Linguistic and psycholinguistic models of the subjetc-verb agreement production
A review
Abstract
Talking is one of the most natural and frequent activities of the human. However, it involves coordinating with temporary precision the intervention of materials of diverse nature. In producing a sentence, speakers must transform their communicative intentions into a sequence of linguistic sounds that allow them to convey the message they are trying to communicate. This transformation involves performing a series of complex operations. This work deals with one of these operations, the agreement, during online production. Specifically, the linguistic and psycholinguistic models of agreement are detailed. The first section describes how the agreement is performed in Spanish, to continue with a section that introduces how the agreement is seen within the Minimalist Model of Generative Grammar. Next, it is outlined how is the process of language production and models that allow to explain how a sentence is produced in real time. Finally, different models of agreement production are detailed.
Downloads
References
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. (2012). Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism. Journal of Linguistics 48 (2), 257-296.
Alexiadou, Alexander & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, Vmovement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491-540.
Antón-Méndez, Inés & Hartsuiker, Robert. (2010). Morphophonological and conceptual effects on Dutch subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 728-748.
Baddeley, Alan (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication
Badecker, William & Kuminiak, Frantisek. (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.
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar, en E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: CUP.
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, Elizabeth, Devescovi, Antonella & Wulfeck, Beverly. (2001). Psycholinguistics: A cross language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52:3693.
Bock, Kathryn & Levelt, Willem. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In M.Gernsbacher (comp.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.
Bock, Kathryn & Miller, Carol. (1991). Broken Agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45-93.
Bock, Kathryn, Eberhard, Kathleen, Cutting, J. Cooper, Meyer, Antje. & Schriefers, Herbert. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, v.43, p. 83-128.
Bock, Kathryn, Eberhard, Kathleen. & Cutting, J. Cooper. (2004). Producing number agreement: how pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, v.51, n.2, p.251-278.
Bock, Kathryn, Nicol, Janet, & Cutting, J. Cooper. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 330-346.
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press [Aspectos de una teoría de la sintaxis. Barcelona, Gedisa, 1999].
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press [El programa minimista. Barcelona: Ariel, 1998].
Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin et al. (eds.). Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 133-166.
Corrêa, Leticia & Rodrigues, Erica. (2005). Erros de atração no processamento da concordância sujeito-verbo e a questão da autonomia do formulador sintático, en Maia, M.; Finger, I. (Orgs.) Processamento da linguagem. Pelotas: EDU CAT, p. 303-336.
De Smedt, Koenraad. (1994). Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. En G. Adriaens y U. Hahn (comps.). Parallel natural language processing, 421-447. Ablex, Norwood NJ.
De Smedt, Koenraad. (1990). IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In R. Dale, C. Mellish and M. Zock (eds). Current research in Natural Language Generation, Academic Press, London, pp. 167-192.
Dell, Gary (1986). A spreading activation model of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
Eberhard, Kathleen. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 147–164.
Eberhard, Kathleen, Cutting, J. Cooper, & Bock, Kathryn. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531-559.
Ferreira, Victor & Slevc, L. Robert. (2007). Grammatical encoding. En M. Gareth Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.453-469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foote, Rebecca & Bock, Kathryn. (2011). The role of morphology in subject–verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language & Cognitive Processes, 27:3, 429-461.
Franck, Julie (2011). Reaching agreement as a core syntactic process. Commentary of Bock & middelton Reaching Agreement. Nat Lang Linguist Theory, 29, 1071-1086.
Franck, Julie., Lassi, Glenda, Frauenfelder, Ulrich & Rizzi, Luigi. (2008). Agreement and Movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, v.101, p. 173-215.
Franck, Julie, Vigliocco, Gabriella, Antón-Méndez, Inés, Collina, Simona & Frauenfelder, Ulrich. (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.
Fromkin, Victoria. (1973). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. Mouton, The Hague.
Garrett, Merrill. (1980). Levels of Processing in speech production. En: B. Butterworth (comp.), Language Production. Londres: Academic Press.
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey, & Sag, Ivan. (1985). Generalised phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hartsuiker, Robert, Antón-Méndez, Inés, & Van Zee, Marije. (2001). Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572.
Hartsuiker, Robert & Barkhuysen, Pashiera. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes. 21, 181–204.
Hartsuiker, Robert, Schriefers, Herbert, Bock, J. Kathryn, & Kikstra, Gerdien. (2003). Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory and Cognition, 31, 1316-1326.
Haskell, Todd & MacDonald, Maryellen. (2003) Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, v. 48, p. 760-778.
Humphreys, Karin & Bock, Kathryn. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(4):689–695.
Kempen, Gerard & Hoenkamp, Edward. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, v. 11, p. 201-258.
Kempen, Gerard, & Vosse, Theo. (1989). Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated anealling. Connection Science, I, 275-292.
Koppen, Marjo van. (2005) One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD dissertation. University of Leiden.
Kuminiak, Frantisek, & Badecker, William (1998). Production of subject– verb agreement and the role of case marking. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas, TX.
Levelt, Williem. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Levelt, Williem, Roelofs, Ardi & Meyer, Antje. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 1-75.
Lewis, Richard & Vasishth, Shravan. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29:1-45.
MacDonald, Maryellen., Pearlmutter, Neal, & Seidenberg, Mark (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
MacWhinney, Brian, Bates, Elizabeth., & Kliegl, Reinhold. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127-150.
Martínez, José Antonio. (1999) La concordancia. En: Bosque, I. y Demonte, V. (comps.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa. Capítulo 41. v. 2, 2695-2786.
Pollard, Carl, & Sag, Ivan (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Quirk, Randolf, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Goeffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rodrigues, Erica dos Sntos. (2006). Processamento da concordância de número entre sujeito e verbo na produção de sentenças. Tese de Doutorado, Depto.de Letras, PUC-Rio.
Rodrigues, Erica dos Santos.; Correa, Leticia & Augusto, M. R.A. (2008). Concordância sujeito-verbo em um modelo integrado misto (top-down/bottom-up) da computação on-line Veredas-Psicolingüística 2/2008, p. 76-91
Sánchez, María Elina; Jaichenco, Virginia. & Sevilla, Yamila. (en prensa). El procesamiento del género y el número en la producción de la concordancia del español.
Sánchez, María Elina; Sevilla, Yamila & Jaichenco, Virginia. (2013). Interferencias en la producción de la concordancia sujeto-verbo en el español. Un estudio sobre el rol de los factores semánticos y morfofonológicos. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento. Vol. 5, N° 3. ISSN 1852-4206
Sánchez, María Elina; Sevilla, Yamila & Bachrach, Asaf. (2016). Agreement Processing in Control and Raising Structures. Evidence from sentence production in Spanish. Lingua, 177, 60-77.
Stemberger, Joseph P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A. Ellis (Ed.). Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. I, pp. 143-186). London: Erlbaum.
Tanenhaus, Michael, Spivey-Knowlton, Michael, Eberhard, Kathleen, & Sedivy, Julie. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268:1632–1634.
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. (2001). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 368– 390.
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 455–478.
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Hartsuiker, Robert. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, v.128, n.3, p.442-472.
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Zilli, Tiziana. (1999). Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28, 623–648.
Vigliocco, Gabriella, & Nicol, Janet. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production. Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, 13–29.
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Butterworth, Brian & Garrett, Merrill. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261-298.
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Butterworth, Brian, & Semenza, Carlo. (1995) Constructing Subject-Verb Agreement in Speech: The Role of Semantic and Morphological Factors. Journal of Memory and Language, v.34, p. 186-215.
The works published in this magazine are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) preserves the economic rights (copyright) of the published works, and favors and allows the reuse of same under the license of use indicated in point 2.
2. The papers are published in the electronic edition of the magazine under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Spain license (legal text). Papers may be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly exhibited if the following requirements are met: i) The authorship and the original source of its publication (magazine, editorial and URL of the work) must be cited; ii) The works cannot be used for commercial purposes; iii) The existence and specifications of this user license must be explicitly mentioned.
3. Self-archiving conditions. Authors can electronically disseminate pre-print versions (version before being evaluated) and / or post-print versions (version evaluated and accepted for publication). This makes possible its circulation and diffusion earlier and with it a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community. RoMEO color: green.
