonald M.C. Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement production. Cognition 2010, 114:151-164. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.017.
49. Hutchison K.A., Neely J.H., Johnson J.D. With great expectations, can two "wrongs" prime a "right"?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2001, 27:1451-1463. 10.1037//0278-7393.27.6.1451.
50. Jasper H.H. The ten-twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1958, 10:371-375.
51. Kaan E. Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2002, 31:165-193.
52. Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P.J. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 2000, 15:159-201.
53. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:98-110.
54. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002.
55. Kreiner H., Garrod S., Sturt P. Number agreement in sentence comprehension: The relationship between grammatical and conceptual factors. Language and Cognitive Processes 2013, 28:829-874. 10.1080/01690965.2012.667567.
56. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063.
57. Lau E.F., Holcomb P.J., Kuperberg G.R. Dissociating N400 effect of prediction from association in single word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2013, 25:484-502. 10.1162/jocn_a_00328.
58. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126-1177. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.
59. Lew-Williams C., Fernald A. Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science 2007, 18:193-198. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01871.x.
60. Lewis R.L., Vasishth S. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:375-419.
61. Lewis R.L., Vasishth S., Van Dyke J.A. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:447-454.
62. Lorimor H., Bock K., Zalkind E., Sheyman A., Beard R. Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23:769-799. 10.1080/01690960701774182.
63. MacDonald M.C. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4(226). 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.
64. MacWhinney B., Bates E., Kliegl R. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1984, 23:127-150.
65. Martin A.E., McElree B. A content-addressable pointer underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:879-906. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010.
66. Martin A.E., Nieuwland M.S., Carreiras M. Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage 2012, 59:1859-1869. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.057.
67. McElree B. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:111-123.
68. McElree B. Accessing recent events. Psychology of learning and motivation 2006, Vol. 46:155-200. Academic Press, San Diego.
69. McElree B., Foraker S., Dyer L. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:67-91.
70. McKinnon R., Osterhout L. Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes 1996, 11:495-523.
71. McLaughlin J., Osterhout L., Kim A. Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience 2004, 7:703-704.
72. Molinaro N., Barber H., Carreiras M. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 2011, 47:908-930. 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019.
73. Molinaro N., Vespignani F., Zamparelli R., Job R. Why brother and sister are not just siblings: Repair processes in agreement computation. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 64:211-232. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.002.
74. Neely J.H. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition 1991, 264-336. Erlbaum, Hillsdal, NJ. D. Besner, G.W. Humphreys (Eds.).
75. Nevins A., Dillon B., Malhotra S., Phillips C. The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research 2007, 1164:81-94.
76. Nicol J. Effects of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1995, 24:507-516.
77. Nicol J., Forster K., Veres C. Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 36:569-587.
78. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
79. Osterhout L., Allen M.D., McLaughlin J., Inoue K. Brain potentials elicited by prose-embedded linguistic anomalies. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:1304-1312.
80. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
81. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence for the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 28:786-803.
82. Osterhout L., Mobley L. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34:739-773.
83. Parker D., Du A., Phillips C. Time heals semantic illusions, but not syntactic illusions. Paper presented at the 2014 CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing 2014, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
84. Pearlmutter N.J. Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:89-98.
85. Pearlmutter N.J., Garnsey S.M., Bock K. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:427-456.
86. Pickering M.J., Garrod S. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013, 36:329-347. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495.
87. Reali F., Christiansen M.H. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 57:1-23. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014.
88. Rossi S., Gugler M.F., Hahne A., Friederici A.D. When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters 2005, 384:228-233.
89. Segaert K., Menenti L., Weber K., Petersson K.M., Hagoort P. Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension-an FMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 2012, 22:1662-1670. 10.1093/cercor/bhr249.
90. Severens E., Jansma B.M., Hartsuiker R.J. Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject-verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research 2008, 1228:135-144. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.05.092.
91. Shen E.Y., Staub A., Sanders L.D. Event-related brain potential evidence that local nouns affect subject-verb agreement processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 2013, 28:498-524.
92. Solomon E.S., Pearlmutter N.J. Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology 2004, 49:1-46.
93. Staub A. On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:308-327.
94. Staub A. Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition 2010, 114:447-454.
95. Tanner D., Van Hell J.G. ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia 2014, 56:289-301. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.002.
96. Thierry G., Wu Y.J. Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104:12530-12535. 10.1073/pnas.0609927104.
97. Thornton R., MacDonald M.C. Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:740-759.
98. Tokowicz N., MacWhinney B. Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar - An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2005, 27:173-204.
99. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preferences from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1993, 19:528-553.
100. Van Berkum J.J.A., Brown C.M., Zwitserlood P., Kooijman V., Hagoort P. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31:443-467. 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443.
101. Van Dyke J.A. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:407-430.
102. Van Dyke J.A., McElree B. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:157-166.
103. Van Dyke J.A., McElree B. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 65:247-263.
104. Van Petten C., Luka B.J. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2012, 83:176-190. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.015.
105. Vigliocco G., Butterworth B., Garrett M. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition 1996, 61:261-298.
106. Vigliocco G., Butterworth B., Semenza C. Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34:186-215.
107. Vigliocco G., Nicol J. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?. Cognition 1998, 68:13-29.
108. Wagers M.W., Lau E.F., Phillips C. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:206-237.
109. Wicha N.Y.Y., Moreno E.M., Kutas M. Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16:1272-1288. 10.1162/0898929041920487.
110. Wlotko E.W., Federmeier K.D. So that's what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage 2012, 62:356-366. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.054.
111. Xiang M., Dillon B., Phillips C. Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language 2009, 108:40-55.