Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=ysqMThMToW1FwqBVyeX7RnoShrTJxYvzqyZkT453giI&_path=id%3D1181172%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

İngilizce özne-yüklem uyumunda (ters) uyumsuzluk asimetrisi

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 1 - 26, 20.06.2023

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz , Özge Bakay , Didem Bayrak Kurt

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1181172

Abstract

Bu çalışma İngilizce özne-yüklem uyumunda dil üretiminde geniş çaplı olarak raporlanan uyumsuzluk asimetrisi ya da çoğulun çekime etkisini ve cümle anlamada nispeten daha az gözlemlenen ters uyumsuzluk asimetrisi ya da tekilin çekime etkisini araştırmaktadır. Bir kendi hızında okuma deneyi, bir sesli okuma deneyi ve bir yazılı anket ile, anlamada tekilin çekime etkisinin özgün bir etki mi yoksa bu etkiyi ortaya koyan çalışmaların deneysel materyallerinin bir ürünü mü olduğunu araştırdık. Sonuçlar, en azından öznesinde üç isim bulunan yapıların anlaşılmasında, tekilin çekime etkisinin özgün olduğunu, çoğulun çekime etkisinin ise deneyin bilişsel kaynaklar üzerinde çok zorlayıcı olmadığı durumlarda üç isim içeren özneli yapılarda da görüldüğü görüşünü desteklemektedir. Özne-yüklem uyumundaki bu (ters) uyumsuzluk asimetrisi, cümle anlama ve üretmede kullanılan mekanizmalardaki farklılıklarla açıklanabilir.

Keywords

İngilizce özne-yüklem uyumu ters uyumsuzluk asimetrisi cümle üretme cümle anlama

Project Number

13781

References

  • Atmann, G. T. M., & Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing, Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583–609.
  • Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
  • Bock, K. (1995). Producing agreement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 56-61.
  • Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127.
  • Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 57–99.
  • Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45- 93.
  • Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 330-346.
  • Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di linguistica, 11(1), 11-39.
  • Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85-103.
  • Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 147-164.
  • Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116-124.
  • Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371-404.
  • Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press.
  • Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011a). Effects of semantic integration and advance planning on grammatical encoding in sentence production. In L. Carlson, C.
  • Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1625–1630). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011b). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition, 118(3), 377-397.
  • Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1-3), 181-204.
  • Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2009). Agreement checking and number attraction in sentence comprehension: Insights from German relative clauses. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, 7.
  • Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(3), 1-26.
  • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375-419.
  • Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.
  • Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior research methods, 49(4), 1494-1502.
  • Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.
  • Nieuwenhuis, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2012). Influence.ME: Tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. The R Journal, 4(2), 38-47.
  • Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 89-98.
  • Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427-456.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English (Vol. 1985). London: Longman. R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: Available at: https://www. R-project. org/.[Google Scholar].
  • Solomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive psychology, 49(1), 1-46.
  • Tanner, D., & Bulkes, N. Z. (2015). Cues, quantification, and agreement in language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1753-1763.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247-263.
  • Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), 13-29.
  • Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61(3), 261-298.
  • 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(2), 186-215.
  • Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jerema, G., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(4), 407-442.
  • Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206-237.

(Reversed) Mismatch Asymmetry in English Subject-Verb Agreement

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 1 - 26, 20.06.2023

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz , Özge Bakay , Didem Bayrak Kurt

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1181172

Abstract

This paper investigates, in English, the widely reported mismatch asymmetry, or plural attraction in the production of subject-verb agreement and the relatively less observed reversed mismatch asymmetry, or singular attraction in comprehension. Through a self-paced reading experiment, a read-aloud production task and a pen-and-paper questionnaire, we examined whether singular attraction is a genuine effect in comprehension or it could be due to the experimental materials in the few studies that reported it. The results support the view that singular attraction in comprehension is genuine, at least for structures that include three nouns in the subject, and plural attraction extends to sentences with complex subjects that include three nouns when the task is not too demanding. The (reversed) mismatch asymmetry in subject-verb agreement is attributed to the differential mechanisms involved in sentence comprehension and production.

Keywords

English subject-verb agreement mismatch asymmetry production comprehension

Supporting Institution

Boğaziçi University Scientific Research Projects Grant, City University of New York, Graduate Center

Project Number

13781

References

  • Atmann, G. T. M., & Mirkovic, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing, Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583–609.
  • Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
  • Bock, K. (1995). Producing agreement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 56-61.
  • Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127.
  • Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 57–99.
  • Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45- 93.
  • Bock, K., Nicol, J., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 330-346.
  • Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di linguistica, 11(1), 11-39.
  • Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85-103.
  • Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 147-164.
  • Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116-124.
  • Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371-404.
  • Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press.
  • Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011a). Effects of semantic integration and advance planning on grammatical encoding in sentence production. In L. Carlson, C.
  • Holscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1625–1630). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  • Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011b). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition, 118(3), 377-397.
  • Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1-3), 181-204.
  • Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2009). Agreement checking and number attraction in sentence comprehension: Insights from German relative clauses. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, 7.
  • Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(3), 1-26.
  • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375-419.
  • Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454.
  • Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior research methods, 49(4), 1494-1502.
  • Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 569–587.
  • Nieuwenhuis, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2012). Influence.ME: Tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. The R Journal, 4(2), 38-47.
  • Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Linear versus hierarchical agreement feature processing in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 89-98.
  • Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427-456.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English (Vol. 1985). London: Longman. R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: Available at: https://www. R-project. org/.[Google Scholar].
  • Solomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive psychology, 49(1), 1-46.
  • Tanner, D., & Bulkes, N. Z. (2015). Cues, quantification, and agreement in language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1753-1763.
  • Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247-263.
  • Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68(1), 13-29.
  • Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61(3), 261-298.
  • 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(2), 186-215.
  • Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jerema, G., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(4), 407-442.
  • Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206-237.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistics, Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz 0000-0003-0673-1130

Özge Bakay 0000-0002-7326-0423

Didem Bayrak Kurt 0000-0003-1345-2746

Project Number 13781
Publication Date June 20, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 34 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Dinçtopal Deniz, N., Bakay, Ö., & Bayrak Kurt, D. (2023). (Reversed) Mismatch Asymmetry in English Subject-Verb Agreement. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1181172

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad