Abstract
Agreement is a covariation in morphological form that reflects relations between words. A series of experiments were carried out in Italian during production and comprehension where an element interferes with agreement. The likelihood of interference found in both modalities is related to the markedness of the intervener and to its grammatical nature: it occurs more frequently when the number expressed on a prepositional modifiers intervene between the subject and the verb than the number expressed on an object pronoun. Furthermore, subject agreement process with an intervener object pronoun is prone to error, with many errors reported also in the matched condition and with slower reaction timing in comprehension. The study supports the idea that agreement is a grammatical process sensitive not only to the markedness of the intervener element but also to its structural position. A unifying explanation for agreement in both production and comprehension will be adopted in line with retrieval of an agreement source from a content-addressable memory sensitive to structural positions and their implementation in different languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovack. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65–85.
Belletti, A. (1999). Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 543–579). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.
Bock, J. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Cutting, J. C. (2004). Producing number agreement: How pronoun equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 251–278.
Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency on the three grammatical classes. A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Eberhard, K., Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.
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. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A, 47, 437–464.
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: Syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173–216.
Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in speech production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production, Vol. 1: Speech and talk (pp. 177–220). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Harrison, A.J. (2004). Three way attraction effects in Slovene. In Proceedings of the second CamLing postgraduate conference on language research. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Hamann, C., & Belletti, A. (2008). Developmental patterns in the acquisition of complement clitic pronouns: Comparing different acquisition modes with an emphasis on French. Rivista di Grammatica, 31, 39–78.
Hartsuiker, R., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. (2003). Morpho-phonological influences on the construction of subject–verb agreement. Memory and Cognition, 31, 1316–1326.
Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2003). Proximity in agreement errors. In Proceedings of the 25th conference of the cognitive science society. Boston, MA.
Kayne, R. (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(4), 647–86.
Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based process of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.
Meyer, A., & Bock, K. (1999). Representations and processes in the production of pronouns: Some perspectives on Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 281–301.
Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). Discourse-based lexical anticipation: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes, 45(6), 464–496.
Perlmutter, N. J. (2000). Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 29, 89–98.
Perlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.
Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 309–327.
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., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. (1996). Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constrains. Cognition, 61, 261–298.
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (2001). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 368–390.
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, B13–B29.
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–231.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garraffa, M., Di Domenico, A. Interference in Processing Agreement: The Impact of Grammatical Cues. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 337–358 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9351-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9351-9