Self‐Priming in Production: Evidence for a Hybrid Model of Syntactic Priming

Abstract

Syntactic priming in language production is the increased likelihood of using a recently encountered syntactic structure. In this paper, we examine two theories of why speakers can be primed: error‐driven learning accounts (Bock, Dell, Chang, & Onishi, 2007; Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006) and activation‐based accounts (Pickering & Branigan, 1999; Reitter, Keller, & Moore, 2011). Both theories predict that speakers should be primed by the syntactic choices of others, but only activation‐based accounts predict that speakers should be able to prime themselves. Here we test whether speakers can be primed by their own productions in three behavioral experiments and find evidence of structural persistence following both comprehension and speakers’ own productions. We also find that comprehension‐based priming effects are larger for rarer syntactic structures than for more common ones, which is most consistent with error‐driven accounts. Because neither error‐driven accounts nor activation‐based accounts fully explain the data, we propose a hybrid model.

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch

“…Experience with the active production of this structure (in contrast to passive repetition) will then increase the probability of reusing this structure in future sentences as well, through mechanisms of cumulative priming (see Jaeger & Snider, 2013;Kaschak, 2007) and this will probe the development of more abstract syntactic representations. Such explanation is in line with activation-based accounts of structural priming (e.g., Hartsuiker & Bernolet, 2017;Hartsuiker et al, 2004;Pickering & Branigan, 1998;Reitter, Keller, & Moore, 2011), but contrasts with the error-based learning account (Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006), that does not predict priming based on the speaker's own productions (see also Jacobs, Cho, & Watson, 2019).…”

On the limits of shared syntactic representations: When word order variation blocks priming between an artificial language and Dutch.

“…Experience with the active production of this structure (in contrast to passive repetition) will then increase the probability of reusing this structure in future sentences as well, through mechanisms of cumulative priming (see Jaeger & Snider, 2013; Kaschak, 2007) and this will enhance the development of more abstract syntactic representations. Such explanation is in line with activation-based accounts of structural priming (e.g.,Hartsuiker & Bernolet, 2017; Hartsuiker et al, 2004; Pickering & Branigan, 1998; Reitter et al, 2011), but contrasts with the error-based learning account (Chang et al, 2006), that does not predict priming based on the speaker’s own productions (see also Jacobs et al, 2019).…”

Changing expectations mediate adaptation in L2 production

“…One explanation for this trend would be self-priming (cf. Jacobs, Cho & Watson, 2018; Jaeger & Snider, 2007: Studies 3 and 4): since path verbs are more frequent in Spanish, participants might be slightly more likely to select path verbs at the onset of the experiment, and then tend to stick with this choice throughout the experiment 6 Fig.…”