Explanation
Agreement attraction is a processing phenomenon in which a nearby element that does not grammatically control agreement influences the form or judgement of an agreement relation. In a complex noun phrase, an embedded plural noun may increase production of a plural verb although the singular head is the subject. The deviation need not indicate a different grammar; it may arise from competition during planning, retrieval, and feature assignment. The conceptual movement first identifies the genuine controller, then follows interfering features on neighbouring elements and experimentally tests when similarity or position strengthens the erroneous binding.
Movement of thought
1. A construction grammatically determines which element controls the agreement features of the target. 2. A nearby but structurally ineligible element carries a competing person, number, or gender feature. 3. During production or processing, that feature is temporarily retrieved and misassigned to the target. 4. A counter-test varies structure and features to separate attraction from dialect grammar and typographical error. 5. The error pattern reveals competition between hierarchical dependency and linear proximity in processing.
Scientific use case
Psycholinguistics and syntactic research measure attraction in sentence completion, reading time, and acceptability. Factorial designs vary number features, hierarchy, distance, and semantic plausibility of potential attractors.
Example
In “The key to the cabinets …,” proximity of the plural cabinets may wrongly favour a plural verb although the singular head key controls grammatical agreement.
Counterexample
A consistent regional agreement form is not mere attraction when it belongs to the stable grammar of the variety. An accidental typo without influence from a competing noun likewise provides no evidence.
Distinction
Distinguish agreement attraction from regular semantic agreement, variety-specific rules, proximity alone, and random performance errors. Attraction requires an identifiable competing feature bearer.
Effect on thought and perception
Agreement attraction exposes hidden competition in planning and retrieval. It explains systematic error probabilities without abandoning the underlying hierarchical agreement rule.
Resonance
A nearby but ineligible feature briefly pulls form in its direction. Grammatical hierarchy and linear neighbourhood create a measurable field of tension.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Congruence attraction“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-119-023. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-119-023The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen explains contrasting number forms by the influence of nearby expressions rather than by assuming that speakers calculate grammatical agreement from a fully explicit logical structure. His comparisons of quantities show that proximity can matter differently across languages. This gives a historical witness to attraction as an explanatory category, but not a complete account of the production errors studied today. The Atlas can ask whether an agreeing element follows the intended controller or a competing nearby cue. The distinction matters because an apparently simple mismatch may reveal how a sentence is planned and processed. The current English lemma Congruence attraction also needs review against the usual specialist expression agreement attraction. Neither lexical correction nor a modern experimental explanation is established by the historical passage alone.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Identify the grammatical controller separately from the competing cue. Proximity can influence form choice without changing the intended structure.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · Chapter XIV, The Normal Plural, printed p. 191
Selected historical witness, not a complete genealogy or a first English attestation. Atlas comparisons and applications are original editorial interpretations. OCR of a later printing containing a 1934 afterword. The catalogue’s 1924 date identifies the work’s first publication, not the inspected copy. Historical judgments about languages and social groups require critical distance.