Is Passive Priming Really Impervious to Verb Semantics? A High-Powered Replication of Messenger Et al. (2012)

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
I. M. S. Darmasetiyawan, Katherine Messenger, Ben Ambridge
{"title":"Is Passive Priming Really Impervious to Verb Semantics? A High-Powered Replication of Messenger Et al. (2012)","authors":"I. M. S. Darmasetiyawan, Katherine Messenger, Ben Ambridge","doi":"10.1525/collabra.31055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the present study was to conduct a particularly stringent pre-registered in-vestigation of the claim that there exists a level of linguistic representation that “includes syntactic category information but not semantic information” (Branigan & Pickering, 2017: 8). As a test case, we focussed on the English passive; a construction for which previous findings have been somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, several studies using different methodologies have found an advantage for theme-experiencer passives (e.g., The girl was shocked by the tiger; and also agent-patient passives; e.g., The girl was hit by the tiger) over experiencer-theme passives (e.g., The girl was ignored by the tiger). On the other hand, Messenger et al. (2012) found no evidence that theme-experiencer and experiencer-theme passives vary in their propensity to prime production of agent-patient passives. We therefore conducted an online replication of Messen-ger et al (2012) with a pre-registered appropriately powered sample (N=240). Although a large and significant priming effect (i.e., an effect of prime sentence type) was ob-served, a Bayesian analysis yielded only weak/anecdotal evidence (BF=2.11) for the crucial interaction of verb type by prime type; a finding that was robust to different coding and exclusion decisions, operationalizations of verb semantics (dichoto-mous/continuous), analysis frameworks (Bayesian/frequentist) and – as per a mixed-effects-multiverse analyses – random effects structures. Nevertheless, these findings do no not provide evidence for the absence of semantic effects (as has been argued for the findings of Messenger et al, 2012). We conclude that these and related findings are best explained by a model that includes both lexical, exemplar-level representations and rep-resentations at multiple higher levels of abstraction.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.31055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to conduct a particularly stringent pre-registered in-vestigation of the claim that there exists a level of linguistic representation that “includes syntactic category information but not semantic information” (Branigan & Pickering, 2017: 8). As a test case, we focussed on the English passive; a construction for which previous findings have been somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, several studies using different methodologies have found an advantage for theme-experiencer passives (e.g., The girl was shocked by the tiger; and also agent-patient passives; e.g., The girl was hit by the tiger) over experiencer-theme passives (e.g., The girl was ignored by the tiger). On the other hand, Messenger et al. (2012) found no evidence that theme-experiencer and experiencer-theme passives vary in their propensity to prime production of agent-patient passives. We therefore conducted an online replication of Messen-ger et al (2012) with a pre-registered appropriately powered sample (N=240). Although a large and significant priming effect (i.e., an effect of prime sentence type) was ob-served, a Bayesian analysis yielded only weak/anecdotal evidence (BF=2.11) for the crucial interaction of verb type by prime type; a finding that was robust to different coding and exclusion decisions, operationalizations of verb semantics (dichoto-mous/continuous), analysis frameworks (Bayesian/frequentist) and – as per a mixed-effects-multiverse analyses – random effects structures. Nevertheless, these findings do no not provide evidence for the absence of semantic effects (as has been argued for the findings of Messenger et al, 2012). We conclude that these and related findings are best explained by a model that includes both lexical, exemplar-level representations and rep-resentations at multiple higher levels of abstraction.
被动启动真的不受动词语义的影响吗?Messenger等的高功率复制(2012)
本研究的目的是对存在“包括句法类别信息但不包括语义信息”的语言表征水平的说法进行特别严格的预注册调查(Branigan & Pickering, 2017: 8)。作为一个测试案例,我们关注英语被动语态;先前的研究结果多少有些矛盾。一方面,一些使用不同方法的研究发现了主题-体验者被动语态的优势(例如,女孩被老虎震惊了;还有施者-受者被动语态;例如,女孩被老虎打了)而不是体验主题被动语态(例如,女孩被老虎忽视了)。另一方面,Messenger等人(2012)发现,没有证据表明主题-体验者和体验者-主题被动语在主体-患者被动语的启动生产倾向上存在差异。因此,我们使用预先注册的适当通电样本(N=240)对messenger等人(2012)的研究进行了在线复制。虽然观察到一个大而显著的启动效应(即启动句子类型的效应),但贝叶斯分析只产生了微弱的/轶事证据(BF=2.11),证明动词类型与启动类型之间的关键相互作用;这一发现对不同的编码和排除决策、动词语义的操作化(二分法/连续法)、分析框架(贝叶斯/频率论)以及——根据混合效应-多重宇宙分析——随机效应结构都具有鲁棒性。然而,这些发现并没有为语义效应的缺失提供证据(正如Messenger等人2012年的研究结果所争论的那样)。我们的结论是,这些和相关的发现最好由一个模型来解释,该模型包括词汇、范例级表征和多个更高抽象级别的表征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信