中心词和非中心词在句法启动的词汇增强效应中存在不同的机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

句法启动中, 非中心词和中心词重复是否诱发出相似强度的词汇增强效应, 目前存在着较大的理论争议。本研究在汉语双宾结构和介宾结构上分别操纵中心词和非中心词重复, 并在确保具有合适统计检验力基础上, 完成了3个句法启动实验。实验结果清楚地显示中心词重复诱发了稳定的词汇增强效应, 非中心词中的直接宾语重复也诱发了稳定但相对较弱的词汇增强效应。在此基础上, 我们尝试提出一个解释框架以调和现有的理论争议。

关键词: 句法启动, 词汇增强效应, 中心词, 非中心词, 普通话

Abstract:

Lexical boost means that syntactic priming is enhanced by the lexical repetition between prime and target. It remains controversial whether the repetition of head words and that of non-head words induce similar boost effects. Two important theories in syntactic priming, the residual activation theory and the implicit learning theory, have quite different interpretations and predictions. The former holds that only the head word repetition can induce a lexical boost, while the latter holds that the non-head word repetition can induce a lexical boost of the same magnitude as the head word repetition does. There are conflicting experimental results on whether head and non-head word repetitions have similar lexical boost effects.

We believe that one possible reason for the conflicting results in previous studies is that they lack sufficient power of the statistical test due to relatively small sample sizes. The present study explores the controversial issue by conducting three syntactic priming experiments of Mandarin double object (Experiments 1 and 3) and prepositional object (Experiment 2) structures, with a larger sample (115 participants each experiment) than that in previous research. To identify any possible difference in lexical boost effect, we manipulated the repetition of head constituents (i.e. verbs) and non-head constituents (i.e. argument nouns for agent, recipient, and theme) across prime and target.

In all three experiments, we found that the lexical boost effect induced by the head word repetition was steady. The effect induced by the head word repetition was significantly stronger than that induced by the non-head word repetition. This indicates that the head constituent, rather than non-heads, plays a key role in the lexical boost. In addition, we found that the overlap of the direct object as a non-head induced a steady effect of lexical boost (although the effect is relatively weak). In Experiment 3, the subject repetition also induced a lexical boost effect. To some extent, these results seem to support the implicit learning theory since memory does play a certain role in lexical boost.

The head word repetition and the non-head word repetition may reflect different cognitive mechanisms. We’d like to propose a new framework to interpret the lexical boost, which attempts to include both the residual activation theory and the implicit learning theory.

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

中图分类号:

B842

黄健, 杨子瑜, 洪丹萍, 刘喜琴, 王穗苹. (2022). 中心词和非中心词在句法启动的词汇增强效应中存在不同的机制. 心理学报, 54(11), 1354-1365.

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.

图/表 9

参考文献 46

[1]	Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 54(3), 218-250. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001
[2]	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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 URL
[3]	Bates, D. M., & Mächler, M. (2010). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-36/r1083. http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/lme4/
[4]	Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173-218). Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101 doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x URL
[6]	Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 URL
[7]	Bock, J. K. (1987). Coordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In A. Ellis (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language, vol. 3 (pp. 337-390). London: Erlbaum.
[8]	Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150 URL pmid: 1546115
[9]	Bonanni, R., Pasqualetti, P., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. A. (2007). Primacy and recency effects in immediate free recall of sequences of spatial positions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105(2), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms. 105.2.483-500 URL pmid: 18065070
[10]	Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). Structural priming and the representation of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001212 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001212 URL
[11]	Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositionalphrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31( 3), 468-481. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.468 doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.468
[12]	Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 doi: 10.5334/joc.1 URL
[13]	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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.003. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.003 URL
[14]	Carminati, M. N., van Gompel, R. P. G., Scheepers, C., & Arai, M. (2008). Syntactic priming in comprehension: The role of argument order and animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34( 5), 1098-1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012795
[15]	Carminati, M. N., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Wakeford, L. J. (2019). An investigation into the lexical boost with nonhead nouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104031 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104031 URL
[16]	Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234-272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 URL pmid: 16637761
[17]	Chen, X., Branigan, H., Wang, S., Huang, J., & Pickering, M. (2020). Syntactic representation is independent of semantics in Mandarin: Evidence from syntactic priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35( 2), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1644355
[18]	Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 214-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0749-596X (03)00060-3 doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00060-3 URL
[19]	Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 URL
[20]	Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504 doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12504 URL
[21]	Hofmeister, P., & Vasishth, S. (2014). Distinctiveness and encoding effects in online sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1237. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.01237 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01237 URL pmid: 25566105
[22]	Huang, J., Pickering, M. J., Chen, X., Cai, Z., Wang, S., & Branigan, H. P. (2019). Does language similarity affect representational integration? Cognition, 185, 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.005 doi: S0010-0277(19)30005-8 URL pmid: 30677543
[23]	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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.005 URL
[24]	Ivanova, I., Wardlow, L., Warker, J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2017). The effect of anomalous utterances on language production. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0654-3 doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0654-3 URL
[25]	Kirsner, K., & Craik, F. I. M. (1971). Naming and decision processes in short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(2), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030916 URL pmid: 5577170
[26]	Kush, D., Johns, C. L., & van Dyke, J. A. (2015). Identifying the role of phonology in sentence-level reading. Journal of Memory and language, 79-80, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.11.001 URL pmid: 26893535
[27]	Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18(2), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01863.x URL pmid: 17425534
[28]	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. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 URL
[29]	McLean, J. F., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2004). Lexical repetition and syntactic priming in dialogue. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Processing world situated language: Bridging the language as product and language as action traditions (pp.193-208). MIT Press.
[30]	Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children’s passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 568-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008 URL
[31]	Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482-488. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045106 doi: 10.1037/h0045106 URL
[32]	Murdock, B., Jr., & Walker, K. D. (1969). Modality effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(5), 665-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80120-9 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80120-9 URL
[33]	Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2006). A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(4), 601-626. doi: 10.1037/a0025660 doi: 10.1037/a0025660 URL
[34]	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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 URL
[35]	Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 URL pmid: 18444704
[36]	Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press.
[37]	Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research (with discussion by Andrew Gelman and Donald B. Rubin, and Robert M. Hauser, and a rejoinder). Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-196. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063 doi: 10.2307/271063 URL
[38]	Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Martin, R. C. (2013). Two modality effects in verbal short-term memory: Evidence from sentence recall. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 231-247. pmid: 23894695
[39]	Schacter, D. L., Dobbins, I. G., & Schnyer, D. M. (2004). Specificity of priming: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11), 853-862. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1534 URL pmid: 15496863
[40]	Scheepers, C., Raffray, C. N., & Myachykov, A. (2017). The lexical boost effect is not diagnostic of lexically-specific syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.001 URL
[41]	Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension--an FMRI study. Cerebral cortex, 22(7), 1662-1670. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr249 doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr249 URL
[42]	Sheng, J. X. (2000). Valency and sentence patterns. Studies of the Chinese Language, 4 (277), 291-297.
	[沈家煊. (2000). 句式和配价. 中国语文, 4 (277), 291-297.]
[43]	van Gompel, R. P., & Arai, M. (2018). Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 448-455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000542 doi: 10.1017/S1366728917000542 URL
[44]	Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779-804. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194105 doi: 10.3758/BF03194105 URL
[45]	Xu, M., Fu, Y., Yu, J., Zhu, P., Shen, M., & Chen, H. (2020). Source information is inherently linked to working memory representation for auditory but not for visual stimuli. Cognition, 197, 104160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104160 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104160 URL
[46]	Zhang, B. J. (1999). Ditransitive constructions in modern Chinese. Studies of the Chinese Language, 3(175), 175-184.
	[张伯江. (1999). 现代汉语的双及物结构式. 中国语文, 3(175), 175-184.]

启动条件	材料范例
1a. 主语重复	修女递给画家一个球
1b. 动词重复	牛仔送给画家一个球
1c. 间接宾语重复	牛仔递给士兵一个球
1d. 直接宾语重复	牛仔递给画家一本书
1e. 无重复	牛仔递给画家一个球
2a. 主语重复	修女递了一个球给画家
2b. 动词重复	牛仔送了一个球给画家
2c. 间接宾语重复	牛仔递了一个球给士兵
2d. 直接宾语重复	牛仔递了一本书给画家
2e. 无重复	牛仔递了一个球给画家

启动条件	材料范例
1a. 主语重复	修女递给画家一个球
1b. 动词重复	牛仔送给画家一个球
1c. 间接宾语重复	牛仔递给士兵一个球
1d. 直接宾语重复	牛仔递给画家一本书
1e. 无重复	牛仔递给画家一个球
2a. 主语重复	修女递了一个球给画家
2b. 动词重复	牛仔送了一个球给画家
2c. 间接宾语重复	牛仔递了一个球给士兵
2d. 直接宾语重复	牛仔递了一本书给画家
2e. 无重复	牛仔递了一个球给画家

反应类型	无重复	主语重复	间接宾语重复	直接宾语重复	动词重复
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

反应类型	无重复	主语重复	间接宾语重复	直接宾语重复	动词重复
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

两两比较	Estimated	SE	Z	p	Corrected p
主语重复vs. 无重复	0.2	0.16	1.28	0.2	0.25
间接宾语重复 vs. 无重复	-0.05	0.15	-0.35	0.73	0.73
直接宾语重复 vs. 无重复	0.54	0.15	3.44	0.001	0.002
动词重复 vs. 无重复	1.57	0.16	9.83	< 0.001	< 0.001
动词重复 vs. 直接宾语重复	1.03	0.16	6.62	< 0.001	< 0.001