Linear versus Hierarchical Agreement Feature Processing in Comprehension

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research - Tập 29 - Trang 89-98 - 2000
Neal J. Pearlmutter1
1Psychology Dept., 125 NI, Northeastern University, Boston

Tóm tắt

Two experiments examined whether syntactic number features are tracked during comprehension with a linear slot-based memory system or with a hierarchical feature-passing system. In a construction such as The pond near the trail(s) for the horse(s) was ¨, a linear account of subject-number tracking predicts greater interference from horses (N3), whereas a hierarchical account predicts greater interference from trails (N2). Experiment 1 used singular-head subject noun phrases (e.g., pond) and showed equal interference from N2 and N3, failing to differentiate between linear and hierarchical accounts. Experiment 2 used plural-head subjects and revealed more interference from N2 than N3. The pattern across the experiments accords with the ideas that (1) feature-tracking is hierarchical (e.g., Vigliocco & Nicol, 1997), (2) plurals are marked (e.g., Eberhard, 1997), and (3) subject-number information decays across intervening number-marked elements.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.

Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.

Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.

Bock, K., Nicol, J. L., & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 330–346.

Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 147–164.

Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.

Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.

Kay, M. (1985/1986). Parsing in functional unification grammar. In B. Grosz, K. S. Jones, & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Readings in natural language processing (pp. 125–138). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. [Reprinted from D. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 251–278), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.]

Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject–verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587.

Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.

Stevenson, S. (1994). A competitive attachment model for resolving syntactic ambiguities in natural language parsing (Tech. Rept. RuCCS TR-18). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ., Center for Cognitive Science.

Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1997). The role of syntactic tree structure in the construction of subject-verb agreement. Unpublished manuscript.

Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, B13–B29.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Tập 29

89-98

Thông tin tác giả