Interference in quantifier float and subject-verb agreement

References

• Abney, S. P., & Johnson, M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Khalaf, E. (2019). Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686
   Google Scholar
• Baltin, M. R. (1995). Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 26(2), 199–248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178896
   Web of Science ®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(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benmamoun, E. (1999). The syntax of quantifiers and quantifier float. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90007-K
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 57–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bošković, Ž. (2004). Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(4), 681–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2541-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crocker, M. W. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language (Vol. 20). Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Cunnings, I., & Fujita, H. (2021a). Similarity-based interference and relative clauses in second language processing. Second Language Research, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211063534
   Google Scholar
• Cunnings, I., & Fujita, H. (2021b). Quantifying individual differences in native and nonnative sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(3), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunnings, I., & Sturt, P. (2018). Retrieval interference and semantic interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann, F., Jäger, L. A., & Vasishth, S. (2019). The effect of prominence and cue association on retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science, 43(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12800
   Google Scholar
• Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101(1), 173–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(4), 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, M., Ackerman, L., Baumann, P., Potter, D., & Yoshida, M. (2015). Wh-filler-gap dependency formation guides reflexive antecedent search. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H. (2021). On the parsing of garden-path sentences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(10), 1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1922727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2020). Reanalysis and lingering misinterpretation of linguistic dependencies in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 115, 104154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2021a). Lingering misinterpretation in native and nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from structural priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2021b). Reanalysis processes in non-native sentence comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(4), 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H., & Cunnings, I. (2022). Interference and filler-gap dependency formation in native and non-native language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(5), 702–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, H. (in press). Predictive structure building in language comprehension: A large sample study on incremental licensing and parallelism. Cognitive Processing.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown [Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University].
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González Alonso, J., Cunnings, I., Fujita, H., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2021). Gender attraction in sentence comprehension. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, K., & Yoshida, M. (2021). Coreference and parallelism. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(3), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1827154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammerly, C., & Dillon, B. (2017). Restricting domains of retrieval: Evidence for clause bound processing from agreement attraction. 30th CUNY sentence processing conference, MA. https://osf.io/ke3gz/
   Google Scholar
• Hammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2019). The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häussler, J. (2009). The emergence of attraction errors during sentence comprehension [Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz]. http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/17777/Haeussler_2012-diss.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Vasishth, S. (2020). Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N., Brehm, L., Sturt, P., & Yoshida, M. (2020). How long can you hold the filler: Maintenance and retrieval. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1626456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85(2), 211–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, D. (2013). Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing [Doctoral Thesis, University of Maryland]. http://hdl.handle.net/1903/14589
   Google Scholar
• Kush, D., & Dillon, B. (2021). Principle B constrains the processing of cataphora: Evidence for syntactic and discourse predictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 120, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2017). Looking forwards and backwards: The real-time processing of Strong and Weak Crossover. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.280
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2015). Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCloskey, J. (2000). Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., & Suckow, K. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing: A case study of number interference in German. Cognitive Science, 42, 1075–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, J. L. (1995). Effects of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orth, W., Yoshida, M., & Sloggett, S. (2021). Negative polarity item (NPI) illusion is a quantification phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(6), 906–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, D., & An, A. (2018). Not All phrases Are equally attractive: Experimental evidence for selective agreement attraction effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasquereau, J., Dillon, B., & Frazier, L. (in press). Quantification at A distance and grammatical illusions. Syntax (Oxford, England).
   Google Scholar
• Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., & Husband, E. M. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 950–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.992445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427–456. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16400.
   Google Scholar
• Schlueter, Z., Williams, A., & Lau, E. (2018). Exploring the abstractness of number retrieval cues in the computation of subject-verb agreement in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and Its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 425–449. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2516490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(2), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrego, E. (1996). On quantifier float in control clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(1), 111–126. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A. (2007). Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., & Burchert, F. (2019). Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(11), 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 34(2), 186–215. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45(2), 395–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709005726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg, A. (1999). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 282–315). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7305.003.0013
   Google Scholar
• Yadav, H., Smith, G., & Vasishth, S. (2021). Feature encoding modulates cue-based retrieval: Modeling interference effects in both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/75k9f50t
   Google Scholar
• Yoshida, M., Dickey, M. W., & Sturt, P. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 272–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.622905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.788196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zyman, E. (2018). Quantifier float as stranding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36(3), 991–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9393-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar