Agent-patient similarity affects sentence structure in language production: evidence from subject omissions in Mandarin

Interference effects from semantically similar items are well-known in studies of single word production, where the presence of semantically similar distractor words slows picture naming. This article examines the consequences of this interference in sentence production and tests the hypothesis that in situations of high similarity-based interference, producers are more likely to omit one of the interfering elements than when there is low semantic similarity and thus low interference. This work investigated language production in Mandarin, which allows subject noun phrases to be omitted in discourse contexts in which the subject entity has been previously mentioned in the discourse. We hypothesize that Mandarin speakers omit the subject more often when the subject and the object entities are conceptually similar. A corpus analysis of simple transitive sentences found higher rates of subject omission when both the subject and object were animate (potentially yielding similarity-based interference) than when the subject was animate and object was inanimate. A second study manipulated subject-object animacy in a picture description task and replicated this result: participants omitted the animate subject more often when the object was also animate than when it was inanimate. These results suggest that similarity-based interference affects sentence forms, particularly when the agent of the action is mentioned in the sentence. Alternatives and mechanisms for this effect are discussed.

[1]  R. Golinkoff,et al.  Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. , 1975 .

[2]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data , 1981 .

[3]  J R Anderson,et al.  Retrieval of information from long-term memory. , 1983, Science.

[4]  W. Glaser,et al.  The time course of picture-word interference. , 1984 .

[5]  J. K. Bock,et al.  Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation , 1985, Cognition.

[6]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  An Incremental Procedural Grammar for Sentence Formulation , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar , 1989 .

[8]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[9]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production : Picture word interference studies , 1990 .

[10]  H. Schriefers,et al.  Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. , 1991 .

[11]  J. H. Neely Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. , 1991 .

[12]  K. Bock,et al.  From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. , 1992, Psychological review.

[13]  K. Bock,et al.  From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. , 1992 .

[14]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Shelia M. Kennison,et al.  Comprehending referential expressions during reading: Evidence from eye tracking , 1997 .

[16]  P. Gordon,et al.  Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference , 1997, Cognition.

[17]  Carolyn E Wilshire,et al.  Serial order in phonological encoding: an exploration of the `word onset effect' using laboratory-induced errors , 1998, Cognition.

[18]  Randall Hendrick,et al.  Comprehension of Referring Expressions in Chinese. , 1999 .

[19]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking , 2000, Cognition.

[20]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[21]  J. Meaning , Sound , and Syntax : Lexical Priming in Sentence Production , 2001 .

[22]  F. Ferreira,et al.  How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums , 2002 .

[23]  Markus F Damian,et al.  Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa) , 2005, Cognition.

[25]  P. Gordon,et al.  Reading words in discourse: the modulation of lexical priming effects by message-level context. , 2006, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[26]  Koenraad De Smedt,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF INCREMENTAL GRAMMATICAL ENCODING , 2006 .

[27]  L. Wheeldon,et al.  Planning scope in spoken sentence production: the role of grammatical units. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Amit Almor,et al.  The Form of Referential Expressions in Discourse , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[29]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Grammatical and Phonological Influences on Word Order , 2009, Psychological science.

[30]  Daniel J. Acheson,et al.  Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Theresa Biberauer,et al.  Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory , 2010 .

[32]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  How Speakers Refer: The Role of Accessibility , 2010, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[33]  J. Jescheniak,et al.  On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression? , 2011 .

[35]  Kumiko Fukumura,et al.  The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression , 2011 .

[36]  Daniel J. Acheson,et al.  The Rhymes that the Reader Perused Confused the Meaning: Phonological Effects during On-line Sentence Comprehension. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[37]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation , 2012, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Incremental Phonological Encoding during Unscripted Sentence Production , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[39]  José A. Camacho Null Subjects: List of abbreviations , 2013 .

[40]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Experience and generalization in a connectionist model of Mandarin Chinese relative clause processing , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[41]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[42]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[43]  Chigusa Kurumada,et al.  Communicatively efficient language production and case-marker omission in Japanese , 2013, CogSci.

[44]  M. MacDonald Production is at the left edge of the PDC but still central: response to commentaries , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[45]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  How language production shapes language form and comprehension , 2012, Front. Psychol..

[46]  Clinton L. Johns,et al.  Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension , 2014, Cognition.

[47]  Maryellen C MacDonald,et al.  Visual Salience Modulates Structure Choice in Relative Clause Production , 2014, Language and speech.