Three syntactic-priming experiments investigated the effect of structurally similar or dissimilar prime sentences on the processing of target sentences, using eye tracking (Experiment 1) and event-related potentials (ERPs) (Experiments 2 and 3) All three experiments tested readers' response to sentences containing a temporary syntactic ambiguity. The ambiguity occurred because a prepositional phrase modifier (PP-modifier) could attach either to a preceding verb or to a preceding noun. Previous experiments have established that (a) noun-modifying expressions are harder to process than verb-modifying expressions (when test sentences are presented in isolation); and (b) for other kinds of sentences, processing a structurally similar prime sentence can facilitate processing a target sentence. The experiments reported here were designed to determine whether a structurally similar prime could facilitate processing of noun-attached modifiers and whether such facilitation reflected syntactic-structure-building or semantic processes. These findings have implications for accounts of structural priming during online comprehension and for accounts of syntactic representation and processing in comprehension.
AltmannG. T. M., GarnhamA., & HenstraJ. A. (1994). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 209–216.
2.
AltmannG. T. M., & KamideY. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.
3.
AltmannG. T. M., & SteedmanM. J. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
4.
AraiM., van GompelR. P. G., & ScheepersC. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.
5.
van BerkumJ. J. A., HagoortP., & BrownC. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657–671.
6.
BeverT. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In HayesJ. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language, (pp. 279–352). New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
BlozisS. A., & TraxlerM. J. (2007). Analyzing individual differences in sentence processing performance using multilevel models. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 31–38.
8.
BraniganH. P., PickeringM. J., & McLeanJ. F. (2005). Priming prepositional phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468–481.
9.
BrownC., & HagoortP. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34–44.
10.
BrownC. M., van BerkumJ. J. A., & HagoortP. (2000). Discourse before gender: An event-related brain potential study on the interplay of semantic and syntactic information during spoken language understanding. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 53–68.
11.
CamblinC. C., LedouxK., BoudewynM., GordonP. C., & SwaabT. Y. (2007). When and how do readers and listeners establish coreference with repeated names?. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
12.
CarminatiM. N., van GompelR. P. G., ScheepersC., & AraiM. (2008). Syntactic priming in comprehension: The role of argument order and animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1098–1110.
FedermeierK. D., & KutasM. (1999). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 373–392.
15.
FerreiraF. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
16.
FrazierL. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished PhD dissertation), West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
17.
FrazierL. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In ColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
FrazierL., CliftonC.Jr (1996). Construal, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
FriedericiA. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259–281.
20.
FriedericiA. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.
21.
GriceP. (1989). Studies in the way of words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
HagoortP. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20, S18–S29.
23.
HagoortP. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416–423.
24.
HagoortP., BrownC., & GroothusenJ. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483.
25.
JackendoffR. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, New York: Oxford University Press
26.
KaanE., HarrisA., GibsonE., & HolcombP. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.
27.
KaanE., & SwaabT. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98–110.
28.
KamideY., ScheepersC., & AltmannG. T. M. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 37–55.
29.
KimA., & OsterhoutL. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225.
30.
KolkH., & ChwillaD. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain & Language, 100, 257–261.
31.
KolkH. H. J., ChwillaD. J., van HertenM., & OorP. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36.
32.
KuperbergG. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.
33.
Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M. & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 489–530.
34.
KuperbergG. R., KreherD. A., SitnikovaT., CaplanD. N., & HolcombP. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223–237.
35.
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117–129.
36.
KutasM., & HillyardS. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163.
37.
KutasM., van PettenC., & KluederR. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005). In TraxlerM. J. & GernsbacherM. A. (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics, (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). London: Elsevier.
38.
LedouxK., TraxlerM. J., & SwaabT. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143.
39.
Levy, R. (2011, June 19–24). Integrating surprisal and uncertain-input models in online sentence comprehension: Formal techniques and empirical results. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meetings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, 1055–1065.
40.
LiversedgeS. P., PickeringM. J., BraniganH. P., & van GompelR. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 461–475.
41.
LiversedgeS. P., PickeringM. J., ClayesE. L., & BraniganH. P. (2003). Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 667–675.
42.
MacDonaldM. C., PearlmutterN. J., & SeidenbergM. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
43.
NakanoH., SaronC., & SwaabT. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2886–2898.
44.
NiW., CrainS., & ShankweilerD. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics, and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334.
45.
OsterhoutL., & HolcombP. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
46.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.
47.
van PettenC. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 485–531.
48.
PickeringM. J., TooleyK. M., & TraxlerM. J. (2011). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Evidence from eye-tracking, Manuscript in preparation.
49.
PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J. (2004, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented to the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, College Park, MD.
50.
Pickering, M. J., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2006). Syntactic parsing. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Elsiever.
51.
Presentation® software (Version 0.70). Retrieved from www.neurobs.com
52.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
RaynerK., CarlsonM., & FrazierL. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
54.
SnijdersT. A., & BoskerR. J. (1993). Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 237–259.
55.
Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726.
56.
Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. (2011). ERPs and language processing. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (chapter 14). New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
SwetsB., DesmetT., HambrickD. Z., & FerreiraF. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.
58.
TaborW., GalantucciB., & RichardsonD. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.
59.
TanenhausM. K., Spivey-KnowltonM. J., EberhardK. M., & SedivyJ. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
60.
ThothathiriM., & SnedekerJ. (2008a). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108, 51–68.
61.
ThothathiriM., & SnedekerJ. (2008b). Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three and four year old children. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 188–213.
62.
Tooley, K. M., Swaab, T. Y., Boudewyn, M. A., Zirnstein, M., & Traxler, M. J. (in press). Evidence for priming across intervening sentences during on-line sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes.
63.
Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.
64.
Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2012). Syntactic priming in comprehension: A dual mechanism account. In R. Mishra (Ed.), The relationship between language and thought. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
65.
TooleyK. M., TraxlerM. J., & SwaabT. Y. (2009). Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 19–45.
66.
TraxlerM. J. (2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 149–155.
Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
69.
TraxlerM. J., BybeeM. D., & PickeringM. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 481–497.
70.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (2005, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented to the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
71.
TraxlerM. J., PickeringM. J., CliftonC.Jr (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.
72.
TraxlerM. J., & TooleyK. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in parsing. Brain Research, 1146, 59–74.
73.
TraxlerM. J., & TooleyK. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 609–645.
74.
TraxlerM. J., WilliamsR. S., BlozisS. A., & MorrisR. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 204–224.
75.
TrueswellJ. C., & KimA. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123.
76.
VosseT., & KempenG. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.
77.
VosseT., & KempenG. (2009). The unification space implemented as a localist neural net: Predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 331–346.
78.
WeberK., & IndefreyP. (2009). Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46, 1164–1172.
