The independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming

Abstract

Although it is generally accepted that syntactic information is processed independently of semantic information in languages such as English, there is less agreement about whether the same is true in languages such as Mandarin that have fewer reliable cues to syntactic structure. We report five experiments that used a structural priming paradigm to investigate the independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin. In a recognition memory task, Mandarin native speakers described ditransitive events after repeating prime sentences with a double object (DO) or prepositional object (PO) structure. Participants tended to repeat syntactic structure across prime and target sentences. Critically, this tendency occurred whether or not semantic features (animacy of the recipient) were also repeated across sentences, both when the verb was repeated and when it was not. We conclude that Mandarin speakers compute independent syntactic representations during language processing.

Priming is swell, but it's far from simple

“…These results are compatible with priming of animacy-function or animacy-order mappings. However, other research has not found priming of animacy to syntactic structure mappings (Bernolet et al 2009;Carminati et al 2008;Huang et al 2016). Bunger et al (2013) and Raffray et al (2014) showed priming of mappings between components of event structures and syntactic structures.…”

“…Ambridge, González-Márquez et al, Günther, Lester et al, and Ziegler et al express some scepticism about a level of syntactic representation that is independent of semantic and lexical information. The finding that priming of syntactic structure is not enhanced when thematic mappings or semantic features are repeated (Bock & Loebell 1990;Huang et al 2016;Messenger et al (2012b)) suggests that semantic information is not incorporated into syntactic structure. It specifically fits badly with the construction-based approach advocated by Günther, who suggests that priming effects might hold between entire constructions (which could be related but of different types), or just their syntactic (i.e., form) or their semantic (i.e., meaning) components.…”

How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming

“…First, thematic role priming cannot be reduced to animacy. For example, in Chang et al (2003), both post-verbal arguments were inanimate, and thus animacy was equated across the two constructions (see also Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2009;Carminati, van Gompel, Scheepers, & Arai, 2008;Cho-Reyes et al, 2016;Huang, Pickering, Yang, Wang, & Branigan, 2016;Köhne, Pickering, & Branigan, 2014;Ziegler et al, 2017a). Second, it is also clear that animacy can influence priming (Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992;Gámez & Vasilyeva, 2015; for review and discussion, see Branigan, Pickering, & Tanaka, 2008).…”

“…Priming also clearly occurs even when animacy cannot be used as a reliable cue to argument order, as is true for the locatives (see also Bernolet et al, 2009;Carminati et al, 2008;Cho-Reyes et al, 2016;Huang et al, 2016;Köhne et al, 2014;Ziegler et al, 2017a). Thus, we expect to find priming in Exp.…”

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

“…In fact, some may never produce priming (e.g., order of animacy; Bernolet et al, 2009; Huang, Pickering, Yang, Wang, & Branigan, in press; though cf. Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992), and others may only lead to priming in the absence of a constituent structure alternation (i.e., constituent structure priming tends to override thematic priming; Bock & Loebell, 1990; Messenger, Branigan, McLean, & Sorace, 2012).…”