Agreement Attraction in Comprehension: Representations and Processes.

By M. Wagers, Ellen F. Lau, Colin Phillips. 2009

491 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/340f19944e69400348bcfe03ca06e6fa9cb69b52

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence (2013, methodology): “…to the feature content of structurally illicit NPs, confirming the sensitivity of agreement to syntactically illicit NPs (Pearlmutter et al., 1999; Wagers et al., 2009) as well as confirming the resistance of reflexives to intrusion for number and gender features alike (Clackson et al., 2011;…”
Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension (2015, methodology): “This facilitated processing has been attributed to cue-based memory retrieval (Lewis & Vasishth, 2005; Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke, 2006; Wagers et al., 2009).”
The linguistic processes underlying the P600 (2010, result): “The assumption that plurals are syntactically marked whereas singulars are not syntactically marked is consistent with findings from many behavioural studies of agreement processing that show that plural NPs induce local agreement attraction errors whereas singular NPs do not (eg, Bock & Miller, 19”
Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Models (2018, background): “Incidentally, the human results with object RCs were also unexpected: while attraction errors when the two subjects differ in number are to be expected (Wagers et al., 2009), our participants made a sizable number of errors even when both subjects were plural.”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “However, Wagers et al. (2009) argued that such effects are usually only observed when the distractor is directly adjacent to the verb but not when additional lexical material intervenes, suggesting such effects may be an artefact indexing spillover processing following a plural noun. direct object…”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “ungrammaticality’ (Wagers et al., 2009), and depends on whether the distractor is syntactically ‘active’ (Franck et al.”
Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis (2017, background): “Rizzi (2015), Kush and Phillips (2014), Lago et al. (2015), Tucker et al. (2015), and Wagers et al. (2009).”