Literature DB >> 28377640

Readers generalize adaptation to newly-encountered dialectal structures to other unfamiliar structures.

Scott H Fraundorf1, T Florian Jaeger2.   

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that syntactic processing may be guided in part by expectations about the statistics of the input that comprehenders have encountered; however, these statistics and even the syntactic structures themselves vary from situation to situation. Some recent work suggests that readers can adapt to variability in the frequencies of known, but infrequent syntactic structures. But, the relation between adaptation to altered frequencies of familiar structures and learning to process unfamiliar, never-before-seen structures is under-explored. In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigated readers' adaptation to an unfamiliar structure used in some regional dialects of American English: the needs+past participle structure, such as using The car needs washed to mean The car needs to be washed. Study 1 used a novel Web-based recruitment method to target regions where participants were likely to be familiar (Ohio, western Pennsylvania) or unfamiliar (Colorado) with the needs+past participle structure. Participants unfamiliar with the structure initially read the structure more slowly, but over the course of the experiment came to read it more like the familiar participants. Study 2 further demonstrated that participants who have adapted to needs+past participle generalize this adaptation to a different, but related structure. These results suggest (a) that readers adapt to unfamiliar syntactic structures, (b) that, in doing so, they become more like existing users of those structures, and (c) that they can generalize this other structures that they may also be more likely to encounter. We discuss these results in the context of implicit learning accounts of exposure effects on syntactic processing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptation; dialect syntax; implicit learning; learning novel syntax; sentence processing

Year:  2016        PMID: 28377640      PMCID: PMC5376074          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  65 in total

1.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity.

Authors:  Katherine A DeLong; Thomas P Urbach; Marta Kutas
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2005-07-10       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension.

Authors:  Manabu Arai; Roger P G van Gompel; Christoph Scheepers
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension.

Authors:  Roger Levy
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-07-30

4.  Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Kristen M Tooley; Matthew J Traxler; Tamara Y Swaab
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 5.  The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition.

Authors:  Gary S Dell; Franklin Chang
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?

Authors:  Sarah Bernolet; Robert J Hartsuiker
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2010-01-19

7.  The weckud wetch of the wast: lexical adaptation to a novel accent.

Authors:  Jessica Maye; Richard N Aslin; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-04-05

Review 8.  Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.

Authors:  Andy Clark
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 12.579

9.  The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments.

Authors:  Philip Hofmeister; T Florian Jaeger; Inbal Arnon; Ivan A Sag; Neal Snider
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2011-10-18

10.  Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension.

Authors:  Justine B Wells; Morten H Christiansen; David S Race; Daniel J Acheson; Maryellen C MacDonald
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  7 in total

1.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions?

Authors:  Ariel N James; Scott H Fraundorf; Eun-Kyung Lee; Duane G Watson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.059

2.  A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension.

Authors:  Caoimhe M Harrington Stack; Ariel N James; Duane G Watson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

3.  Distinct Neural Networks Relate to Common and Speaker-Specific Language Priors.

Authors:  Leon O H Kroczek; Thomas C Gunter
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2020-05-29

4.  Implicit learning of structure occurs in parallel with lexically-mediated syntactic priming effects in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Kristen M Tooley; Matthew J Traxler
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  Early-life education may help bolster declarative memory in old age, especially for women.

Authors:  Jana Reifegerste; João Veríssimo; Michael D Rugg; Mariel Y Pullman; Laura Babcock; Dana A Glei; Maxine Weinstein; Noreen Goldman; Michael T Ullman
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2020-06-05

6.  What the Heck Is Salience? How Predictive Language Processing Contributes to Sociolinguistic Perception.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger; Kodi Weatherholtz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-08-03

7.  The role of priming in grammatical acceptability judgements for native versus non-native speakers: Effects of intelligibility.

Authors:  Rodica R Constantine; Douglas J Getty; Scott H Fraundorf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.752

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.