The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English

Efeitos de distância linear e marcação no processamento da concordância verbal variável no PB / Linear distance and markedness effects in variable subject-verb agreement processing in BP

“…Nessas condições foram registrados tempos de reação maiores relativos a leitura/escolha do verbo, quando comparados com os tempos verificados nas condições com sujeitos singulares. Como foi mencionado anteriormente, sujeitos plurais não favorecem a ocorrência de erros de atração (BOCK; EBERHARD, 1993;EBERHARD, 1999;RODRIGUES, 2005a). Vale lembrar que no estudo de Pearlmutter (2000) só foram observadas diferenças entre distancia hierárquica e linear quando o núcleo do sujeito era plural.…”

“…(RODRIGUES, 2005a, p. 146) Diversas pesquisas têm reportado uma assimetria entre singular e plural na indução de erros de atração (BOCK; EBERHARD, 1993;EBERHARD, 1999;no PB, RODRIGUES, 2005a). Assim, a condição em que o N1 é singular e o N2 é plural (7) registra um número maior de erros de atração do que a condição em que o N1 é plural e o N2 é singular (8).…”

Gender Bender: Gender Errors in L2 Pronoun Production

“…Such a hypothesis has been put forward before (Vigliocco et al 1996) for languages with relatively rich verbal morphology to explain what appeared to be cross-linguistic differences with respect to the role played by conceptual features on subject-verb number agreement. The conceptual influence on agreement (the so-called distributivity effect) was eventually found in other languages with poorer verbal inflectional morphology (Eberhard 1999). Nevertheless, although the possibility of having the verb directly inherit its agreement features from the conceptual representation exists (Vigliocco and Franck 1999), a fair amount of the evidence points to subject-verb agreement being a syntactic phenomenon (Bock et al 2001;Franck et al 2008).…”

Words with friends

“…Notional number, which refers to a speaker's conceptual number valuation for the referent or referents of a to-be-uttered message, also has an influence on agreement production (Bock, Nicol, & Cutting, 1999;Eberhard, 1999;Gillespie, 2011;K. R. Humphreys & Bock, 2005;Vigliocco et al, 1996;Vigliocco et al, 1995).…”

“…The experiments use a well-established sentence-completion task that is designed to elicit errors of subject-verb agreement in speakers' sentences. The task is the same as in most studies Bock & Cutting, 1992;Bock, Eberhard, Cutting, Meyer, & Schriefers, 2001;Bock & Miller, 1991;Eberhard, 1999;Gillespie & Pearlmutter, 2011; K. R. Humphreys & Bock, 2005;Solomon & Pearlmutter, 2004;Penta & Pearlmutter, 2015;Thornton & MacDonald, 2003;Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Garrett, 1996;Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Semenza, 1995): Participants are presented with test preambles, which they repeat or read aloud and for which they provide an ending of their own creation; participants' utterances are transcribed, coded, and analyzed; and error rates, calculated as the number of errors out of the total of number-inflected verbs produced in participants' responses, are computed and compared to quantify differences in effects across conditions.…”