Search

Several studies found cross‐linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order, for transitive and ditransitive structures. We varied these features in an artificial language learning paradigm, using three different artificial language versions in a between‐subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no overt case marking, SVO word order) and a) an SVO order version, b) a case marking version, and c) an SOV order version. Similar within‐language and cross‐linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitives, indicating that cross‐linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitives we found similar within‐language priming for all versions, but no cross‐linguistic priming. The finding that cross‐linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross‐linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Studies on cross-linguistic syntactic priming suggest that bilinguals can share syntactic representations across languages (e.g., Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004). But how are these representations established in late learners of a second language? Specifically, are representations of syntactic structures in a second language (L2) immediately collapsed with similar structures of the first language (L1), or are they initially represented separately? In order to investigate this, we primed the use of English genitives with Dutch (Experiment 1) and English (Experiment 2) genitives (e.g., het hemd van de jongen/the shirt of the boy vs. de jongen zijn hemd/the boy’s shirt) in late Dutch–English bilinguals with varying levels of proficiency in English (their L2). The head nouns of prime and target constructions either had the same meaning (hemd/shirt – shirt) or a different meaning (duim/thumb – shirt), in order to test whether the use of both genitives was generalized across nouns. Experiment 1 found stronger between-language priming for more than less proficient bilinguals in both conditions, thus suggesting a shift from language-specific to shared syntactic representations. Experiment 2 suggests that these early, language-specific syntactic representations might be item-specific: Less proficient bilinguals showed much weaker priming when the heads of prime and target constructions had different meanings than when they were repeated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Research on word production in bilinguals has often shown an advantage for cognate words. According to some accounts, this cognate effect is caused by feedback from a level that represents information about phonemes (or graphemes) to a level concerned with the word. In order to investigate whether phonological feedback influences the selection of words and syntactic constructions in late bilinguals, we investigated syntactic priming between Dutch and English genitive constructions (e.g., the fork of the girl vs. the girl's fork). The head nouns of prime and target constructions were always translation equivalents. Half of these were Dutch–English cognates with a large phonological overlap (e.g., vork–fork), the other half were non-cognates that had very few phonemes in common (e.g., eend–duck). Cognate status boosted between-language syntactic priming. Further analyses showed a continuous effect of phonological overlap for cognates and non-cognates, indicating that this boost was at least partly caused by feedback from the translation equivalents’ shared phonemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In a corpus analysis of spontaneous speech found that the strength of structural priming is correlated with verb alternation bias. This finding is consistent with an implicit learning account of syntactic priming: because the implicit learning model implemented by , , and uses probabilistic information about different verb–structure combinations to predict the form of sentences, it predicts that primes exert stronger priming when they are less expected, given the syntactic preference of their main verb. We tested this claim experimentally by comparing the strength of double-object dative priming (DO) and prepositional object dative priming (PO) between dative verbs with differing syntactic preferences in a syntactic priming experiment. The syntactic preferences of the prime and target verbs were first measured in a picture description experiment. Consistent with an implicit learning account, the results showed a verb–specific effect of inverse preference: the strength of DO-priming was modulated by the alternation bias of the dative verbs that were used in the primes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This study investigates the way in which speakers determine which aspects of an utterance to emphasize and how this affects the form of utterances. To do this, we ask whether the binding between emphasis and thematic roles persists between utterances. In one within-language (Dutch–Dutch) and three cross-linguistic (Dutch–English) structural priming experiments, we measured persistence effects for four different Dutch transitives (actives, PP-initial passives, PP-medial passives, and PP-final passives). Whereas English allows only one passive (PP-final passive), Dutch allows three different variants with the same functional assignment, but different constituent structures. Additionally, the degree of emphasis on the agent differs significantly between the PP-initial passive and the other passives (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 showed persistence of actives, PP-medial, and PP-final passives in Dutch, but no priming between passives with different constituent structures. Experiments 3 and 4, however, showed that both PP-medial and PP-final passives prime the use of English passives. Experiment 5 confirmed that the emphasis on thematic roles persists: the proportion of passives in the PP-initial passive condition fell midway between the proportions produced in the active and PP-medial passive condition. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Four experiments in written and spoken dialogue tested the predictions of two distinct accounts of syntactic encoding in sentence production: a lexicalist, residual activation account and an implicit-learning account. Experiments 1 and 2 showed syntactic priming (i.e., the tendency to reuse the syntactic structure of a prime sentence in the production of a target sentence) and a lexical boost of syntactic priming (i.e., an enhanced priming effect when the verb in prime and target was the same). Experiments 3 and 4 varied the number of filler sentences between prime and target (lag) and showed that lexical enhancement of priming is short-lived, whereas the priming effect is much more long-lived. These results did not depend on whether the modality of prime and target was written or spoken. The persistence of priming supports the view that syntactic priming is a form of implicit learning. However, only a multi-factorial account, in which lexically-based, short-term mechanisms operate in tandem with abstract, longer-term learning mechanisms can explain the full pattern of results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]