The nature of the facilitation occurring when sentences share a verb and syntactic structure (i.e., lexically-mediated syntactic priming) has not been adequately addressed in comprehension. In four eye-tracking experiments, we investigated the degree to which lexical, syntactic, thematic, and verb form repetition contribute to facilitated target sentence processing. Lexically-mediated syntactic priming was observed when primes and targets shared a verb and abstract syntactic structure, regardless of the ambiguity of the prime. In addition, repeated thematic role assignment resulted in syntactic priming (to a lesser degree), and verb form repetition facilitated lexical rather than structural processing. We conclude that priming in comprehension involves lexically associated abstract syntactic representations, and facilitation of verb and thematic role processes. The results also indicate that syntactic computation errors during prime processing are not necessary for lexically-mediated priming to occur during target processing. This result is inconsistent with an error-driven learning account of lexically-mediated syntactic priming effects.
AraiM.van GompelR. P. G.ScheepersC. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
3.
BernoletS.CollinaS.HartsuikerR. J. (2016). The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 99–116.
4.
BernoletS.HartsuikerR. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?Cognition, 114(3), 455–461.
5.
BockJ. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.
BockK. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.
8.
BockK.DellG. S.ChangF.OnishiK. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104, 437–458.
9.
BockK.GriffinZ. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?Journal of Experimental: General, 129, 177–192.
10.
BolandJ. E.Boehm-JerniganH. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684–719.
11.
BraniganH. P.McLeanJ. F. (2016). What children learn from adults’ utterances: An ephemeral lexical boost and persistent syntactic priming in adult–child dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 141–157.
12.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–61.
13.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.ClelandA. A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.
14.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.McLeanJ. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468–481.
15.
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.
16.
CarnieA.SiddiqiD.SatoY. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of syntax. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
17.
ChangF.BockJ. K.GoldbergA. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places?Cognition, 90, 29–49.
ChangF.JanciauskasM.FitzH. (2012). Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 259–278.
20.
ClelandA.A.PickeringM.J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 214–230.
21.
CliftonC.Jr.TraxlerM. J.MohammedM. T.WilliamsR. S.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317–334.
22.
FerreiraV. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 379–398.
23.
FineA. B.JaegerT. F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science, 37, 578–591.
FitzH.ChangF.ChristiansenM. H. (2011). A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In KiddE. (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology, and function (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
26.
HartsuikerR. J.BernoletS.SchoonbaertS.SpeybroeckS.VanderelstD. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.
27.
HsiehY. (2017). Structural priming during sentence comprehension in Chinese–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 657–678.
28.
JackendoffR. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
30.
JaegerT. F.SniderN. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127, 57–83.
31.
KimC. S.CarbaryK. M.TanenhausM. K. (2014). Syntactic priming without lexical overlap in reading comprehension. Language and Speech, 57, 181–195.
32.
LedouxK.TraxlerM. J.SwaabT. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143.
33.
MacDonaldM. C.PearlmutterN. J.SeidenbergM. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
34.
MaunerG.TanenhausM. K.CarlsonG. N. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 357–338.
35.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (2003). Meaning through syntax: Language comprehension and the reduced relative clause construction. Psychological Review, 110, 490–525.
36.
PickeringM. J.BraniganH. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.
37.
PickeringM. J.McLeanJ. F.BraniganH. P. (2013). Persistent structural priming and frequency effects during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 890–897.
38.
R Core Development Team. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing computer program.
39.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
40.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1989). The psychology of reading. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
41.
ReitterD.KellerF.MooreJ. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35, 587–637.
42.
ThothathiriM.SnedekerJ. (2008a). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108, 51–68.
43.
ThothathiriM.SnedekerJ. (2008b). Syntactic priming during comprehension in three and four-year old children. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 188–213.
44.
TooleyK. M.BockJ. K. (2014). On the equivalence of structural priming in language comprehension and production. Cognition, 132, 101–136.
45.
TooleyK. M.SwaabT. Y.BoudewynM. A.ZirnsteinM.TraxlerM. J. (2014). Evidence for priming across intervening sentences during on-line sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 289–311.
46.
TooleyK. M.TraxlerM. J. (2012). Syntactic priming in comprehension: A dual mechanism account. In MishraR. (Ed.), The relationship between language and thought (pp. 65–86). Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
47.
TooleyK. M.TraxlerM. J. (2018). Implicit learning of structure occurs in parallel with lexically-mediated syntactic priming effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 59–76.
48.
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.
49.
TraxlerM. J. (2008a). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomicbulletin & Review, 15, 149–155.
50.
TraxlerM. J. (2008b). Structural priming among prepositional phrases: Evidence from eye-movements. Memory & Cognition, 36, 659–674.
51.
TraxlerM. J.TooleyK. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic?Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 609–645.
52.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
53.
VosseT.KempenG. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.
54.
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.
55.
YanH.MartinR. C.SlevcL. R. (2018). Lexical overlap increases syntactic priming in aphasia independently of short-term memory abilities: Evidence against the explicit memory account of the lexical boost. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 48, 76–89.
56.
ZieglerJ.SnedekerJ. (2018). How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179, 221–240.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
