Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986).Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1990).Human memory. Theory and practice. Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bled, E., & Bled, O. (1985).Bled: Orthographe. Cours élémentaire et moyen. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production.Cognition, 31, 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating energy: Performance units in language production.Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement.Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Fayol, M. (1991). From sentence production to text production: Investigating the fundamental processes.European Journal of Psychology of Education, VI, 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English.Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993).Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer.American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • Perruchet, P. (1988).Les automatismes cognitifs. Brusells, Belgium: Mardaga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. J. (1986). A technique for measuring processing load during speech production.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Richard, J. F. (1980).L'attention. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1985). Categorization (restructuring) and automatization: Two separable factors.Psychological Review, 92, 424–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1994). Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limitations.Psychological Review, 101, 357–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 651–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chanquoy, L., Negro, I. Subject-verb agreement errors in written productions: A study of French children and adults. J Psycholinguist Res 25, 553–570 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01758183

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01758183

Keywords

Navigation