This experiment was designed to determine whether prepositional phrases are treated as a single undifferentiated type, or whether the parser may recognize different subtypes. In the experiment, participants read temporarily ambiguous prime and target sentences that had either agent or instrument prepositional phrases in the syntactically disambiguating position. Agent and instrument primes both led to significant priming effects for agent targets. Agent primes led to a nonsignificant priming effect for instrument targets, and this priming effect was smaller than the effect that instrument primes had on instrument targets. This pattern can be explained if verb argument structure information is used in structural decisions, and if agent but not instrument roles are obligatory for the class of verbs tested here. The data suggest that readers are likely to activate an implicit agent when they read prime sentences that explicitly mention an instrument, but are not likely to activate an instrument when they read prime sentences that explicitly mention an agent. If the structural representations that incorporate activated arguments persist, or are reactivated more quickly following an appropriate prime sentence, this could lead to facilitated processing of sentences that have the same structural configuration.
Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.
Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Morphological composition in the lexical output system. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 335–367.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (a travel update). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 285–375). London: Elsevier.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.
Bock, [J.] K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.
Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2006). Argument status and PP-attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 385–403.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13-B25.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 468–481.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.
Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 251–271.
Clifton, C., Jr., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 317–334.
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.
Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., & Morris, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 791–801.
Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. (1982). A competence based theory of syntactic closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 727–796). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.
Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157–176.
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 58–93.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish—English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.
Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., & Taylor, D. E. (1982). Automatic phonological priming in visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 10, 576–590.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98–110.
Kennison, S. M. (2002). Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 65–81.
Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89, 67–103.
Kutas, M., van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). London: Elsevier.
Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143.
Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 461–475.
Luka, B. J., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 436–459.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 357–382.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (2003). Meaning through syntax: Language comprehension and the reduced relative clause construction. Psychological Review, 110, 490–525.
Merlo, P., & Stevenson, S. (2000). Lexical syntax and parsing architecture. In M. W. Crocker, M. J. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 161–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601–618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 785–806.
Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2004, March). Grammatical repetition and garden path effects. Paper presented to the 6th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, College Park, MD.
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stevenson, S., & Merlo, P. (1997). Lexical structure and parsing complexity. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 349–399.
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of contentbased expectations. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 597–632.
Tooley, K. M., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Traxler, M. J. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children’s processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 75–96.
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization preference in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 1–30.
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2005, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented to the 17th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59–74.
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (in press). Priming in on-line sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic? Language & Cognitive Processes.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 528–553.
Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.
This project was supported by awards from the National Science Foundation Linguistics Program (0446618) and by the National Institutes of Health, Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD Grant 1R01HD048914-01A2).
About this article
Cite this article
Traxler, M.J. Structural priming among prepositional phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition 36, 659–674 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.659
- Agent Target
- Argument Structure
- Target Sentence
- Target Pair
- Prepositional Phrase