One expert notes that another possible explanation for this data is that misinterpretations occur at the same time as the consent request, but participants “correct” the misinterpretation at a later stage when the adjective is found. In other words, the participants could first have incorporated the adjective of misinterpretation induced by the configuration of the agreement, but then re-examined the interpretation by recovering the initial noun in the sentence, so that this new analysis would give the correct interpretation. While we have no evidence of this two-step strategy in the current data, we agree that it will be important for future work to evaluate this possibility with a more time-consuming interpretation. Attractors differences between the sexual value of the head and the attractor should affect the accuracy values in case of attraction. If the attraction concerns only un grammatical sentences, it is expected that there will be less precision in denying un grammatical non-conformity compared to the condition of un grammatical conformity. While attraction also affects grammatical sentences, it is also expected that there will be less precision in accepting grammatical non-conformity with grammatical condition. When sex marking modulates attraction patterns, attraction is more common with pronounced attractors (e.g.B. castration heads – female attractors) than in unmarked attractors (female head-castration attractors). Based on the results of experiment 1, phonological matching should not modulate attraction. In summary, there is clear evidence that comprehenders can systematically generate interpretations that are not faithful to the linguistic contribution. It seems possible, however, that this implies the establishment of grammatically well-formed structural representations, which correspond to the misinterpretation, but which do not entirely correspond to the input. Here we ask if Misretrieval is another source of systematic misinterpretations due to similarity-based interference in subject-verb correspondence.
In the following paragraphs, we tell the mechanisms behind the attraction of agreements and how they can interact with interpretation. Dust, A. (2010). Evidence of response time distribution for different varieties of digital attraction. Cognition 114, 447-454. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.003 Therefore, the results of Patson and Husband (2016) and Brehm et al. (2019) fascinating, but do not conclusively prove that the concordance attraction is due to the fact that comprehender misreprehender misrepershes the numerical characteristic of the subject due to the presence of a plural attractor. Given recent evidence that comprehenders sometimes perform structural repairs on abnormal inputs, the possibility for Comprehender to distort the subject`s encrypted information in the compliance attraction cannot be ruled out without further research.
Experiment 2 had a similar design to Experience 1. The objective of the agreement was decisive change. In this experiment, the pronominal reference agreement was tested using object clinical targets. In this experiment, the verb of the introductory sentence was in the past tense and imperfective (three verbs were evenly distributed among objects: epsahne, anazituse, jireve “searched”) and the verb that followed the target of the clinical object was in the past and perfect (five verbs were evenly distributed between objects: vrike “found”, eide “seen”, detabization “found”, anaklipse “discovered, ” adikrisekrisekrise ” against “). . .