Processing of verbal versus adjectival agreement: Implications for syntax and psycholinguistics

Guardat en:
Dades bibliogràfiques
Publicat a:Glossa vol. 10, no. 1 (2025), p. 1
Autor principal: Fuchs, Zuzanna
Altres autors: Parshina, Olga, Sekerina, Irina A, Polinsky, Maria
Publicat:
Ubiquity Press
Matèries:
Accés en línia:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Etiquetes: Afegir etiqueta
Sense etiquetes, Sigues el primer a etiquetar aquest registre!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3161565104
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 2397-1835 
024 7 |a 10.16995/glossa.11173  |2 doi 
035 |a 3161565104 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a 291828  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Fuchs, Zuzanna  |u University of Southern California, US, zfuchs@usc.edu 
245 1 |a Processing of verbal versus adjectival agreement: Implications for syntax and psycholinguistics 
260 |b Ubiquity Press  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a Linguistic theories distinguish between external and internal agreement (e.g., noun-verb agreement vs. noun-modifier agreement, the latter also known as concord) and model them using different mechanisms. While this distinction has garnered considerable attention in syntactic theory, it remains largely unexplored in experimental work. In an effort to address this gap, we conducted two studies of external/internal agreement in Russian using self-paced reading and eye-tracking while reading. We measured the response to violations generated when native speakers encounter a noun that mismatches the features on an earlier element inflected for agreement (verb, modifying adjective, and predicative adjective). Both experimental studies found strong effects of ungrammaticality: participants were sensitive to agreement mismatches between the agreeing element and the trigger. However, there was no interaction observed between the effect of grammaticality and the type of agreeing element, suggesting that, while participants are sensitive to mismatches, the processing of the mismatches does not differ between external and internal agreement. Despite the cross-methodological replication of the null interaction effect, interpreting this result is necessarily tentative. We discuss possible implications, should the result be further replicated by future high-powered studies. We suggest that this outcome may indicate that differences in real-time processing of internal vs. external agreement may not be observable in time-course measures, or that the lack of such differences constitutes support for analyses of agreement as a two-step process, with one step in syntax, and the other, post-syntactic. We invite future work to test these hypotheses further. 
653 |a Verbs 
653 |a Adjectives 
653 |a Nouns 
653 |a Linguistics 
653 |a Grammaticality 
653 |a Syntactic processing 
653 |a Syntax 
653 |a Russian language 
653 |a Grammatical agreement 
653 |a Theoretical linguistics 
653 |a Psycholinguistics 
653 |a Gender 
653 |a Eye movements 
653 |a Agreements 
653 |a Tracking 
653 |a Eye tracking 
653 |a Violations 
700 1 |a Parshina, Olga  |u Middlebury College, US, oparshina@middlebury.edu 
700 1 |a Sekerina, Irina A  |u College of Staten Island CUNY, US, irina.sekerina@csi.cuny.edu 
700 1 |a Polinsky, Maria  |u University of Maryland, US, polinsky@umd.edu 
773 0 |t Glossa  |g vol. 10, no. 1 (2025), p. 1 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Linguistics Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3161565104/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3161565104/fulltext/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3161565104/fulltextPDF/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch