Abstract

This work explores gender agreement attraction in comprehension. Attraction occurs when an agreement error (such as, “the key to the cabinets are rusty”) goes unnoticed, leading to the illusion of grammaticality due to a mismatch between the value of the head and the value of a local intervening phase (attractor). According to retrieval accounts, these errors occur during cue retrieval from memory and predict illusions of grammaticality. Alternatively, representational accounts predict that the errors occur due to the faulty representation of certain features, thus, illusions of ungrammaticality are also expected. In four experiments we explore: (a) whether gender agreement attraction occurs in Greek and the strategy/-ies employed, (b) the role of the agreement target, (c) the timing of gender agreement attraction, (d) the role of phonological matching between the nominal inflectional morphemes of the attractor and the agreement target, and (e) participants’ sensitivity to agreement when there is no conflict from the attractor. In all four experiments, the grammaticality of the sentence and the attractor value (match or mismatch with the head) and also the phonological matching between the attractor and the agreement target in ungrammatical sentences were manipulated. The agreement target was either an adjectival predicate or an object-clitic and the gender value of the head was feminine or neuter. Attraction was found in all measures during the time-course of adjectival predicates (Experiment 1) and object-clitics (Experiment 2), and in timed (Experiment 3), and untimed (Experiment 4) judgments. Even more, both gender values showed attraction and the results mainly suggest that participants experience illusions of grammaticality, confirming retrieval accounts. Phonological matching did not modulate attraction in any of the experiments, suggesting that the similarity in the morphophonological realization between the agreement target and the attractor does not increase attraction. Furthermore, participants were sensitive to gender agreement violations in the absence of gender mismatch between the head and the attractor, suggesting that they respect agreement rules and have both neuter and feminine available in their feature content repertoire, although with some tendency in favor of neuter in feminine agreement contexts. The impact of these findings is discussed within the concept of attraction and sensitivity to agreement violations.

Highlights

  • Agreement is one of the core linguistic operations where a head noun and its corresponding agreement target have to accord in their agreement feature specification

  • We namely explore whether phonological matching (Agathopoulou et al, 2010) between the nominal inflectional morphemes of the attractor and the agreement target influences gender attraction; i.e., the agreement target shares the same gender value with the attractor and the exact same morphophonological realization for this gender value, as in example (2)

  • The attraction effect only occurred in the ungrammatical sentences, as Table 2 shows, with a facilitation in Reaction Times (RTs) for the ungrammatical mismatch compared to the ungrammatical match

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Agreement is one of the core linguistic operations where a head noun and its corresponding agreement target have to accord in their agreement feature specification. The first studies of agreement attraction in comprehension confirmed this account (e.g., Nicol et al, 1997; Pearlmutter et al, 1999). The Marking and Morphing model predicts that in comprehension, both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences will be affected due to the representation of the complex NP and there is evidence confirming this prediction (e.g., Solomon and Pearlmutter, 2004; Hammerly et al, 2019). Representational accounts would expect attraction to occur only when the attractor is morphologically marked, which has been confirmed in certain studies (Bock and Miller, 1991; Nicol et al, 1997; Staub, 2010; Santesteban et al, 2017)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call