Different mechanisms for head and non-head words in the lexical boost effect on syntactic priming

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354

Abstract

Key words: syntactic priming, lexical boost, head word, non-head word, Mandarin

Cite this article

HUANG Jian, YANG Ziyu, HONG Danping, LIU Xiqin, WANG Suiping. (2022). Different mechanisms for head and non-head words in the lexical boost effect on syntactic priming. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(11), 1354-1365.

share this article

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354

https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2022/V54/I11/1354

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 1

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	270	272	262	316	414
PO	380	359	394	344	267
Other	155	174	149	145	124
DO %	0.42	0.43	0.40	0.48	0.61

Table 1 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 1

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	270	272	262	316	414
PO	380	359	394	344	267
Other	155	174	149	145	124
DO %	0.42	0.43	0.40	0.48	0.61

Table 2 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 1

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.2	0.16	1.28	0.2	0.25
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	−0.05	0.15	−0.35	0.73	0.73
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.54	0.15	3.44	0.001	0.002
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	1.57	0.16	9.83	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	1.03	0.16	6.62	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 2 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 1

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.2	0.16	1.28	0.2	0.25
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	−0.05	0.15	−0.35	0.73	0.73
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.54	0.15	3.44	0.001	0.002
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	1.57	0.16	9.83	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	1.03	0.16	6.62	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 3 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 2

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	105	95	97	83	51
PO	556	549	554	589	666
Other	144	161	154	133	88
DO %	0.84	0.85	0.85	0.88	0.93

Table 3 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 2

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	105	95	97	83	51
PO	556	549	554	589	666
Other	144	161	154	133	88
DO %	0.84	0.85	0.85	0.88	0.93

Table 4 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 2

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.23	0.19	1.17	0.24	0.24
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.26	0.19	1.36	0.16	0.20
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.50	0.20	2.53	0.01	0.02
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	1.39	0.22	6.30	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	0.88	0.22	3.97	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 4 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 2

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.23	0.19	1.17	0.24	0.24
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.26	0.19	1.36	0.16	0.20
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.50	0.20	2.53	0.01	0.02
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	1.39	0.22	6.30	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	0.88	0.22	3.97	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 5 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 3

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	264	279	256	282	468
PO	432	364	389	387	269
Other	113	162	160	136	64
DO %	0.38	0.43	0.40	0.42	0.64

Table 5 Frequency of target responses by condition in Experiment 3

Response	No Repetition	Agent Repetition	Recipient Repetition	Theme Repetition	Verb Repetition
DO	264	279	256	282	468
PO	432	364	389	387	269
Other	113	162	160	136	64
DO %	0.38	0.43	0.40	0.42	0.64

Table 6 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 3

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.39	0.16	2.45	0.01	0.015
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.08	0.15	0.51	0.61	0.61
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.33	0.16	2.14	0.03	0.036
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	2.01	0.16	12.44	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Agent Repetition	1.62	0.15	10.07	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	1.67	0.16	10.50	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 6 Results of the pair-wise comparisons in Experiment 3

Comparisons	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
Agent Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.39	0.16	2.45	0.01	0.015
Recipient Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.08	0.15	0.51	0.61	0.61
Theme Repetition vs. No Repetition	0.33	0.16	2.14	0.03	0.036
Verb Repetition vs. No Repetition	2.01	0.16	12.44	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Agent Repetition	1.62	0.15	10.07	< 0.001	< 0.001
Verb Repetition vs. Theme Repetition	1.67	0.16	10.50	< 0.001	< 0.001

References

Related Articles 9

[1]	YANG Wanqing, XIAO Rong, LIANG Dandan. Lexical tone perception mechanism in 2- to 4-year-old Mandarin-speaking children in the pre-attention stage [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(6): 730-741.
[2]	Zhou YU,Qingfang ZHANG. Syntactic structure and verb overlap influence the syntactic priming effect in Mandarin spoken sentence production [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 283-293.
[3]	XIAO Rong,LIANG Dandan,LI Shanpeng. Effects of aging on the Mandarin lexical tone perception: Evidence from ERPs [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(1): 1-11.
[4]	XIE Shushu, ZHANG Jijia, ZHU Jun. Categorical perception of color is significant both in the right visual field and the left: Evidence from Naxi speakers and Mandarin speakers [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(11): 1229-1243.
[5]	REN Gui-Qin,HAN Yu-Chang,ZHOU Yong-Lei,REN Yan-Tao. Early Cortical Processing of Mandarin Intonation [J]. , 2011, 43(03): 241-248.
[6]	FENG Shi-Wen,SHEN Xing-An,Yang Yi-Ming. An fMRI Study of Chinese Causative Sentences: the Syntactic Independence of Chinese [J]. , 2011, 43(02): 123-131.
[7]	CHEN Xu–Hai,HUANG Xi-Ting. The Encoding of Constituent Morphemes in the Oral Production of Chinese Disyllable Compound Words [J]. , 2010, 42(03): 377-386.
[8]	CUI Zhan-ling,ZHANG Ji-jia. Linguistic Association Model for Tibetan-Mandarin-English Trilingual [J]. , 2009, 41(03): 208-219.
[9]	Zhang Jijia,Cui Zhanling. Language Switching and Switching Cost in Tibetan-Mandarin-English ’ Visual Word Recognition [J]. , 2008, 40(02): 136-147.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Comments

Abstract
Figures/Tables
References
Related Articles
Recommended Articles
Metrics
Comments

TOP