Syntactic Priming in Sentence Comprehension (Tooley, Traxler & Swaab, 2009) Zhenghan Qi

How do comprehenders organize and utilize their grammatical knowledge?  Autonomous syntax models: structural decision without reference to lexical, semantic or other nongrammatical information. (Chomsky, 1965; Frazier, 1979)  Lexicalist parser: a constraint-based neural network architecture, in which syntactic parsing processes are closely intertwined with lexical processing. ( Traxler & Tooley, 2007)

Syntactic priming: test of the two theories  Two predictions:  Autonomous syntax models: syntactic priming occur whether or not particular content words are repeated across the prime and the target.  Lexicalist parser: syntactic priming increase when the same word appear in prime and target, but may not occur if there is no overlapping lexical material. ??

Structural Priming in Production (Bock et al., 2007)

Structural Priming in Comprehension (Ladoux et al, 2007)

RR Prime – RR Target: Significantly reducing P600; MC Prime – RR Target: no difference

N400 P600

How to exclude semantic effects?  Hypothesis:  Autonomous syntax models: modulation of the P600 component for both repeated verb primes and primes with synonymous verbs  Lexicalist parser model: P600 reduction observed in repeated verb primes only.  The priming effects result from semantic match: no P600 modulation in either priming condition. (Tooley, Traxler and Swaab, 2009)

Experiment 1: Participants and Stimuli  20 students from UC-Davis  160 reduced relative clause sentences  R Prime: The man watched by the woman was tall and handsome.  S Prime: The man observed by the woman was tall and handsome.  Target: The child watched by the parent was playing quietly.  Central presentation, 2 words/second

ERP Results The child watched by … N400 limited at posterior sites

ERP Results No N400 effects here: semantic priming effects are not always observed when the proceding sentence or discourse context is highly constraining (Couson et al, 2005).

ERP results

Some questions about Exp. 1  Any potential artifacts produced by developed strategy across the trials?  The change in the P600 amplitude across primes and targets did not differ b/w the first and the second halves of the experiment.  Meta-analysis on 12 eye-tracking experiments  Slower reading rate in ERP recording  Natural reading in Experiment 2

Experiment 2: Participants and Stimuli  37 students from UC-Davis  7 prime-target pairs in the repeated condition and 7 prime-target pairs in the synonym condition.  The spy caught/captured by the FBI agent disappear forever.  The criminal captured/caught by the detective was in a state of panic.  Careful description of the counterbalancing design

Eye-tracking results The spy caught by the FBI agent disappear forever. Verb Region PP Region

Summary  Robust priming effects of the disambiguating region in the reduced relative sentences, when the verb is repeated across prime and target.  No priming in synonym condition.  No evidence supporting strategic prediction.

Conclusion  Syntactic priming occurs in comprehension.  Syntactic priming (largely) depends on the presence of lexical overlap b/w prime and target sentences with reduced relative clauses.  Structural representations are bound to individual words, and are not constructed on the basis of generic elements.

Some of my confusions…  Will we see priming effects in synonym condition if the prime and target sentences are in main clause structure, given the overwhelming subcategorization preference of these verbs to main clause interpretation?  Is verb repetition necessary or sufficient for structural facilitation?  What is the benefits of syntactic priming in comprehension, given the semantic format of memory storage?

Verb repetition is not sufficient for structural facilitation  The doctor warned the patient would need an operation. (SC Prime)  The family doctor warned the patient about smoking. (DO Prime)  The security staff warned the spectators would get rowdy...(Ambig. SC Target) Kim and Mauner, 2006

Verb repetition is not sufficient for structural facilitation  1st Half: Structural Priming. SC targets read faster following SC primes  2nd Half: No Priming! SC targets facilitated by SC AND DO primes.

With more distracters…  The prosecutor tried the defendant on a murder charge.  Lorraine tried to get good grades all semester long. Results: No Facilitation! Robust ambiguity effects in both halves.

Conclusion  Verb repetition is necessary but not sufficient for structural facilitation (learning instead of priming).  Activation of representations with more surface details than verb lemmas (e.g. short or long passives also matters) (Mauner and Reeves, 2008)