1887
Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17019.lag
2018-03-30
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahantes, J. C. & Aerts, M.
    (2012) A solution to separation for clustered binary data. Statistical Modelling, 12, 1, 3–27. 10.1177/1471082X1001200102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082X1001200102 [Google Scholar]
  2. Acuña-Fariña, J. C., Meseguer, E., & Carreiras, M.
    (2014) Gender and number agreement in comprehension in Spanish. Lingua, 143, 108–128. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Chakrani, B.
    (2013) Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 1–18. 10.1017/S1366728912000132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000132 [Google Scholar]
  4. Almeida, D., & Tucker, M.
    (2017) The Complex Structure of Agreement Errors: Evidence from Distributional Analyses of Agreement Attraction in Arabic. Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arslan, S., de Kok, D. & Bastiaanse, R.
    (2015) Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in heritage and monolingual Turkish speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 3, 457–472. 10.1017/S136672891500084X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891500084X [Google Scholar]
  6. Badecker, W., and 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, 65–85. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bamyacı, E.
    (2016) Competing Structures in the Bilingual Mind: A Psycholinguistic Investigation of Optional Verb Number Agreement. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑22991‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22991-1
  8. Bamyacı, E., Häussler, J., Kabak, B.
    (2014) The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua, 148, 254–277. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H.
    (2013) Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 3, 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
    (2013) Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportunities and Challenges for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181. 10.1515/tl‑2013‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blanche, P. & Merino, B. J.
    (1989) Self-Assessment of Foreign-Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and Researchers. Language Learning, 39, 3, 313–338. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1989.tb00595.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00595.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolonyai, A.
    (2007) (In)vulnerable agreement in incomplete bilingual L1 learners. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 3–2. 10.1177/13670069070110010201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110010201 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coşkun, H.
    (2010) Question elements in Turkish complement clauses. Turkic Languages, 14: 43–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. de Groot, C.
    (2005) The grammars of Hungarian outside Hungary from a linguistic-typological perspective. InA. Fenyvesi (Ed.), Hungarian language contact outside Hungary, 351–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.20.18gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.20.18gro [Google Scholar]
  15. Dillon, B., Clifton, Jr., C., & Frazier, L.
    (2014) Pushed aside: Parentheticals and Processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 4, 483–498. 10.1080/01690965.2013.866684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.866684 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C.
    (2013) Contrasting interference profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 2, 85–103. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Drummond, A.
    (2013) Ibex Farm. Available atspellout.net/ibexfarm/.
  18. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K.
    (2005) Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531–559. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.3.531
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fenyvesi, A.
    (2000) The affectedness of the verbal complex in American Hungarian. InA. Fenyvesi & K. Sándor (Eds.), Language contact and the verbal complex of Dutch and Hungarian. Working papers from the 1st Bilingual Language Use Theme Meeting of the Study Centre on Language Contact, November11–13 1999, Szeged, Hungary, 94–107. Szeged: JGyTF Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Firth, D.
    (1993) Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80, 27–38. 10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
    https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  21. Foote, R.
    (2011) Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220. 10.1017/S0142716410000342
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000342 [Google Scholar]
  22. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J.
    (2002) Attraction in sentence production: The role of syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 371–404. 10.1080/01690960143000254
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000254 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G. & Su, T. S.
    (2008) A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 1360–383. 10.1214/08‑AOAS191
    https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS191 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K.
    (2011) Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 509–524. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00295.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Göksel, A.
    (1987) Distance restrictions on syntactic processes. InH. E. Boeschoten & L. T. Verhoeven (Eds.), Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp.69–81). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
  26. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C.
    (2005) Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203340769
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203340769 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hartsuiker, R. J., Antón-Méndez, I., & van Zee, M.
    (2001) Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2787
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2787 [Google Scholar]
  28. Häussler, J.
    (2012) The emergence of attraction errors during sentence comprehension. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jäger, L., 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kornfilt, J.
    (1997) Turkish. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kupisch, T. & Rothman, J.
    (2016) Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P., & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R.
    (2014) lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–11. CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
  34. Lago, S., Shalom, D., Sigman, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C.
    (2015) Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M.
    (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lorimor, H., Bock, J. K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., & Beard, R.
    (2008) Number Agreement and Attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 769–799. 10.1080/01690960701774182
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701774182 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lorimor, H., Jackson, C. N., & Foote, R.
    (2015) How gender affects number: Cue-based retrieval in agreement production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 947–954. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1047461
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1047461 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H., & Kaushanskaya, M.
    (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 4, 940–967. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2007/067)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067) [Google Scholar]
  39. Montrul, S.
    (2012) Is the heritage language like a second language? EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 1–29. 10.1075/eurosla.12.03mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.03mon [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) Structural changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential object marking in Spanish heritage speakers across generations. Lingua, 151, 177–196. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Montrul, S., Bhatt, R. & Bhatia, A.
    (2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–176. 10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon [Google Scholar]
  42. Nicol, J., & Antón-Méndez, I.
    (2009) “The effect of case marking on subject – verb agreement errors in English,” inTime and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics in Honor of D. Terence Langendoen, edsW. D. Lewis, S. Karimi, H. Harley, and S. O. Farrar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 135–150. 10.1075/la.135.10nic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.135.10nic [Google Scholar]
  43. Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., & Barker, J. E.
    (2016) Minimal Interference from Possessor Phrases in the Production of Subject-Verb Agreement. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00548
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00548 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nicol, J. L., Forster, K. I., & Veres, C.
    (1997) Subject – verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569–587. 10.1006/jmla.1996.2497
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2497 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nicol, J., & Wilson, R.
    (1999) “Agreement and case-marking in Russian: a psycholinguistic investigation of agreement errors in production,” inThe Eight Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages. The Philadelphia Meeting (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications), 314–327.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K.
    (1999) Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2653
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2653 [Google Scholar]
  47. Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L.
    (2015) The role of processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 4, 409–453. 10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi [Google Scholar]
  48. Polinsky, M.
    (1997) Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14/1–2, 87–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O.
    (2007) Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 5, 368–395. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00022.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x [Google Scholar]
  51. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLwww.R-project.org/.
  52. Ristic, B., Molinaro, N., & Mancini, S.
    (2016) Agreement attraction in Serbian: Decomposing markedness. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 2, 242–276. 10.1075/ml.11.2.04ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.04ris [Google Scholar]
  53. Ross, S.
    (1998) Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 5, 1–20. 10.1177/026553229801500101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500101 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rothman, J. & Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2014) A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too!Applied Linguistics, 35, 93–98. 10.1093/applin/amt049
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt049 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schroeder, C.
    (1999) The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z., & Polinsky, M.
    (2015) Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01545
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01545 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sezer, E.
    (1978) Eylemlerin çoğul öznelere uyumu. Genel Dilbilim Dergisi, Ankara Dilbilim Çevresi Derneği, Ankara, 25–32.
  58. Sherkina-Lieber, M.
    (2011) Comprehension of Labrador Inuttitut functional morphology by receptive bilinguals. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sherkina-Lieber, M., Perez-Leroux, A. T. & Johns, A.
    (2011) Grammar without speech production: The case of Labrador Inuttitut heritage receptive bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 301–317. 10.1017/S1366728910000210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000210 [Google Scholar]
  60. Solomon, E. S., & Pearlmutter, N. J.
    (2004) Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 1–46. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sorace, A.
    (2004) Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretation and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–146. 10.1017/S1366728904001543
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001543 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sprouse, J.
    (2011) A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 155–167. 10.3758/s13428‑010‑0039‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J.
    (2017) Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 248–259. 10.1111/psyp.12788
    https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12788 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tanner, 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., & Almeida, D.
    (2015) Representing Number in the Real-Time Processing of Agreement: Self-Paced Reading Evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C.
    (2009) Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wagers, M. W., Phillips, C.
    (2014) Going the distance: memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1274–1304. 10.1080/17470218.2013.858363
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.858363 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17019.lag
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17019.lag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement attraction , bilingualism and Turkish
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