Show simple item record

PIPS: A Parallel Planning Model of Sentence Production

dc.contributor.authorBrehm, Laurel
dc.contributor.authorCho, Pyeong Whan
dc.contributor.authorSmolensky, Paul
dc.contributor.authorGoldrick, Matthew A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-07T03:11:25Z
dc.date.available2023-03-06 22:11:24en
dc.date.available2022-03-07T03:11:25Z
dc.date.issued2022-02
dc.identifier.citationBrehm, Laurel; Cho, Pyeong Whan; Smolensky, Paul; Goldrick, Matthew A. (2022). "PIPS: A Parallel Planning Model of Sentence Production." Cognitive Science 46(2): n/a-n/a.
dc.identifier.issn0364-0213
dc.identifier.issn1551-6709
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171829
dc.description.abstractSubject–verb agreement errors are common in sentence production. Many studies have used experimental paradigms targeting the production of subject–verb agreement from a sentence preamble (The key to the cabinets) and eliciting verb errors (… *were shiny). Through reanalysis of previous data (50 experiments; 102,369 observations), we show that this paradigm also results in many errors in preamble repetition, particularly of local noun number (The key to the *cabinet). We explore the mechanisms of both errors in parallelism in producing syntax (PIPS), a model in the Gradient Symbolic Computation framework. PIPS models sentence production using a continuous‐state stochastic dynamical system that optimizes grammatical constraints (shaped by previous experience) over vector representations of symbolic structures. At intermediate stages in the computation, grammatical constraints allow multiple competing parses to be partially activated, resulting in stable but transient conjunctive blend states. In the context of the preamble completion task, memory constraints reduce the strength of the target structure, allowing for co‐activation of non‐target parses where the local noun controls the verb (notional agreement and locally agreeing relative clauses) and non‐target parses that include structural constituents with contrasting number specifications (e.g., plural instead of singular local noun). Simulations of the preamble completion task reveal that these partially activated non‐target parses, as well the need to balance accurate encoding of lexical and syntactic aspects of the prompt, result in errors. In other words: Because sentence processing is embedded in a processor with finite memory and prior experience with production, interference from non‐target production plans causes errors.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherCambridge University Press
dc.subject.otherGradient symbolic computation
dc.subject.otherAgreement production
dc.subject.otherSymbolic connectionist modeling
dc.subject.otherSentence production
dc.titlePIPS: A Parallel Planning Model of Sentence Production
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNeurosciences
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171829/1/cogs13079.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171829/2/cogs13079_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cogs.13079
dc.identifier.sourceCognitive Science
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMahowald K., James A., Futrell R., & Gibson E. ( 2016 ). A meta‐analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5 – 27. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSankoff, D., Poplack, S., & Vannianiarajan, S. ( 1990 ). The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change, 2, 71 – 101.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSantesteban, M., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. ( 2013 ). The effects ofword order on subject‐verb and objectverb agreement: Evidence from Basque. Journal of Memory and Language, 68 ( 2 ), 160 – 179.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlioussar, N., & Malko, A. ( 2016 ). Gender agreement attraction in Russian: Production and comprehension evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1651.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlevc, L. R., & Martin, R. C. ( 2016 ). Syntactic agreement attraction reflects working memory processes. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28 ( 7 ), 773 – 790.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith, G., Franck, J., & Tabor, W. ( 2018 ). A self‐organizing approach to subject–verb number agreement. Cognitive Science, 42, 1043 – 1074.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith, G., Franck, J., & Tabor, W. ( 2021 ). Encoding interference effects support self‐organized sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 124, 101356.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith, G., & Tabor, W., ( 2018 ). Toward a theory of timing effects in self‐organized sentence processing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling 2018, Madison, WI.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmolensky, P. ( 1990 ). Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence, 46 ( 1‐2 ), 159 – 216.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmolensky, P. ( 2006 ). Tensor product representations: Formal foundations. In P. Smolensky, & G. Legendre (Eds.), The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality‐theoretic grammar (pp. 271 – 344 ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmolensky, P., Goldrick, M., & Mathis, D. ( 2014 ). Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: A framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Cognitive Science, 38, 1102 – 1138.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSolomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J. ( 2004 ). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49 ( 1 ), 1 – 46.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStrang, B. M. H. ( 1966 ). Some features of S‐V concord in present‐day English. In I. Cellini, & G. Melchiori (Eds.), English studies today: Fourth series (pp. 73 – 87 ). Rome, Italy: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaub, A. ( 2009 ). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 ( 2 ), 308 – 327.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaub, A. ( 2010 ). Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction. Cognition, 114 ( 3 ), 447 – 454.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTanner, 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. ( 2003 ). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 ( 4 ), 740 – 759.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVeenstra, A., Antoniou, K., Katsos, N., & Kissine, M. ( 2018 ). Resisting attraction: Individual differences in executive control are associated with subject–verb agreement errors in production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44 ( 8 ), 1242.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigliocco, G., & Franck, J. ( 2001 ). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 45 ( 3 ), 368 – 390.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. ( 1996 ). Subject‐verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61 ( 3 ), 261 – 298.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigliocco, 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigliocco G., & Nicol J. ( 1998 ). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68 ( 1 ), B13 – B29. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0010‐0277(98)00041‐9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVillata, S., Tabor, W., & Franck, J. ( 2018 ). Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. ( 2009 ). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 ( 2 ), 206 – 237.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAcuña‐Fariña, J. C. The role of morphology in setting production biases in agreement: A cross‐linguistic completion study. Language Sciences, 66 ( 2018 ), 28 – 41.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAntón‐Méndez, I., & Hartsuiker, R. J. ( 2010 ). Morphophonological and conceptual effects on Dutch subject‐verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 ( 5 ), 728 – 748.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold, J. E., & Zerkle, S. A. ( 2019 ) Why do people produce pronouns? Pragmatic selection vs. rational models. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34 (9), 1152 – 1175.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBadecker, 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 ( 1 ), 65 – 85.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarker, J., Nicol, J., & Garrett, M. ( 2001 ). Semantic factors in the production of number agreement. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 ( 1 ), 91 – 114.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBergen, L., & Gibson, E. ( 2012 ). Agreement errors as rational encoding errors. Poster presented at the 25th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processin g, New York, NY.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBiber, D., Grieve, J., & Iberri‐Shea, G. G. Rohdenburg & J. Schlüter ( 2009 ). Noun phrase modification. One Language, Two Grammars?: Differences between British and American English. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, J. K. ( 1986 ). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 ( 3 ), 355 – 387.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock 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 ( 1 ), 64 – 113. http://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0011
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, K., & Cutting, J. C. ( 1992 ). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 31 ( 1 ), 99 – 127.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. ( 1991 ). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23 ( 1 ), 45 – 93.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, K., Carreiras, M., & Meseguer, E. ( 2012 ). Number meaning and number grammar in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 66 ( 1 ), 17 – 37.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock K., & Eberhard K. M. ( 1993 ). Meaning, sound and syntax in english number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8 ( 1 ), 57 – 99. http://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406949
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, K., Eberhard, K. M., & Cutting, J. C. ( 2004 ). Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51 ( 2 ), 251 – 278.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. ( 2001 ). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43 ( 2 ), 83 – 128.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehm, L., & Bock, K. ( 2013 ). What counts in grammatical number agreement? Cognition, 128 ( 2 ), 149 – 169.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehm, L., & Bock, K. ( 2017 ). Referential and lexical forces in number agreement. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32 ( 2 ), 129 – 146.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehm, L., Hussey, E., & Christianson, K. ( 2020 ). The role of word frequency and morpho‐orthography in agreement processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35 ( 1 ), 58 – 77.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. ( 2021 ). Probabilistic online processing of sentence anomalies. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 36 ( 8 ), 959 – 983.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. ( 2006 ). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113 ( 2 ), 234.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChattopadhyay, A., Manupriya, P., Sarkar, A., & Balasubramanian, V. N. ( 2019 ). Neural network attributions: A causal perspective. International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA (pp. 981 – 990 ).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCho, P. W., Goldrick, M., & Smolensky, P. ( 2017 ). Incremental parsing in a continuous dynamical system: Sentence processing in Gradient Symbolic Computation. Linguistics Vanguard, 3, 20160105.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCho, P. W., Goldrick, M. & Smolensky, P. ( 2020 ). Parallel parsing in a Gradient Symbolic Computation parser. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/utcgv
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCho, P. W., Goldrick, M., Lewis, R., & Smolensky, P. ( 2018 ). Dynamic encoding of structural uncertainty in gradient symbols. Proceedings of Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT (pp. 19–28).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoppock, E. ( 2010 ). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 38 – 49.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCosta, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian‐Galles, N. ( 2000 ). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 ( 5 ), 1283.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCutting, J. C., & Bock, K. ( 1997 ). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition, 25 ( 1 ), 57 – 71.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavies, M. ( 2008 ). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990‐present. https://www.english‐corpora.org/coca/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDegen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. ( 2015 ). Processing scalar implicature: A constraint‐based approach. Cognitive Science, 39 ( 4 ), 667 – 710.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeutsch, A., & Dank, M. ( 2009 ). Conflicting cues and competition between notional and grammatical factors in producing number and gender agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 ( 1 ), 112 – 143.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeutsch, A., & Dank, M. ( 2011 ). Symmetric and asymmetric patterns of attraction errors in producing subject–predicate agreement in Hebrew: An issue of morphological structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26 (1), 24 – 46.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEberhard, K. M. ( 1999 ). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject–verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 ( 4 ), 560 – 578.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEberhard K. M. ( 1997 ). The Marked Effect of Number on Subject–Verb Agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 ( 2 ), 147 – 164. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2484
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. ( 2005 ). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112 ( 3 ), 531.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEmmorey, K., Borinstein, H., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. ( 2008 ). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11 ( 1 ), 43 – 61.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFerreira, V. S., & Schotter, E. R. ( 2013 ). Do verb bias effects on sentence production reflect sensitivity to comprehension or production factors? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66 ( 8 ), 1548 – 1571.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoote, R., & Bock, K. ( 2012 ). The role of morphology in subject–verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27 ( 3 ), 429 – 461.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranck, J. ( 2018 ). Syntactic encoding: Novel insights into the relationship between grammar and processing. In E. M. Fernández, & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 13 – 37 ). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. ( 2006 ). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101 ( 1 ), 173 – 216.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranck, 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranck, J., Vigliocco, G., Antón‐Méndez, I., Collina, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. ( 2008 ). The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross‐linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 ( 3 ), 329 – 374.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. ( 2015 ). Without his shirt off he saved the child from almost drowning: Interpreting an uncertain input. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 ( 6 ), 635 – 647.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFyndanis, V., Arcara, G., Christidou, P., & Caplan, D. ( 2018 ). Morphosyntactic production and verbal working memory: Evidence from Greek aphasia and healthy aging. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61 ( 5 ), 1171 – 1187.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. ( 2009 ). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111 ( 1 ), 1 – 23.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGillespie, M., & Pearlmutter, N. J. ( 2011 ). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118 ( 3 ), 377 – 397.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGillespie M., & Pearlmutter N. J. ( 2013 ). Against structural constraints in subject–verb agreement production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 ( 2 ), 515 – 528. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029005
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldrick, M., & Daland, R. ( 2009 ). Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: Insights from Harmonic Grammar networks. Phonology, 26, 147 – 185.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldrick, M., Keshet, J., Gustafson, E., Heller, J., & Needle, J. ( 2016 ). Automatic analysis of slips of the tongue: Insights into the cognitive architecture of speech production. Cognition, 149, 31 – 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldrick, M., Putnam, M., & Schwarz, L. ( 2016 ). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 ( 5 ), 857 – 876. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000802
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHale, J., & Smolensky, P. ( 2006 ). Harmonic Grammars and harmonic parsers for formal languages. P. Smolensky & G. Legendre, The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality‐Theoretic Grammar. Volume I: Cognitive Architecture (pp. 393 – 416 ). The MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHammerly, C., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. ( 2019 ). The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 70 – 104.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. ( 2006 ). Language production and working memory: The case of subject‐verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21 ( 1‐3 ), 181 – 204.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. M. ( 2003 ). Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject‐verb agreement. Memory & cognition, 31 ( 8 ), 1316 – 1326.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. ( 2003 ). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 ( 4 ), 760 – 778.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaskell, T. R., Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. ( 2010 ). Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement production. Cognition, 114 ( 2 ), 151 – 164.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHumphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. ( 2005 ). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12 ( 4 ), 689 – 695.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJäger, 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJeschniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. ( 1998 ). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near‐synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1256 – 1274.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeung, L. C., & Staub, A. ( 2018 ). Variable agreement with coordinate subjects is not a form of agreement attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 1 – 18.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeshev, M., & Meltzer‐Asscher, A. ( 2021 ). Noisy is better than rare: Comprehenders compromise subject‐verb agreement to form more probable linguistic structures. Cognitive Psychology, 124, 101359.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKonopka, A. E. ( 2012 ). Planning ahead: How recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 66 ( 1 ), 143 – 162.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKonopka, A. E., & Brown‐Schmidt, S. ( 2014 ). Message encoding. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 3 – 20 ). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKonopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. ( 2014 ). Priming sentence planning. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 1 – 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuchinsky, S. E., & Bock, K. ( 2010 ). From seeing to saying: Perceiving, planning, producing. Paper Presented at the 23rd CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, New York, NY.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLago, 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.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. ( 2005 ). An activation‐based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375 – 419.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLorimor, H., Adams, N. C., & Middleton, E. L. ( 2018 ). Agreement with conjoined NPs reflects language experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 489.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLorimor, H., Bock, K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., & Beard, R. ( 2008 ). Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 ( 6 ), 769 – 799.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLorimor, H., Jackson, C. N., & Foote, R. ( 2015 ). How gender affects number: Cue‐based retrieval in agreement production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 ( 8 ), 947 – 954.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLorimor, H., Jackson, C. N., Spalek, K., & van Hell, J. G. ( 2016 ). The impact of notional number and grammatical gender on number agreement with conjoined noun phrases. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31 ( 5 ), 646 – 661.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. ( 1994 ). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101 ( 4 ), 676.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMirković, J., & MacDonald, M. C. ( 2013 ). When singular and plural are both grammatical: Semantic and morphophonological effects in agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 69 ( 3 ), 277 – 298.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMomma, S., & Ferreira, V. S. ( 2019 ). Beyond linear order: The role of argument structure in speaking. Cognitive Psychology, 114, 101228.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorsella, E., & Miozzo, M. ( 2002 ). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 ( 3 ), 555.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. ( 2007 ). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57 ( 3 ), 348 – 379.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.