The interaction of veracity and syntax in the processing of sentences1

Abstract

The reaction times of 80 Ss in judging sentences true or false with respect to pictures were analyzed, and it was noted (a) that true sentences containing an expected surface structure required less time than false sentences of the same structure, (b) that latencies to true sentences containing an unexpected surface structure were longer than latencies to the same sentences when their structure was identical to that of previous sentences, and (c) that transitive-verb constructions appeared easier to judge than predicate nominatives of the same length. McMahon (1963) and Wason (1959) found that it takes a subject less time to indicate that a true sentence is true than to indicate that a false sentence is false. Mehler and Carey (1967) demonstrated that for sentences in noise an unexpected change in the surface structure of a sentence causes great difficulties in perceiving that sentence. The present experiment employed lists of sentences similar to those of Mehler and Carey (1967) and required Ssto determine whether each sentence was true or false with respect to a picture. The experiment provides information on the question of whether the time to process the veracity of sentences interacts with the time needed to process the surface structure of sentences. Although McMahon found that latencies to indicate correctly whether a sentence is true or false increase with certain grammatical transformations (e.g., passivization, negation), these findings do not determine whether there is an interaction between the computation of truth and the processing of syntax. Such an interaction is part of the general problem of the relation of syntax and semantics in the understanding of sentences.

Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension.

“…Thus, there is a far greater possibility for strategic factors to influence the response in production than in comprehension. Similar concerns complicate the interpretation of comprehension priming studies using blocked designs (Carey, Mehler, & Bever, 1970;Mehler & Carey, 1967, 1968Noppeney & Price, 2004;cf. Dooling, 1974).…”

Structural priming: A critical review.

“…They are recurring mistakes) facilitated processing of sentences with the same form. Subsequent studies showed comparable effects on sentencepicture matching (Mehler & Carey, 1968) and interpreting ambiguous sentences (Carey, Mehler, & Bever, 1970). However, these results depended on a great deal of repetition, were based on one or two items, and may have been due to prosodic repetition (Dooling, 1974).…”

Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension.

“…However, there is surprisingly little evidence for effects of syntactic repetition on comprehension. Some early work suggested that auditory presentation of many sentences of a particular syntactic form facilitated processing of sentences with the same form (Mehler & Carey, 1967) and judging sentences as true or false with respect to pictures (Mehler & Carey, 1968), or affected the interpretation of ambiguous sentences (Carey, Mehler, & Bever, 1970). However, these results depended on a great deal of repetition, were based on one or two items, and may have been due to prosodic repetition (Dooling, 1974).…”