This study investigates the implementation of the syntactic constraint of verb agreement in French sentence processing. An experimental on-line error detection paradigm is used to examine how variations in linguistic material interposed between the subject and the verb affected the detection of number-verb agreement violations. Detection times mainly vary as a function of the linguistic structure of the interposed material: detection times are clearly longer for noun complements than for relative clauses and adverbial complements. Effect of length is shown to depend marginally on the structure type. Number mismatch between local and head nouns increases detection times, which also varies as a function of the morphology of the head noun. Results are analyzed with regard to processes found in agreement-error production studies. The role of structural, morphological, and semantic information in syntactic verb agreement processing is discussed within a crosslinguistic perspective.
ALTMAN, G.T. M. (1989). Parsing and interpretation: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 1–19.
2.
ALTMAN, G.T. M., & STEEDMAN, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
3.
BARLOW, M., & FERGUSON, C.A. (eds.). (1988). Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, description.Stanford, CA: CSLI.
4.
BATES, E., & MacWHINNEY, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
5.
BATES, E., & MacWHINNEY, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BÉCHADE, H. (1989). Syntaxe du français moderne et contemporain.Paris: PUF.
7.
BOCK, J.K., & EBERHARD, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 57–99.
8.
BOCK, J.K., & CUTTING, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.
9.
BOCK, K., & MILLER, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
10.
CRAIN, S., & STEEDMAN, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320–358), Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
11.
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.
12.
FAYOL, M., HUPET, M., LARGY, P., & SCHELSTRAETE, M. A. (1995). Broken agreement in written French: A two-step processing model of number agreement. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13.
FAYOL, M., LARGY, P., & LEMAIRE, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors: A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 A, 437–464.
14.
FODOR, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
FRANCIS, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–318.
16.
FRAZIER, L. (1986). Theories of sentence processing. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
FRAZIER, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special-purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In G. B. Flores d'Arcais, D. A. Balota, & K. Rayner (Eds), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
19.
FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 505–526.
20.
KAIL, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 77–117). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KAIL, M., & BASSANO, D. (1992). On-line error detection of word order and morphology in French sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Paris (p. 33).
22.
KAIL, M., & CHARVILLAT, A. (1988). Local and topological processing in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children. Journal of Child Language, 15, 637–662.
23.
KILBORN, K. (1989). Sentence processing in a second language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
24.
KILBORN, K. (1991). Selective impairment of grammatical morphology due to induced stress in normal listeners: Implications for aphasia. Brain and Language, 41, 275–288.
25.
LARGY, P. (1995). Production et gestion des erreurs en production écrite: Le cas de l'accord sujet- verbe. ThÈse de Doctorat, Université de Bourgogne, Bourgogne, France.
26.
LARGY, P., FAYOL, M., & LEMAIRE, P. (1995). On confusing verb/noun inflections: A study in verb agreement error in French. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27.
MacDONALD, M.C., PEARLMUTTER, N.J., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
28.
McCLELLAND, J.L., ST JOHN, M., & TARABAN, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 287–335.
29.
McCLELLAND, J.L., & KAWAMOTO, A. H. (1986). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Exploration in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. II (pp. 272–326). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
30.
MacWHINNEY, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
MacWHINNEY, B., & BATES, E. (eds.). (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing.New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MacWHINNEY, B., BATES, E., & KLIEGL, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.
33.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W. & TYLER, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.
34.
MARSLEN-WILSON, W., & TYLER, L. (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing (pp. 57–104). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
MITCHELL, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Laws and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The Psychology of reading (pp. 601–681). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
MITCHELL, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguis- tics (pp. 375–409). New York: Academic Press.
37.
PEARLMUTTER, N.J., GARNSEY, S.M., & BOCK, J. K. (1995). Subject-verb agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Paper presented at the 8th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, Arizona.
38.
PERFETTI, C. A. (1990). The cooperative language processors: Semantic influences in an autonomous syntax. In G. B. Flores d'Arcais, D. A. Balota, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 205–230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
SCHELSTRAETE, A. M. (1993). La conception du traitement syntaxique en compréhension de phrases. L'Année Psychologique, 93, 543–582.
40.
SCHRIEFERS, H., FRIEDERICI, A.D., VAN KAMPEN, & BOCK, K. (1992). Semantic and phonological penetrability of syntactic processes determining subject-verb agreement. Institut fur Psychology der FUB, Annual Report No. 4, 30–35.
41.
TANENHAUS, M.K., CARLSON, G.N., & TRUESWELL, J. C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 211–234.
42.
TARABAN, R., & McCLELLAND, J. L. (1990). Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. In G. B. Flores d'Arcais, D. A. Balota, & K. Rayner (Eds), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 231–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
TYLER, L. (1985). Real time comprehension processes in agrammatism: A case study. Brain and Language, 26, 259–275.
44.
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.
45.
WULFECK, B. (1988). Grammaticality judgments and sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 72–81.
46.
WULFECK, B. (in press). A reaction time study of grammaticality judgments in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research.
47.
WULFECK, B., & BATES, E. (1991). Differential sensitivity to errors of agreement and word order in Broca's aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 258–272.
48.
WULFECK, B., BATES, E., & CAPASSO, R. (1991). A crosslinguistic study of grammaticality judgments in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 41, 311–336.
