Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 291–312 | Cite as

Successful written subject–verb agreement: an online analysis of the procedure used by students in Grades 3, 5 and 12

  • Denis Alamargot
  • Lisa Flouret
  • Denis Larocque
  • Gilles Caporossi
  • Virginie Pontart
  • Carmen Paduraru
  • Pauline Morisset
  • Michel Fayol
Article

Abstract

This study was designed to (1) investigate the procedure responsible for successful written subject–verb agreement, and (2) describe how it develops across grades. Students in Grades 3, 5 and 12 were asked to read noun–noun–verb sentences aloud (e.g., Le chien des voisins mange [The dog of the neighbors eats]) and write out the verb inflections. Some of the nouns differed in number, thus inducing attraction errors. Results showed that third graders were successful because they implemented a declarative procedure requiring regressive fixations on the subject noun while writing out the inflection. A dual-step procedure (Hupet, Schelstraete, Demaeght, & Fayol, 1996) emerged in Grade 5, and was fully efficient by Grade 12. This procedure, which couples an automatized agreement rule with a monitoring process operated within working memory (without the need for regressive fixations), was found to trigger a mismatch asymmetry (singular–plural > plural–singular) in Grade 5. The time course of written subject–verb agreement, the origin of agreement errors and differences between the spoken and written modalities are discussed.

Keywords

Subject–verb agreement Written production Attraction errors Online analysis Eye movements 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded partly by the Early Literacy in the Development of Early Language (ELDEL) European Initial Training Network; by an ANR Grant from the French Ministry of Research (Dynamics of Orthographic Processing, DyTO) and the CPER grant from Poitou–Charentes region. The authors would like to thank the schools for their contributions (Ecole Paul Bert in Poitiers, Ecole Paul Bert in Cognac, and Lycée Joseph Desfontaines in Melle, France), Elizabeth Portier for the English translation of the manuscript, and the University of Paris-Est Créteil for bearing the cost of the translation.

References

  1. Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device to study reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamargot, D., Leuwers, C., Caporossi, G., Pontart, V., Ramirez, K. O., Pagan, A., et al. (2011). Eye tracking data during written recall: Clues to S–V agreement processing during translation. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 441–459). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock, J.K., & Eberhard, K.M. (1993). Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 83–128.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (2002). Even in adults written production is still more costly than oral production. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chesnet, D., & Alamargot, D. (2005). L’Analyse en temps réel des activités oculaires et grapho-motrices du scripteur: Intérêt du dispositif “Eye and Pen”. L’Année Psychologique, 105(3), 477–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject– verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578.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(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fayol, M., Hupet, M., & Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of S–V agreement in written French. Reading and Writing, 11, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fayol, M., & Jaffré, J. P. (2008). Orthographier. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  15. Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances S–V agreement errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173–216.Google Scholar
  18. Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartsuiker, R. J., Antón-Méndez, I., & van Zee, M. (2001). Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hupet, M., Fayol, M., & Schelstraete, M.-A. (1998). Effects of semantic variables on the S–V agreement processes in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M. A., Demaeght, N., & Fayol, M. (1996). Les erreurs d’accord sujet-verbe en production écrite. L’Année Psychologique, 96, 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lambert, E., Alamargot, D., Larocque, D., & Caporossi, G. (2011). Dynamics of the spelling process during a copy task: Effects of regularity and frequency. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Largy, P., & Fayol, M. (2001). Oral cues improve subject–verb agreement in written French. International Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lefavrais, P. (1968). La Pipe et le Rat. L’évaluation du savoir-lire du cours préparatoire à l’enseignement supérieur et le facteur d’éducabilité PI. Issy-Les-Moulineaux: Edition et Application Psychologique.Google Scholar
  26. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). Manulex: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Négro, I., & Chanquoy, L. (2000). Étude des erreurs d’accord sujet-verbe au présent et à l’imparfait. Analyse comparative entre des collégiens et des adultes. L’Année Psychologique, 100(2), 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Négro, I., Chanquoy, L., Fayol, M., & Louis-Sydney, M. (2005). S–V agreement in children and adults: Serial or hierarchical processing? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(3), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Solomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thévenin, M. G., Totereau, C., Fayol, M., & Jarousse, J. P. (1999). L’apprentissage/enseignement de la morphologie écrite du nombre en français. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 126, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1994). The role of syntactic tree structure in the construction of subject verb agreement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  34. Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, B13–B29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wechsler, D. (2005). Échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants – Quatrième édition. France: ECPA.Google Scholar
  36. Wechsler, D. (2011). WAIS-IV: Nouvelle version de l’échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour adultes (4th ed.). Paris: ECPA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Alamargot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lisa Flouret
    • 1
  • Denis Larocque
    • 3
  • Gilles Caporossi
    • 3
    • 4
  • Virginie Pontart
    • 1
  • Carmen Paduraru
    • 5
  • Pauline Morisset
    • 2
  • Michel Fayol
    • 6
  1. 1.CHArt LaboratoryUniversity of Paris 8ParisFrance
  2. 2.ESPE de l’Académie de CréteilUniversity of Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC)Bonneuil sur Marne Cedex, ParisFrance
  3. 3.HEC MontrealMontrealCanada
  4. 4.GERAD LaboratoryUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  5. 5.CeRCA-CNRS LaboratoryUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  6. 6.LAPSCO-CNRS LaboratoryBlaise Pascal UniversityClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations