Evidence for Implicit Learning in Syntactic Comprehension

Fine, Alex B.; Jaeger, T. Florian

doi:10.1111/cogs.12022

Cited by 153 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it appears that the inverse frequency effect that is taken as evidence for implicit learning accounts of structural priming should be evaluated based on an assessment of individual-level structural preferences. Jaeger and Snider (2013;Fine & Jaeger, 2013) present an extensive discussion of implicit learning-based accounts of structural priming, and argue that the predictions of these accounts should rest on nuanced, contextual information about individual language users, rather than population-level estimates of an individual's linguistic experience. Our data add weight to this claim.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Jaeger and Snider (2013;Fine & Jaeger, 2013) point out, average production frequencies (such as corpus estimates of DO and PO frequency, or the base rates that we derive from the Pre-bias phases of our experiments) may not appropriately capture the linguistic experience and expectations of individual speakers. They further note that implicit learning accounts of structural priming suggest that nuanced information about the prior experience of individual speakers should be more valuable in predicting subsequent production performance (such as the effects that our Bias phases have on DO and PO production) than population-or sample-wide estimates of an individual's production experience.…”

Section: Analysis Based On Individual Base Rates Of Do Productionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implicit and Explicit Memory Factors in Cumulative Structural Priming

Kutta

Kaschak

Porcellini

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although researchers have argued that short-term structural priming is driven by both implicit and explicit memory processes, accounts of longer-term structural priming tend to focus on implicit memory processes. We explore this claim in five experiments. In the first two experiments, we replicate the finding that stronger cumulative structural priming is observed for the prepositional object (PO) construction than for the double object (DO) construction. The next three experiments explore the possibility that explicit memory effects may contribute to cumulative priming. The results of these experiments suggest that any explicit memory effects on cumulative priming are likely to be very weak. We conclude by conducting an analysis across all 5 experiments, and find that an examination of individual participants' base rates of DO production helps to explain the circumstances under which cumulative priming for the DO and PO will be observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Based On Individual Base Rates Of Do Productionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Implicit and Explicit Memory Factors in Cumulative Structural Priming

Kutta

Kaschak

Porcellini

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests that the experimental context in which a task is performed can also influence cue-weighting. Recently, Jaeger and colleagues (Fine & Jaeger, 2013) have shown that over the course of a single experiment listeners can adapt to the frequency of certain syntactic structures in the linguistic environment, resulting in changes in syntactic processing. Additionally, in studies of lexical recognition, participants' speed and accuracy are affected by the type and number of real or nonwords in the experimental context; these findings have been accounted for in models of speech perception which incorporate attentional modulation (e.g., Mirman, McClelland, Holt, & Magnuson, 2008;Pitt & Szostak, 2012).…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions between distal speech rate, linguistic knowledge, and speech environment

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During lexical access, listeners use both signalbased and knowledge-based cues, and information from the linguistic context can affect the perception of acoustic speech information. Recent findings suggest that the various cues used in lexical access are implemented with flexibility and may be affected by information from the larger speech context. We conducted 2 experiments to examine effects of a signal-based cue (distal speech rate) and a knowledge-based cue (linguistic structure) on lexical perception. In Experiment 1, we manipulated distal speech rate in utterances where an acoustically ambiguous critical word was either obligatory for the utterance to be syntactically well formed (e.g., Conner knew that bread and butter (are) both in the pantry) or optional (e.g., Don must see the harbor (or) boats). In Experiment 2, we examined identical target utterances as in Experiment 1 but changed the distribution of linguistic structures in the fillers. The results of the 2 experiments demonstrate that speech rate and linguistic knowledge about critical word obligatoriness can both influence speech perception. In addition, it is possible to alter the strength of a signal-based cue by changing information in the speech environment. These results provide support for models of word segmentation that include flexible weighting of signal-based and knowledge-based cues.

show abstract

“…For example, Jaeger and Snider (2013) found stronger priming when DOD-biased prime verbs were presented in PD prime structures, and Bernolet and Hartsuiker (2010) reported stronger priming when primes with PD-biased verbs were presented in DOD-structures in Dutch. Fine and Jaeger (2013) reanalysed Thothathiri and Snedeker's (2008b) comprehension study and found that prime structures that were more surprising led to stronger expectations that that same structure would also be used in the target sentence. Jaeger and Snider referred to this as prime surprisal since participants were more likely to be primed when the co-occurrence of the prime verb and prime structure was unexpected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task

Peter

Chang

Pine

et al. 2015

Journal of Memory and Language

120

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn this study, we investigated when children develop adult-like verb-structure links, and examined two mechanisms, associative and error-based learning, that might explain how these verb-structure links are learned. Using structural priming, we tested children's and adults' ability to use verb-structure links in production in three ways; by manipulating: (1) verb overlap between prime and target, (2) target verb bias, and (3) prime verb bias. Children (aged 3-4 and 5-6 years old) and adults heard and produced double object dative (DOD) and prepositional object dative (PD) primes with DOD-and PD-biased verbs. Although all age groups showed significant evidence of structural priming, only adults showed increased priming when there was verb overlap between prime and target sentences (the lexical boost). The effect of target verb bias also grew with development. Critically, however, the effect of prime verb bias on the size of the priming effect (prime surprisal) was larger in children than in adults, suggesting that verb-structure links are present at the earliest age tested. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that children begin to acquire knowledge about verb-argument structure preferences early in acquisition, but that the ability to use adult-like verb bias in production gradually improves over development. We also argue that this pattern of results is best explained by a learning model that uses an error-based learning mechanism.

show abstract

Evidence for Implicit Learning in Syntactic Comprehension

Cited by 153 publications

References 66 publications

Implicit and Explicit Memory Factors in Cumulative Structural Priming

Implicit and Explicit Memory Factors in Cumulative Structural Priming

Interactions between distal speech rate, linguistic knowledge, and speech environment

When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About