Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction

REFERENCES

• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 56, 65–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004
   Google Scholar
• 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, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L. (2005). Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and language, 53, 342–358. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, L., & Gibson, E. (2012). Agreement errors as rational encoding errors. Poster presented at the 25th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., Butterfield, S., Cutler, A., Cutting, J. C., Eberhard, K. M., & Humphreys, K. R. (2006). Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language, 82, 64–113. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0011
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787–821. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
   Google Scholar
• Brehm, L., & Bock, K. (2013). What counts in grammatical number agreement? Cognition, 128, 149–169. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.009
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166. doi: 10.1080/10888431003636787
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 538–544.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreria, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholingusitics, 27, 3–42. doi: 10.1017/S0142716406060024
   Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 1, 11–39.
   Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 147–164. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2484
   Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2662
   Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The Good Enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   Google Scholar
• Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000254
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 489–530. doi: 10.1080/01690960500094279
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100(3), 223–237. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 234–243.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, J., Forster, K., & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2497
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., Darowski, E. S., Moon, N., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 280–285.
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., & Warren, T. (2010). Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 782–789.
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., & Warren, T. (2014). The mental representation of plural events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.976578
   Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2653
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., Wagers, M. W., & Lau, E. F. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Eds.), Experiments at the Interfaces, Syntax & Semantics (vol. 37. pp. 153–186). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Schacter, D. L., & Slotnick, S. D. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of memory distortion. Neuron, 44, 149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.017
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Slattery, T.J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 308–327. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24, 135–178. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000129
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740–759. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00003-2
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
   Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996a). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261–298. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00713-5
   Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, F. 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, 11, 407–442. doi: 10.1080/016909696387169
   Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002
   Google Scholar