Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue

Hartsuiker, Robert J.; Bernolet, Sarah; Schoonbaert, Sofie; Speybroeck, Sara; Vanderelst, Dieter

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003

Cited by 259 publications

(359 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(125 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

316

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Branigan et al, 2000;Corley & Scheepers, 2002;Hartsuiker et al, 2008;Pickering & Branigan, 1998;Wheeldon et al, 2011). Why did repetition of the main verb (the participle) in passives not increase the repetition suppression effect in the present study?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…On the other hand, syntactic priming in production is often observed without lexical repetition (e.g. Branigan et al, 2000;Hartsuiker et al, 2008;Pickering & Branigan, 1998;Segaert et al, 2011;Wheeldon et al, 2011). This suggests a difference between production and comprehension in the susceptibility to syntactic priming and would support the hypothesis that different (neuro)cognitive processes are involved in sentence production as compared to comprehension.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Studies on sentence production found that syntactic priming effects occur in the absence of lexical repetition and are boosted when the head word is repeated (e.g. Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000;Corley & Scheepers, 2002;Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008;Pickering & Branigan, 1998;Segaert et al, 2011;Wheeldon et al, 2011). In contrast, studies of syntactic priming and the lexical boost effect during sentence comprehension reveal a somewhat different picture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Syntactic priming and the lexical boost effect during sentence production and sentence comprehension: An fMRI study

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBehavioral syntactic priming effects during sentence comprehension are typically observed only if both the syntactic structure and lexical head are repeated. In contrast, during production syntactic priming occurs with structure repetition alone, but the effect is boosted by repetition of the lexical head. We used fMRI to investigate the neuronal correlates of syntactic priming and lexical boost effects during sentence production and comprehension. The critical measure was the magnitude of fMRI adaptation to repetition of sentences in active or passive voice, with or without verb repetition. In conditions with repeated verbs, we observed adaptation to structure repetition in the left IFG and MTG, for active and passive voice. However, in the absence of repeated verbs, adaptation occurred only for passive sentences. None of the fMRI adaptation effects yielded differential effects for production versus comprehension, suggesting that sentence comprehension and production are subserved by the same neuronal infrastructure for syntactic processing.

show abstract

“…According to this account, it is expected that structural priming effects should be somewhat longlasting, as the change in model weights that result from choosing one construction over another (e.g., choosing the DO construction over the PO construction) will remain in place until the next time the same syntactic choice is faced. There are a number of reports of structural priming persisting in strength when several sentences intervene between the prime sentence and the subsequent target sentence (e.g., Bock & Griffin, 2000;Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an experiment that explores the degree to which cumulative structural priming effects of the sort reported in Kaschak (Memory and Cognition 35:925-937, 2007) persist over the course of a week. In the first session of the experiment, participants completed written sentence stems that were designed to bias them toward producing the double object (Meghan gave Michael a toy) or prepositional object (Meghan gave a toy to Michael) construction. Participants returned for a second session of the experiment a week later. We observed that the biases established in the first phase of the experiment affected performance in the second phase. That is, the cumulative priming effect persisted for a week. The implications of this result for theories of language production are discussed.Keywords Language production . Structural priming . Syntax . Implicit learning . Linguistic adaptation Structural priming refers to the tendency for language users to repeat syntactic structures across utterances (Bock, 1986). To illustrate using a particularly well-studied example, individuals who have recently heard or produced a double object construction (Meghan gave Michael a hug; DO) are more likely to subsequently produce another DO construction (The teacher sent the students a message) than to produce a prepositional object construction (The teacher sent a message to the students; PO). Structural priming is an extremely robust phenomenon. It has been observed in

show abstract

“…The spreadingactivation account corresponds to short-lived priming effects, whereas effects of implicit learning are longer-lived. Recent experimental evidence seems to suggest that lexical priming is short-lived while syntactic priming is persistent (Hartsuiker et al, 2008). Alternative explanations for syntactic priming include social mimicry (Balcetis and Dale, 2005), and the tendency to reduce processing costs (discussed by Smith and Wheeldon, 2000, p. 127).…”

Section: Syntactic Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%