Many previous studies have shown that syntactic priming is stronger when the verb is repeated between the prime and target sentences. This phenomenon is known as the lexical boost and has been interpreted as evidence for a direct association between individual verbs and structural information. However, in previous experiments, we found no lexical boost with the monotransitive structure and argued that this structure is not associated with individual lexical items. The results of these experiments instead suggested that monotransitive structure information is represented at the category-general level. The current study examined whether this finding generalises to verbs that can take either a monotransitive structure or a ditransitive structure. Our results demonstrated a lexical boost with double object ditransitive primes but not with monotransitive primes. This suggests that the monotransitive structure is indeed represented at the category-general level across different classes of verbs, whereas other structures are represented at the lexically specific level.
AmbridgeB.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F.YoungC. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.
2.
BernoletS.CollinaS.HartsuikerR. J. (2016). The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 99–116.
3.
BernoletS.HartsuikerR. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?Cognition, 114, 455–461.
4.
BockJ. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.
5.
BowermanM. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In GleitmanL.WannerE. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). Cambridge University Press.
6.
BraineM. D. S.BrodyR. E.FischS. M.WeisbergerM. J.BlumM. (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 17, 313–342.
7.
BraineM. D. S.BrooksP. J. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In TomaselloM.MerrimanW. E. (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 353–376). Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
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.
9.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.StewartA. J.McLeanJ. F. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1297–1302.
10.
BresnanJ.CueniA.NikitinaT.BaayenH. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In BoumaG.KramerI.ZwartsJ. (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (pp. 69–94). Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
11.
BrooksP. J.TomaselloM. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, 75, 720–738.
12.
BrooksP. J.TomaselloM.DodsonK.LewisL. B. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70, 1325–1337.
13.
BurnardL. (2000). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (World edition). British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford University Computing Services.
14.
CaiZ. G.PickeringM. J.WangR.BraniganH. P. (2015). It is there whether you hear it or not: Syntactic representation of missing arguments. Cognition, 136, 255–267.
15.
CarminatiM. N.Van GompelR. P. G.WakefordL. J. (2019). An investigation into the lexical boost with nonhead nouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, Article 104031.
ChomskyN. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
18.
CorleyM.ScheepersC. (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an Internet-based study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 126–131.
19.
DixonP. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.
20.
GoldbergA. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
21.
HardyS. M.MessengerK.MaylorE. A. (2017). Aging and syntactic representations: Evidence of preserved syntactic priming and lexical boost. Psychology and Aging, 32, 588–596.
22.
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.
23.
HartsuikerR. J.WestenbergC. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75, B27–B39.
24.
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.
25.
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.
26.
KaplanR. M.BresnanJ. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In BresnanJ. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). MIT Press.
27.
LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.BaldwinG. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–219.
28.
MalhotraG.PickeringM.BraniganH.BednarJ. A. (2008). On the persistence of structural priming: Mechanisms of decay and influence of word-forms (Vol. 30) [Proceedings]. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/53m4r6dg
29.
MaratsosM.GudemanR.Gerard-NgoP.DettartG. (1987). A study of novel word learning: The productivity of the causative. In MacWhinneyB. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 89–113). Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.
MessengerK.BraniganH. P.McLeanJ. F. (2011). Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children’s short and full passives. Cognition, 121, 268–274.
33.
Montero-MelisG.JaegerT. F. (2020). Changing expectations mediate adaptation in L2 production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 602–617.
PeterM.ChangF.PineJ. M.BlythingR.RowlandC. F. (2015). When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 1–15.
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.BraniganH. P.McLeanJ. F. (2002). Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 586–605.
38.
PinkerS. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Harvard University Press.
39.
PinkerS. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.
40.
PollardC.SagI. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press.
41.
ReitterD.KellerF.MooreJ. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35, 587–637.
42.
RolandD.DickF.ElmanJ. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379.
43.
ScheepersC. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89, 179–205.
44.
ScheepersC.CrockerM. W. (2004). Constituent order priming from reading to listening: A visual-world study. In CarreirasM.CliftonC. J. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (pp. 167–185). Psychology Press.
45.
ScheepersC.RaffrayC.MyachykovA. (2017). The lexical boost effect is not diagnostic of lexically-specific syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 102–115.
46.
SchoonbaertS.HartsuikerR.PickeringM. (2007). The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 153–171.
47.
SegaertK.WheeldonL.HagoortP. (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59–80.
48.
TheakstonA. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34.
49.
Van GompelR. P. G.AraiM.PearsonJ. (2012). The representation of mono- and intransitive structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 384–406.
50.
Van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J.PearsonJ.JacobG. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362.
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.
