Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (3) : 283-293     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00283
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Syntactic structure and verb overlap influence the syntactic priming effect in Mandarin spoken sentence production
YU Zhou,ZHANG Qingfang()
Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
Download: PDF(603 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

In sentence production, syntactic priming effect refers to a phenomenon that speakers or writers tend to reuse syntactic structures that they have recently processed, and the repeated syntactic structures elicit shorter sentence production latencies than the novel ones. Different theories have been proposed to account for the syntactic priming effect. Among them, both the Residual Activation Theory and the Implicit Learning Theory aim to address speakers’ syntactic choices ratio, but with different theoretical bases on memory and learning, respectively. In addition, the Two-stage Competition Model attempts to explain the syntactic priming in syntactic choices ratio as well as production latencies. Experimental works have demonstrated that syntactic priming stably exists even after excluding the semantic and lexical relevance between the prime sentence and the target sentence, which suggests that syntactic priming actually reflects syntactic processing in sentence production.
In the present study, we explored the cognitive mechanism of syntactic processing in Mandarin spoken sentence production using a syntactic priming paradigm. In this paradigm, participants were firstly instructed to read the prime sentence aloud and then judge whether the sentence’s description matched the prime picture. Then, participants were instructed to describe the target picture using the verb at the bottom. The dependent variables included not only the syntactic choices ratio but also the sentence production latencies. In experiment 1, we manipulated syntax structure of the prime sentence (double object dative vs. prepositional object dative) and verb overlap between the prime sentence and the target sentence (no verb overlap vs. verb overlap). In experiment 2, we added a within-subjects factor of lag by manipulating whether the target picture was presented immediately after the prime sentence, or after two or six intervening descriptions (Lag 0 vs. Lag 2 vs. Lag 6).
For the syntactic choices ratio, results indicated that participants produced significantly more double-object sentences following double-object primes than following prepositional-object primes, and the syntactic priming was much stronger in the verb overlapping condition than in the verb non-overlapping condition. Furthermore, we found that the syntactic priming effect persisted when the prime sentence and the target sentence did not share the verb, whereas the lexical boost effect (i.e. a stronger syntactic priming effect caused by the verb overlap between the prime sentence and the target sentence) disappeared after six intervening descriptions. For the sentence production latencies, results indicated that the repetition of syntactic structures significantly speeded up target sentence production. Besides, we found that verb overlap slowed down the sentence production as the lag between primes and targets increased (also known as the lexical suppression effect) only when the syntactic structure was repeated.
Unifying the different findings in the syntactic choices ratio and the production latencies, we suggest that, apart from the stage where a sentence is planned specifically, sentence production comprises a syntactic construction stage in which speakers map the thematic roles to one structural alternative. These findings are consistent with the Two-stage Competition Model. In methodology, we also suggest that syntactic choices ratio is sensitive to sentence generation process.

Keywords sentence production      Two-stage Competition Model      syntactic priming effect      lexical boost effect     
ZTFLH:  B842  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: ZHANG Qingfang     E-mail: qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn
Issue Date: 18 January 2020
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YU Zhou
ZHANG Qingfang
Cite this article:   
YU Zhou,ZHANG Qingfang. Syntactic structure and verb overlap influence the syntactic priming effect in Mandarin spoken sentence production[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 283-293.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00283     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I3/283
  
  
  
自变量 β SE Wald Z p
截距 -9.20 1.27 -7.25 <0.001
动词是否相同 2.66 0.49 5.38 <0.001
启动类型 5.93 0.86 6.91 <0.001
动词是否相同×启动类型 -2.02 0.29 -6.88 <0.001
  
启动条件 延时0 延时2 延时6
动词同 动词异 动词同 动词异 动词同 动词异
DO 0.72 0.38 0.50 0.42 0.39 0.39
PO 0.25 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.37
  
自变量 β SE Wald Z p
截距 -4.79 0.67 -7.13 <0.001
动词是否相同 1.45 0.33 4.34 <0.001
启动类型 3.25 0.34 9.54 <0.001
延时 0.85 0.19 4.56 <0.001
动词是否相同×延时 -0.36 0.11 -3.18 0.001
延时×启动类型 -0.64 0.11 -5.75 <0.001
启动类型×动词是否相同 -1.18 0.15 -7.72 <0.001
动词是否相同×延时×
启动类型
0.26 0.06 4.03 <0.001
  
  
自变量 β SE df t p
截距 1592.71 239.89 461.20 6.64 <0.001
句法重复 251.57 146.69 424.20 1.72 0.09
延时 167.77 63.52 424.20 2.64 0.009
动词是否相同 277.90 146.69 424.20 1.89 0.06
句法重复×延时 -98.51 40.17 424.20 -2.45 0.01
句法重复×动词是否相同 -180.27 92.78 424.20 -1.94 0.05
延时×动词是否相同 -109.35 40.17 424.20 -2.72 0.007
句法重复×延时×动词是否相同 69.72 25.41 424.20 2.74 0.006
  
  
[1] Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., & Tily H. J . (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278.
[2] Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., & Walker S . (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.
[3] Bernolet S., Collina S., & Hartsuiker R. J . (2016). The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 99-116.
[4] Bernolet S., & Hartsuiker R. J . (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455-461.
[5] Bock K . (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355-387.
[6] Bock K . (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163-186.
[7] Bock K., & Levelt W. J. M . (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In: Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 945-984.
[8] Bock K., & Loebell H . (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1-39.
[9] Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., & Cleland A. A . (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 635-640.
[10] Cai Z. G., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 833-849.
[11] Cai Z. G., Pickering M. J., Yan H., & Branigan H. P . (2011). Lexical and syntactic representations in closely related languages: Evidence from Cantonese-Mandarin bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 431-445.
[12] Chang F., Dell G. S., & Bock K . (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234-272.
[13] Chang F., Dell G. S., Bock K., & Griffin Z. M . (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 217-230.
[14] Ferreira V. S., & Bock K . (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognition Neuroscience, 21(7-8), 1011-1029.
[15] Hardy S. M., Messenger K., & Maylor E. A . (2017). Aging and syntactic representations: Evidence of preserved syntactic priming and lexical boost. Psychology and Aging, 32(6), 588-596.
[16] Hartsuiker R. J., Bernolet S., Schoonbaert S., Speybroeck S., & Vanderelst D . (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 214-238.
[17] Huang J., Pickering M. J., Yang J., Wang S., & Branigan H. P . (2016). The independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 81-98.
[18] Jaeger T. F . (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446.
[19] Kutas M., & Federmeier K. D . (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.
[20] Levelt W. J. M., & Kelter S . (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 78-106.
[21] Levelt W. J. M., Roelofs A., & Meyer A. S . (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-75.
[22] Mahowald K., James A., Futrell R., & Gibson E . (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5-27.
[23] Melinger A., & Dobel C . (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98(1), B11-B20.
[24] Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633-651.
[25] Segaert K., Menenti L., Weber K., & Hagoort P . (2011). A paradox of syntactic priming: Why response tendencies show priming for passives, and response latencies show priming for actives. PloS One, 6(10), e24209.
[26] Segaert K., Weber K., Cladder-Micus M., & Hagoort P . (2014). The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1448-1460.
[27] Segaert K., Wheeldon L., & Hagoort P . (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59-80.
[28] Shao J . (2004). Semantic Grammar: A brief introduction. Journal of Jinan University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 26(1), 100-106.
[28] [ 邵敬敏 . (2004). “语义语法”说略. 暨南学报(哲学社会科学版), 26(1), 100-106.]
[29] Xiao R., Mcenery T., & Qian Y . (2006). Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109-149.
[30] Yang C. L., Perfetti C. A., & Liu Y . (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85-100.
[31] Yang J., & Zhang Y . (2007). Syntactic priming in sentence production. Advances in Psychological Science, 15(2), 288-294.
[31] [ 杨洁, 张亚旭 . (2007). 句子产生中的句法启动. 心理科学进展, 15(2), 288-294.]
[32] Yang Q., & Zhang Q . (2015). Aging of speech production: Behavioral and neural mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(12), 2072-2084.
[32] [ 杨群, 张清芳 . (2015). 口语产生中的认知年老化及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 23(12), 2072-2084.]
[1] ZHAO Liming;YANG Yufang. Grammatical Planning Scope in Sentence Production: Evidence from Chinese Sentences[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(6): 599-613.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech