@article{LaurinavichyutevonderMalsburg2022, author = {Laurinavichyute, Anna and von der Malsburg, Titus}, title = {Semantic attraction in sentence comprehension}, series = {Cognitive science}, volume = {46}, journal = {Cognitive science}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0364-0213}, doi = {10.1111/cogs.13086}, pages = {38}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Agreement attraction is a cross-linguistic phenomenon where a verb occasionally agrees not with its subject, as required by grammar, but instead with an unrelated noun ("The key to the cabinets were horizontal ellipsis "). Despite the clear violation of grammatical rules, comprehenders often rate these sentences as acceptable. Contenders for explaining agreement attraction fall into two broad classes: Morphosyntactic accounts specifically designed to explain agreement attraction, and more general sentence processing models, such as the Lewis and Vasishth model, which explain attraction as a consequence of how linguistic structure is stored and accessed in content-addressable memory. In the present research, we disambiguate between these two classes by testing a surprising prediction made by the Lewis and Vasishth model but not by the morphosyntactic accounts, namely, that attraction should not be limited to morphosyntax, but that semantic features of unrelated nouns equally induce attraction. A recent study by Cunnings and Sturt provided initial evidence that this may be the case. Here, we report three single-trial experiments in English that compared semantic and agreement attraction and tested whether and how the two interact. All three experiments showed strong semantically induced attraction effects closely mirroring agreement attraction effects. We complement these results with computational simulations which confirmed that the Lewis and Vasishth model can faithfully reproduce the observed results. In sum, our findings suggest that attraction is a more general phenomenon than is commonly believed, and therefore favor more general sentence processing models, such as the Lewis and Vasishth model.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Laurinavichyute2021, author = {Laurinavichyute, Anna}, title = {Similarity-based interference and faulty encoding accounts of sentence processing}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-50966}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-509669}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {237}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The goal of this dissertation is to empirically evaluate the predictions of two classes of models applied to language processing: the similarity-based interference models (Lewis \& Vasishth, 2005; McElree, 2000) and the group of smaller-scale accounts that we will refer to as faulty encoding accounts (Eberhard, Cutting, \& Bock, 2005; Bock \& Eberhard, 1993). Both types of accounts make predictions with regard to processing the same class of structures: sentences containing a non-subject (interfering) noun in addition to a subject noun and a verb. Both accounts make the same predictions for processing ungrammatical sentences with a number-mismatching interfering noun, and this prediction finds consistent support in the data. However, the similarity-based interference accounts predict similar effects not only for morphosyntactic, but also for the semantic level of language organization. We verified this prediction in three single-trial online experiments, where we found consistent support for the predictions of the similarity-based interference account. In addition, we report computational simulations further supporting the similarity-based interference accounts. The combined evidence suggests that the faulty encoding accounts are not required to explain comprehension of ill-formed sentences. For the processing of grammatical sentences, the accounts make conflicting predictions, and neither the slowdown predicted by the similarity-based interference account, nor the complementary slowdown predicted by the faulty encoding accounts were systematically observed. The majority of studies found no difference between the compared configurations. We tested one possible explanation for the lack of predicted difference, namely, that both slowdowns are present simultaneously and thus conceal each other. We decreased the amount of similarity-based interference: if the effects were concealing each other, decreasing one of them should allow the other to surface. Surprisingly, throughout three larger-sample single-trial online experiments, we consistently found the slowdown predicted by the faulty encoding accounts, but no effects consistent with the presence of inhibitory interference. The overall pattern of the results observed across all the experiments reported in this dissertation is consistent with previous findings: predictions of the interference accounts for the processing of ungrammatical sentences receive consistent support, but the predictions for the processing of grammatical sentences are not always met. Recent proposals by Nicenboim et al. (2016) and Mertzen et al. (2020) suggest that interference might arise only in people with high working memory capacity or under deep processing mode. Following these proposals, we tested whether interference effects might depend on the depth of processing: we manipulated the complexity of the training materials preceding the grammatical experimental sentences while making no changes to the experimental materials themselves. We found that the slowdown predicted by the faulty encoding accounts disappears in the deep processing mode, but the effects consistent with the predictions of the similarity-based interference account do not arise. Independently of whether similarity-based interference arises under deep processing mode or not, our results suggest that the faulty encoding accounts cannot be dismissed since they make unique predictions with regard to processing grammatical sentences, which are supported by data. At the same time, the support is not unequivocal: the slowdowns are present only in the superficial processing mode, which is not predicted by the faulty encoding accounts. Our results might therefore favor a much simpler system that superficially tracks number features and is distracted by every plural feature.}, language = {en} } @article{LagoHuvelleGracaninYuksekSafaketal.2018, author = {Lago Huvelle, Maria Sol and Gracanin-Yuksek, Martina and Safak, Duygu Fatma and Demir, Orhan and Kirkici, Bilal and Felser, Claudia}, title = {Straight from the horse's mouth Agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors}, series = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism}, volume = {9}, journal = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism}, number = {3}, publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1879-9264}, doi = {10.1075/lab.17019.lag}, pages = {398 -- 426}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We investigated the comprehension of subject-verb agreement in Turkish-German bilinguals using two tasks. The first task elicited speeded judgments to verb number violations in sentences that contained plural genitive modifiers. We addressed whether these modifiers elicited attraction errors, which have supported the use of a memory retrieval mechanism in monolingual comprehension studies. The second task examined the comprehension of a language-specific constraint of Turkish against plural-marked verbs with overt plural subjects. Bilinguals showed a reduced application of this constraint, as compared to Turkish monolinguals. Critically, both groups showed similar rates of attraction, but the bilingual group accepted ungrammatical sentences more often. We propose that the similarity in attraction rates supports the use of the same retrieval mechanism, but that bilinguals have more problems than monolinguals in the mapping of morphological to abstract agreement features during speeded comprehension, which results in increased acceptability of ungrammatical sentences.}, language = {en} } @article{LagoHuvelleFelser2018, author = {Lago Huvelle, Maria Sol and Felser, Claudia}, title = {Agreement attraction in native and nonnative speakers of German}, series = {Applied psycholinguistics : psychological and linguistic studies across languages and learners}, volume = {39}, journal = {Applied psycholinguistics : psychological and linguistic studies across languages and learners}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {0142-7164}, doi = {10.1017/S0142716417000601}, pages = {619 -- 647}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Second language speakers often struggle to apply grammatical constraints such as subject-verb agreement. One hypothesis for this difficulty is that it results from problems suppressing syntactically unlicensed constituents in working memory. We investigated which properties of these constituents make them more likely to elicit errors: their grammatical distance to the subject head or their linear distance to the verb. We used double modifier constructions (e.g., the smell of the stables of the farmers), where the errors of native speakers are modulated by the linguistic relationships between the nouns in the subject phrase: second plural nouns, which are syntactically and semantically closer to the subject head, elicit more errors than third plural nouns, which are linearly closer to the verb (2nd-3rd-noun asymmetry). In order to dissociate between grammatical and linear distance, we compared embedded and coordinated modifiers, which were linearly identical but differed in grammatical distance. Using an attraction paradigm, we showed that German native speakers and proficient Russian speakers of German exhibited similar attraction rates and that their errors displayed a 2nd-3rd-noun asymmetry, which was more pronounced in embedded than in coordinated constructions. We suggest that both native and second language learners prioritize linguistic structure over linear distance in their agreement computations.}, language = {en} }