The Structure of the English NP
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Essentially, noun phrases are beams of formal features, like case or arbitrary gender, and semantic features, like number, animacy, or biologically-based gender. This means that when such nominal elements are embedded in the structure of the sentence, their features interact with that structure in many ways. The main purpose of this work is to explore some of those interactions psycholinguistically, as well as to provide a set of explanatory principles that account for a substantial number of results reported in the psycholinguistic literature. It will focus mostly on agreement. Towards that goal, firstly a distinction will be made between the storing of nominal features and the computation of those features; secondly a comparison of the features of number and gender will be made; thirdly, it will be seen how the processing and the production of featural information interacts with the strength of a language’s morphological component; fourthly, the cross-linguistically different degrees of semantic interfacing (such as agreement ) will also be seen to correlate with morphological strength; finally, it will be argued that processing systems behave quite opportunistically when it comes to using either the formal information or the conceptual information coded in their NPs. This opportunism very often translates into a timing strategy: use first whatever information is available first.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos
    2009 The psycholinguistics of agreement in English and Spanish: A tutorial overview. Lingua119. 389–424. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2012 Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism. Journal of Linguistics48(2). 257–296. doi: 10.1017/S0022226712000084
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000084 [Google Scholar]
  3. Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos , Isabel Fraga , Javier García-Orza & Ana Piñeiro
    2009 Animacy in the adjunction of Spanish RCs to complex NPs. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology21. 1137–1165. doi: 10.1080/09541440802622824
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802622824 [Google Scholar]
  4. Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos , Manuel Carreiras & Enrique Meseguer
    2014 Gender and number agreement in comprehension in Spanish. Lingua143. 108–128. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Antón-Méndez, Inez , Janet Nicol & Merrill Garrett
    2002 The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax5(1). 1–25. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00045
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00045 [Google Scholar]
  6. Badecker, William & Frantisek Kuminiak
    2007 Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language56. 65–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, Elisabeth & Brian MacWhinney
    1989 Functionalism and the competition model. In Brian MacWhinney & Elisabeth Bates (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing, 1–73. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berg, Thomas
    1998 The resolution of number agreement conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics36. 41–70. doi: 10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bock, Kathryn , Manuel Carreiras & Enrique Meseguer
    2012 Number meaning and number grammar. Language and Cognitive Processes26(4/5/6). 509–529.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bock, Kathryn & Kathleen Eberhard
    1993 Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes8. 57–99. doi: 10.1080/01690969308406949
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406949 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bock, Kathryn & Carol A. Miller
    1991 Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology23. 45–93. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(91)90003‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brems, Lieselotte
    2003 Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2). 283–312. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05bre [Google Scholar]
  13. Briggs, Pamela & Geoffrey Underwood
    1982 Phonological coding in good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology34. 93–112. doi: 10.1016/0022‑0965(82)90033‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(82)90033-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cacciari, Cristina , Manuel Carreiras & Cristina B. Cionini
    1997 When words have two genders: Anaphor resolution for Italian functionally ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language37. 517–532. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2528
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2528 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cacciari, Cristina , Paola Corradini , Roberto Padovani & Manuel Carreiras
    2011 Pronoun resolution in Italian: The role of grammatical gender and context. Journal of Cognitive Psychology23(4). 416–434. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.526599
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.526599 [Google Scholar]
  16. Caramazza, Alfonso , Michele Miozzo , Albert Costa , Niels Schiller & F.-Xavier Alario
    2001 A cross-linguistic investigation of determiner production. In Emmanuel Dupoux (ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, 208–226. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carminati, Maria Nella
    2005 Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua115. 259–285. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carreiras, Manuel & Charles Clifton
    1999 Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition27. 826–833. doi: 10.3758/BF03198535
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198535 [Google Scholar]
  19. Corbett, Greville
    1991.Gender. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000Number. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  21. Croft, William
    1988 Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Michael Barlow & Charles Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language, 151–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cuetos, Fernado & Don Mitchell
    1988 Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition30. 73–105. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90004‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Deevy, Patricia
    2000 Agreement checking in comprehension. Evidence from relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research29. 69–79. doi: 10.1023/A:1005124523808
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005124523808 [Google Scholar]
  24. Desmet, Timothy , Marc Brysbaert & Constantijne De Baecke
    2002 The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A(3). 879–896. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000604
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000604 [Google Scholar]
  25. Desmet, Timothy , Constantijne De Baecke , Denis Drieghe , Marc Brysbaert & Wietske Vonk
    2006 Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes21(4). 453–485. doi: 10.1080/01690960400023485
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485 [Google Scholar]
  26. De Vincenzi, Marica
    1999 Differences between the morphology of gender and number: Evidence from establishing coreferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research28. 537–553. doi: 10.1023/A:1023272511427
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023272511427 [Google Scholar]
  27. Eberhard, Kathleen , J. Cooper Cutting & Kathryn Bock
    2005 Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review112(3). 531–559. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.3.531
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531 [Google Scholar]
  28. Foote, Rebecca & Kathryn Bock
    2012 The role of morphology in subject-verb agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes27(3). 429–461. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.550166
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.550166 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fraga, Isabel , Ana Piñeiro , Carlos Acuña-Fariña , Jaime Redondo & Javier García-Orza
    2012 Emotional nouns affect attachment decisions in sentence completion tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology65. 1740–1759. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.662989
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.662989 [Google Scholar]
  30. Franck, Julie , Gabriella Vigliocco , Inés Antón-Méndez , Simona Collina & Ulrich Frauenfelder
    2008 The interplay of syntax and form in language production: A cross-linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes23. 329–374. doi: 10.1080/01690960701467993
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701467993 [Google Scholar]
  31. Franck, Julie , Gabriella Vigliocco & Julie Nicol
    2002 Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes17(4). 371–404. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000254
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000254 [Google Scholar]
  32. Frazier, Lyn
    1979On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Connecticut, CT: University of Connecticut PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Garrett, Merrill. F
    1975 The analysis of sentence production. In Gordon H. Bower (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 133–171. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibson, Edward , Neil J. Pearlmutter & Vicenc Torrens
    1999 Recency and lexical preferences in Spanish. Memory and Cognition27. 603–611. doi: 10.3758/BF03211554
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211554 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gillespie, Maureen & Neal J. Pearlmutter
    2011 Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition118. 377–397. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffey Pullum
    2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lang, Peter J
    1995 The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American Psychology50. 372–385. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.50.5.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lorimor, Heidi , Kathryn Bock , Ekaterina Zalkind , Alina Sheyman & Robert Beard
    2008 Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes23. 769–799. doi: 10.1080/01690960701774182
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701774182 [Google Scholar]
  40. Molinaro, Nicola , Horacio Barber & Manuel Carreiras
    2011 Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex47. 908–930. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019 [Google Scholar]
  41. Nicol, Janet
    1988Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. Cambridge: MIT PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Osterhout, Lee & Linda Mobley
    1995 Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language34. 739–773. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag
    1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pynte, Joel & Saveria Colonna
    2001 Competition between primary and non-primary relations during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research30. 569–599. doi: 10.1023/A:1014278905819
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014278905819 [Google Scholar]
  45. Radford, Andrew
    2004Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811319 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ritter, Elisabeth
    1993 Where’s gender?Linguistic Inquiry24. 795–803.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Riveiro-Outeiral, Sara & Carlos Acuña-Fariña
    2012 Agreement processes in English and Spanish: a completion study. Functions of Language19(1). 58–88. doi: 10.1075/fol.19.1.03riv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.19.1.03riv [Google Scholar]
  48. Riveiro-Outeiral, Sara , Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Isabel, Fraga
    . Submitted. Concreteness effects in the production of agreement errors: An English-Spanish comparison.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schriefers, Herbert , Jörg Jescheniak & Ansgar Hantsch
    2002 Determiner selection in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28. 941–950. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.28.5.941
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.5.941 [Google Scholar]
  50. Siewierska, Anna
    1998 Variation in major constituent order: A global and a European perspective. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 475–551. Berlin: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110812206
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110812206 [Google Scholar]
  51. Toribio, Almeida. J
    2000 Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua110. 315–341. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(99)00044‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00044-3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Gompel, Roger & Simon Liversedge
    2003 The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition29(1). 128–139. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.29.1.128
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.128 [Google Scholar]
  53. Verveckken, Katrien & Bert Cornillie
    2012 Un análisis cognitivo-funcional de la concordancia verbal con construcciones (pseudo) partitivas del tipo [N1 + de + N2]. Revue Romane47(2). 219–257. doi: 10.1075/rro.47.2.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.47.2.02ver [Google Scholar]
  54. Vigliocco, Gabriella , Brian Butterworth & Merrill Garrett
    1996a Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: The role of conceptual factors. Cognition51. 261–298. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00713‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00713-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Vigliocco, Gabriella , Brian Butterworth & Carlo Semenza
    1995 Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language34. 186–215. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1009
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1009 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vigliocco, Gabriella & Julie Franck
    2001 When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language45. 368–390. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2774
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2774 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error