| |
Abstract:
To examine the relationship between syntactic
processes in language comprehension and language production, the
strength and persistence of structural priming were compared in
parallel within- and cross-modality priming tasks. Bock and
Griffin (2000) showed that the production of passive and dative
priming sentences increased the probability of spontaneously
using passives and datives to describe events in subsequent
pictures that were semantically unrelated to the primes.
These priming effects persisted across as many as ten intervening
filler trials.
In the present research, Bock and Griffin's
studies were replicated with the same materials and designs, but
with one critical change in procedure. Rather than
producing the priming sentences, participants only listened to
them. In two experiments, the probabilities of producing the
primed structures were examined after four intervals, either
immediately after prime exposure or after one, two, four, or ten
intervening fillers. The results indicated persistence of
priming across all lags. The relative magnitudes of priming
were the same as those observed by Bock and Griffin, suggesting
that structural priming may be indifferent to the modality in
which exposure occurs.
A third experiment examined whether priming from
comprehension to production depends on explicit efforts to
remember priming sentences. In the picture-description
paradigms used to investigate structural priming over lags,
priming sentences served as potential memory targets in a cover
recognition task. In such circumstances, attempts to
maintain a prime in memory could enhance priming and its
durability. To reduce the likelihood of memory maintenance,
priming sentences and target pictures were presented as negative
foils, eliminating the possibility that the materials might later
appear as memory targets. Accordingly, participants were
merely exposed to the primes. The magnitude of priming was
examined at three lags, after 0, 1, or 2 intervening
fillers. Significant priming was observed at all lags, and
the magnitude of priming with mere exposure was larger than
priming with the cover memory task.
These findings add to mounting evidence that
structural priming operates from comprehension to production
(Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000; Potter & Lombardi,
1998; Weiner & Labov, 1983). The results go beyond
existing evidence to suggest, unexpectedly, that priming is
fairly indifferent to the modality in which a priming structure
is experienced. This underscores the effectiveness of
priming as an implicit learning mechanism, and raises new
questions about the architecture of the language faculty and the
embodiment of language performance within it.
References
Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000).
The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or
implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 129, 177-192.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A.
(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue.
Cognition, 75, B13-B25.
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998).
Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal
of Memory and Language, 38(3), 265-282.
Weiner, E. J., & Labov, W. (1983).
Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of
Linguistics, 19, 29-58.
|
