Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence of

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2009, Vol. 35, No. 1, 19 – 45

© 2009 American Psychological Association 0278-7393/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013984

Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence of Syntactic Priming in Sentence Comprehension Kristen M. Tooley, Matthew J. Traxler, and Tamara Y. Swaab University of California, Davis Event-related potentials and eye tracking were used to investigate the nature of priming effects in sentence comprehension. Participants read 2 sentences (a prime sentence and a target sentence), both of which had a difficult and ambiguous sentence structure. The prime and target sentences contained either the same verb or verbs that were very close in meaning. Priming effects were robust when the verb was repeated. In the event-related potential experiment, the amplitude of the P600 was reduced in target sentences that followed prime sentences with the same verb but not in prime sentences with a synonymous verb. In the eye-tracking experiment, total reading times on the disambiguating region were reduced when the targets followed prime sentences with the same verb but not when targets followed prime sentences with a synonymous verb. The fact that verb overlap greatly boosted priming effects in reduced relative sentences may indicate that verb argument structures play an important role in online parsing. Keywords: syntactic priming, semantics, parsing, eye tracking, ERP

(see Pickering & van Gompel, 2006, for a review). The accompanying discussion has often focused on when various sources of information are activated and brought to bear as readers make decisions about what structure to assign to an ambiguous string of words. Autonomous syntax models of parsing generally propose that structural decisions are made without reference to specific word identities, semantic properties of alternative syntactic analyses, preceding context, or other nongrammatical information. These models therefore usually predict delayed effects of these factors; Frazier’s garden path theory (1979) is probably the most widely discussed example of this type of account (see also Chomsky, 1965; Frazier & Clifton, 1996). Lexicalist parsers tend to assume that processing takes place within a constraint-based neural network architecture in which any potentially relevant factor may influence the relative activation of syntactic analyses at any time (MacDonald et al., 1994; Moortgat, 1988; Pollard & Sag, 1994; see Boland & Blodgett, 2006, for a hybrid account). As a result, experimentation and discussion about parsing have often concentrated on questions of when, exactly, a particular factor affects comprehenders’ behavior, and this debate has not been brought to a completely satisfactory conclusion. Syntactic priming experiments offer another way to investigate autonomous syntax and lexicalist parsing accounts, because the two classes of theory offer different explanations of how and why syntactic priming occurs in comprehension. Syntactic priming should occur whenever processing of one sentence leads to persistent activation of the structural information that is necessary for interpretation of a subsequent sentence. The question, then, is under what circumstances will this persistent activation occur? If words are treated as interchangeable, generic elements, syntactic priming could occur any time that two sentences have the same types of words appearing in the same order. In that case, the same structure could be used to represent both sentences, and presumably there would be some benefit of employing the same structure-

Syntactic parsing is a core function in human communication. To parse a sentence, readers and listeners make rapid use of grammatical knowledge to determine how words in sentences relate to one another. An ongoing debate in psycholinguistics concerns how grammatical knowledge is organized in memory and how that knowledge is brought to bear as comprehenders build syntactic structures. On the one hand, autonomous syntax accounts suggest that the parser treats words as freely interchangeable components. According to this view, syntactic structures are built with generic representational elements that are bound to specific words only after an initial structural hypothesis has been activated (e.g., Chomsky, 1965; Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Frazier, 1979; Frazier & Rayner, 1982). On the other hand, lexicalist approaches stipulate that grammatical knowledge is tied to specific words in memory and that activation of information in memory during lexical access necessarily entails activation of bound structural information (e.g., Boland & Boehm-Jernigan, 1998; Ferreira & McClure, 2002; Jackendoff, 2007; Ledoux, Traxler, & Swaab, 2007; MacDonald, Perlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; Traxler & Tooley, 2007). Hence, according to lexicalist accounts, syntactic parsing processes and lexical processing are inextricably intertwined. Much of the research on syntactic parsing has involved investigating how people respond to syntactically ambiguous sentences Kristen M. Tooley, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis; Matthew J. Traxler, and Tamara Y. Swaab, Department of Psychology and Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant NSF 0446618 and National Institutes of Health Grant R01-HD048914-01A2 (awarded to Matthew J. Traxler). Tamara Y. Swaab was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01 MH066271. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew J. Traxler, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, 174 North Young Hall, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: [email protected] 19

TOOLEY, TRAXLER, AND SWAAB

20

building operations twice in succession. Alternatively, the structure built for the first sentence could serve as a template and the words from the second sentence could be mapped to positions in that preactivated template. Hence, if the parser treats words as freely interchangeable elements, syntactic priming should occur whether or not particular content words are repeated across the prime and the target sentences. By contrast, lexicalist parsing accounts propose that structural information is bound to specific words (e.g., MacDonald et al., 1994). As a result, the degree to which a structure is activated when one word is accessed may differ when another word from the same category is accessed. For example, when readers encounter the string “The engineer examined . . .” structural information tied to the base entry for examined may strongly favor a subject–verb– object structure over possible alternative structures. If a different verb appeared (e.g., reviewed), the likelihood of the subject–verb– object structure might be lower, and so the initial commitment to that syntactic structure might also be weaker. According to this type of account, syntactic priming should be increased when the same words appear in prime and target sentences and may not occur at all if there is no overlapping lexical material between primes and targets. Lexical overlap should increase priming because, when a word is repeated across a prime and a target sentence, the repeated word in the target sentence will reinforce the pattern of activation that was present during processing of the prime sentence. Lexical overlap may be necessary for the occurrence of priming in comprehension if the major or sole mechanism of syntactic structure activation is the connections between individual word entries and elements of syntactic structure. A number of previous priming studies support the lexicalist view of syntactic structure activation. In language production, although syntactic priming can be observed without lexical overlap between primes and targets, priming effects are larger when verbs are repeated (Bock, 1986; Pickering & Branigan, 1998). In comprehension, there are now three published demonstrations of lexically independent priming effects in online processing. Two of these involved within-sentence effects (Frazier, Munn, & Clifton, 2000; Trueswell & Kim, 1998), and the third was a study on young children that involved only four experimental trials (Thothathiri & Snedecker, 2008). In between-sentence priming experiments, facilitated target processing has occurred in eye-movement studies of naturalistic reading involving reduced relative clauses (e.g., Pickering & Traxler, 2004; Traxler & Pickering, 2005; Traxler & Tooley, 2007) and in the visual world paradigm in experiments involving the dative/ double-object alternation (Arai, van Gompel, & Scheepers, 2007) only when verbs were repeated across primes and targets.1 For example, in eye-movement studies, facilitated processing of the disambiguating region by the lawyer of sentence 1 occurred when it was preceded by prime sentence 2 but not when it was preceded by prime sentence 3: 1.

The defendant examined by the lawyer was not guilty. (target sentence)

2.

The engineer examined by the board passed with flying colors. (repeated prime)

3.

The engineer approached by the board passed with flying colors. (different prime)

For additional information about ambiguity resolution processes in the reduced relative, see Besson and Kutas (1993); Clifton et al. (2003); Ferreira and Clifton (1986); and Trueswell, Tanenhaus, and Garnsey (1994). Sentences 2 and 3 both have the same syntactic structure as does sentence 1. Sentence 2 has the same past participle (examined) as does the target sentence, and sentence 3 does not. The lexicalist account can explain why sentence 2 was an effective prime but sentence 3 was not: When the prime sentence was processed, the word examined was activated, and so were the structural elements necessary for encoding the reduced relative clause. When the word examined was reaccessed during processing of the target sentence, residual activation of the link between examined and elements representing the reduced relative clause structure facilitated the process of parsing the target sentence. By contrast, when one participle (approached) was accessed during processing of the prime, it had no effect on the relative activation of syntactic structure information tied to the participle in the target sentence (examined). Before this explanation is accepted, however, it is important to determine what exact process is facilitated when the prime sentence (2) precedes the target sentence (1). Sentence 2 has a meaning that is more closely matched to that of sentence 1 than of sentence 3, which has an unrelated meaning. One might therefore conclude that the target sentence is processed more easily when it follows sentence 2 rather than sentence 3 because of speeded semantic processes rather than speeded syntactic processes. Only one previous study, using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), has attempted to address this issue (Ledoux et al., 2007). In that study, prime sentences had the same participle as the target sentence (e.g., examined appeared in both prime and target sentences), but the primes differed in syntactic structure. Half of the primes were like sentence 2, and half were like sentence 4: 4.

The defendant examined the evidence and was not guilty.

Sentences 2 and 4 have the same critical word (examined) as does the target sentence, but sentence 4 has a different syntactic structure. Priming effects were assessed through examination of the N400 and P600 ERP waveforms. The N400 is a negative shift in the ERP waveform, which is maximal over central and parietal recording sites and is sensitive to semantic processing; a decrease in the amplitude of the N400 is associated with easier semantic processing (e.g., Brown & Hagoort, 1993; Holcomb, 1993; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Van Petten & Kutas, 1991; but see Bornkessel, 1

There is one additional published study showing lexically independent, cross-sentence effects on the choice of interpretation of an ambiguous target sentence (Branigan, Pickering, & McLean, 2005). Note, however, that because the task was picture matching, the demonstrated effects were on final interpretation; thus, they do not necessarily provide information about the processes used for constructing an interpretation in the first place. There is one further visual-world study on German (Scheepers & Crocker, 2004), but in this study thematic and syntactic roles were confounded and thus the observed priming effects could have been semantic rather than syntactic.

SYNTACTIC PRIMING IN COMPREHENSION

McElree, Schlesewsky, & Friederici, 2004; Schlesewsky & Bornkessel, 2006). The P600 is a positive shift in the ERP waveform that is maximal over posterior recording sites. The amplitude of the P600 is larger to syntactic violations and to syntactically ambiguous or complex continuations of sentences (Friederici, Hahne, & Mecklinger, 1996; Friederici, Hahne, & Saddy, 2002; Friederici & Mecklinger, 1996; Hagoort, Brown, & Groothusen, 1993; Kaan & Swaab, 2003; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992). Recent research has also shown that the P600 is sensitive to thematic anomalies and thematic integration violations (Hoeks, Stowe, & Doedens, 2004; Kim & Osterhout, 2005; Kolk, Chwilla, van Herten, & Oor, 2003; Kuperberg, Sitnikova, Caplan, & Holcomb, 2003; Weckerly & Kutas, 1999; see Kuperberg, 2007, for a review). This is an important finding to bear in mind when investigating manipulations related to the P600. However, because Ledoux et al. (2007) manipulated syntactic ambiguity (reduced relatives) in the absence of semantic or thematic violations, a reduction in the amplitude of the P600 to disambiguating regions of the repeated reduced relatives is suggestive of a facilitation in the processing of this structure (i.e., syntactic priming). A reduction in the P600 was indeed observed at the noun within the relative clause in target sentences following reduced relative prime sentences. This P600 priming effect was observed to the critical nouns that followed the disambiguating word by in sentences such as “The defendant was examined by the lawyer . . .” and was therefore downstream from the earliest disambiguating point in the sentence. One possible reason for the later occurrence of this P600 effect might have been the use of more than one prime structure (reduced relative and main clause structures). If the presence of a main clause structure in the prime sentence delayed recognition of the reduced relative structure, or delayed onset of syntactic reanalysis, this fact might explain why modulations of the syntactic positive shift appeared at the head noun of the relative clause, as opposed to earlier in the byphrase. The current experiments offer an even stronger test of the semantic priming hypothesis. Semantic effects may have been obscured in the Ledoux et al. (2007) study by conflicting information from the main clause syntactic structure of the prime sentence. Therefore, in our experiments, all of the prime sentences contained reduced relative clauses. Repeated verbs were used in half of the prime–target pairs (all of the prime–target pairs in the previous ERP experiment had repeated verbs). In the rest of the prime–target pairs, the verbs in the primes and targets had very closely related meanings. We hypothesized that if structural representations were shared across verbs or were shared across verbs that have similar semantic properties, we should observe modulation of the P600 component for both repeated verb primes and primes with synonymous verbs. If, by contrast, syntactic structure information needed for encoding the reduced relative was tied to individual lexical entries, priming should occur only when verbs were repeated across primes and targets. Experiment 1 tested these predictions with ERPs. Experiment 2 tested them with eye tracking.

Experiment 1 The current ERP experiment provided a way for us to determine the source of the facilitative effects observed in previous ERP and eye-tracking experiments without changes in syntactic structure

21

between types of primes and without repeating the verb in every prime–target pair. In this experiment, reduced relative target sentences were always preceded by reduced relative prime sentences. The prime sentences had either the same past participle (as in sentences 1 and 2; the repetition condition) or a different past participle. In the latter condition, the participles in the prime and target sentences were synonyms or near synonyms (as in sentence 5; the synonym condition): 5.

The defendant inspected by the lawyer was not guilty.

ERPs were measured to the verbs and the word by in the target sentences. The critical word by in the target sentences (e.g., “The man watched by the woman . . .”) was chosen as the point of analysis because it is the point in the sentence that renders the main clause construction untenable. Hence, this is the earliest point at which participants are likely to begin searching for an alternative interpretation; this process likely entails syntactic reanalysis. Processing of syntactic ambiguity, such as that found in reduced relative sentences relative to unambiguous control sentences, has been shown to elicit a significant P600 effect to the disambiguating words, such that a larger P600 is found when the sentence is ambiguous and syntactic reanalysis is required (e.g., Osterhout, Holcomb, & Swinney, 1994). We also analyzed the past participle (e.g., inspected), as repetition or semantic priming effects might occur there; these effects would most likely lead to a modulation of the N400 (Kutas, van Petten, & Kluender, 2006). Use of this design, in which the prime sentences differ only minimally (i.e., the only difference was at the participle, and the two prime types had participles that were very closely matched in meaning), allowed us to test a number of hypotheses. First, contrasting the repetition and synonym conditions provided a very strong test of the semantic hypothesis, because using verbs in the prime and target sentences that are synonyms or near synonyms produces sentences that have substantial semantic overlap as well as identical syntactic structure. If semantic overlap between sentences is responsible for the behavioral facilitation seen in previous studies, we would expect differences in the N400 at or shortly after the word by. Even though closed-class words have not always resulted in N400 effects within sentences (Brown, Hagoort, & ter Keurs, 1999; Nobre & McCarthy, 1994), other studies did show N400 effects to closed-class words when lexical frequency was kept constant (e.g, Mu¨nte et al., 2001) or when semantic processes were measured across multiple sentences (e.g., Streb, Hennighausen, & Ro¨sler, 2004). Both of these conditions were met in the present study. Second, if sentence structures can be primed independently of semantic facilitation and if priming occurs in a context-free manner, both types of primes should lead to facilitated syntactic processing, which we predicted would lead to a reduction in the amplitude of the P600 at or shortly after the word by. If, instead, syntactic structures are closely bound to specific lexical entries and syntactic structures are accessed and activated via specific words, only the repeated condition should lead to a reduction in the amplitude of the P600 at the word by in the target sentences. N400 modulations as a function of semantic facilitation may occur at the repeated past participle (e.g., Besson & Kutas, 1993; Ledoux et al., 2007) but may not be present for the synonymous participles, because semantic priming effects are not always observed when


22

the preceding sentence or discourse context is highly constraining (e.g., Camblin, Gordon, & Swaab, 2007; Coulson, Federmeier, Van Petten, & Kutas, 2005; Van Petten, Weckerly, McIsaac, & Kutas, 1997). Alternatively, if facilitative effects in processing target sentences are not related to priming of the syntactic structure per se but instead result from priming as a function of the semantic match between the prime and the target sentences because the past participles are repeated or synonymous, we would not predict a reduced P600 on by in either of the conditions.

Method Participants. Twenty-two students from the University of California, Davis, took part in the experiment in exchange for course credit. Before the experiment, all of them gave informed consent. Participants were right-handed native speakers of English with no history of neurological or language impairments and normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Two participants were not included in the statistical analyses due to excessive artifacts in their electroencephalogram (EEG), so all analyses reported are based on 20 participants. All participants included in the analyses had a minimum of 25 trials remaining in each condition after artifact rejection. Stimuli. Experimental stimuli consisted of 160 reduced relative clause sentences. These were presented in 80 prime–target pairs, one sentence at a time, with at least two filler sentences between pairs. Half of these pairs contained verbs that were repeated across prime and target, and the other pairs contained synonymous verbs across prime and target pairs: Repetition prime (R prime): The man watched by the woman was tall and handsome. Target: The child watched by the parent was playing quietly. Synonym prime (S prime): The man observed by the woman was tall and handsome. Target: The child watched by the parent was playing quietly. The prime and target sentences were assigned to one of four lists of items, such that each prime sentence (in one list) served as a target sentence (in another list). In the example sentences presented above, the first pair of sentences would appear on one list and the second pair would appear on another list, such that participants saw only one version of each item. The first pair would then appear on a third list, but on this list, the prime sentence would appear in the target position and the target would appear in the prime position. The same would take place for the second pair on a fourth list. This means that every sentence appeared in a prime position, a target position, the repetition condition, and the synonym condition across the four lists. This counterbalancing technique allowed us to compare across prime and target sentences using the exact same sentences and thus eliminated concerns about length and frequency of the critical materials in the prime and target sentences. There were 196 filler sentences presented between the experimental sentence pairs (2–3 fillers between each pair), none of which were of the reduced relative clause construction. All of the experimental stimuli appear in the Appendix.

To ensure that the synonym verb pairs generated for this study were perceived by participants as being close in meaning, we gave a norming questionnaire to 42 University of California, Davis, students (none of whom participated in the ERP study). Two versions of this questionnaire were developed. In one version, half of the experimental verbs were paired with their synonym partners and half were paired with random verbs. In the second version, the other half of the experimental verbs were paired with their synonym partners, and the verbs that had been paired with their synonyms in the first version were now paired with random verbs. This was done to ensure that each experimental word appeared with its synonym as well as with a random word, across the two versions of the questionnaire. Each word appeared only once on each version of the questionnaire. In each questionnaire, participants were asked to rate 120 pairs of verbs based on “how similar the meanings of each of the word pairs are, in your opinion” on a scale from 1 to 7. For these ratings, a score of 1 represented completely different meanings and a score of 7 represented completely same meanings. The participants were encouraged to consider the entire range of scores when making their ratings, and the scale with the numerical values and explanations of these values appeared at the top of every page of the questionnaire. We conducted a t test to compare the experimental verbs when they appeared with their synonyms and when they appeared with random verbs, and synonym pairs were rated significantly more related in meaning than were the random verb pairs (5.8 vs. 1.8), t(238) ⫽ 52.5, p ⬍ .001. ERP apparatus and procedure. Each participant was tested in a dimly lit, electrically shielded, sound-attenuating booth. The participants were instructed to read the sentences and respond to a true-or-false comprehension question that followed each sentence. They were given practice sentences until they understood the procedure and felt comfortable to proceed to the experiment (approximately 10 practice sentences). Each trial started with a fixation cross that was presented for 1,000 ms at the center of the computer screen. The fixation cross was replaced with the first word of the sentence, and the sentences were presented at a rapid serial visual presentation rate of one word every 300 ms with a 200-ms interstimulus interval. The fixation cross appeared again for 1,000 ms after the offset of the last word of the sentence (which was presented with a period). Then a comprehension question appeared all at once, and participants responded using one of two buttons on a button box (accuracy ranged from 93% to 98% correct). Each of the four experimental lists consisted of eight blocks, with an average of 45 sentences per block. During the sentences, the participants were instructed not to blink or move, to ensure the integrity of the EEG data. All individuals included in the study were able to do this most of the time without problems. EEG recording. EEG was recorded from 29 cap-mounted electrodes (electrocap international) referenced to the right mastoid. The left mastoid was recorded for later offline algebraic rereferencing to the left and right mastoids. Vertical eye movements were monitored by a suborbital electrode, and horizontal eye movements were monitored by left and right external canthus montages, respectively. Impedances were kept below 5 k⍀. Prior to offline averaging, all single-trial waveforms were automatically screened for amplifier blocking, muscle artifacts, horizontal eye movements, and blinks over a 1,200-ms epoch, beginning 200 ms before the onset of the critical words. For each participant, average


ERPs were computed over artifact-free trials for critical words in all conditions. The bandpass was 0.01–30 Hz at a sampling rate of 250 Hz. Data analyses. ERP data were analyzed with repeatedmeasures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the mean amplitude of the repeated and synonymous verbs and the critical word by in the target sentences in the 300- to 500-ms epoch and the 500- to 800-ms epoch to capture N400 and P600 effects, respectively, relative to a 100-ms prestimulus baseline. Separate ANOVAs were conducted for the two prime types (synonym and repetition), for both the whole head, Position (prime vs. target) ⫻ Electrode (29), at the past participle and the critical disambiguating word by, and the posterior electrode sites, Position (prime vs. target) ⫻ Electrode (11), at the critical word by. ANOVAs comparing the two prime types were conducted at the target sentences for the whole head, Prime Type (repetition vs. synonym) ⫻ Electrode (29), as well as for the posterior electrode sites, Prime Type (repetition vs. synonym) ⫻ Electrode (11), at the critical word by. Electrodes used in the posterior analyses included Cz, C3, C4, CP1, CP2, CP5, CP6, Pz, P3, P4, and POz.

Results and Discussion ANOVAs that included all electrode sites did not show N400 effects to the verbs, F(1, 19) ⫽ 2.04, p ⫽ .17. Significant N400 effects for the repetition condition were obtained when the ANOVAs were limited to the posterior electrode sites, where the canonical N400 effect is found, and in a 400- to 500-ms time window: Repeated participles showed a reduced N400 relative to participles in prime sentences, F(1, 19) ⫽ 7.42, p ⫽ .01, and relative to synonymous participles in target sentences. No N400 effect was obtained in the synonymous condition itself. At the critical word by, no N400 effects were obtained (F ⬍ 1). However, ANOVAs in the 500- to 800-ms epoch showed a significant P600 effect for the comparison of R primes and targets preceded by R primes, F(1, 19) ⫽ 5.52, p ⫽ .03, with mean amplitudes being greater for the primes than for the targets. A significant interaction of Position ⫻ Electrode, F(28, 532) ⫽ 3.07, p ⫽ .022, indicates that this effect was maximal over posterior electrode sites, as is consistent with previous ERP studies of parsing (e.g., Hagoort et al., 1993; Kaan & Swaab, 2003; Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992). This result shows that the P600 generated in response to the word that rules out the main clause analysis in the reduced relative clauses is smaller in amplitude when targets are preceded by prime sentences that have the identical participle and the same syntactic structure. This P600 result indicates that participants experienced more difficulty in processing the reduced relative structure the first time relative to when they were primed by the preceding structure (see Figure 1a). In contrast, no significant P600 effects were obtained in the synonym condition (Fs ⬍ 1). In this condition, the size of the P600 at by in the target sentences was not affected by the presence of a synonymous participle in the prime sentence, and this indicates that syntactic processing difficulty had not changed (see Figure 1b). By comparing the target sentences preceded by R primes and S primes, we were able to contrast the priming effects of the two experimental conditions. The comparison of targets preceded by R primes and targets preceded by S primes yielded a significant

23

effect, F(1, 19) ⫽ 4.29, p ⫽ .05. The amplitude of the P600 was larger to the critical disambiguating word by in target sentences that were preceded by S primes than in those preceded by R primes. This P600 effect further indicates that syntactic processing of targets in the repetition condition was less difficult than that of targets in the synonym condition (see Figure 1c). The pattern of results that was obtained in the analyses that included all electrodes was also found in the ANOVAs that included only central and posterior electrode sites, where the P600 effect is maximal. Significant P600 effects were found to the critical word by in the comparison of R primes and targets preceded by R primes, F(1, 19) ⫽ 6.05, p ⫽ .02, and in the comparison of targets preceded by S primes and targets preceded by R primes, F(1, 19) ⫽ 9.81, p ⫽ .0055, but not in the comparison of S primes to targets preceded by S primes, F(1, 19) ⫽ 1.38, p ⫽ .25. In sum, the significant differences observed in mean amplitude of the P600 but not the N400 to the critical word by for target sentences that repeated the structure and the participle suggest that it is possible to produce syntactic priming by repeating a participle across prime and target sentences. This P600 effect had the typical latency and topographic distribution that has been observed in other studies of parsing, and this fact suggests that this effect is syntactically driven (e.g., Kaan & Swaab, 2003). The absence of this P600 effect in the synonym condition shows that semantic overlap at the verb was insufficient to produce significant syntactic priming effects (see Figure 2).2 It is important to acknowledge that in this experiment the repetition of a verb was always accompanied with a repetition of the reduced relative syntactic structure. Therefore, it is possible that participants noticed this repetition and were able to strategically predict the presence of the reduced relative structure for the target sentences in the repetition condition and so processed these sentences more easily. If this were the case, the observed syntactic priming effects would really be due to explicit strategies adopted by the participants. To rule out this interpretation of the ERP results, we conducted a split-half analysis to compare the priming effects in the first half of the experiment with those in the second half. If the priming effects were due to strategy, we would expect to see greater priming effects in the second half of the experiment compared with the first, because participants would likely not have caught on to the repetition cue until partway through the first half of the experiment. If this were the case, we would expect to find a significant Sentence Position (prime vs. tar2 To make sure that the N400 effect on the verb in the repetition condition did not contribute to the P600 effects on the critical word by, we performed the same analyses as reported in the main text with a baseline of 0 –100ms. The N400 effect on the verb is no longer significant over this time window. With this new baseline, we found the same pattern of results as in our ANOVAs with the prestimulus baseline: Analyses over all electrodes showed a marginally significant effect for position in the repetition condition, F(1, 19) ⫽ 3.78, p ⫽ .067. No position effect was found for the synonym condition, F(1, 19) ⫽ 0.97, p ⫽ .34. We also found in the posterior analyses a significant effect for position for the repetition condition, F(1, 19) ⫽ 5.49, p ⫽ .03, and a significant Position ⫻ Electrode interaction when comparing the repetition and synonym targets, F(10, 190) ⫽ 2.55, p ⫽ .045. Finally, we again did not find an effect of position for the synonym condition over posterior electrode sites, F(1, 19) ⫽ 2.39, p ⫽ .14.

24


Figure 1. Priming effects. Grand average ERP waveforms and topographic distributions at the disambiguating word by, for the P600 time window (500 – 800 ms) for eight centroposterior electrode sites. Positive polarity is plotted downward. The horizontal axis represents a 1,000-ms epoch after stimulus onset, and each tick mark reflects 200 ms. The first large tick mark represents the onset of the stimulus (0 ms), and before this the 100-ms prestimulus baseline is also displayed. The vertical axis represents the amplitude in microvolts (␮V). (a) Waveforms for primes and targets in the repeated condition. Topographic distribution illustrates the voltage distribution over the head of the effect in the 500- to 800-ms time window (i.e., subtraction of the amplitude of the ERPs to the targets from the amplitude of the ERPs to the prime). (b) Waveforms for primes and targets in the synonym condition. Topographic distribution illustrates the subtraction of these primes and targets in ␮V (primes–targets). (c) Waveforms for targets in the repeated condition and targets in the synonym condition. Topographic distribution illustrates the subtraction of these targets in ␮V (synonym targets–repeated targets). ERP ⫽ event-related potential.


25

Figure 2. ERPs to the verb. Grand average ERP waveforms at the initial verb over the 0- to 1,245-ms time window for eight centroposterior electrode sites. Positive polarity is plotted downward. The horizontal axis represents a 1,245-ms epoch after stimulus onset, and each tick mark reflects 200 ms. The first large tick mark represents the onset of the stimulus (0 ms), and before this the 100-ms prestimulus baseline is also displayed. The onset of the critical word by is 500 ms after the onset of the verb. The vertical axis represents the amplitude in microvolts (␮V). (a) Waveforms for primes and targets in the repeated condition. (b) Waveforms for primes and targets in the synonym condition. (c) Waveforms for targets in the repeated condition and targets in the synonym condition. ERPs ⫽ event-related potentials.

get) ⫻ Order (first half vs. second half) interaction in the overall analysis, as well as a Position ⫻ Order interaction in the repetition condition analysis, which would indicate greater priming in one half of the experiment. Using an Order ⫻ (Position ⫻ Type ⫻ Electrode ⫻ Subjects) design for the overall analysis and an Order ⫻ (Position ⫻ Electrode ⫻ Subjects) design for the two different conditions types (repetition and synonym), we tested for differences in the priming effects across the two halves of the experiment. These analyses

were conducted to the word by in the experimental sentences, over the 500- to 800-ms epoch. In the overall analysis, no significant interactions between order and any of the other factors were found (all Fs ⬍ 1). This result means that the change in the P600 amplitude across primes and targets did not differ between the first and second halves of the experiment. In the synonym condition analysis, neither the sentence position factor nor the Order ⫻ Position interaction was found to be significant (all Fs ⬍ 1). Here we again see that the


26

synonym condition did not produce significant priming effects, and this lack of priming was consistent across the two halves of the experiment. Finally, the repetition condition analysis yielded a significant sentence position effect ( p ⫽ .048) and Position ⫻ Electrode interaction ( p ⫽ .041), yet no significant Order ⫻ Position interaction or Order ⫻ Position ⫻ Electrode interaction was found (all Fs ⬍ 1). This result shows again that target sentences were easier to process when they had been preceded by prime sentences containing the same participle, which is the same pattern of results that was found previously. Most importantly, the priming effects found in the repetition condition did not significantly differ between the first and second halves of the experiment. In all, these results suggest that it is unlikely that participants used a strategy to help predict the reduced relative sentence structure in the repetition condition. In light of this, it seems warranted to discard strategic effects as a possible explanation for the observed priming effects and to conclude that the observed results are truly indicative of facilitated syntactic processing.

Experiment 2 One possible complaint about the preceding study is that the pattern of priming effects could result from artifactual characteristics of the ERP paradigm. For example, presentation rates in ERP experiments such as Experiment 1 are substantially slower than is the rate of input that readers typically experience. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we used eye tracking. Eye tracking is a highly naturalistic task, with more than 30 years of psychometric research supporting it in the modern era, and it is widely regarded as a good way to measure moment-to-moment changes in processing load as people interpret sentences (Rayner, 1998; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989). If similar effects are observed in eye tracking and ERP, this would demonstrate that the ERP results were not caused by unusually slow presentation rates. Such effects would also provide converging evidence that priming effects in the reduced relative are tied to specific verb representations and do not reflect broader semantic overlap. Participants. Forty-four students from the University of California, Davis, participated in return for course credit. All of the participants were native speakers of English with normal uncorrected vision and hearing. An additional 7 participants were removed from the study because they were missing data in one or more conditions due to an error in the display. Stimuli. There were 28 sets of items (e.g., Items 6a– 6d): 6a.

The spy caught by the FBI agent disappeared forever.

6b.

The spy captured by the FBI agent disappeared forever.

6c.

The criminal captured by the detective was in a state of panic.

6d.

The criminal caught by the detective was in a state of panic.

Items were rotated across eight lists, so each prime sentence (on one list) served as a target sentence (on a different list). Thus, prime–target comparisons were made across the same sentences. This fact eliminates concerns about the length and frequency of the individual words as well as the possible effects of additional

ambiguities beyond the reduced relative–main clause ambiguity. In other words, the estimates of the priming effects were based on measuring readers’ responses to sentences like The spy caught by the FBI agent disappeared forever when it was preceded by unrelated material (i.e., a filler sentence) and then seeing whether that exact sentence was processed faster when it was preceded by either a prime sentence with the same verb or a prime sentence with a synonymous verb. Hence, counterbalancing was done in both the eye tracking and ERP experiments to ensure that the same sentences were represented as both prime sentences and targets. So, the following prime sentence on List 1 (read by one participant), The defendant examined by the lawyer was guilty, would also appear as a target on List 2 (read by a different participant). When the prime sentence appeared on List 1, it would be preceded by at least one, and most often two, unrelated sentences. Because, to date, priming has not occurred in these kinds of sentences without verb repetition (Pickering & Traxler, 2004; Traxler & Tooley, 2008; see also Arai et al., 2007), processing time for the prime sentence should give us an unbiased estimate of the “normal” processing time for that sentence. This approach assumes that the absence of lexically independent effects in the empirical record reflects the absence of an underlying process. Thus, if we see savings for a sentence when it appears as a target as compared with when it appears as a prime sentence, that should give us an unbiased estimate of the benefit of having a prime sentence just before the target. Items were assigned to lists in a pseudo-random manner, so that equal numbers of each type appeared on each list and participants were exposed to only one version of each item. Any given participant saw seven prime–target pairs in the repeated condition and seven prime–target pairs in the synonym condition. (An additional two conditions involving the reduced relative were run: prime– target pairs if the verbs were totally unrelated and prime–target pairs if the prime sentence had a main clause rather than a reduced relative structure. No priming effects were observed in either of these additional conditions, and because these conditions are unrelated to the ERP experiment, we will not discuss them further.) The prime–target pairs were rotated across lists, so that each type of prime–target pair appeared at each serial position. So, for example, Item 1 on List 1 was a repeated-condition prime–target pair. On the next list, Item 1 was a synonym condition prime– target pair and so on. On Lists 5– 8, the order of the sentences within a prime–target pair was reversed (primes were changed to targets and targets were changed to primes). The counterbalancing therefore accomplished the following goals: (a) Every prime sentence (on one list) served as a target sentence (on a different list). (b) A participant read any particular sentence exactly once. (c) There were equal numbers of each kind of prime–target pair on every list. (d) The order of presentation was counterbalanced across lists to distribute training effects and any filler sentence effects evenly across conditions. Target sentences always followed the prime sentences immediately. That is, no material appeared between the prime sentence and the subsequent target sentence. The experimental sentences were displayed along with 56 filler sentences of various types. At least 1 filler sentence intervened between each prime–target pair. Although the proportion of ambiguous sentences was high, previous priming experiments with this sentence type have shown that priming effects are abolished when even 1 sentence with a differ-


ent verb than the target appears prior to the target (Pickering & Traxler, 2004). Hence, even a single intervening filler sentence should lead to essentially normal reading times for the prime sentence. Because all types of items appeared in all serial positions involving experimental trials, any carryover effects from the filler sentences would be distributed evenly across conditions. The filler sentences were of various types, most of them with simple transitive or intransitive constructions (for example, The crops were doing well because it had been raining regularly). None of the filler items had verbs that were used in the prime– target pairs. None of the filler items had reduced relative clauses or full relative clauses. None of the filler sentences had byphrases or passive constructions. Eye-movement monitoring procedure. A dual-Purkinje-image eye tracker (Forward Technologies, Washington, DC) monitored participants’ eye movements while participants read the test sentences. The tracker has angular resolution of 10 min of arc. The tracker monitored only the right eye’s gaze location. A PC displayed sentence materials on a video display unit 70 cm from the participant’s eyes. The location of the participant’s gaze location was sampled every millisecond, and the PC software recorded the tracker’s output to establish the sequence of eye fixations and their start and finish times. Before the experiment, the experimenter seated the participant at the eye tracker and used a bite plate and headrests to minimize head movements. After the tracker was aligned and calibrated, the experiment began. After reading each sentence, the participant pressed a key. After 22 of the filler sentences, he or she responded to a comprehension question. The participant did not receive feedback on responses. The average percentage correct was 93.7 (SD ⫽ 5.98%), with a minimum of 77% and a maximum of 100%. Between each trial, a pattern of squares appeared on the computer screen along with a cursor that indicated the participant’s current gaze location. If the tracker was out of alignment, the experimenter recalibrated it before proceeding with the next trial. Analyses. Four standard eye-movement measures were computed for each participant. First-pass time is the sum of all fixation durations beginning with the first fixation in a region until the reader’s gaze leaves the region, left or right. First-pass regressions include the number of eye movements that cross a region’s lefthand boundary immediately following a first-pass fixation. Regression-path time includes all fixation durations from the first fixation in a region until the reader’s gaze crosses the right-hand boundary of the region. This latter measure includes refixations of preceding regions and of the target region itself. Total time is the sum of all fixation durations in a region, regardless of order. Two regions were analyzed analogous to the regions analyzed in the ERP experiment. The verb region consisted of the verb inside the relative clause (e.g., caught/captured in Items 6a– 6d). The PP region consisted of the prepositional phrase (e.g., by the FBI agent/by the detective in Items 6a– 6b). The PP region was analyzed as a whole, because it is a linguistically defined unit that has been used in previous priming studies (e.g., Traxler & Tooley, 2008) and previous studies in which the reduced relative sentence type did not involve priming manipulations (e.g., Clifton et al., 2003). Prior to determination of fixation durations, an automatic procedure incorporated fixations of less than 80 ms into the largest fixation within one character. In the next stage, the procedure

27

eliminated all individual fixations greater than 1,000 ms and less than 80 ms. Subsequently, first-pass times, regression-path times, and total times of less than 120 ms were excluded from the analyses. Further, first-pass times, regression-path times, or total times exceeding 3,000 ms were excluded. Finally, after means and standard deviations by subjects for each condition, scoring region, and dependent measure had been computed, fixation times greater than 2.5 SD from the condition mean were eliminated. These procedures together led to exclusion of 11.5% of the data.

Results and Discussion Table 1 presents means for the four dependent measures by scoring region and condition for Experiment 2. Data from each scoring region were subjected to 2 (sentence type, prime vs. target) ⫻ 2 (condition, repeated vs. synonym) omnibus ANOVAs. Both sentence type and condition were treated as withinparticipants and random-items factors.3 Verb region. The first-pass data indicated a main effect only of condition, with the repeated condition having shorter first-pass times than the synonym condition, F1(1, 43) ⫽ 5.15, p ⬍ .03, MSE ⫽ 2,250; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 5.83, p ⬍ .03, MSE ⫽ 804. This main effect appeared to be driven mainly by the repeated, target cell, however. The repeated targets had marginally shorter first-pass times than did the repeated baseline condition (289 vs. 306 ms), F1(1, 43) ⫽ 4.29, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 3.44, p ⫽ .07, but there was no indication that the synonym targets were processed faster than was the synonym baseline condition (312 vs. 316 ms), F1(1, 43) ⬍ 1, ns; F2(1, 27) ⬍ 1, ns. There were no significant main effects or interactions in the first-pass regressions data or the regression-path time data. The total time results showed a main effect only of sentence type, with target total time being substantially shorter than baseline total time (411 vs. 472 ms), F1(1, 43) ⫽ 36.1, p ⬍ .0001, MSE ⫽ 4,569; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 26.0, p ⬍ .0001, MSE ⫽ 2,548. In this case, the repeated condition and the synonym condition both had shorter total time in the target sentence than in the prime repeated condition, F1(1, 43) ⫽ 9.42, p ⬍ .01; F2 (1, 27) ⫽ 4.89, p ⬍ .04; synonym condition, F1(1, 43) ⫽ 25.4, p ⬍ .0001; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 11.8, p ⬍ .01. Results from the verb region suggest that readers processed the target verbs faster when the prime had the same verb (starting with first-pass time) and when the prime sentence had a synonymous verb (in total time only). These results may indicate that identity priming was stronger than semantic priming at the verb. PP region. The omnibus ANOVAs of the first-pass data yielded only a main effect of sentence type, with target sentence first-pass time being shorter than baseline first-pass time (515 ms vs. 544 ms), F1(1, 43) ⫽ 5.22, p ⬍ .03, MSE ⫽ 6867; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 6.09, p ⫽ .02, MSE ⫽ 3,959. Although the Sentence Type ⫻ 3

Note that because there were eight lists and 44 participants, the numbers of participants assigned to the lists were slightly unbalanced. To determine whether this led to differences in the pattern of results across lists, we conducted a further set of 2 (sentence type, prime vs. target) ⫻ 2 (prime type, repeated vs. synonym) ⫻ 2 (group, item list) ANOVAs, with list as a between-participants random factor. None of the main effects or interactions that resulted from the 2 ⫻ 2 ANOVAs were qualified by a higher order (i.e., three-way) interaction (all Fs ⬍ 0.90, all ps ⬎ .58).


28

Table 1 Mean Values of the Four Dependent Measures by Scoring Region and Condition for Experiment 2 Regression Scoring region Verb region Repeated baseline Repeated target Synonym baseline Synonym target PP region Repeated baseline Repeated target Synonym baseline Synonym target

First pass

First-pass regressions

Path time

Total time

309 289 312 316

17.5% 18.7% 22.7% 16.2%

380 353 364 371

468 421 476 400

542 501 546 530

21.6 17.7 21.3 18.0

699 638 681 655

814 721 755 738

Note. PP ⫽ prepositional phrase.

Condition interaction was not significant, tests for simple effects showed a priming effect only in the repeated verb condition (542 vs. 501 ms), F1(1, 47) ⫽ 4.35, p ⬍ .05; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 7.48, p ⫽ .01. There was no indication of priming in the first-pass data from the synonym condition (546 vs. 530 ms), F1(1, 47) ⬍ 1, ns; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 1.48, ns. First-pass regressions data did not yield any main effects or interactions. The regression-path time results patterned with the first-pass results, although the sentence type effect (target faster than baseline) was significant only in the by-participants analysis, F1(1, 47) ⫽ 7.37, p ⬍ .01, MSE ⫽ 11,228; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 3.23, p ⫽ .08, MSE ⫽ 6,982. As in the first-pass data, tests for simple effects in the repeated condition produced some evidence of a priming effect (699 vs. 638 ms), F1(1, 47) ⫽ 7.48, p ⬍ .01; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 3.53, p ⫽ .07, but the synonym condition did not, F1(1, 47) ⫽ 1.36, ns; F2(1, 27) ⬍ 1, ns. The total time data from the PP region produced a main effect of sentence type, with total time being shorter in the target than in the prime sentences (729 vs. 784 ms), F1(1, 47) ⫽ 9.06, p ⬍ .01, MSE ⫽ 14,877; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 5.70, p ⫽ .02, MSE ⫽ 13,202. The total time data also produced an interaction of sentence type and condition, F1(1, 47) ⫽ 5.71, p ⫽ .02, MSE ⫽ 11,196; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 5.23, p ⫽ .03, MSE ⫽ 7,837. This interaction came about because there was significant priming only in the repeated verb condition, not in the synonym condition. Total times in the repeated condition were about 90 ms shorter in the target than in the prime sentence, F1(1, 47) ⫽ 17.2, p ⬍ .001; F2(1, 27) ⫽ 14.5, p ⬍ .001. In the synonym condition, total time in the prime and target sentences did not differ, F1(1, 47) ⬍ 1, ns; F2(1, 27) ⬍ 1, ns. The total time results indicate, therefore, that the syntactically disambiguating region was processed faster when the prime and target sentences had the same verb and not when the prime and target sentences had different but synonymous verbs. Experiment 2 replicated the finding from Experiment 1 and from a number of previous eye-tracking studies that processing of the disambiguating PP region is facilitated when the prime and target sentences have the same verb. There was no indication that processing the syntactically disambiguating region was facilitated when the prime and target sentences had synonymous verbs, and

this result too is fully compatible with the ERP experiment. There was a savings at the verb in total time when the prime contained a synonymous verb, but this savings likely reflects a form of semantic rather than syntactic priming. It is also unlikely that the total time effect at the verb reflects “early” reanalysis to the correct reduced relative structure. If readers had begun reanalysis during the verb region on the basis of semantic overlap between the two synonymous verbs, one would expect, first, elevated processing times there rather than savings and, second, savings during processing of the following byphrase (because the correct syntactic structure would already be in place). This was not observed.

Meta-Analysis One persistent concern about the priming paradigm used in Experiments 1 and 2 is that it may encourage readers to adopt special processing strategies. Because priming effects in the reduced relative are observed only with overlapping verbs, readers could learn to use the overlapping verb to predict the upcoming reduced relative continuation. There are a number of problems with this hypothesis, not the least of which is that priming effects have been observed in the reduced relative under conditions in which the repeated verb cannot be used to predict a reduced relative continuation (Pickering & Traxler, 2004). Another problem with the hypothesis is that it predicts no priming effects early in an experiment (before readers have discovered the repeated verb cue) and larger effects later in the experiment. This pattern has not been observed in previous priming studies involving the reduced relative (Traxler & Pickering, 2005). A further problem for the strategic hypothesis is that it assumes that early parsing processes are under strategic control. There is no direct evidence that this is the case, and the available direct evidence suggests that attempts at strategic control lead to longer, not shorter, reading times for sentences such as those in the current experiments (Traxler & Tooley, 2008). To provide further evidence that strategic control does not contribute to syntactic priming, we conducted a meta-analysis on data from 12 eye-tracking experiments involving pairs of prime and target sentences. Of those experiments, 10 involved reduced relatives. The other 2 involved modifier– goal ambiguities (e.g., The student dropped the book on the table on the floor). All of the experiments were conducted in the eye-tracking lab at the University of California, Davis. The current Experiment 2 is one of the 12 experiments included in this meta-analysis. Another 5 of the experiments are from Pickering and Traxler (2008). Five further experiments are in press and are available from Matthew J. Traxler on request (Traxler, in press-a, in press-b; Traxler & Tooley, 2008). The selection criteria for the meta-analysis were that the experiments had a prime and a target sentence with the same syntactic structure and that they showed priming effects in at least one scoring region on at least one of the four standard dependent measures (first-pass, first-pass regressions, regression-path time, or total time). All of the studies included in the meta-analysis had one condition in which a prime and a target shared a verb (the repeated condition), but they had various other conditions as well. The experiments had between one and three other types of prime–target pairs. In one case, some of the target sentences were main clause types, such as The defendant examined the evidence during the


trial. In the other experiments, various prime types were used, including passive sentences (The defendant was examined by the lawyer), main clauses, short relatives (The defendant was examined yesterday), pluperfect verbs with main clauses (The defendant had examined the evidence during the trial), and reduced relatives with different verbs. In other experiments, properties of the filler sentences were manipulated, as were properties of the prime–target pairs. Table 2 lists the individual conditions for each of the 11 additional experiments that went into the meta-analysis, as well as further information about the number of participants in each. In all of these experiments, items were pseudo randomized and were presented to participants in the same fixed order. In most of the experiments, participants saw only one prime–target pair with repeated structure and a repeated verb in the first four trials. The counterbalancing method ensured that, if the fourth trial had a repeated verb and a reduced relative prime, the preceding three trials would not have been in that condition. Sometimes, the fourth trial was the second time that readers saw a prime–target pair in which the verb in the prime sentence was the same as the verb in the target sentence. This situation occurred in experiments that had only two conditions, as in the current experiments. In no case would readers have encountered more than one trial (prime–target pair) with a repeated verb before they reached the fourth trial. So we took the total time data from Trials 1– 4 from the 12 eyetracking experiments and analyzed what happened when readers processed the syntactically disambiguating byphrase (as in the current Experiments 1 and 2). If priming depends on readers learning that a repeated verb signals an upcoming reduced relative and if we assume that is sufficient for them to change their parsing strategies, we should see little or no difference in processing time between the prime and the target sentence on the first four trials. This is because readers will have had a maximum of one preceding trial with a prime, a target, and a repeated verb. Hence, they will have had minimal opportunity to learn the repeated verb–repeated structure contingency. A total of 523 participants had data for the first two trials. When the first four items from the 12 experiments were analyzed, the estimated priming effect was 115 ms (prime reaction time, 945 ms; target reaction time ⫽ 830 ms), F1(1, 522) ⫽ 14.6, p ⫽ .002, MSE ⫽ 76,570; F2(1, 47) ⫽ 23.1, p ⬍ .0001, MSE ⫽ 13,643. To account for this priming effect, the strategic prediction hypothesis would have to propose that readers experience one-trial learning and that they can adjust their parsing strategies on the basis of a single trial with overlapping verbs. Note, however, that part of the priming effect in the first four trials is based on events that took place in the first two trials. Because of the way the stimuli were counterbalanced in the experiments, Trial 2, when it appears in the analysis, would be the first trial during which a given participant would have encountered a prime–target pair with a repeated verb. If priming depends on participants learning that a repeated verb signals an upcoming reduced relative, there should be no priming effect in this analysis. This is so because readers will have had no prior exposure to the relevant contingency by the time they reach Trial 2 (in those cases in which data from Trial 2 enter the analysis). Because of track loss or other artifacts, 6 of the 523 participants from the preceding analysis did not have data for the very first trial with overlapping verbs. When the first two items were entered into the analysis, the priming effect estimate was 129 ms, which was also significant

29

Table 2 Summary of Experiments Used in the Meta-Analysis Experiment and target type Pickering & Traxler (2008) Experiment 1 (n ⫽ 40) Reduced relative Main clause Experiment 3 (n ⫽ 35) Reduced relative

Experiment 4 (n ⫽ 48) Reduced relative Experiment 5 (n ⫽ 50) Reduced relative

Experiment 6 (n ⫽ 55) Reduced relative Traxler (in press-a) Experiment 1 (n ⫽ 45) Modifier–goal Experiment 2 (n ⫽ 52) Modifier–goal Traxler (in press-b) Experiment 1 (n ⫽ 46) Reduced relative, agent Reduced relative, instrument Traxler & Tooley (2008) Experiment 1 (n ⫽ 22) Reduced relative Experiment 2 (n ⫽ 48) Reduced relative Experiment 2 (n ⫽ 44) Reduced relative Traxler (2008; n ⫽ 38) Reduced relative Example sentences Reduced relative Main clause Full relative Passive Short relative Pluperfect Reduced relative, agent Reduced relative, instrument Modifier–goal

Prime types

Reduced relative, repeated verb Main clause, repeated verb Reduced relative, repeated verb Full relative, repeated verb Main clause, repeated verb Reduced relative, different verb Reduced relative, repeated verb Passive, repeated verb Main clause, repeated verb Reduced relative, repeated verb Full relative, repeated verb Short relative, repeated verb Main clause, repeated verb Reduced relative, repeated verb Pluperfect, repeated verb Main clause, repeated verb Modifier–goal, repeated verb Modifier–goal, nonrepeated verb Reduced relative, agent, same verb Reduced relative, instrument, same verb Reduced relative, same verb Reduced relative, same noun Reduced relative, same verb Reduced relative, synonymous verb Reduced relative, same verb Pluperfect, same verb Main clause, same verb The defendant examined by the lawyer was guilty. The defendant examined the evidence at the trial. The defendant who was examined by the lawyer was guilty. The defendant was examined by the lawyer and was guilty. The defendant who was examined was guilty. The defendant had examined the evidence at the trial. The defendant examined by the lawyer was guilty. The defendant examined with the stethoscope was guilty. The girl dropped the blanket on the bed on the floor this morning.


30

(prime reaction time, 984 ms; target reaction time, 854 ms), F1(1, 516) ⫽ 6.00, p ⫽ .01, MSE ⫽ 158,256; F2(1, 23) ⫽ 12.3, p ⫽ .002, MSE ⫽ 16,599. Because priming effects are reliable on the very first trial in which a repeated verb is used, it cannot be the case that the priming effects result from successful prediction based on the repeated verb cue. Instead, the priming effects must be caused by some set of processes intrinsic to the language comprehension system.

General Discussion In this study, we used ERPs and eye tracking to examine the nature of priming effects during processing of sentences that repeat the structure of a previously presented prime sentence. Participants read reduced relative target sentences that were preceded by a reduced relative prime sentence that contained the identical verb or that contained a verb that was a synonym of the one in the target sentence. In Experiment 1, we observed a modulation of the P600 effect at the earliest point at which the preferred syntactic analysis was ruled out (the word by) but only when the prime and target sentences contained the same past participle. The observed P600 effect had the typical latency and scalp distribution that has been found in previous ERP studies of parsing (e.g., Friederici et al., 1996, 2002; Hagoort et al., 1993; Kaan & Swaab, 2003; Osterhout et al., 1992; for a review, see Kutas et al., 2006). In contrast, when the participles in the prime and target sentences were very closely semantically related, no modulation of the P600 effect was observed. In addition, evidence of lexical semantic priming in the form of an N400 effect was found only at the repeated verb. In Experiment 2, we used the same kinds of stimuli as Experiment 1 but used eye tracking rather than ERPs. When the same kinds of prime–target pairs were presented to readers, priming effects occurred in the repetition condition during processing of the disambiguating byphrase (starting in first-pass time and carrying forward through regression-path time and total time). By contrast, there were no observable priming effects during processing of the disambiguating byphrase when the prime and target sentences had synonymous verbs (none of the dependent measures showed any significant differences in processing time between the prime and target sentences in the synonym condition). Priming effects were also observed in the verb scoring region, but here too there may have been differences between the repetition and synonym conditions. The priming effect at the verb was significant only in the repetition condition during first-pass reading (although it was marginal in the by-items analysis). However, there were savings in total reading time in both the repeated and the synonym condition, which likely reflect the effects of semantic repetition (possibly boosted by identity priming in the repeated condition). The fact that total-time savings in the byphrase were not observed in the synonym condition further argues against syntactic priming in that condition. We also analyzed the first two trials from 12 priming experiments that involved repeated structure and a repeated verb. Significant priming effects were observed for those first two trials. This result shows that strategic prediction is not necessary for priming effects to occur, unless the strategy is adopted on the basis of single-trial learning. To rule out this possibility, we conducted another meta-analysis in which only the first trial with a repeated verb and repeated structure was analyzed. Significant priming

effects were observed in the very first trial in which participants were exposed to a repeated verb and a repeated structure. The strategic priming hypothesis predicts that no priming should be observed under those conditions, and so the results indicate that strategic prediction is not necessary for priming to occur. Other eye-tracking experiments (Traxler & Tooley, 2008) have used repeated nouns to establish a valid strategic cue. Unlike in the current experiments, no priming occurred at and following the disambiguating region when overlapping nouns (as opposed to overlapping verbs) were used. Together, these results show that strategic cues are neither necessary nor sufficient for priming to occur in comprehension in the reduced relative. Thus, the current results likely reflect processes intrinsic to the parser. Might the effects in the ERP and eye-tracking experiments reflect lingering effects of processing from the preceding verb regions? This possibility must always be considered, but we do not believe that it accounts for the facilitative effects during processing of the disambiguating prepositional phrase in these two experiments. In the ERP data, the difference between the repeated and synonym conditions remains even after adjustments to account for continuing effects of the verb. In the eye-tracking data, there were first-pass effects in the verb region and the following PP region in the repetition condition. Hence, it is possible that the second effect represents a savings based on reduced spillover processing from the preceding region. However, note that other experiments involving this sentence type have shown that verb repetition by itself does not lead to facilitated processing of the PP region and that facilitated processing of the PP region does not always follow repetition priming effects at the preceding verb. For example, a number of experiments have had a condition with a repeated verb but in which the prime sentence had a structure different from the target. If verb repetition by itself were sufficient to cause effects in the PP region, we would expect at least some of those experiments to produce priming effects at the PP. To date, none of them have (e.g., Pickering & Traxler, 2008, Experiments 2, 3, and 4; Traxler, 2008-a, Experiment 1). Priming effects at the PP region have been most often observed when there has been no repetition priming effect in the preceding verb region, however (Pickering & Traxler, 2008, Experiments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Traxler & Tooley, 2008, Experiment 1; Traxler, in press-b). Our best interpretation of the current results, then, is that the effects in the verb and PP scoring regions reflect related but separate processes: repetition priming of the verb and facilitated syntactic ambiguity resolution in the PP region. The results are difficult to reconcile with a semantic explanation of the priming effects (see also Ledoux et al., 2007). A semantic account is possible because, for the reduced relative, priming in online processing has been observed previously only when the same verb appeared in the prime and the target sentences (Pickering & Traxler, 2004; Traxler, in press-b; Traxler & Tooley, 2008; but see Traxler, 2008 –a, for modifier– goal ambiguities). Repeating the verb means that the prime and the target share elements of meaning. If overlapping meaning leads to facilitated processing, the synonym condition should facilitate target processing about as much as does the repeated condition. The fact that the synonym condition produced no discernible benefit during processing of the disambiguating region in the target sentence in


either the eye-tracking or the ERP experiments should count strongly against a semantic explanation of the priming effects. Having ruled out strategic prediction and semantic overlap as explanations for the priming results, we believe that the results reflect syntactic operations. The question then becomes what kind of syntactic processing account is best able to handle results like these (we acknowledge the possibility that there may be more than one good answer). In our view, such an account must assimilate the following findings: (a) Priming of the disambiguating region in the reduced relative is robust when the verb is repeated across the prime and the target (Ledoux et al., 2007; Pickering & Traxler, 2004; Traxler, in press-b; Traxler & Tooley, 2008; see also Arai et al., 2007). (b) In Experiment 2, none of the dependent measures showed priming in the synonym condition at the disambiguating region (the total time estimate of overall savings was only 17 ms, which was not significantly different from no priming at all). (c) A comparable pattern of effects occurred in the ERP data. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with standard autonomous syntax accounts. Those accounts propose that syntactic structures are built on the basis of word category identities. That is, as words are recognized, they are identified as belonging to one of the major parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, preposition). The input to the parser is a string of categories (e.g., determiner–noun–verb– determiner–noun), and the parser builds hierarchical structures based on concatenating words into different kinds of phrases, depending on what category of word heads the phrase. If syntactic priming occurs at all in this kind of system, it should happen when consecutive phrases or sentences share elements of structure, whether content words are repeated across those consecutive sentences or not. Such priming has been observed during online sentence interpretation within sentences (Frazier et al., 2000; Trueswell & Kim, 1998) but not between sentences for reduced relatives. It is of course possible that the priming effects for reduced relative prime–target pairs without repeated participles are present and merely smaller than are the priming effects that occur with repeated participles. In fact, Thothathiri and Snedecker (2008) have reported that kind of result for the dative– double object alternation in children (but see Arai et al., 2007), and lexically independent priming has been observed in one study in which the structural relations involved adjuncts rather than arguments (Traxler, in press-a). If so, the results might best be interpreted as reflecting the joint action of autonomous structure building and lexically associated structural information (as in Branigan, Pickering, & McLean, 2005). One might object to a lexicalist interpretation of the current results on the basis of the absence of prime–target interactions in measures of early processing, such as first-pass time and regression-path time, in Experiment 2. Note, however, that priming effects for reduced relatives with repeated verbs are often observed in measures of early processing (e.g., in first-pass regressions and regression path time in Traxler & Tooley, 2008, Experiment 1, in first-pass time, first-pass regressions, and regressionpath time in Traxler, in press-b; in first-pass time in Pickering & Traxler, 2004). But even if lexically dependent effects were observed only in late measures, that would still not be good news from an autonomous syntax perspective, as that account would still be moot as to why syntactic priming effects should depend on

31

lexical repetition. By contrast, late effects are not particularly difficult to assimilate from the lexicalist perspective. Because the reduced relative is a rare structure, the overall subcategorization preference for the verbs used in the current experiments would overwhelmingly favor the main clause interpretation. As a result, the parser might still strongly prefer that analysis to the reduced relative, even if the immediately preceding sentence had the same verb with the reduced relative structure. The lexicalist account need not claim that a single prime sentence will guide readers to the correct analysis initially and thus eliminate the need for syntactic reanalysis of the target sentence (in fact, the empirical record suggests that it does not). So, although structural primes are more effective than other kinds of contextual manipulations in facilitating processing of the reduced relative, we do not believe that the current late effects are good for autonomous syntax accounts and bad for lexicalist ones (see also Traxler & Tooley, 2007).4 The results of the present study provide further evidence that syntactic priming effects in the reduced relative depend on, or are at least larger, when lexical items are repeated across primes and targets. That is, even when the verb in the prime sentence is very closely related semantically to the verb in the target sentence, there was no indication that processing the prime speeded interpretation of the target. What kind of parsing mechanism would produce such results? One possible framework is the constraint-based lexicalist approach to parsing (MacDonald et al., 1994), which proposes that elements of syntactic structure are bound to specific words. When those words are accessed during comprehension, activation spreads to elements of syntactic structure that are bound to the activated lexical items. Initial parsing involves the activation of multiple structures that are compatible with various properties of the input. Readers settle on one structure for a string of words when the pattern of activation in a neural network favors one candidate structure over possible alternatives. Our results are straightforwardly compatible with one aspect of this account. Namely, structural elements are tied to specific words and are not constructed on the basis of generic elements. Note that not all lexicalist accounts suppose that structural representations are bound to individual words (e.g., Vosse & Kempen, 2000; see also Jackendoff, 1997, 2007), and not all lexicalist accounts propose that all structural relations are lexically encoded (Boland & Blodgett, 2006; Boland & Boehm-Jernigan, 4

One additional possibility is a kind of “hybrid” or dual-route architecture. As one of our reviewers noted, “It would be possible to propose a system that there is a default rule that applies broadly but can be overcome in a particular case by specific knowledge. In the case of inflection, this is archival knowledge of the form of a particular inflected word. In the case of syntactic priming, it could be a temporary activation of the knowledge of how a verb was just used that overcomes the default, autonomous, general parsing preference (for a main clause rather than a reduced relative clause).” This is an interesting possibility, and it is similar to some “grain size” solutions under which structural preferences are computed at both the category level and the level of specific lexical entries (e.g., Mitchell, 1987). However, this formulation does not seem to explain why the operation of a syntactic structure-building system would not produce facilitation whenever two subsequent sentences share the same structure. That is, it does not explain why priming in online processing should seem to depend so strongly on repeated lexical material.

32


1998; see also Traxler & Tooley, 2007).5 For example, Vosse and Kempen have proposed a representational system in which lexical entries are associated with a multilevel structural representation called a lexical frame that integrates aspects of meaning (argument structures) with aspects of syntactic structures. An individual word may be associated with more than one lexical frame (as in cases of category or subcategory ambiguities), and an individual lexical frame can be associated with more than one lexical item. In this system, activating a lexical item entails activating the lexical frame associated with that item. Parsing is accomplished by finding overlapping elements in the lexical frames of the words in the sentence. When a newly activated lexical frame can attach to more than one position in the developing representation, competition in a unification space determines where the newly activated frame ultimately attaches. Although their representational system is similar to that of Vosse and Kempen, Boland and colleagues suggest that lexical representation of syntactic structure is limited to argument relations. Neither of these lexicalist alternatives would be incompatible with a system in which structural information was dedicated to individual lexical representations, as opposed to being shared among a population of lexical items that had similar event frame or argument structure properties. Within a framework in which argument structures, lexical frames, or elements of syntactic structure are tied to individual lexical items, syntactic priming occurs because the prime and target sentences both direct comprehenders to the same memory address. When participants process the prime sentence, they initially favor the (incorrect) main clause interpretation over the (correct) reduced relative interpretation. When they encounter information that rules out the preferred analysis, they are forced to reevaluate their previous choice. In a lexicalist processing framework, this reevaluation involves reducing the activation of the main clause structure and increasing the activation of the reduced relative structure. This can be accomplished by reaccessing the lexicon, inhibiting the link between the word examined and the main clause structure, and increasing the activation of the link between the word examined and the relative clause structure. When the word examined is encountered in the target sentence, some residual activation of the connection to the reduced relative structure facilitates recovery of the ultimately correct structure. When critical material is not repeated across primes and targets, no facilitation occurs because the verb in the target sentence (watched, for example) sends readers to a different memory address than observed does. Readers thus gain no benefit from the residual activation of the reduced relative structure that is tied to the verb observed. The current results, as well as the previous ERP and behavioral results, indicate substantial overlap between the syntactic priming process in comprehension and production, but there appear to be some differences as well. In production, syntactic priming has been observed for the passive construction (e.g., The defendant was examined by the lawyer), for the dative– double object alternation (e.g., John gave a book to Mary vs. John gave Mary a book), and for high–low attachment ambiguities (e.g., The hunter shot an elephant with a rifle vs. The hunter shot an elephant with a broken tusk; Arai et al., 2007; Bock, 1986; Branigan, Pickering, Liversedge, & Stewart, 1995). In some production priming studies, participants describe pictures and are more likely to use a syntactic structure that they have just heard or read. Lexical information

appears to influence the syntactic structure building processes in production, in that the proportion of congruent responses increases when the same verb is used in the prime sentence as in the response (Cleland & Pickering, 2003). However, one substantial difference between the production and comprehension results is that significant priming effects often occur in production even without lexical repetition between the prime and the target. This difference may indicate that production and comprehension tap different sets of syntactic representations. Alternatively, the sequencing of operations in production and comprehension may differ in ways that lead to different patterns of priming. For example, in production, word (or lemma) selection is thought to precede syntactic structure-building operations and the presence of a prime sentence may bias selection in favor of words that more often appear in the primed structure. Alternatively, timing factors may be critical. In production, response initiation usually occurs on the order of seconds after the critical material is presented, but in comprehension, the relevant operations unfold within a few hundred milliseconds. 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, 1968; Noppeney & Price, 2004; cf. Dooling, 1974).

Conclusion Our findings provide strong evidence that syntactic priming occurs in comprehension and that it is dependent on, or at least larger in the presence of, lexical overlap between prime and target sentences for sentences with reduced relative clauses. Further research will be required to determine whether this pattern is obtained for other sentence types. Hence, this study is an important step in understanding how and why syntactic priming occurs in comprehension, and it suggests that electrophysiology can play a vital role in the discovery of the cognitive and neuropsychological processes that underlie sentence comprehension.

5

We thank one of our reviewers for noting this.

References Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218 –250. Besson, M., & Kutas, M. (1993). The many facets of repetition: A cuedrecall and event-related potential analysis of repeating words in same versus different sentence contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1115–1133. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. Boland, J. E., & Blodgett, A. (2006). Argument status and pp-attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 385– 403. Boland, J. E., & Boehm-Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 684 –719. Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495–522.

SYNTACTIC PRIMING IN COMPREHENSION Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., & Stewart, A. J. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489 –506. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468 – 481. Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34 – 44. Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & ter Keurs, M. (1999). Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing open- and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 261–281. Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 103–128. Carey, P. W., Mehler, J., & Bever, T. G. (1970). Judging the veracity of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 243–254. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 214 –230. Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohammed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 317–334. Coulson, S., Federmeier, K. D., Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (2005). Right hemisphere sensitivity to word- and sentence-level context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 129 –147. Dooling, D. J. (1974). Rhythm and syntax in sentence perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 255–264. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348 –368. Ferreira, F., & McClure, K. K. (1997). Parsing of garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 273–306. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178 –210. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219 –1248. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45– 63. Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157–176. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 439 – 483. Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59 –73.

33

Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30, 47– 61. Jackendoff, R. (1999). Parallel constraint-based generative theories of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 393– 400. Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98 –110. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225. Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with eventrelated potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23– 49. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117–129. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980, January 11). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205. Kutas, M., van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994 –2005). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659 –724). London: Elsevier. Ledoux, K., Traxler, M., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143. Mu¨nte, T. F., Wieringa, B. M., Weyerts, H., Szentkuti, A., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (2001). Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia, 39, 91–102. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676 –703. Mehler, J., & Carey, P. W. (1967). Role of surface and base structure in the perception of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 335–338. Mehler, J., & Carey, P. W. (1968). The interaction of veracity and syntax in the processing of sentences. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 109 –111. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention & performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 601– 618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moortgat, M. (1988). Categorical investigations: Logical and linguistic aspects of the Lambek calculus. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris. Nobre, A. C., McCarthy G. (1994). Language-related ERPs: Scalp distributions and modulation by word type and semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 233–255. Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2004). An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 702–713. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785– 806. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786 – 803. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633– 651. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2004, March). Syntactic priming in

34


comprehension. Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, College Park, MD. Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2008). Syntactic priming in on-line comprehension. Unpublished manuscript. Pickering, M. J., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2006). Syntactic parsing. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 455–504). London: Elsevier. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372– 422. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Scheepers, C., & Crocker, M. W. (2004). Constituent order priming from reading to listening: A visual-world study. In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (pp. 167–185). New York: Psychology Press. Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel, I. (2006). Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject– object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1098, 139 –152. Streb, J., Hennighausen, E., & Ro¨sler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 175–201. Thothathiri, M., & Snedecker, J. (2008). Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 188 –213. Traxler, M. J. (2008). [Syntactic priming in online comprehension of relative clause sentences]. Unpublished raw data. Traxler, M. J. (in press-a). Lexically independent syntactic priming of

adjunct relations in on-line sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Traxler, M. J. (in press-b). Structural priming among prepositional phrases: Evidence from eye-movements. Memory & Cognition. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2005, March). The lexical basis of syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ. Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in parsing. Brain Research, 1146, 59 –74. Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic? Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 609 – 645. Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Electrophysiological evidence for the flexibility of lexical processing. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 129 –174). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238 –242. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143. Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of objective relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559 –570.

Appendix Prime–Target Pairs R primes have the same past participle as do the target sentences. S primes have a past participle that is closely related in meaning to the past participle in the target sentence. In the stimuli presented below, the sentences are grouped such that the R prime would be paired with the target on one of the experimental lists and the S prime would be paired with the target on a different experimental list. Each synonymous pair of verbs appears in two groups of sentences, because the sentence used as the target in the first group becomes the prime (or primes) in the second group and a prime in the first group becomes the target in the second group. R prime: The speaker selected by the group would work perfectly for the program. S prime: The speaker picked by the group would work perfectly for the program. Target: The architect selected by the manager was educated at Yale.

Target: The speaker picked by the group would work perfectly for the program. R prime: The director watched by the cop was in a bad part of the town. S prime: The director observed by the cop was in a bad part of the town. Target: The mouse watched by the cat was hiding under the table. R prime: The mouse observed by the cat was hiding under the table. S prime: The mouse watched by the cat was hiding under the table. Target: The director observed by the cop was in a bad part of the town.

R prime: The architect picked by the manager was educated at Yale.

R prime: The assistant graded by the professor was very interesting.

S prime: The architect selected by the manager was educated at Yale.

S prime: The assistant evaluated by the professor was very interesting.


Target: The leader graded by the participant was well liked. R prime: The leader evaluated by the participant was well liked.

35

Target: The teacher adored by the class was very easy to understand. R prime: The thief identified by the victim was held for questioning.

S prime: The leader graded by the participant was well liked. Target: The assistant evaluated by the professor was very interesting.

S prime: The thief recognized by the victim was held for questioning. Target: The victim identified by the doctor was in bad shape.

R prime: The mailman expected by the secretary arrived too late.

R prime: The victim recognized by the doctor was in bad shape.

S prime: The mailman anticipated by the secretary arrived too late.

S prime: The victim identified by the doctor was in bad shape.

Target: The deliveryman expected by the woman was right on time.

Target: The thief recognized by the victim was held for questioning.

R prime: The deliveryman anticipated by the woman was right on time.

R prime: The troops attacked by the terrorists suffered heavy losses.

S prime: The deliveryman expected by the woman was right on time.

S prime: The troops assaulted by the terrorists suffered heavy losses.

Target: The mailman anticipated by the secretary arrived too late.

Target: The army attacked by the rebels moved forward quickly.

R prime: The prisoner transported by the guards was closely watched.

R prime: The army assaulted by the rebels moved forward quickly.

S prime: The prisoner moved by the guards was closely watched.

S prime: The army attacked by the rebels moved forward quickly.

Target: The hostage transported by the captors was very worried.

Target: The troops assaulted by the terrorists suffered heavy losses.

R prime: The hostage moved by the captors was very worried.

R prime: The client wanted by the advertiser was worth a lot of money.

S prime: The hostage transported by the captors was very worried. Target: The prisoner moved by the guards was closely watched. R prime: The teacher loved by the class was very easy to understand. S prime: The teacher adored by the class was very easy to understand.

S prime: The client desired by the advertiser was worth a lot of money. Target: The actress wanted by the director was hesitant to confirm. R prime: The actress desired by the director was hesitant to confirm. S prime: The actress wanted by the director was hesitant to confirm.

Target: The singer loved by the fan was unable to make it to the concert.

Target: The client desired by the advertiser was worth a lot of money.

R prime: The singer adored by the fan was unable to make it to the concert.

R prime: The teacher appreciated by the principal worked very hard.

S prime: The singer loved by the fan was unable to make it to the concert.

S prime: The teacher valued by the principal worked very hard.

(Appendix continues)

36


Target: The secretary appreciated by the accountant was very knowledgeable.

R prime: The driver stopped by the policeman had been drinking.

R prime: The secretary valued by the accountant was very knowledgeable.

S prime: The driver halted by the policeman had been drinking.

S prime: The secretary appreciated by the accountant was very knowledgeable.

Target: The child stopped by the lifeguard looked very upset.

Target: The teacher valued by the principal worked very hard. R prime: The protester angered by the politician shouted obscenities at the reporter. S prime: The protester enraged by the politician shouted obscenities at the reporter. Target: The conservative angered by the liberals plotted revenge. R prime: The conservative enraged by the liberals plotted revenge. S prime: The conservative angered by the liberals plotted revenge. Target: The protester enraged by the politician shouted obscenities at the reporter. R prime: The rebels battled by the security forces fled into the jungle. S prime: The rebels fought by the security forces fled into the jungle. Target: The insurgent battled by the regiment was unable to triumph. R prime: The insurgent fought by the regiment was unable to triumph. S prime: The insurgent battled by the regiment was unable to triumph. Target: The rebels fought by the security forces fled into the jungle. R prime: The cowboys surrounded by the Indians were very worried. S prime: The cowboys encircled by the Indians were very worried. Target: The lions surrounded by the hunters paced nervously. R prime: The lions encircled by the hunters paced nervously. S prime: The lions surrounded by the hunters paced nervously. Target: The cowboys encircled by the Indians were very worried.

R prime: The child halted by the lifeguard looked very upset. S prime: The child stopped by the lifeguard looked very upset. Target: The driver halted by the policeman had been drinking. R prime: The voter convinced by the mayor was mighty pleased. S prime: The voter persuaded by the mayor was mighty pleased. Target: The consumer convinced by the salesman was pleasantly surprised. R prime: The consumer persuaded by the salesman was pleasantly surprised. S prime: The consumer convinced by the salesman was pleasantly surprised. Target: The voter persuaded by the mayor was mighty pleased. R prime: The actor copied by the understudy performed brilliantly. S prime: The actor imitated by the understudy performed brilliantly. Target: The genius copied by the children was running late. R prime: The genius imitated by the children was running late. S prime: The genius copied by the children was running late. Target: The actor imitated by the understudy performed brilliantly. R prime: The dog found by the hunter had a broken leg. S prime: The dog discovered by the hunter had a broken leg. Target: The bird found by the scientist acted calm and unbothered. R prime: The bird discovered by the scientist acted calm and unbothered. S prime: The bird found by the scientist acted calm and unbothered. Target: The dog discovered by the hunter had a broken leg.


37

R prime: The child scolded by the babysitter went up the stairs.

Target: The spy captured by the FBI agent disappeared forever.

S prime: The child punished by the babysitter went up the stairs.

R prime: The countess offended by the peasant swore revenge.

Target: The man scolded by the policeman was very embarrassed.

S prime: The countess disgusted by the peasant swore revenge.

R prime: The man punished by the policeman was very embarrassed.

Target: The tutor offended by the delinquent stormed out of the room.

S prime: The man scolded by the policeman was very embarrassed.

R prime: The tutor disgusted by the delinquent stormed out of the room.

Target: The child punished by the babysitter went up the stairs.

S prime: The tutor offended by the delinquent stormed out of the room.

R prime: The motorist injured by the truck driver had to go to the hospital.

Target: The countess disgusted by the peasant swore revenge. R prime: The trapper hunted by the cougar escaped in the end.

S prime: The motorist wounded by the truck driver had to go to the hospital.

S prime: The trapper stalked by the cougar escaped in the end.

Target: The child injured by the dog breathed heavily.

Target: The owl hunted by the eagle circled frantically.

R prime: The child wounded by the dog breathed heavily.

R prime: The owl stalked by the eagle circled frantically.

S prime: The child injured by the dog breathed heavily.

S prime: The owl hunted by the eagle circled frantically.

Target: The motorist wounded by the truck driver had to go to the hospital.

Target: The trapper stalked by the cougar escaped in the end. R prime: The passengers delayed by the pilot were furious.

R prime: The homeowner frightened by the burglar ran outside.

S prime: The passengers postponed by the pilot were furious.

S prime: The homeowner scared by the burglar ran outside.

Target: The woman delayed by the taxi driver started to shout.

Target: The horse frightened by the boy ran hurriedly away.

R prime: The woman postponed by the taxi driver started to shout.

R prime: The horse scared by the boy ran hurriedly away. S prime: The horse frightened by the boy ran hurriedly away.

S prime: The woman delayed by the taxi driver started to shout.

Target: The homeowner scared by the burglar ran outside.

Target: The passengers postponed by the pilot were furious.

R prime: The spy caught by the FBI agent disappeared forever.

R prime: The students helped by the counselors were very grateful.

S prime: The spy captured by the FBI agent disappeared forever.

S prime: The students assisted by the counselors were very grateful.

Target: The criminal caught by the detective was in a state of panic.

Target: The surgeons helped by the nurses were exhausted. R prime: The surgeons assisted by the nurses were exhausted.

R prime: The criminal captured by the detective was in a state of panic.

S prime: The surgeons helped by the nurses were exhausted.

S prime: The criminal caught by the detective was in a state of panic.

Target: The students assisted by the counselors were very grateful.


38


R prime: The miners rescued by the paramedics recovered slowly.

R prime: The deer killed by the speeding truck caused a large accident.

S prime: The miners saved by the paramedics recovered slowly.

S prime: The deer slaughtered by the speeding truck caused a large accident.

Target: The man rescued by the sailor was soaking wet.

Target: The turkey killed by the farmer would be eaten on Thanksgiving.

R prime: The man saved by the sailor was soaking wet. S prime: The man rescued by the sailor was soaking wet.

R prime: The turkey slaughtered by the farmer would be eaten on Thanksgiving.

Target: The miners saved by the paramedics recovered slowly.

S prime: The turkey killed by the farmer would be eaten on Thanksgiving.

R prime: The senator advised by the general spoke to the press.

Target: The deer slaughtered by the speeding truck caused a large accident.

S prime: The senator counseled by the general spoke to the press.

R prime: The teenager ignored by the store clerk was very frustrated.

Target: The girl advised by the parent stayed at home that night.

S prime: The teenager overlooked by the store clerk was very frustrated.

R prime: The girl counseled by the parent stayed at home that night.

Target: The hobo ignored by the train conductor snuck aboard.

S prime: The girl advised by the parent stayed at home that night.

R prime: The hobo overlooked by the train conductor snuck aboard.

Target: The senator counseled by the general spoke to the press.

S prime: The hobo ignored by the train conductor snuck aboard.

R prime: The carpenter questioned by the inspector wanted to go home.

Target: The teenager overlooked by the store clerk was very frustrated.

S prime: The carpenter quizzed by the inspector wanted to go home.

R prime: The woman hated by the deliveryman was always rude.

Target: The butler questioned by the widow remained calm.

S prime: The woman loathed by the deliveryman was always rude.

R prime: The butler quizzed by the widow remained calm. S prime: The butler questioned by the widow remained calm.

Target: The doctor hated by his patients had a terrible bedside manner.

Target: The carpenter quizzed by the inspector wanted to go home.

R prime: The doctor loathed by his patients had a terrible bedside manner.

R prime: The girl fascinated by the monkey gave him her ice cream cone.

S prime: The doctor hated by his patients had a terrible bedside manner.

S prime: The girl captivated by the monkey gave him her ice cream cone.

Target: The woman loathed by the deliveryman was always rude.

Target: The child fascinated by his friend got very excited.

R prime: The racehorse inspected by the doctor was able to race the next day.

R prime: The child captivated by his friend got very excited. S prime: The child fascinated by his friend got very excited.

S prime: The racehorse checked by the doctor was able to race the next day.

Target: The girl captivated by the monkey gave him her ice cream cone.

Target: The cat inspected by the judge won a prestigious award.


39

R prime: The cat checked by the judge won a prestigious award.

Target: The army trapped by the revolutionaries suffered heavy losses.

S prime: The cat inspected by the judge won a prestigious award.

R prime: The child thrilled by the movie let out a loud cry and smiled broadly.

Target: The racehorse checked by the doctor was able to race the next day.

S prime: The child excited by the movie let out a loud cry and smiled broadly.

R prime: The lion mauled by the bear was removed from the circus.

Target: The girl thrilled by the actor on television completely forgot what she was doing.

S prime: The lion mangled by the bear was removed from the circus.

R prime: The girl excited by the actor on television completely forgot what she was doing.

Target: The photographer mauled by the tiger was sore for weeks.

S prime: The girl thrilled by the actor on television completely forgot what she was doing.

R prime: The photographer mangled by the tiger was sore for weeks.

Target: The child excited by the movie let out a loud cry and smiled broadly.

S prime: The photographer mauled by the tiger was sore for weeks.

R prime: The king pleased by the gift was in good spirits. S prime: The king delighted by the gift was in good spirits.

Target: The lion attacked by the bear was removed from the circus.

Target: The baby pleased by the toy finally stopped crying.

R prime: The juror accused by the judge was not allowed back in the courtroom.

R prime: The baby delighted by the toy finally stopped crying.

S prime: The juror blamed by the judge was not allowed back in the courtroom. Target: The employee accused by the supervisor was asked not to return to work. R prime: The employee blamed by the supervisor was asked not to return to work. S prime: The employee accused by the supervisor was asked not to return to work. Target: The juror blamed by the judge was not allowed back in the courtroom. R prime: The army ambushed by the revolutionaries suffered heavy losses.

S prime: The baby pleased by the toy finally stopped crying. Target: The king delighted by the gift was in good spirits. R prime: The turtle covered by the landslide dug furiously. S prime: The turtle buried by the landslide dug furiously. Target: The crab covered by the sand felt safe from the circling birds. R prime: The crab buried by the sand felt safe from the circling birds. S prime: The crab covered by the sand felt safe from the circling birds. Target: The turtle buried by the landslide dug furiously.

S prime: The army trapped by the revolutionaries suffered heavy losses.

R prime: The woman astounded by the product bought five boxes.

Target: The pirates ambushed by the prisoners lost all of their gold.

S prime: The woman amazed by the product bought five boxes.

R prime: The pirates trapped by the prisoners lost all of their gold.

Target: The child astounded by the spaceship launch started reading books on space.

S prime: The pirates ambushed by the prisoners lost all of their gold.

R prime: The child amazed by the spaceship launch started reading books on space.


40


S prime: The child astounded by the spaceship launch started reading books on space.

R prime: The girl yanked by her father wanted to stay at the zoo longer.

Target: The woman amazed by the product bought five boxes.

S prime: The girl pulled by her father wanted to stay at the zoo longer.

R prime: The man lifted by the elephant was not very confident.

Target: The lawyer yanked by the boy made a stern face.

S prime: The man hoisted by the elephant was not very confident.

R prime: The Girl Scout startled by the old woman dropped her box of cookies.

Target: The monkey lifted by the trainer was hoping for a treat.

S prime: The Girl Scout alarmed by the old woman dropped her box of cookies.

R prime: The monkey hoisted by the trainer was hoping for a treat.

Target: The dog startled by the intruder let out a deafening howl.

S prime: The monkey lifted by the trainer was hoping for a treat.

R prime: The dog alarmed by the intruder let out a deafening howl.

Target: The man hoisted by the elephant was not very confident.

S prime: The dog startled by the intruder let out a deafening howl.

R prime: The goalie shoved by the referee became very upset.

Target: The Girl Scout alarmed by the old woman dropped her box of cookies.

S prime: The goalie pushed by the referee became very upset. Target: The woman shoved by the robber began to scream for help. R prime: The woman pushed by the robber began to scream for help. S prime: The woman shoved by the robber began to scream for help. Target: The goalie pushed by the referee became very upset. R prime: The lady grabbed by the man narrowly missed being struck by a car. S prime: The lady seized by the man narrowly missed being struck by a car. Target: The mouse grabbed by the eagle was frozen with fright. R prime: The mouse seized by the eagle was frozen with fright. S prime: The mouse grabbed by the eagle was frozen with fright. Target: The lady seized by the man narrowly missed being struck by a car.

R prime: The man shunned by the woman left the bar and went straight home. S prime: The man rejected by the woman left the bar and went straight home. Target: The student shunned by the classmate learned to hate school. R prime: The student rejected by the classmate learned to hate school. S prime: The student shunned by the classmate learned to hate school. Target: The man rejected by the woman left the bar and went straight home. R prime: The pitcher replaced by the coach threw his glove into the dugout. S prime: The pitcher substituted by the coach threw his glove into the dugout. Target: The actor replaced by the director thought his career was over. R prime: The actor substituted by the director thought his career was over.

R prime: The lawyer pulled by the boy made a stern face. S prime: The lawyer yanked by the boy made a stern face.

S prime: The actor replaced by the director thought his career was over.

Target: The girl pulled by her father wanted to stay at the zoo longer.

Target: The pitcher substituted by the coach threw his glove into the dugout.


41

R prime: The policeman interrogated by the commissioner swore he was innocent.

R prime: The man kidnapped by the spy refused to tell what he knew.

S prime: The policeman grilled by the commissioner swore he was innocent.

S prime: The man abducted by the spy refused to tell what he knew.

Target: The victim interrogated by the attorney stayed very calm and collected.

Target: The woman kidnapped by the stalker managed to escape.

R prime: The victim grilled by the attorney stayed very calm and collected.

R prime: The shortstop cheered by the pitcher threw the runner out at home.

S prime: The victim interrogated by the attorney stayed very calm and collected.

S prime: The shortstop encouraged by the pitcher threw the runner out at home.

Target: The policeman grilled by the commissioner swore he was innocent.

Target: The child cheered by the teacher spelled the word correctly.

R prime: The player praised by the talent scout was soon offered a scholarship.

R prime: The child encouraged by the teacher spelled the word correctly.

S prime: The player complimented by the talent scout was soon offered a scholarship.

S prime: The child cheered by the teacher spelled the word correctly.

Target: The pupil praised by the tutor studied extra long that week.

Target: The shortstop encouraged by the pitcher threw the runner out at home.

R prime: The pupil complimented by the tutor studied extra long that week.

R prime: The manager looted by the protestors called the police immediately.

S prime: The pupil praised by the tutor studied extra long that week. Target: The player complimented by the talent scout was soon offered a scholarship. R prime: The child teased by the bully was not at school the next day. S prime: The child tormented by the bully was not at school the next day. Target: The girl teased by the boy promised never to talk to him again. R prime: The girl tormented by the boy promised never to talk to him again. S prime: The girl teased by the boy promised never to talk to him again. Target: The child tormented by the bully was not at school the next day.

S prime: The manager ransacked by the protestors called the police immediately. Target: The attorney looted by the criminal lost many important documents. R prime: The attorney ransacked by the criminal lost many important documents. S prime: The attorney looted by the criminal lost many important documents. Target: The manager ransacked by the protestors called the police immediately. R prime: The mother kissed by the toddler gave him a hug in return. S prime: The mother smooched by the toddler gave him a hug in return. Target: The girl kissed by the celebrity got so excited that she fainted.

R prime: The woman abducted by the stalker managed to escape. S prime: The woman kidnapped by the stalker managed to escape.

R prime: The girl smooched by the celebrity got so excited that she fainted.

Target: The man abducted by the spy refused to tell what he knew.

S prime: The girl kissed by the celebrity got so excited that she fainted.


42


Target: The mother smooched by the toddler gave him a hug in return.

S prime: The accountant fired by the firm was arrested for drug possession.

R prime: The professor honored by the dean received a corner office.

Target: The principal sacked by the school board had been missing work.

S prime: The professor revered by the dean received a corner office.

R prime: The firemen drenched by the helicopter drop began to hike uphill.

Target: The secretary honored by the company got an extra day off.

S prime: The firemen soaked by the helicopter drop began to hike uphill.

R prime: The secretary revered by the company got an extra day off.

Target: The girl drenched by the clown never went to another circus.

S prime: The secretary honored by the company got an extra day off.

R prime: The girl soaked by the clown never went to another circus.

Target: The professor revered by the dean received a corner office.

S prime: The girl drenched by the clown never went to another circus.

R prime: The swimmer tired by the coach had to quit early.

Target: The firemen soaked by the helicopter drop began to hike uphill.

S prime: The swimmer fatigued by the coach had to quit early. Target: The woman tired by the children put them down for naps. R prime: The woman fatigued by the children put them down for naps. S prime: The woman tired by the children put them down for naps.

R prime: The man fooled by the magician did not receive a prize. S prime: The man tricked by the magician did not receive a prize. Target: The policeman fooled by the disguise let the man go free. R prime: The policeman tricked by the disguise let the man go free.

Target: The swimmer fatigued by the coach had to quit early. R prime: The doctor cured by the specialist went back to work. S prime: The doctor healed by the specialist went back to work. Target: The nurse cured by the medicine had been very ill. R prime: The nurse healed by the medicine had been very ill.

S prime: The policeman fooled by the disguise let the man go free. Target: The man tricked by the magician did not receive a prize. R prime: The supplier cheated by the manufacturer refused to carry their product. S prime: The supplier conned by the manufacturer refused to carry their product.

S prime: The nurse cured by the medicine had been very ill. Target: The doctor healed by the specialist went back to work.

Target: The landlord cheated by the couple was not paid any rent.

R prime: The principal fired by the school board had been missing work.

R prime: The landlord conned by the couple was not paid any rent.

S prime: The principal sacked by the school board had been missing work.

S prime: The landlord cheated by the couple was not paid any rent.

Target: The accountant fired by the firm was arrested for drug possession.

Target: The supplier conned by the manufacturer refused to carry their product.

R prime: The accountant sacked by the firm was arrested for drug possession.

R prime: The waitress preferred by the customer got a large tip.


S prime: The waitress favored by the customer got a large tip. Target: The attorney preferred by the judge was always on time. R prime: The attorney favored by the judge was always on time. S prime: The attorney preferred by the judge was always on time. Target: The waitress favored by the customer got a large tip. R prime: The athlete coached by the dancer became much more flexible. S prime: The athlete trained by the dancer became much more flexible. Target: The man coached by the gym owner lost 15 pounds. R prime: The man trained by the gym owner lost 15 pounds. S prime: The man coached by the gym owner lost 15 pounds. Target: The athlete trained by the dancer became much more flexible. R prime: The girl taught by the chef made a wonderful souffle´.

43

R prime: The baker hired by the market made eight different kinds of bread. S prime: The baker employed by the market made eight different kinds of bread. Target: The manager hired by the owner had to work 7 nights per week. R prime: The manager employed by the owner had to work 7 nights per week. S prime: The manager hired by the owner had to work 7 nights per week. Target: The baker employed by the market made eight different kinds of bread. R prime: The girl washed by her mother was covered in spaghetti. S prime: The girl cleaned by her mother was covered in spaghetti. Target: The doctor washed by the nurse was prepping for surgery. R prime: The doctor cleaned by the nurse was prepping for surgery.

S prime: The girl instructed by the chef made a wonderful souffle´.

S prime: The doctor washed by the nurse was prepping for surgery.

Target: The student taught by her mother got straight As.

Target: The girl cleaned by her mother was covered in spaghetti.

R prime: The student instructed by her mother got straight As. S prime: The student taught by her mother got straight As.

R prime: The man burned by the flames covered his face and ran.

Target: The girl instructed by the chef made a wonderful souffle´.

S prime: The man scorched by the flames covered his face and ran.

R prime: The singer missed by the conductor was left at the theater.

Target: The woman burned by the tanning bed looked like a lobster.

S prime: The singer skipped by the conductor was left at the theater.

R prime: The woman scorched by the tanning bed looked like a lobster.

Target: The child missed by the teacher did not receive a cookie.

S prime: The woman burned by the tanning bed looked like a lobster.

R prime: The child skipped by the teacher did not receive a cookie.

Target: The man scorched by the flames covered his face and ran.

S prime: The child missed by the teacher did not receive a cookie.

R prime: The stylist pampered by the magazine decided to take a job there.

Target: The singer skipped by the conductor was left at the theater.

S prime: The stylist spoiled by the magazine decided to take a job there.


44


Target: The child pampered by the relative ate ice cream every day.

Target: The applicant assessed by the supervisor was not right for the job.

R prime: The child spoiled by the relative ate ice cream every day.

R prime: The woman compensated by the bank began to rebuild her house.

S prime: The child pampered by the relative ate ice cream every day.

S prime: The woman reimbursed by the bank began to rebuild her house.

Target: The stylist spoiled by the magazine decided to take a job there.

Target: The man compensated by the restaurant had never had a worse meal.

R prime: The chef punished by the manager had to work three extra shifts.

R prime: The man reimbursed by the restaurant had never had a worse meal.

S prime: The chef disciplined by the manager had to work three extra shifts.

S prime: The man compensated by the restaurant had never had a worse meal.

Target: The apprentice punished by the craftsman had to clean up the workshop.

Target: The woman reimbursed by the bank began to rebuild her house.

R prime: The apprentice disciplined by the craftsman had to clean up the workshop.

R prime: The superhero crushed by the train got back up to chase the villain.

S prime: The apprentice punished by the craftsman had to clean up the workshop.

S prime: The superhero squashed by the train got back up to chase the villain.

Target: The chef disciplined by the manager had to work three extra shifts.

Target: The man crushed by the car door had to have surgery on his hand.

R prime: The captain worried by the storm stayed awake all night long.

R prime: The man squashed by the car door had to have surgery on his hand.

S prime: The captain concerned by the storm stayed awake all night long.

S prime: The man crushed by the car door had to have surgery on his hand.

Target: The parents worried by the teenager decided to talk to him.

Target: The superhero squashed by the train got back up to chase the villain.

R prime: The parents concerned by the teenager decided to talk to him.

R prime: The chemist tainted by the toxins spent 2 weeks in the hospital.

S prime: The parents worried by the teenager decided to talk to him.

S prime: The chemist contaminated by the toxins spent 2 weeks in the hospital.

Target: The captain concerned by the storm stayed awake all night long.

Target: The rats tainted by the rabid dog had to be destroyed.

R prime: The applicant appraised by the supervisor was not right for the job.

R prime: The rats contaminated by the rabid dog had to be destroyed. S prime: The rats tainted by the rabid dog had to be destroyed.

S prime: The applicant assessed by the supervisor was not right for the job.

Target: The chemist contaminated by the toxins spent 2 weeks in the hospital.

Target: The pitcher appraised by the scout was offered a spot on the team.

R prime: The girl hugged by the grandparent felt safe and warm.

R prime: The pitcher assessed by the scout was offered a spot on the team.

S prime: The girl embraced by the grandparent felt safe and warm.

S prime: The pitcher appraised by the scout was offered a spot on the team.

Target: The coach hugged by the player had an amazing career.


45

R prime: The coach embraced by the player had an amazing career.

Target: The woman registered by the attendant left to find her classroom.

S prime: The coach hugged by the player had an amazing career.

R prime: The woman enrolled by the attendant left to find her classroom.

Target: The girl embraced by the grandparent felt safe and warm.

S prime: The woman registered by the attendant left to find her classroom.

R prime: The player examined by the doctor was allowed to finish the game. S prime: The player tested by the doctor was allowed to finish the game. Target: The defendant examined by the psychologist was found to be mentally stable. R prime: The defendant tested by the psychologist was found to be mentally stable. S prime: The defendant examined by the psychologist was found to be mentally stable.

Target: The boy enrolled by the parents did not want to start school. R prime: The baby soothed by the warm bath went right to sleep. S prime: The baby calmed by the warm bath went right to sleep. Target: The lady soothed by the rain smiled to herself. R prime: The lady calmed by the rain smiled to herself. S prime: The lady soothed by the rain smiled to herself.

Target: The player tested by the doctor was allowed to finish the game. R prime: The man hassled by the salesman decided to shop at another store. S prime: The man bothered by the salesman decided to shop at another store. Target: The woman hassled by the panhandler did not have any cash. R prime: The woman bothered by the panhandler did not have any cash. S prime: The woman hassled by the panhandler did not have any cash. Target: The man bothered by the salesman decided to shop at another store.

Target: The baby calmed by the warm bath went right to sleep. R prime: The ice skater criticized by the commentator had poor technique. S prime: The ice skater critiqued by the commentator had poor technique. Target: The cook criticized by the customers used too much salt. R prime: The cook critiqued by the customers used too much salt. S prime: The cook criticized by the customers used too much salt. Target: The ice skater critiqued by the commentator had poor technique.

R prime: The boy registered by the parents did not want to start school. S prime: The boy enrolled by the parents did not want to start school.

Received June 1, 2007 Revision received May 5, 2008 Accepted May 16, 2008 䡲