Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 217–230 | Cite as

Structural Priming as Implicit Learning: A Comparison of Models of Sentence Production

  • Franklin Chang
  • Gary S. Dell
  • Kathryn Bock
  • Zenzi M. Griffin
Article

Abstract

Structural priming reflects a tendency to generalize recently spoken or heard syntactic structures to different utterances. We propose that it is a form of implicit learning. To explore this hypothesis, we developed and tested a connectionist model of language production that incorporated mechanisms previously used to simulate implicit learning. In the model, the mechanism that learned to produce structured sequences of phrases from messages also exhibited structural priming. The ability of the model to account for structural priming depended on representational assumptions about the nature of messages and the relationship between comprehension and production. Modeling experiments showed that comprehension-based representations were important for the model's generalizations in production and that nonatomic message representations allowed a better fit to existing data on structural priming than traditional thematic-role representations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387Google Scholar
  2. Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186Google Scholar
  3. Bock, J. K. (in preparation). Priming production from comprehension: Evidence for a performance grammar.Google Scholar
  4. Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (in press). The persistence of structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Google Scholar
  5. Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.Google Scholar
  7. Boyland, J. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (1999, March). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (in press). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, F., Bock, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (in progress). Mapping structural priming.Google Scholar
  11. Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235–253.Google Scholar
  12. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 3, 547–619.Google Scholar
  13. Elman, J. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.Google Scholar
  14. Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99.Google Scholar
  15. Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.Google Scholar
  16. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, J. K. (in press). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  18. Gropen, J., Pinker S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 2, 203–257.Google Scholar
  19. Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Huiskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 129–147.Google Scholar
  20. Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (1999) Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society. Syntactic Priming: Purely Syntactic?Google Scholar
  21. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Levelt, W. J. M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78–106.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (1996). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  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, 633–651.Google Scholar
  25. Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 265–282.Google Scholar
  26. Saffran, E. M., & Martin, N. (1997). Effects of structural priming on sentence production in aphasics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 877–882.Google Scholar
  27. Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163–196.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franklin Chang
    • 1
  • Gary S. Dell
    • 2
  • Kathryn Bock
    • 2
  • Zenzi M. Griffin
    • 3
  1. 1.Beckman InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana
  2. 2.Beckman InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana
  3. 3.Standford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations