Диссертация (Experimental study of several core concepts of theoretical morphology (on the material of russian) - regularity, syncretism, markedness), страница 24

In particular, it implies that we generate the subjectNP with all its feature specifications before we turn to the verb.In reality, the process should be much more complicated. On theone hand, we cannot determine the case of an NP before we selectthe predicate (for example, experiencers may receive nominative,accusative, or dative case in Russian, depending on the verb, so itis impossible to plan a nominative NP having only some abstractV in mind).

On the other hand, we cannot select some features ofthe verb form without looking at the subject.This leads us to adopt the second scenario, in whichthe relevant features are retrieved at some point duringthe derivation, rather than predicted and then rechecked.Then we do expect certain differences between productionand comprehension. Namely, under the second productionscenario it is not the case that we look for an NP witha particular number or gender feature. Rather, we lookfor the values of number and gender features inside thesubject NP. These features should belong to the head ofthis NP, but sometimes we spuriously pay attention tothe features of other nouns. We hypothesize that featuremarkedness plays a role in this process, and this is whatcauses different outcomes in our production and comprehensionexperiments.To explain how markedness effects may arise, let ussummarize different factors that have been shown to play a rolefor retrieval.

More stable head nouns have more chances to beretrieved than less stable ones. Structurally accessible attractorslooking like subjects have more chances to be retrieved thanthe attractors without these characteristics. This is true both forproduction and for comprehension. And, independently of thesefactors, marked features have more chances to be retrieved. Incomprehension, when we encounter a particular verb form andconstruct a set of retrieval cues based on it, different numberor gender features do not compete with each other: we alwayslook for a particular value.

In production, we need to findthe value of the gender feature of the subject NP, there is novalue that is provided in advance, thus different values mayenter the competition14 . Thus, production involves competitionand comprehension does not, therefore we can observe featuremarkedness effects in production, but not in comprehension.This is why production and comprehension results for genderagreement are different. We do not observe any differences incase of number agreement because plural is at the same time amore stable feature and a marked one. This is a very tentativehypothesis, so further experiments are necessary to test it or tosuggest an alternative explanation for the observed asymmetrybetween production and comprehension findings.empty, and when it is not, the conceptual and formal gender typically coincide (andthus the former reinforces the latter).

If they do not coincide, it never depends onthe properties of modifiers, only on the noun itself (for example, vrač “doctorM ”can refer both to a man and to a woman in Russian).14 InFrontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgour production experiment, participants were provided with predicates in aparticular form.

Still, we also expect competition here because participants had toproduce a correct form if the provided form was wrong, and to do so, they had toretrieve the subject NP and determine its gender.1856November 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1651Slioussar and MalkoGender Agreement Attraction in RussianAUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONScolleagues for their valuable comments and would especiallylike to thank Colin Phillips. We are also very grateful to thereviewers.All authors listed have made substantial, direct and intellectualcontribution to the work, and approved it for publication.SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Supplementary Material for this article can be foundonline at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01651/full#supplementary-materialThe study was partially supported by the grant #16-18-02071from the Russian Science Foundation.

We are grateful to manyREFERENCESHartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H., Bock, K., and Kikstra, G. M. (2003).Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement.Mem. Cogn. 31, 1316–1326. doi: 10.3758/BF03195814Haskell, T. R., and MacDonald, M. C. (2005). Constituent structure and linearorder in language production: evidence from subject-verb agreement. J.Exp. Psychol. Learn.

Mem. Cogn. 31, 891–904. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.891Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). J.Linguist. 42, 25. doi: 10.1017/S0022226705003683Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy Of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., and Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processesin reading comprehension. J. Exp.

Psychol. 111, 228.Kramer, R. (2015). The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentenceprocessing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 29, 375–419. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25Lorimor, H., Bock, K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., and Beard, R. (2008).Agreement and attraction in Russian. Lang. Cogn. Process 23, 769–799. doi:10.1080/01690960701774182Lyashevskaya, O.

N., and Sharoff, S. A. (2009). Chastotnyj Slovar’ SovremennogoRusskogo Jazyka (Frequency Dictionary of Modern Russian Laguage). Moscow:Azbukovnik.Martin, A. E., Nieuwland, M. S., and Carreiras, M. (2014). Agreement attractionduring comprehension of grammatical sentences: ERP evidence from ellipsis.Brain Lang. 135, 42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.001McElree, B. (2006).

Accessing recent events. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 46, 155–200.doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46005-9Mirkovic, J., and MacDonald, M. C. (2013). When singular and plural are bothgrammatical: semantic and morphophonological effects in agreement. J. Mem.Lang. 69, 277–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.001Nevins, A. (2011). Marked triggers vs. marked targets and impoverishment of thedual. Linguist. Inq. 42, 413–444. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00052Nicol, J., Foster, K., and Veres, C.

(1997). Subject-verb agreement processes incomprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 36, 569–587.Nicol, J., and Wilson, R. (1999). “Agreement and case-marking in Russian: apsycholinguistic investigation of agreement errors in production,” in The EightAnnual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages. The PhiladelphiaMeeting (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications), 314–327.Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., and Bock, K. (1999).

Agreement processes insentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 427–456.Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., and Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar OfContemporary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.R Core Team (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol.

Bull.114, 510.Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., and Yatsushiro, K. (2005). “The plural is semanticallyunmarked,” in Linguistic Evidence, eds S. Kepser and M. Reis (Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter), 413–434.Slioussar, N., and Samoilova, M. (2014). “A database to estimate frequencies ofdifferent grammatical features and inflectional affixes in Russian nouns,” inThe 9th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon (Niagara-on-the-Lake:Brock University and McMaster University), 104–105.Acuña-Fariña, J. C., Meseguer, E., and Carreiras, M. (2014). Gender andnumber agreement in comprehension in Spanish. Lingua 143, 108–128. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.013Anton-Mendez, M. I., Nicol, J., and Garrett, M.

F. (2002). The relation betweengender and number agreement processing. Syntax 5, 1–25. doi: 10.1111/14679612.00045Badecker, W., and Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement andworking memory retrieval in sentence production: evidence from genderand case in Slovak. J. Mem. Lang.

56, 65–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004Badecker, W., and Lewis, R. (2007). “A new theory and computational modelof working memory in sentence production: agreement errors as failures ofcue-based retrieval,” in Talk Given at 20th Annual CUNY Sentence ProcessingConference. San Diego, CA: University of California. Available online at: http://crl.ucsd.edu/cuny2007/program/235_Abstract.pdfBates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4.

J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01Bock, K., and Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: performance unitsin language production. J. Mem. Lang. 31, 99–127.Bock, K., and Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in englishnumber agreement. Lang. Cogn. Process. 8, 57–99.Bock, K., and Miller, C. (1991). Broken agreement. Cogn. Psychol. 23, 45–93.Brehm, L., and Bock, K.