The Production of Subject-Verb Agreement in Slovene and English

327 Pages·2009·4.41 MB·English

The Production of Subject-Verb Agreement
in Slovene and English
Annabel Jane Harrison, B.A., M.Sc.
Athesis submittedin fulfilmentof requirementsfor the degreeof
Doctor of Philosophy
to
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences
University of Edinburgh
June2009
i
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is of my own composition,
and that it contains no material previously submitted for
the award of any other degree. The work reported in this
thesis has been executed by myself, except where due ac-
knowledgement ismadein the text.
AnnabelJaneHarrison
Abstract
Thisthesisexploresthementalrepresentationofsubject-verbagreement,andthe
factors thatcanaffectthedetermination ofagreementinlanguageproduction. It
reports nine experiments that used a task in which participants produced sen-
tence completions for visually presented complex subjects such as “The grey-
hound which two lively rabbits were tempting”. Such completions typically
agreewiththeheadnoun(greyhound)asin“Agreyhoundwhichtwolivelyrab-
bitsweretemptingisjumping”butsometimesagreewiththelocalnoun(rabbits)
asin “Agreyhound which two livelyrabbits were tempting are jumping”.
Thefirstexperimentsexaminedthevalueoftheconceptofmarkednessinsubject-
verb number agreement to see whether it has explanatory power for languages
like Slovene with more than two number values. Results from two experiments
employingcomplexsentencepreamblesincludingaheadnounpostmodified by
a prepositional phrase or a relative clause (e.g., “The nudist(s) near the sand
dune(s)”)show that Slovene numberagreementdiffers from numberagreement
in languages with no dual, but that it is not possible to simply state that the sin-
gular is the least marked and the dual the most. I argue that using languages
with more complex number systems allows greater insight into the processes of
correct and erroneous subject-verb agreement, and shows that it is necessary to
dissociatesusceptibilitytoagreementfromerror-causingstatus. Toconclude,the
concept of markednessseemsunableto explain myresults.
Semantic effects in agreement are then examined using two comparison exper-
iments in English. Experiment 3 shows that although English has only a two-
value system, speakers are sensitive to semantic differences in number. Experi-
ment 4 explores the possible influence of speakers’ native language three-value
numbersystemontheirtwo-valuesecondlanguagesystem. Itshowsthatnative
ii
iii
speakersofEnglisharemoresensitivetosemanticnumberdifferencesinEnglish
than Slovene speakersof English.
Experiment 5 explores gender agreement in Slovene (which has three genders)
and shows that there is a complex pattern of agreement. As with number, there
is not just one number value which is problematic: neuter and masculine are
most confusable, but masculine errors are also common when feminine agree-
ment would be expected, thus suggesting that speakers revert to two different
defaults, masculineand neuter.
Finally, the results of four experiments examining number and gender agree-
ment in coordinated phrases are presented. Agreement in such phrases may be
resolved (i.e. theverbagreeswiththewholesubject)butmayinsteadagreewith
oneconjunct. Agreementwithoneconjunctisaffectedbywordorder(agreement
with the nearest conjunct is most common), coordinator (e.g., single-conjunct
agreementismore common after “or” than “and”)andthe genderor numberof
the conjuncts (e.g., dual numberisassociated with single-conjunct agreement.
Taken together, my results suggest that agreement is affected by a complex in-
terplay of semantic and syntactic factors, and that the effects of a three-valued
system are quite distinct from those of atwo-valued system.
Acknowledgements
Thanks toRobHartsuiker whostarted me on the agreementtrack. Manythanks
to my supervisors, Martin Pickering and Holly Branigan, without whom there
would be no thesis. Thanks to the students and staff of Filozofska Fakulteta,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenia, to the staff at the Insˇtitut Jozˇef Stefan, the British
CouncilinLjubljana,andtoallmyexperimentalparticipants. ThanksalsotoAn-
drew, Bill, Ross and Roger in Informatics and to Eddie and Mike in Linguistics
fortheircomputingsupport. ThankstoCatherine,Cem,Colin,Cordula,Hamish
andofcoursemysupervisorsfortheirhelpfulcomments. ThankstoCordulafor
the graphs, proofreading and catsitting. Thanks to Ben, Markus and Chris for
theirLaTeXadviceandgeneralcomputingsupporttoo. ThankstoJanetMcLean
for her advice on statistics. Thanks to everyone who helped with the materials:
Dasˇa, Sˇpela, Damir, Alenka, Igor, Angela, Violeta. Thanks to Tamara and Lar-
isa, Helena, Alenka, Sara, Ursˇa for help with transcription. Thanks to Sara and
Srebrena, and to Mirjam for putting me up, and to Damir, for being endlessly
willing to. Thanks to Rudi, Mirjam, Majda, Alenka, Damir, Gregor, Laura and
all my friends for making me unfailingly want to return to Slovenia. Supreme
thankstoAlenka,Tomazˇ,Zdenka,EdoandEditaLozˇarwhoneverfailedtowel-
comemeintotheirhome. ThankstoallmycolleaguesinPsychology, Linguistics
and Informatics, atconferences, Interdisciplinary Teaand elsewhere for their in-
terest and advice. Thanks to Alan, Alison, Becca, Ben, Cem, Christine, Freda,
Gail, Hannele, Jelena, Joe, Malvi, Tim and Viktor for making me want to stay
here. Thanks to Mum and Graham, Colin, Will and Alice, and Chrissy, Pammy,
Delphi and Jem for their continuing love and support in often difficult circum-
stances. Thanks to everyone who even once forebore to ask when it would be
finished.
iv
Contents
Declaration i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Chapter1 Literature Review 1
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Language production models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Lexical selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Function assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Constituent assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Inflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.1 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3 Aspectsof agreementrelevantto Slovene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4 Agreementtargets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.4.1 Agreementbetweenmodifiers and headsof theirphrases . 22
v
CONTENTS vi
Determinersand demonstratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4.2 Agreementbetweenpredicates andtheir arguments . . . . . 24
Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Predicative adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Noun phrase predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5 Different types ofagreementfeatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.5.1 Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Howmanynumbervalues? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Extent ofnumberagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.5.2 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Semantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Morphological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Phonological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Genderagreement exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.3 Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.5.4 Other(more contentious) types ofagreement . . . . . . . . . 35
CONTENTS vii
Animacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.6 Different types ofagreement: semantic versusmorphological . . . 37
1.6.1 Morphological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.6.2 Semantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TheAgreementHierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.7 Agreementprocessing -what influencesagreement? . . . . . . . . . 39
1.7.1 Attraction errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.7.2 Modelsof agreementprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Agreementprocessing in a non-interactive system . . . . . . 40
Agreementprocessing in an interactive system . . . . . . . . 42
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.7.3 Evidencethat syntax isisolated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1.7.4 Evidencefor an interaction with semantics . . . . . . . . . . 52
Biological gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Imageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Animacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Plausibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Distributivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Notional number ofindividual lexical items . . . . . . . . . 59
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
CONTENTS viii
1.7.5 Phonology /Morphological form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Invariablenouns anddeterminers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Casemarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Ambiguousdeterminers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Morphological regularity in English plurals . . . . . . . . . . 65
Numberandcase ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Markednessversus overtness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1.7.6 Linearproximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1.7.7 Processing resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1.7.8 Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1.7.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
1.8 Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
1.8.1 Aregenderand numberagreementthe same process? . . . . 73
1.8.2 Methodological issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Stimulus modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Responsetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Free versus constrained completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Timeconstraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.8.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
1.9 Implicationsfor agreementproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
CONTENTS ix
Chapter2 Markedness 80
2.1 The effectsof markednesson the production of numberagreement 80
2.1.1 Whatismarkedness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.1.2 Isthe plural marked with respect to the singular? . . . . . . 82
2.1.3 Canthemarkednesshypothesisexplaincurrentfindingsin
numberagreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.2 Slovene number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.2.1 Isthe dualmarked with respectto the other numbers? . . . 91
2.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.4 Experiment1: Slovenenumberattractionerrorsafterrelativeclauses 94
2.4.1 Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.4.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Pre-test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.4.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.4.4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.4.5 Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4.6 Design and data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.4.8 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.5 Experiment 2: Slovene number attraction errors without relative
clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.5.1 Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.5.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.5.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110