Gender Agreement Attraction in Greek Comprehension.

Greek gender agreement agreement processing gender attraction gender violations phonological matching

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 27 10 2019
accepted: 24 03 2020
entrez: 16 5 2020
pubmed: 16 5 2020
medline: 16 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This work explores gender agreement attraction in comprehension. Attraction occurs when an agreement error (such as, "the key to the cabinets are rusty") goes unnoticed, leading to the illusion of grammaticality due to a mismatch between the value of the head and the value of a local intervening phase (attractor). According to retrieval accounts, these errors occur during cue retrieval from memory and predict illusions of grammaticality. Alternatively, representational accounts predict that the errors occur due to the faulty representation of certain features, thus, illusions of ungrammaticality are also expected. In four experiments we explore: (a) whether gender agreement attraction occurs in Greek and the strategy/-ies employed, (b) the role of the agreement target, (c) the timing of gender agreement attraction, (d) the role of phonological matching between the nominal inflectional morphemes of the attractor and the agreement target, and (e) participants' sensitivity to agreement when there is no conflict from the attractor. In all four experiments, the grammaticality of the sentence and the attractor value (match or mismatch with the head) and also the phonological matching between the attractor and the agreement target in ungrammatical sentences were manipulated. The agreement target was either an adjectival predicate or an object-clitic and the gender value of the head was feminine or neuter. Attraction was found in all measures during the time-course of adjectival predicates (Experiment 1) and object-clitics (Experiment 2), and in timed (Experiment 3), and untimed (Experiment 4) judgments. Even more, both gender values showed attraction and the results mainly suggest that participants experience illusions of grammaticality, confirming retrieval accounts. Phonological matching did not modulate attraction in any of the experiments, suggesting that the similarity in the morphophonological realization between the agreement target and the attractor does not increase attraction. Furthermore, participants were sensitive to gender agreement violations in the absence of gender mismatch between the head and the attractor, suggesting that they respect agreement rules and have both neuter and feminine available in their feature content repertoire, although with some tendency in favor of neuter in feminine agreement contexts. The impact of these findings is discussed within the concept of attraction and sensitivity to agreement violations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32411044
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00717
pmc: PMC7201047
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

717

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Paspali and Marinis.

Références

Cogn Sci. 2005 May 6;29(3):375-419
pubmed: 21702779
Front Psychol. 2021 Jan 21;11:586464
pubmed: 33551906
Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):447-54
pubmed: 20003964
Cogn Psychol. 2019 May;110:70-104
pubmed: 30798061
J Mem Lang. 2014 Oct 1;76:195-215
pubmed: 25258471
Front Psychol. 2016 May 09;7:648
pubmed: 27242577
Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 28;9:1566
pubmed: 30210399
Mem Cognit. 2003 Dec;31(8):1316-26
pubmed: 15058692
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(5):950-71
pubmed: 25624171
Psychol Rev. 2005 Jul;112(3):531-59
pubmed: 16060750
Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1859-69
pubmed: 21925613
Cogn Psychol. 1991 Jan;23(1):45-93
pubmed: 2001615
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
pubmed: 24403724
Cogn Psychol. 2004 Aug;49(1):1-46
pubmed: 15193971
J Mem Lang. 2006 Aug;55(2):157-166
pubmed: 18209744
Brain Lang. 2014 Aug;135:42-51
pubmed: 24911918
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 10;6:349
pubmed: 25914652
Front Psychol. 2017 Sep 05;8:1470
pubmed: 28928686
J Psycholinguist Res. 1996 Mar;25(2):273-90
pubmed: 8667299
Psychol Bull. 1993 Nov;114(3):510-32
pubmed: 8272468
Front Psychol. 2018 Apr 03;9:336
pubmed: 29666591
Front Psychol. 2015 Sep 08;6:1346
pubmed: 26441723
Cognition. 2013 Aug;128(2):149-69
pubmed: 23680792
Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 09;8:164
pubmed: 28232812
Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 04;7:1651
pubmed: 27867365
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Jan;46(1):170-188
pubmed: 31033310
Front Psychol. 2018 Jan 19;9:2
pubmed: 29403414
J Psycholinguist Res. 2015 Feb;44(1):27-46
pubmed: 25408514

Auteurs

Anastasia Paspali (A)

Department of English and American Studies, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Theodoros Marinis (T)

Department of Linguistics, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH