Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 553–570 | Cite as

Subject-verb agreement errors in written productions: A study of French children and adults

  • Lucile Chanquoy
  • Isabelle Negro
Article
Accepted:

Abstract

This experiment was designed to simulate the conditions for subject-verb agreement errors, which are rarely but regularly observed in highly educated adults. Twenty-four adults and 24 children (12 years old) were orally presented with sentences to write. The sentences were in the French past indicative (the “imperfect” tense) and were of two types, asfollows: Noun 1 [subject of the verb]+Verb 1+Noun 2 [object of the verb] and(Adverbial phrase)+Pronoun 1+Pronoun 2+Verb 2+ (adverbial phrase). The adverbial phrase appeared either at the beginning or the end of the sentence. The conditions were the following: Noun 1 (and Pronoun 1) and Noun 2 (and Pronoun 2) were either matched or mismatched in number, and the sentences were either followed or not by a series of five words to be memorized. Most adults made errors when the two pronouns differed in number. But, in contrast to the results of studies using the present indicative, the extra cognitive load (the word series) did not lead to more errors. The children also made errors when the two pronouns differed, and did so whatever the cognitive load. The position of the adverbial phrase did not influence the error ratio. With the imperfect tense, it seems that making the verb number agree with its subject cannot be considered as a cognitively automatic and effortless activity, even for adults.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Cognitive Load Error Ratio French Child Agreement Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986).Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1990).Human memory. Theory and practice. Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Bled, E., & Bled, O. (1985).Bled: Orthographe. Cours élémentaire et moyen. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  4. Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production.Cognition, 31, 163–186.Google Scholar
  5. Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating energy: Performance units in language production.Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement.Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
  7. Chanquoy, L. (1991).Ponctuation et connecteurs: Acquisition et fonctionnement. Etudes comparatives chez l'enfant et l'adulte. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bourgogne, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
  8. Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J. N., & Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short texts writing by children and adults.European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 513–538.Google Scholar
  9. Eigler, G., Jechle, T., Merziger, G., & Winter, A. (1991). Writing and knowledge: Effects and re-effects.European Journal of Psychology of Education, VI, 225–232.Google Scholar
  10. Fayol, M. (1988, January).Compréhension, production, contrôle et régulation du langage. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Société Française de Psychologie, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
  11. Fayol, M. (1991). From sentence production to text production: Investigating the fundamental processes.European Journal of Psychology of Education, VI, 101–119.Google Scholar
  12. Fayol, M., & Got, C. (1991). Automatisme et contrôle dans la production écrite/Les erreurs d'accord sujet-verbe chez l'enfant et l'adulte.L'Année Psychologique, 91, 187–205.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamic of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Foulin., J. N., Fayol, M., & Chanquoy, L. (1989). On the temporal management of writing by adults. In P. Boscolo (Ed.),Writing: Trends in European research (pp. 227–238). Padua, Italy: UPSEL Editor.Google Scholar
  16. Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English.Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–318.Google Scholar
  17. Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in language production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.),Language production. Vol. 1: Speech and talk, (pp. 177–220). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993).Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer.American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.Google Scholar
  21. Hudson, J. A., & Fivush, R. (1991). Planning in the preschool years: The emergence of plans from general event knowledge.Cognitive Development, 6, 393–415.Google Scholar
  22. Largy, P., Chanquoy, L., & Fayol, M. (1993). Automatic and controlled writing: Subjectverb agreement errors in French native speakers. In G. Eigler, & T. Jechle (Eds.),Writing: Current trends in European research, (pp. 109–120). Freiburg, Germany: Hochschul Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
  25. Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., Stevens, J. J., & Ledbetter, M. F. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processing tasks.Journal of School Psychology, 28, 101–117.Google Scholar
  26. Negro, I., Chanquoy, L., & Fayol, M. (1994, October).Effet d'une charge en mémoire sur les erreurs d'accord sujet-verbe chez des enfants (9 et 12 ans) et des adultes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Société Française de Psychologie, Montpellier, (France).Google Scholar
  27. Niaz, M., & Logie, R. H. (1993). Working memory, mental capacity and science education: Towards an understanding of the ‘working memory overload hypothesis.’Oxford Review of Education, 19, 511–525.Google Scholar
  28. Perruchet, P. (1988).Les automatismes cognitifs. Brusells, Belgium: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  29. Power, M. J. (1986). A technique for measuring processing load during speech production.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 371–380.Google Scholar
  30. Pynte, J., Courrieu, P., & Frenck, C. (1989). Retrieval from verbal memory and motor programming during writing by hand. In P. Boscolo (Ed.),Writing: Trends in European research (pp. 205–212). Padora, Italy: UPSEL Editor.Google Scholar
  31. Richard, J. F. (1980).L'attention. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  32. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.Google Scholar
  33. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1985). Categorization (restructuring) and automatization: Two separable factors.Psychological Review, 92, 424–428.Google Scholar
  34. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.Google Scholar
  35. Shiffrin, R. M., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1994). Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limitations.Psychological Review, 101, 357–361.Google Scholar
  36. Stanovich, K. E. (1981). Attentional and automatic context effects in reading. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.),Interactive processes in reading (pp. 53–70). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar
  38. Sweller, J. (1993). Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organisation and presentation of information.Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 1–8.Google Scholar
  39. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.Google Scholar
  40. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tiemey, P., & Cooper, M. (1994). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.Google Scholar
  41. Van der Plaats, R. E., & Van Galen, G. P. (1990). Effects of spatial and motor demands in handwriting.Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 361–385.Google Scholar
  42. Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 651–726.Google Scholar
  43. Wing, A. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1980). Spelling errors in handwriting. A corpus and a distributional analysis. In U. Frith (Ed.),Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 251–273). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucile Chanquoy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isabelle Negro
    • 1
  1. 1.C.D.G.E.M./C.N.R.S. EP0012Université Montpellier IIIMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.C.D.G.E.M./C.N.R.S. E.P. 0012Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier IIIMontpellier Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations