Agreement attraction in Serbian: Decomposing markedness

Ristic, Bojana; Molinaro, Nicola; Mancini, Simona

doi:10.1075/ml.11.2.04ris

Article published In:

Linguistic Perspectives on Morphological Processing
Edited by Harald Clahsen, Vera Heyer and Jana Reifegerste
[The Mental Lexicon 11:2] 2016
► pp. 242–276

Agreement attraction in Serbian

Decomposing markedness

Bojana Ristic | BCBL – Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, San Sebastián, Spain

Nicola Molinaro | Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain

Simona Mancini | BCBL – Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, San Sebastián, Spain

Asymmetric number attraction effects have been typically explained via a privative markedness account: plural nouns are more marked than singular ones and thus stronger attractors. However, this account does not explain results from tripartite systems, in which a third number value is available, like paucal. Here we tested whether attraction effects can be driven by specific markedness sub-components, such as frequency/naturalness of use, using Serbian, in which participles can agree with masculine subjects in singular, plural and paucal. We first conducted a naturalness judgment task, finding the following naturalness/frequency pattern: singular,plural<paucal. In a subsequent forced-choice task, we presented participants with preambles containing a singular, a plural or a paucal headnoun (the castle[Sg] /two castles[Pauc] /the castles[Pl]) modified by singular/plural/paucal attractors (with the window[Sg] /with two windows[Pauc] /with the windows[Pl]). Three options were provided to complete the sentence (resembles[Sg] /resemble[Pauc] /resemble[Pl] gothic architecture).Both accuracy and reaction times (RTs) were collected. Accuracy data reflected the naturalness/frequency pattern, with paucal being the strongest attractor, and plural and singular attracting equally. However, reaction times showed a difference between singular and plural, suggesting co-influence of both frequency/naturalness and morphological markedness. We emphasize the necessity of re-defining markedness and testing attraction through different markedness sub-components (i.e. frequency/naturalness) to explain attraction cross-linguistically.

Keywords: markedness, number attraction, subject-verb agreement, Serbian

Published online: 28 July 2016

https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.04ris

References

Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F

(2007) Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 561, 65–85.

Badecker, W., & Lewis, R

(2007) A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. In 20th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. San Diego, La Jolla, CA: University of California.

Barr, D.J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H.J

(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 681, 255–278.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S

(2013) Linear mixed-effect models using Eigen and S4. R package version: 1.0-5. [URL].

Belić, B

(2008) Minor paucal in Serbian. In G. Zybatow, L. Szucsich, U. Junghanns, & R. Meyer (Eds.), Formal description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003 (pp. 258–269). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Bock, K., & Eberhard, K.M

(1993) Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 81, 57–99.

Bock, K., & Miller, C.A

(1991) Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 231, 45–93.

Bresnan, J

(2001) Explaining morphosyntactic competition. Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 111–44.

Browne, W

(1993) 7 Serbo-Croat. The Slavonic Languages, 306–387.

Corbett, G.G

(1983) Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in slavic.

(2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eberhard, K.M

(1997) The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 361, 147–164.

Franck, J., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Chillier, L., Frauenfelder, U.H., Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Zesiger, P

(2004) Normal and pathological development of subject–verb agreement in speech production: A study on French children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 171, 147–180.

Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J

(2002) Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 171, 371–404.

Franks, S

(1994) Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 121, 597–674.

Greenberg, J.H

(1966) Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Harrison, A.J

(2009) Production of subject-verb agreement in Slovene and English (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Edinburgh

Hartsuiker, R.J., Antón-Méndez, I., & van Zee, M

(2001) Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 451, 546‑572.

Hartsuiker, R.J., Schriefers, H.J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G.M

(2003) Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory & Cognition, 311, 1316–1326.

Haspelmath, M

(2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of linguistics, 421, 25–70.

Häussler, J

(2009) The emergence of attraction errors during sentence comprehension (Doctoral dissertation).

Humphreys, K.R., & Bock, K

(2005) Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 121, 689–695.

Kager, R., Qiuwu (马秋武)· Ma, & Jialing (王嘉龄)· Wang

(1999) Optimality theory (Vol. 21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klajn, I

(2005) Gramatika srpskog jezika. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.

Levelt, W.J

(1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 141, 41–104. London: Croom Helm.

Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M

(2011) When persons disagree: an ERP study of Unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 481, 1361–1371.

McCarthy, J.J

(2011) Doing optimality theory: Applying theory to data.John Wiley & Sons.

Molinaro, N., Carreiras, C., & Duñabeitia, J.A

(2012) Semantic combinatorial processing of non-anomalous expressions. Neuroimage, 591, 3488–3501.

Molinaro, N., Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C

(2008) Cloze-probability does not only affect N400 amplitude: The case of complex prepositions. Psychophysiology, 451, 1008–1012.

Perez, A., Molinaro, N., Mancini, S., Barraza, P., & Carreiras, M

(2012) Oscillatory dynamics related to the Unagreement pattern in Spanish. Neuropsychologia, 501, 2584–2597.

Šarić, A

(2014) Numeral induced agreement mismatches in Serbo-Croatian (Unpublished master dissertation). Utrecht University.

Staub, A

(2009) On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 601, 308–327.

Team, R.C

(2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 20121.

Tucker, M.A., Idrissi, A., & Almeida, D

(2015) Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 61.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C

(1995) Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: the role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 341, 186‑215.

Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M.F

(1996a) Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 611, 261–298.

Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R.J., Jarema, G., & Kolk, H.H.J

(1996b) One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 111, 407–442.

Wagers, M.W., Lau, E.F., & Phillips, C

(2009) Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 611, 206–237.

Wechsler, S., & Zlatić, L

(2003) The many faces of agreement. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Zlatić, L

(1997) The structure of the Serbian noun phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.

Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Order by:

Bleotu, Adina Camelia & Brian Dillon

2024. Romanian (subject-like) DPs attract more than bare nouns: Evidence from speeded continuations. Journal of Memory and Language 134 ► pp. 104445 ff.

Driemel, Imke & Jelena Stojković

2019. How to agree with a QNP. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1

Hammerly, Christopher, Adrian Staub & Brian Dillon

2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology 110 ► pp. 70 ff.

Lago, Sol, Martina Gračanin-Yuksek, Duygu Fatma Şafak, Orhan Demir, Bilal Kırkıcı & Claudia Felser

2019. Straight from the horse’s mouth . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9:3 ► pp. 398 ff.

Reifegerste, Jana, Rebecca Jarvis & Claudia Felser

2020. Effects of chronological age on native and nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from subject-verb agreement in German. Journal of Memory and Language 111 ► pp. 104083 ff.

Tucker, Matthew A., Ali Idrissi & Diogo Almeida

2021. Attraction Effects for Verbal Gender and Number Are Similar but Not Identical: Self-Paced Reading Evidence From Modern Standard Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology 11

Türk, Utku & Pavel Logačev

2024. Agreement attraction in Turkish: the case of genitive attractors. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience ► pp. 1 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.