title: Keeping it simple: studying grammatical encoding with lexically reduced item sets.
abstract: Compared to the large body of work on lexical access, little research has been done on grammatical encoding in language production. An exception is the generation of subject-verb agreement. Here, two key findings have been reported: (1) speakers make more agreement errors when the head and local noun of a phrase mismatch in number than when they match [e.g., the key to the cabinet(s)]; and (2) this attraction effect is asymmetric, with stronger attraction for singular than for plural head nouns. Although these findings are robust, the cognitive processes leading to agreement errors and their significance for the generation of correct agreement are not fully understood. We propose that future studies of agreement, and grammatical encoding in general, may benefit from using paradigms that tightly control the variability of the lexical content of the material. We report two experiments illustrating this approach. In both of them, the experimental items featured combinations of four nouns, four color adjectives, and two prepositions. In Experiment 1, native speakers of Dutch described pictures in sentences such as the circle next to the stars is blue. In Experiment 2, they carried out a forced-choice task, where they read subject noun phrases (e.g., the circle next to the stars) and selected the correct verb-phrase (is blue or are blue) with a button press. Both experiments showed an attraction effect, with more errors after subject phrases with mismatching, compared to matching head and local nouns. This effect was stronger for singular than plural heads, replicating the attraction asymmetry. In contrast, the response times recorded in Experiment 2 showed similar attraction effects for singular and plural head nouns. These results demonstrate that critical agreement phenomena can be elicited reliably in lexically reduced contexts. We discuss the theoretical implications of the findings and the potential and limitations of studies using lexically simple materials.
authors.affiliation: Psychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Alma
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Veenstra
authors.affiliation: Psychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, Netherlands ; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour Nijmegen, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Daniel J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Acheson
authors.affiliation: Psychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, Netherlands ; Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Antje S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Meyer
keywords: attraction asymmetry; grammatical encoding; grammatical number; language production; number agreement; number attraction; subject–verb agreement
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2013 Oct;69(3):277-298
references.pmid: 24039340
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2005 Jul;112(3):531-59
references.pmid: 16060750
references.citation: Cognition. 2014 Aug;132(2):101-36
references.pmid: 24803423
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):447-54
references.pmid: 20003964
references.citation: Cognition. 2006 Aug;101(1):173-216
references.pmid: 16360139
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Mar;39(2):515-28
references.pmid: 22732035
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Nov;28(6):1187-99
references.pmid: 12450341
references.citation: Cognition. 2013 Aug;128(2):149-69
references.pmid: 23680792
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Dec;90(2):119-61
references.pmid: 14599751
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
references.pmid: 19884961
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Feb;22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75
references.pmid: 11301520
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):141-76
references.pmid: 22537914
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2001 Jan;30(1):91-114
references.pmid: 11291185
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Feb;114(2):151-64
references.pmid: 19942213
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Dec;31(8):1316-26
references.pmid: 15058692
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009;33(4):547-582
references.pmid: 19662108
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1991 Jan;23(1):45-93
references.pmid: 2001615
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
references.pmid: 24403724
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2012 Apr;36(3):471-97
references.pmid: 22256956
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Aug;49(1):1-46
references.pmid: 15193971
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Oct;81(3):B77-86
references.pmid: 11483172
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Aug;12(4):689-95
references.pmid: 16447383
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2012 Jul;22(7):1662-70
references.pmid: 21934094
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2014 Sep;73:1-40
references.pmid: 24838190
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Sep;31(5):891-904
references.pmid: 16248740
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2012 Aug;112(4):417-36
references.pmid: 22632758
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2009 Feb;60(2):308
references.pmid: 20126291