scholarly journals Structural Priming and Frequency Effects Interact in Chinese Sentence Comprehension

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Wei ◽  
Yanping Dong ◽  
Julie E. Boland ◽  
Fang Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Frequency Effects

scholarly journals Lexicalized structural priming in second language online sentence comprehension

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Wei ◽  
Julie E. Boland ◽  
Jonathan Brennan ◽  
Fang Yuan ◽  
Min Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
First Language ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Chinese Adult ◽  
Education Levels ◽  
L1 And L2

Prior work has shown intriguing differences between first language (L1) and second language (L2) comprehension priming of relative clauses. We investigated English reduced relative clause priming in Chinese adult learners of English. Participants of different education levels read sentences in a self-paced, moving window paradigm. Critical sentences had a temporarily ambiguous reduced relative clause. Across lists, critical sentences were rotated, so that they occurred either as prime or as target, and had either the same or different verb as the critical sentence with which they were paired. Prime/target pairs were separated by several filler sentences, which never contained a relative clause. Mean reading times for the disambiguating region in the target sentences were faster than in the prime sentences, but only in the same-verb condition, not in the different-verb condition. This pattern of results is consistent with L1 comprehension priming research, suggesting that similar lexically specific mechanisms are involved in L1 and L2 comprehension priming of reduced relative clauses. These findings are in line with lexicalist accounts of sentence comprehension (e.g. MacDonald et al., 1994), according to which syntactic information is bound to specific words. In addition, these findings argue against theories that postulate fundamental differences in processing of L1 and L2 (e.g. Clahsen and Felser, 2006a, 2006b).

scholarly journals Priming sentence comprehension in aphasia: effects of lexically independent and specific structural priming

Aphasiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 780-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiyeon Lee ◽  
Emily Hosokawa ◽  
Sarah Meehan ◽  
Nadine Martin ◽  
Holly P. Branigan
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Structural Priming

scholarly journals Structural priming in sentence comprehension: A single prime is enough

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. e0194959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Giavazzi ◽  
Sara Sambin ◽  
Ruth de Diego-Balaguer ◽  
Lorna Le Stanc ◽  
Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Structural Priming

Persistent structural priming and frequency effects during comprehension.

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 890-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. Pickering ◽  
Janet F. McLean ◽  
Holly P. Branigan
Keyword(s):  
Structural Priming ◽  
Frequency Effects

scholarly journals The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Sarah Bernolet ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Artificial Language Learning ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Biased Language ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL, frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.

Structural priming during sentence comprehension in Chinese–English bilinguals

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
YUFEN HSIEH
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Translation Equivalent ◽  
Reading Experiment ◽  
Reading Chinese ◽  
Processing Difficulty

ABSTRACTCross-linguistic priming in comprehension is understudied, and it remains unclear whether bilinguals have shared abstract syntactic representations during sentence comprehension. This article reports a self-paced reading experiment investigating the influence of Chinese passive relative clauses on the interpretation of English sentences that are temporarily ambiguous between an active main clause and a passive reduced relative (dispreferred) structure. The results showed that reading Chinese passive relative primes reduced processing difficulty in English targets at the dispreferred disambiguation. Chinese-to-English priming in comprehension occurred without lexical and word-order equivalence between primes and targets. In addition, translation-equivalent verbs did not boost cross-linguistic structural priming. The findings support an account under which bilingual sentence processing involves abstract, unordered syntactic representations that are integrated between languages.

scholarly journals The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Bernolet Sarah ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Artificial Language Learning ◽  
Prepositional Object ◽  
Biased Language ◽  
L1 And L2

We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.

Real Ear Sound Pressure Levels Developed by Three Portable Stereo System Earphones

1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail L. MacLean ◽  
Andrew Stuart ◽  
Robert Stenstrom
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Test System ◽  
Output Frequency ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Adult Men ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sound Pressure Levels

Differences in real ear sound pressure levels (SPLs) with three portable stereo system (PSS) earphones (supraaural [Sony Model MDR-44], semiaural [Sony Model MDR-A15L], and insert [Sony Model MDR-E225]) were investigated. Twelve adult men served as subjects. Frequency response, high frequency average (HFA) output, peak output, peak output frequency, and overall RMS output for each PSS earphone were obtained with a probe tube microphone system (Fonix 6500 Hearing Aid Test System). Results indicated a significant difference in mean RMS outputs with nonsignificant differences in mean HFA outputs, peak outputs, and peak output frequencies among PSS earphones. Differences in mean overall RMS outputs were attributed to differences in low-frequency effects that were observed among the frequency responses of the three PSS earphones. It is suggested that one cannot assume equivalent real ear SPLs, with equivalent inputs, among different styles of PSS earphones.

When Hearing Does Not Mean Understanding: On the Neural Processing of Syntactically Complex Sentences by Listeners With Hearing Loss

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Margreet Vogelzang ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Stephanie Rosemann ◽  
Jochem W. Rieger ◽  
Esther Ruigendijk
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Secondary Task ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Cognitive Demands ◽  
Sentence Complexity ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
And Task

Purpose Adults with mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss typically exhibit issues with speech understanding, but their processing of syntactically complex sentences is not well understood. We test the hypothesis that listeners with hearing loss' difficulties with comprehension and processing of syntactically complex sentences are due to the processing of degraded input interfering with the successful processing of complex sentences. Method We performed a neuroimaging study with a sentence comprehension task, varying sentence complexity (through subject–object order and verb–arguments order) and cognitive demands (presence or absence of a secondary task) within subjects. Groups of older subjects with hearing loss ( n = 20) and age-matched normal-hearing controls ( n = 20) were tested. Results The comprehension data show effects of syntactic complexity and hearing ability, with normal-hearing controls outperforming listeners with hearing loss, seemingly more so on syntactically complex sentences. The secondary task did not influence off-line comprehension. The imaging data show effects of group, sentence complexity, and task, with listeners with hearing loss showing decreased activation in typical speech processing areas, such as the inferior frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. No interactions between group, sentence complexity, and task were found in the neuroimaging data. Conclusions The results suggest that listeners with hearing loss process speech differently from their normal-hearing peers, possibly due to the increased demands of processing degraded auditory input. Increased cognitive demands by means of a secondary visual shape processing task influence neural sentence processing, but no evidence was found that it does so in a different way for listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners.

Experience Matters

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro S. Mendes ◽  
Karlos Luna ◽  
Pedro B. Albuquerque
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Direct Experience ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Actual Frequency ◽  
Actual Word ◽  
High Frequency Words

Abstract. The present study tested if word frequency effects on judgments of learning (JOLs) are exclusively due to beliefs or if the direct experience with the items also plays a role. Across four experiments, participants read prompts about the frequency of the words (high/low), which could be congruent/incongruent with the words’ actual frequency. They made pre-study JOLs (except Experiment 1b), immediate JOLs, and completed a recall test. If experience drives the effect, JOLs should be based on actual word frequency rather than the prompts. Results showed higher pre-study JOLs for prompts of high frequency, but higher immediate JOLs for high-frequency words regardless of the prompt, suggesting an effect of direct experience with the words. In Experiments 2 and 3, we manipulated participants’ beliefs, finding a small effect of beliefs on JOLs. We conclude that, regarding word frequency, direct experience with the items seems more relevant than beliefs when making immediate JOLs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document