Transitivity and Non-uniform Subjecthood in Agreement Attraction

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2023 Dec 19

PMID 38114715

Authors

Myung Hye Yoo

Rebecca Tollan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Research on human language converges on a view in which a grammatical "subject" is the most saliently encoded entity in mental representation. However, subjecthood is not a syntactically uniform phenomenon. Notably, many languages encode morphological distinctions between subjects of transitive verbs (i.e., verbs that require an object) and subjects of intransitive verbs. We ask how this typological pattern manifests in a language like English (which does not morphologically signal it) by examining the "distinctiveness" of transitive versus intransitive subjects in memory during online sentence processing. We conducted a self-paced reading experiment that tested for "attraction" effects (Dillon et al., Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85-103, 2013; Wagers et al., Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206-237, 2009) in the processing of subject-verb number agreement. We find that transitive subjects trigger attraction effects, but that these effects are mitigated for intransitive subject attractors (independently of the number of other noun phrases present in the intervening clause). We interpret this as indicating that transitive subjects are less distinctive and therefore less representationally salient than intransitive subjects: This is because a transitive subject must compete with another clause-mate core argument (i.e., a direct object), which draws on resources from the same pool of memory resources. On the other hand, an intransitive subject minimally only competes with a non-core argument (i.e., an oblique noun phrase); this consumes fewer memory resources, leaving the subject to enjoy greater spoils.

References

Akhtar N, Tomasello M . Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Dev Psychol. 1997; 33(6):952-65. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.952. View

Barker J, Nicol J, Garrett M . Semantic factors in the production of number agreement. J Psycholinguist Res. 2001; 30(1):91-114. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005208308278. View

Crawley R, Stevenson R, Kleinman D . The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. J Psycholinguist Res. 1990; 19(4):245-64. DOI: 10.1007/BF01077259. View

Dillon B, Andrews C, Rotello C, Wagers M . A new argument for co-active parses during language comprehension. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018; 45(7):1271-1286. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000649. View

Gibson E . Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 1998; 68(1):1-76. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1. View

Kush D, Johns C, Van Dyke J . Identifying the role of phonology in sentence-level reading. J Mem Lang. 2016; 79-80:18-29. PMC: 4755489. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.11.001. View

Lewis R, Vasishth S . An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn Sci. 2011; 29(3):375-419. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25. View

Lewis R, Vasishth S, Van Dyke J . Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006; 10(10):447-54. PMC: 2239011. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007. View

McElree B . Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000; 29(2):111-23. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005184709695. View

10.

Nairne J . A feature model of immediate memory. Mem Cognit. 1990; 18(3):251-69. DOI: 10.3758/bf03213879. View

11.

Ness T, Meltzer-Asscher A . Working Memory in the Processing of Long-Distance Dependencies: Interference and Filler Maintenance. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017; 46(6):1353-1365. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-017-9499-6. View

12.

Patil U, Vasishth S, Lewis R . Retrieval Interference in Syntactic Processing: The Case of Reflexive Binding in English. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:329. PMC: 4881398. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00329. View

13.

Smith R . Providing support for distinctive processing: the isolation effect in young and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2011; 26(3):744-51. PMC: 3183572. DOI: 10.1037/a0022715. View

14.

Theakston A, Lieven E, Pine J, Rowland C . The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. J Child Lang. 2001; 28(1):127-52. DOI: 10.1017/s0305000900004608. View

15.

Tucker M, Idrissi A, Almeida D . Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:347. PMC: 4390991. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347. View

16.

Van Dyke J . Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(2):407-30. PMC: 2077343. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407. View

17.

Van Dyke J, McElree B . Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang. 2008; 55(2):157-166. PMC: 2206541. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007. View

18.

Van Dyke J . Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. J Mem Lang. 2011; 65(3):247-263. PMC: 3171743. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002. View

19.

Villata S, Franck J . Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019; 46(1):170-188. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000718. View