Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T23:10:43.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2012

JUAN CARLOS ACUÑA-FARIÑA
JUAN CARLOS ACUÑA-FARIÑA*
Affiliation:
University of Santiago de Compostela
*
Author's address: Departamento de Inglés, Facultad de Filología, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Avda. Castelao s/n Santiago de Compostela 15782, Coruña, Españacarlos.acuna.farina@usc.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine psycholinguistic work on attraction with a view to enriching our knowledge of the grammar of agreement. Following Franck et al. (2006),I assume that the different theories of agreement should relate to the way speakers err when they implement agreement operations. As an aberrant computation of the mind, attraction is interesting due to its frequency: in English experiments 13% of complex NPs (i.e. NPs which consist of two or more constituent NPs) establish incorrect agreement with the verb (as in *the key to the cabinets are in the kitchen; Eberhard, Cooper Cutting & Bock 2005). This is what makes it a magnet for both linguistic and psycholinguistic research. Here I examine the main findings and models in the psycholinguistic literature, and how they relate to existing theories of agreement in grammar. It will be argued that agreement cannot be properly understood unless models incorporate an adequate measurement of the size of the morphological component of every language studied, as agreement operations are continuously sensitive to this. The general idea, which I extend from Berg (1998) and Acuña-Fariña (2009) is that a strong morphosyntactic component blocks (rather than facilitates) semantic interference, and that languages opportunistically use more or less semantics in establishing agreement ties depending not only on morphological richness but also on the direction of encoding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 257 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This research was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (PSI2009-11748) and the Autonomous Regional Government of Galicia (INCITE09 204 014 PR & CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010, CSD2008-00048). I also wish to thank Gerardo Fernández Salgueiro and two anonymous JL referees for their comments on a previous draft. All remaining errors are mine.

References

REFERENCES

Ackema, Peter. 2001. On the relation between V-to-I and the structure of the inflectional paradigm. The Linguistic Review 18.3, 233–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2009. The psycholinguistics of agreement in English and Spanish: A tutorial overview. Lingua 119, 389–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos, Carreiras, Manuel & Meseguer, Enrique. 2011. Gender and Number Agreement in Comprehension in Spanish. Ms., University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Antón-Méndez, Inés, Nicol, Janet L. & Garrett, Merrill F.. 2002. The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax 5.1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badecker, William & Lewis, Richard. 2007. A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. Presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 1992. A situated theory of agreement. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. The resolution of number agreement conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics 36, 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betancort, Moisés, Carreiras, Manuel & Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2006. Processing controlled PROs in Spanish. Cognition 100, 217–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobaljik, Johathan D. 2002a. A-chains at the PF interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002b. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. In Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad (eds.), Lexical integrity: Special Issue of Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6.2–3, 129–167.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1.1, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn & Cooper Cutting, J.. 1992. Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Butterfield, Sally, Cutler, Anne, Cooper Cutting, J., Eberhard, Kathleen M. & Humphreys, Karin R.. 2006. Number agreement in British and American English. Language 82.1, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn & Eberhard, Kathleen M.. 1993. Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Eberhard, Kathleen M., Cutting, J. Cooper, Meyer, Antje & Schriefers, Herbert. 2001. Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology 43, 83–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, Kathryn & Miller, Carol A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, Kathryn, Nicol, Janet [L.] & Cooper Cutting, J.. 1999. The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, Julie E., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Garnsey, Susan M.. 1990. Lexical structure and parsing: Evidence from the immediate use of verbal argument and control information in parsing. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–15. Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, Cristina, Carreiras, Manuel & Cionini, Cristina B.. 1997. When words have two genders: Anaphor resolution for Italian functionally ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carminati, Maria Nella. 2005. Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Minimalist enquiries: The framework. In Roberts, Martin, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Smedt, Koenraad. 1990. IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In Dale, Robert, Mellish, Chris & Zock, Michael (eds.), Current research in natural language generation, 167–192. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. “Pluringulars”, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18, 19–41.Google Scholar
Dowty, David & Jacobson, Pauline. 1989. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In Powers, Joyce & Jong, Kenneth de (eds.), The Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 88), 95–108. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Eberhard, M. Kathleen. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, M. Kathleen, Cutting, J. Cooper & Bock, Kathryn. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 112.3, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gilliam & Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 290–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel & Seely, Daniel. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayol, Michel, Largy, Pierre & Lemaire, Patrick. 1994. Cognitive overload and orthographic errors: When cognitive overload enhances subject–verb agreement errors: A study in French written language. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A, 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles & Barlow, Michael. 1988. Introduction. In Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles (eds.), Agreement in natural language, 1–22. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7, 347–373.Google Scholar
Foote, Rebecca & Bock, Kathryn. In press. The role of morphology in subject–verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.550166. Published by Taylor & Francis, 9 March 2011.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. 1986. Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics 19, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Julie, Lassi, Glenda, Frauenfelder, Ulrich H. & Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101, 173–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franck, Julie, Soare, Gabriela, Frauenfelder, Ulrich H. & Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. Object interference in subject–verb agreement: The role of intermediate traces of movement. Journal of Memory and Language 62, 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Julie, Vigliocco, Gabriella, Antón-Méndez, Inés, Collina, Simona & Frauenfelder, Ulrich H.. 2008. The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross-linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (3), 329–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Julie, Vigliocco, Gabriella & Nicol, Janet [L.]. 2002. Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes 17.4, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama. 2002. Question production in agrammatism: The Tree Pruning Hypothesis. Brain and Language 80, 160–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, Naama. 2005. Degrees of severity and recovery in agrammatism: Climbing up the syntactic tree. Aphasiology 19, 1037–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama & Biran, Michal. 2003. When is gender accessed? A study of paraphasias in Hebrew anomia. Cortex 39, 441–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, Naama & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1997. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production: Pruning the syntactic tree. Brain and Language 56, 397–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, Naama & Grodzinsky, Yosef. 2000. Split inflection in neurolinguistics. In Friedemann, Marc-Ariel & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics, 84–104. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. A formal approach to syntax and the grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garrett, Merrill F. 1975. The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, Gordon H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 133–175. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Merrill F. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, Brian (ed.), Language production, 177–220. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrod, Simon & Terras, Melody. 2000. The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 42.4, 526–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan H., Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Maureen & Pearlmutter, Neal J.. 2011. Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition 118, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grevisse, Maurice. 1964. Le bon usage, 8th edn.Glembloux: J. Duculot.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Universals of languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, William Earl (ed.). 2003. The role of agreement in natural language: Texas Linguistic Society (TLS) 5 (Texas Linguistic Forum 53). Austin, TX: Texas Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. Teresa & Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions: Evidence from acquisition. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), The structure of DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 1, 167–194. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alex. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Keyser, Samuel J. & Hale, Ken (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Antón-Méndez, Inés & Zee, MarijeVan. 2001. Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 546–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Schriefers, Herbert J., Bock, Kathryn & Kikstra, Gerdien M.. 2003. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject–verb agreement. Memory & Cognition 31, 1316–1326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, Todd & Macdonald, Maryellen. 2003. Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 760–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, Todd, Thornton, Robert & MacDonald, Maryellen. 2010. Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement production. Cognition 114, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemforth, Barbara & Konieczny, Lars. 2003. Proximity in agreement errors. In Alterman, Richard & Kirsh, David (eds.), The 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 557–562. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Holm, John, Lorenzino, Gerardo & Mello, Heliana De. 1999. Diferentes grados de reestructuración en dos lenguas vernáculas: El español caribeño y el portugués brasileño. In Ortiz López, Luís A. (ed.), El caribe hispánico: Perspectivas lingüísticas actuales, 43–60. Madrid: Vervuent.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Karin. 1998. The production of inflectional and derivational morphology: Evidence from elicited speech errors. Presented at the Eleventh Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Karin & Bock, Katryn. 2005. Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 689–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hupet, Michel, Fayol, Michel & Schelstraete, Marie-Anne. 1998. Effects of semantic variables on the subject–verb agreement processes in writing. British Journal of Psychology 89, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language, its nature, development and origin. New York: Henry Colt and Co.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1990. On the syntax of inflectional paradigms. Ms., University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Kay, Martin. 1985. Parsing in function unification grammar. In Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), Natural language parsing, 251–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, Terrence & Wolfe, Jean. 1972. The acquisition of agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11, 698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization (Cambridge Studies in Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, John & Aissen, Judith L.. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 241–246.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2003. The locality of agreement and the structure of the DP in Maasai. In Griffin, (ed.), 206–227.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2006. In defense of the Spec head configuration. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85.1, 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtzman, Howard & MacDonald, Maryellen. 1993. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48, 243–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langacker, Ronald. 1991a. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991b. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Stephen & Dell, Gary. 1989. A synthesis of some recent work in sentence production. In Carlson, Greg N. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. (eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing, 107–156. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2005. Phases and cyclic agreement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 147–156.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Seiler, Hansjakob & Stachowiak, Franz J. (eds.), Apprehension. Das sprachlichte Erfassen von Gegenständen II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen, 201–67. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levelt, William. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lorimor, Heidi, Bock, Kathryn, Zalkind, Ekaterina, Sheyman, Alina & Beard, Robert. 2008. Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes 23, 769–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunn, Patricia. 2002. Tout se tient in Dominican Spanish. In Lee, James, Geeslin, Kimberly L. & Clements, J. Clancy (eds.), Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish: The 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 65–72. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry J.. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen, Pearlmutter, Neal & Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian & Bates, Elizabeth. 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2009. Why agree, why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, Janet L. 1995. Effects of clausal structure on subject–verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, Janet L., Forster, Kenneth I. & Veres, Csaba. 1997. Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, Janet L., Jakubowicz, Celia & Goldblum, Marie-Claire. 1996. Sensitivity to grammatical marking in English-speaking and French-speaking non-fluent aphasics. Aphasiology 10, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement features, agreement and antiagreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 655–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. , The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlmutter, Neal J., Garnsey, Susan & Bock, Kathryn. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana T. 1999. Innovación sintáctica en el español del caribe y los principios de la gramática universal. In Ortiz López, Luís A. (ed.), Homenaje a Manuel Alvaraz Nazario, 99–118. Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2003. Defective feature copy and anti-agreement in language production. In Griffin, (ed.), 95–108.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin, Wagers, Matthew & Lau, Ellen. 2011. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In Runner, Jeffrey T. (ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Syntax & Semantics 37), 147–180. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1988. An information-based theory of agreement. In Brentari, Diane, Larson, Gary & McLeod, Lynn (eds.), The 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 24), 236–257. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael T. 2007. Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistics Today 115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Michael T. & Stroik, Thomas. 2009. Traveling without moving: The conceptual necessity of Survive-minimalism. In Putnam, Michael T. (ed.), Towards a derivational syntax: Survive-minimalism, 3–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elisabeth. 1993. Where's gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24, 795–803.Google Scholar
Riveiro-Outeiral, Sara & Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2012. Agreement processes in English and Spanish: A completion study. Functions of Language 19.1, 53–83.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Elbourne, Paul. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33.2, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Wexler, Kenneth. 1996. Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Stringfellow, Andy, Cahan-Amitay, Dalia, Hughes, Elizabeth & Zukowski, Andrea (eds.), The 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 670–681. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 4). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Solomon, Eric S. & Pearlmutter, Neal J.. 2004. Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology 49, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, Adrian. 2009. On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 60, 308–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, Adrian. 2010. Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition 114.3, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stowe, Laurie. 1986. Models of gap location in the human language processor. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Boland, Julie, Garnsey, Susan & Carlson, Greg N.. 1989. Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael, Eberhard, Kathleen M. & Sedivy, Julie. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Robert & MacDonald, Maryellen. 2003. Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On the (non)-universality of functional projections. In Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel D., Thráinsson, Höskuldur & Jan-Wouter Zwart, C. (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the Minimalist framework, 253–281. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toribio, Almeida J. 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 10, 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe-two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk C. & Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Butterworth, Brian & Garrett, Merrill F.. 1996a. Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: The role of conceptual factors. Cognition 51, 261–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Butterworth, Brian & Semenza, Carlo. 1995. Constructing subject–verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 186–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. 1999. When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 455–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. 2001. When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 368–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Hartsuiker, Robert J.. 2002. The interplay of meaning, sound and syntax in language production. Psychollogical Bulletin 128, 442–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Hartsuiker, Robert J., Jarema, Gonia & Kolk, Herman H. J.. 1996b. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes 11, 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Nicol, Janet [L.]. 1998. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition 68.1, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Zilli, Tiziana. 1999. Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28, 623–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vikner, Sten. 1997. V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), The new comparative syntax, 189–213. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wagers, Matthew, Lau, Ellen & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61, 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. Agreement features. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.1, 384–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.4, 999–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Hahm, Hyun-Long. 2011. Polite plurals and adjective agreement. Morphology 21.2, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen & Zlatić, Larisa. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford, CA & Chicago, IL: CSLI Publications & University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y., Moreno, Eva & Kutas, Marta. 2003. Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex 39, 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar