Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:41:46.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agreement attraction in native and nonnative speakers of German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2018

SOL LAGO Open the ORCID record for SOL LAGO [Opens in a new window]  and
CLAUDIA FELSER
SOL LAGO*
Affiliation:
Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
CLAUDIA FELSER
Affiliation:
Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Sol Lago, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism, University of Potsdam, Campus Golm, Haus 2, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany. E-mail: marlago@uni-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Second language speakers often struggle to apply grammatical constraints such as subject–verb agreement. One hypothesis for this difficulty is that it results from problems suppressing syntactically unlicensed constituents in working memory. We investigated which properties of these constituents make them more likely to elicit errors: their grammatical distance to the subject head or their linear distance to the verb. We used double modifier constructions (e.g., the smell of the stables of the farmers), where the errors of native speakers are modulated by the linguistic relationships between the nouns in the subject phrase: second plural nouns, which are syntactically and semantically closer to the subject head, elicit more errors than third plural nouns, which are linearly closer to the verb (2nd-3rd-noun asymmetry). In order to dissociate between grammatical and linear distance, we compared embedded and coordinated modifiers, which were linearly identical but differed in grammatical distance. Using an attraction paradigm, we showed that German native speakers and proficient Russian speakers of German exhibited similar attraction rates and that their errors displayed a 2nd-3rd-noun asymmetry, which was more pronounced in embedded than in coordinated constructions. We suggest that both native and second language learners prioritize linguistic structure over linear distance in their agreement computations.

Keywords

agreement attractionGermanlinear distanceRussian
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , May 2018 , pp. 619 - 647
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aho, A. V., & Ullman, J. D. (1972). The theory of parsing, translation and compiling: Vol. 1. Parsing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
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, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, J. A. (1997). The syntax of NP coordination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
Chemla, E., Cummins, C., & Singh, R. (2016). Training and timing local scalar enrichments under global pragmatic pressures. Journal of Semantics, 34, 107–126.Google Scholar
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working-memory-based explanations for non-native speakers' sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2016). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675Google Scholar
Dallas, A. C., & Kaan, E., (2008). Second language processing of filler-gap dependencies by late learners. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 3, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2014). Pushed aside: Parentheticals and processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 483–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enochson, K., & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PLOS ONE, 10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116946CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felser, C. L., Roberts, T. M., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. (2010). Age of acquisition and proficiency as factors in language production: Agreement in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R., & Bock, J. K. (2012). The role of morphology in subject-verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. N. (1986). Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 19, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Attraction in sentence production: The role of syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1982). Coordination and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 663–676.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2013). Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 515–528.Google ScholarPubMed
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), (pp. 293–306). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015a). Semantics and morphosyntax in L2 predictive sentence processing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2015b). Differential learning of prediction. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 476–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2016). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in L2 sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 1253–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E., & Kroll, J. F. (2010). Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingria, R. (1990). The limits of unification. Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 194–204). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X' Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, G., Lago, S., & Patterson, C. (2016). L2 processing and memory retrieval: Some empirical and conceptual challenges. Commentary on Ian Cunnings’ keynote article entitled “Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S1366728916000948Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jegerski, J. (2016). Number attraction effects in near-native Spanish sentence comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden-path sentences and error data in second language processing research. Language Learning, 46, 286–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. (2010). The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopka, A., & Forest, T. A. (2016). Linguistic experience (L1 vs. L2) shapes sentence formulation. Talk at the 29th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Gainesville, FL, March 3−5.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P., & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–11. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTestGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, H. L., & Christianson, K. (2015). Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1283–1315. doi:10.1017/S0142716414000290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorimor, H., Jackson, C. N., & Foote, R. (2015). How gender affects number: Cue-based retrieval in agreement production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 947–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. (1987). Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 121–140.Google Scholar
Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Models of retrieval in sentence comprehension: A computational evaluation using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Journal of Memory and Language. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Nicol, J., & Greth, D. (2003). Production of subject–verb agreement in Spanish as a second language. Experimental Psychology, 50, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J., Teller, M., & Greth, D. (2001). The production of verb agreement in monolingual, bilingual, and second language speakers. In Nicol, J. L. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 117–133). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. J. D. (2009). The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Report No. DAMTP 2009/NA06. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Centre for Mathematical Sciences.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. (1998a). “Structure for Coordination, Part 1” State-of-the-Articles. Glot International, 3, 3–6.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1998b). “Structure for Coordination, Part 2” State-of-the-Articles. Glot International, 3, 6–9.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (ed.), Sentence processing. Hove: Psychology Press, p. 221–246 26 p. (Current Issues in the Psychology of Language).Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Infinite syntax. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2013). Processing of gender and number agreement in late Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Felser, C. (2010). Sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations in English as a second language. Second Language, 9, 101–118.Google Scholar
Shibuya, M., & Wakabayashi, S. (2008). Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject-verb agreement? EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretation and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A. (2010). Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition, 114, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D. (2011). Agreement mechanisms in native and nonnative language processing: Electrophysiological correlates of complexity and interference (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington).Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2015). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Leeser, M. J. (2012). Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 109–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production. Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1274–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakabayashi, S. (1997). The acquisition of functional categories by learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).Google Scholar
Zoerner, E. (1995). Coordination: The syntax of &P. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar