Abstract
The present research investigated the attraction phenomenon, which commonly occurs in the domain of production but is also apparent in comprehension. It particularly focused on its accessibility to conceptual influence, in analogy to previous findings in production in Hebrew (Deutsch and Dank, J Mem Lang, 60:112–143, 2009). The experiments made use of the contrast between grammatical and natural gender in Hebrew, using complex subject noun phrases containing head nouns and prepositional phrases with local nouns. Noun phrases were manipulated to produce (a) matches and mismatches in grammatical gender between heads and local nouns; and (b) inanimate nouns and animate nouns with natural gender that served either as head or as local nouns. These noun phrases were the subjects of sentences that ended with predicates agreeing in gender with the head noun, with the local noun, or both. The ungrammatical sentences were those in which the gender of the predicate and the head noun did not match. To assess the impact of conflicts in grammatical and natural gender on the time course of reading, participants’ eye movements were monitored. The results revealed clear disruptions in reading the predicate due to grammatical-gender mismatches with head and local nouns, in analogy to attraction in production. When the head nouns conveyed natural gender these effects were amplified, but variations in the natural gender of local nouns had negligible consequences. The results imply that comprehension and production are similarly sensitive to the control of grammatical agreement by grammatical and natural gender in subject noun phrases.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The notional effects described in the literature often involved a distributive meaning of the complete phrase, as in the distributive preamble “the picture on the postcards”, compared to the unitary preamble “the baby on the blankets”. Whereas the sensitivity of English speakers to distributive effects is inconclusive (Bock and Miller 1991; Vigliocco et al. 1996a, but see also Eberhard 1999), other languages have shown clear effects (in French: Vigliocco et al. 1996b, in Dutch: Hartsuiker et al. 1999; Vigliocco et al. 1996b, in Spanish: Vigliocco et al. 1996a, and in Italian: Vigliocco et al. 1995).
In the case of inanimate nouns, these typical endings are believed to be part of nominal word-patterns called mishkalim, which are considered to be part of the derivational Hebrew system (see Dank and Deutsch 2010, for further discussion).
One subject was deleted from the analysis due to missing data in one of the conditions.
References
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Badecker, W., & 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.
Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2009). Resolving number ambiguities during language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 352–373.
Bock, J. K. (1995). Producing agreement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 56–61.
Bock, J. K., Butterfield, S., Cutler, A., Cutting, J. C., Eberhard, K. M., & Humphreys, K. R. (2006). Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreement to agree collectively. Language, 82, 64–113.
Bock, J. K., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. (2012). Number meaning and number grammar in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 17–37.
Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104, 437–458.
Bock, J. K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.
Bock, J. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Cutting, J. C. (2004). Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 251–278.
Bock, J. K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 83–128.
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
Bock, J. K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 330–346.
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Dank, M., & Deutsch, A. (2010). The role of morpho-phonological factors in subject-predicate gender agreement in Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1380–1410. doi:10.1080/01690960903513891.
Deutsch, A. (1998). Subject predicate agreement in Hebrew: Interrelations with semantic process. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 575–597.
Deutsch, A., & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movement. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 200–224.
Deutsch, A., Bentin, S., & Katz, L. (1999). Semantic influence on processing syntactic rules of agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 515–535.
Deutsch, A., & Dank, M. (2009). Conflicting cues and competition between conceptual and grammatical factors in producing number and gender agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 112–143. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.001.
Deutsch, A., & Dank, M. (2011). Symmetric and asymmetric patterns of attraction errors in producing subject-predicate agreement in Hebrew: An issue of morphological structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 24–46. doi:10.1080/01690961003658420.
Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 147–164.
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The effect of conceptual number on the production of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147–164.
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–599.
Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). Cognitive overload and orthographic errors: When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in French written language. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 437–464.
Foote, R., & Bock, K. (2012). The role of morphology in subject-verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 429–461.
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., Antón-Méndez, I., Collina, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2008). The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross-linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 329–374.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 1–23.
Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.
Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 1–17.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Huinck, W. J. (1999). Agrammatic production of subject-verb agreement: The effect of conceptual number. Brain and Language, 69, 119–160.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. M. (2003). Morphological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory and Cognition, 31(8), 1316–1326.
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760–778.
Haskell, T. R., Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2010). Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement resolution. Cognition, 114, 151–164.
Kreiner, H., Garrod, S., & Sturt, P. (2013). Number agreement in sentence comprehension: The relationship between grammatical and conceptual factors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 829–874.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lorimor, H., Bock, K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., & Beard, R. (2008). Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 769–799.
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703.
Masson, M., & Loftus, G. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 569–587.
Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 89–98.
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement process in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 105–110. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495.
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
Plaut, D. C., & Kello, C. T. (1999). The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 381–415). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Solomon, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 1–46.
Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308–327. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.002.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (Vol. xviii, pp. 217–262). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740–759.
Tooley, K., & Bock, J. K. (2011). The equivalence of syntactic priming in comprehension and production. In Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford, California.
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621–648). Oxford: Elsevier.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225–258.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996a). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constrains. Cognition, 61, 261–298.
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.
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 455–478.
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (2001). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 368–390.
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996b). One or more labels on the bottle? Conceptual concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442.
Vigliocco, G., & Zilli, T. (1999). Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The core of gender disagreement in Italian language—impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 623–648.
Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2009a). In defense of competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10936-008-9075-1.
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002.
Zandvoort, R. W. (1961). Varia syntactica. In Language and society: Essays presented to Arthur M. Jensen on his 70th birthday. Copenhagen: Det Berlins Bogtrykkeri.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation (#0323157) to Avital Deutsch.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation (#0323157) to Avital Deutsch.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dank, M., Deutsch, A. & Bock, K. Resolving Conflicts in Natural and Grammatical Gender Agreement: Evidence from Eye Movements. J Psycholinguist Res 44, 435–467 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9291-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9291-9