Event structure influences language production: Evidence from structural priming in motion event description

Abstract

This priming study investigates the role of conceptual structure during language production, probing whether English speakers are sensitive to the structure of the event encoded by a prime sentence. In two experiments, participants read prime sentences aloud before describing motion events. Primes differed in 1) syntactic frame, 2) degree of lexical and conceptual overlap with target events, and 3) distribution of event components within frames. Results demonstrate that conceptual overlap between primes and targets led to priming of (a) the information that speakers chose to include in their descriptions of target events, (b) the way that information was mapped to linguistic elements, and (c) the syntactic structures that were built to communicate that information. When there was no conceptual overlap between primes and targets, priming was not successful. We conclude that conceptual structure is a level of representation activated during priming, and that it has implications for both Message Planning and Linguistic Formulation.

How children and adults encode causative events cross-linguistically: implications for language production and attention

“…First, they add to the fast-developing literature on how humans parse and interpret dynamically unfolding events of various types (Zacks & Shipley, 2008). In particular, they suggest that event perception extracts event components that are relevant for language (here, the Means and Result of a causal chain), an assumption supported by other recent studies (Bunger, Papafragou & Trueswell, 2013; Dobel, Gumnior, Bölte & Zwitserlood, 2007; Hafri et al, 2013; Webb, Knott & MacAskill, 2010; Wilson, et al, 2011). Second, our results throw light on the relation between language and cognition, a topic that remains hotly contested (see Introduction).…”

Do you what I say? People reconstruct the syntax of anomalous utterances

“…In Gibson et al’s (2013) terms, omitting a dative verb involves one deletion on the part of the speaker, and so comprehenders might be more likely to assume that this is what the speaker did, rather than assume that the speaker produced an anomalous utterance involving multiple insertions or deletions. In addition, the context in our experiments (other utterances and pictures) includes many datives, and could give rise to event-structure priming (Bunger, Papafragou, & Trueswell, 2013). 7 …”

Event structures drive semantic structural priming, not thematic roles: Evidence from idioms and light verbs

“…Here we have used structural priming to ask about the semantic representations involved in language production, favoring event structures to thematic roles. These results contribute to a growing body of research revealing the influence of abstract event components on language (e.g., Bunger, Papafragou, & Trueswell, 2013;Goldwater, Tomlinson, Echols, & Love, 2011;Raffray, Pickering, Cai, & Branigan, 2014;Zhao & Hu, 2018).…”