Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue MAR, 2015, Pages

  Franck, Julie ^a   Colonna, Saveria ^b   Rizzi, Luigi ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 8   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Agreement; Attraction; C command; Comprehension; Cue based retrieval; Intermediate traces; Intervention; Number

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926612974     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adani, F. (2008). The role of features in relative clause comprehension: a study of typical and atypical development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University Milano-Bicocca.
2. Adani, F., van der Lely H. K. J., Forgiarini M. and Guasti M.T. (2010). Grammatical Feature Dissimilarities Make Relative Clauses Easier: a Comprehension Study with Italian Children. Lingua, 120 (9), 2148-2166.
3. Alcocer, P., and Phillips, C. (2012). Using relational syntactic constraints in contentaddressable memory architectures for sentence parsing. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. and Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
5. Badecker, W., and Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65-85.
6. Belletti, A., N. Friedmann, D. Brunato, and L. Rizzi (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children's comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122(10), 1053-1069.
7. Belletti, A., Rizzi, L. (2013). Intervention in grammar and processing, In I. Caponigro&C. Cecchetto (Eds.), From Grammar to Meaning (pp. 294-311), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Bock, J. K., and Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99-127.
9. Bock, K., and Cutting, C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99-127.
10. Bock, K., and Miller, C. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 35-43.
11. Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., and Onishi, K. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104(3), 437-458.
12. Brehm, L., and Bock, K. (2013). What counts in grammatical number agreement? Cognition, 128(2), 149-169.
13. Caplan, D. (2010). Task Effects on BOLD Signal Correlates of Implicit Syntactic Processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(6), 866-901. doi:10.1080/01690961003672447.
14. Caplan, D., Chen, E., Waters, G. (2008). Task-dependent and task-independent neurovascular responses to syntactic processing. Cortex, 44(3), 257-75.
15. Chesi, C. (2005). Phases and Complexity in Phrase Structure Building. The 15th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands.
16. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step (pp. 89-155), Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Chung, S. (1998). The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
19. Clifton, Jr., C., Frazier, L., and Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivisti di Linguistica, 11, 11-39.
20. Dillon B., Mishler A., Slogett S., and Phillips C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85-103.
21. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., and Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531-559.
22. Fayol, M., Largy, P., and Lemaire, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(2), 437-464.
23. Fedorenko, E., Woodbury, R., and Gibson, E. (2013). Direct evidence of memory retrieval as a source of difficulty in long-distance structural dependencies in language. Cognitive Science, 37, 378-394.
24. Franck, J., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Chillier, L., Frauenfelder, U., Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., and Zesiger, P. (2004). Normal and pathological development of subject-verb agreement in speech production: A study on French children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 147-180.
25. Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U.H., and Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: a syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173-216.
26. Franck, J., Soare, G., Frauenfelder, U.H., and Rizzi, L. (2010). Object interference: The role of intermediate traces of movement. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(2), 166-182.
27. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., and Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371-404.
28. Friedmann N., Belletti A., and Rizzi L. (2009). Relativized relatives. Types of intervention in the acquisition of a-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67-88.
29. Gibson, E., and Warren, T. (2004). Reading time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55-78.
30. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
31. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.
32. Grillo, N. (2009). Generalized Minimality: Feature impoverishment and comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119, 1426-1443.
33. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 159-166.
34. Hartsuiker, R. J., Anton-Mendez, I., and Van Zee, M. (2001). Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546-572.
35. Hartsuiker, R. J. (2006). Are speech error patterns affected by a monitoring bias? Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 856-891.
36. Haskell, T. R., and MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subjectverb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760-778.
37. Häussler, J. (2009). The emergence of attraction errors during sentence comprehension. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Constance.
38. Hemforth, B., and Konieczny, L. (2003). Proximity in agreement errors. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA.
39. Hoelscher, C., and Hemforth, B. (2000). Subject-Verb Agreement in German: Evidence from Production and Comprehension Experiments. In B. Hemforth&L. Konieczny (Eds.) German Sentence Processing (pp. 279-310). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Press.
40. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., and Wooley, J.D. (1982). Paradigms and Processes in Reading Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111 (2), 228-238.
41. Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165-193.
42. Kayne, R. (1989). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647-686.
43. Kayne, R. (2000) Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press, New York.
44. Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., and Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345-380.
45. Konieczny, L, Schimke, S, and Hemforth, B. (2004). An activation-based model of agreement errors in production and comprehension. In Proceedings of the26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.
46. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.
47. Lewis, R.L., and Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1-45.
48. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 50-68.
49. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466-490.
50. McElree, B., Foraker, S., and Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67-91.
51. Nicol J. (1995). Effects of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 24, 507-516.
52. Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory&Language, 36(4), 569-587.
53. Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 89-98.
54. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., and Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-456.
55. R Development Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
56. Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
57. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and the left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 223-251), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59. Salverda, A. P., Brown, M., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 172-180. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.010
60. Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308-327.
61. Staub, A. (2010). Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition, 114, 447-454.
62. Stowe, L.A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227-245.
63. Tanner, D., Nicol, J. and Brehm L. (2014). The time course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195-215.
64. Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740-759.
65. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69-90.
66. Van Dyke, J.A., and Lewis, R.L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A retrieval interference theory of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285-316.
67. Van Dyke, J.A., and McElree, B. (2006) Retrieval interference in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157-166.
68. Vasishth, S., Lewis, R. L., Brüssow, S., and Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685-712.
69. Vigliocco, G., and Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production. Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), 13-29.
70. Wagers, Matthew W., Ellen F. Lau, and Colin Phillips. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206-237.
71. Warren, T., and Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
72. Warren, T., and Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(6), 751-767.