Native French speakers (N = 24; M age = 20.1 yr.) were orally presented with sentences they were asked to write on a digitizing tablet, either with full visual feedback or with no visual feedback. The study assessed the extent to which the visual feedback contributed to supervising of verbal agreement processes, either postgraphically (detecting and revising any error that has been produced) or pregraphically (checking the graphemic plan before it is transcribed). The proportion of erroneous agreements was smaller with visual feedback (7%) than without (14%). The proportion of erroneous agreements that were spontaneously corrected was much higher with visual feedback (34%) than without (0%). There were significantly more pauses right before or within the transcription of the verbal inflection with visual feedback (8%) than without (3%).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlamargotD.ChanquoyL. (2001) A definition of writing and a presentation of main models. In RijlaarsdamG.AlamargotD.ChanquoyL. (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 9. Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Pp. 1–29
2.
AlamargotD.FayolM.ChesnetD. (2008) Assessing the time course of subject-verb agreement during French sentence production. The contribution of the “eye and pen” paradigm. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, 2008, Lund, Sweden.
3.
BastienM.Montessinos-GeletI. (2002) Capturé! Version 2. Montréal, Canada: Editions Microbe. Retrieved at http://www.microbe.ca.
4.
BockJ. K.CuttingJ. C. (1992) Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.
5.
BockK.MillerC. A. (1991) Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
6.
ButterfieldE. C.HackerD. J.AlbertsonL. R. (1996) Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 239–297.
7.
ChartrelE.VinterA. (2006) The role of visual information in the production of cursive letters in children and adults. L'Année Psychologique, 106, 43–63.
8.
ChenowethN. A.HayesJ. R. (2003) The inner voice of writing. Written Communication, 20, 99–118.
9.
FayolM.GotC. (1991) Automatisme et contrôle dans la production écrite: Erreurs d'accord sujet-verbe chez l'enfant et l'adulte. L'Année Psychologique, 91, 187–205.
10.
FayolM.HupetM.LargyP. (1999) The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French: From novices to experts' errors. Reading and Writing, 5, 24–36.
11.
FayolM.LargyP.LemaireP. (1994) Cognitive overload on orthographic errors: When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 437–464.
12.
Goldman-EislerF. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments on spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
13.
HackerD. J.KeenerM. C.KircherJ. C. (2009) Writing is applied metacognition. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. New York & London: Routledge. Pp. 154–172.
14.
HayesJ. R. (1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 1–27.
15.
HullG. A.SmithW. L. (1983) Interrupting visual feedback in writing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 963–978.
16.
HupetM.FayolM.SchelstraeteM. (1998) Effects of semantic variables on the subject-verb agreement processes in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 59–75.
17.
KelloggR. T. (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 57–71.
18.
LebrunY. (1976) Neurolinguistic models of language and speech. In WhitakerH.WhitakerH. A. (Eds.), Studies of neurolinguisitics. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 1–30.
19.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
MonsellS. (1996) Control of mental processes. In BruceV. (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind. London: Taylor & Francis. Pp. 93–148.
21.
OliveT.PiolatA. (2002) Suppressing visual feedback in written composition: Effects on processing demands and coordination of the writing processes. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 209–218.
22.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
23.
SmythM. M.SilversG. (1987) Functions of vision in the control of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 65, 47–64.
24.
ViglioccoG.NicolJ. (1998) Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear?Cognition, 68, B13–B29.
25.
ZozorN.PiolatA. (1999) Cognitive overload and subject-verb agreement errors: An on-line approach. In EsperetE.TolchinskyL. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 European Writing Conference. Poitiers, France: Editions Maison des Sciences Humaines et Sociales. Pp. 397–402.
