van Gompel, R. P.
University of Dundee
Theories by Chang et al. (2006) and Jaeger and Snider (2013) claim that structural priming is due to error-based learning. During comprehension of a prime, language users predict upcoming structure; if their prediction is incorrect, they are less likely to subsequently use the incorrectly predicted structure.
We tested error-based theories using PO/DO primes (1a-d) followed by a target (2). The first clause in the primes resulted in either a new-given or given-new order in the PO/DO. According to error-based accounts, comprehenders should frequently make prediction errors in primes (1a, 1c) because the structure does not have the preferred given-new order, whereas they should predict the given-new structures in (1b, 1d) correctly. Therefore, priming should be stronger in (1a-c).
After the politician was questioned, the activist handed (1a) it to the politician/(1b) him the petition.
After the petition was signed, the activist handed (1c) him the petition/(1d) it to the politician.
(2) The tourist handed ?
We observed clear priming, but it was no stronger after new-given than given-new primes. The same finding was obtained when the pronouns were replaced by definite noun phrases. These findings are more consistent with residual activation (e.g., Pickering & Branigan, 1998) than error-based learning theories.