The participants came to the lab four times. The first session was devoted to training. They were familiar with jabberwocky phrases and the possible appearance of contractual errors. They were then presented with instructions and gradually trained to respond to sounds in a contingent manner. Participants received feedback if they needed more than 200 ms to respond, if the first two responses were not performed simultaneously, or if they gave less than 16 total responses within 6000 ms. The next three sessions were devoted to the realization of the experiment. Two lists were presented per session, separated by a breakup. One session lasted about 20 minutes. While the results show that the use of a consultation by mistake to verify agreements is not inseparable from a reanalysis, they also suggest that mis consultation and misinterpretation are not entirely independent. The advantage of the task`s dual paradigm is that it provides an explicit measure of what participants interpreted as a theme in each study: while visits very rarely chose the adjective compatible with the attraktor, they did so much more often in non-grammatical sentences with plural attractors. This indicates that the attractor is misrepresented, at least occasionally, and that a call that is mistakenly controlled in response to the discovery of a breach of contract could contribute to the likelihood of structural reanalysis.
Mirkovic, J., and MacDonald, M.C (2013). If the singular and the plural are both grammatical: semantic and morphophonological effects of agreement. I`m J. J. Long. 69, 277-298. doi: 10.1016/j.j.j.jml.2013.05.001 If an egalitarian opponent is called in place of the subject of the fault, it signals that there is no breach of contract. Because of this illusory license of the numbered mark of the verb by the attractor, the cooler does not consider the sentence to be non-grammar. Therefore, there is no additional repair process to revise the subject or verb number, and the final presentation remains inconsistent with grammar. This could be seen as a problem for a low-level element verification account if we adopt a framework in which interpretations must be derived from structural representations that correspond to grammar. However, it depends a lot on the exact date on which we think an agreement should be allowed in online processing.
If the verb number counts only to the point where it is integrated into the structure, an illusory verification due to the misuse of the number comparison adjector would be quite sufficient, and the difference between the structure and the verified characteristics does not matter. Pittman and Smyth (2005) replicated the results of Thornton and MacDonald`s production and added a new component to the purchased production task to examine whether participants had misrepreserated the weaner in cases where they were producing contractual errors.