PVC–DOC Structural Priming #
@cite{haddican-tamminga-dendikken-wade-2026} @cite{dendikken-1995} @cite{halle-marantz-1993} @cite{johnson-1991} @cite{aarts-1989} @cite{bruening-2010a}
English Particle Verbs Prime Double Object Constructions in Production. Linguistic Inquiry. doi:10.1162/LING.a.558
Production priming experiment (N=238) testing whether PVCs prime DOCs.
Design #
Sentence completion task. Two subdesigns (Table 1, p.7):
- Baseline: DOC vs PD primes → DOC/PD target completions
- PV: PVC vs non-PVC primes → DOC/PD target completions
PVC primes used particle-object order ("put down the vase") to control for surface string similarity with DOC targets (p.5).
Results #
PVCs prime DOCs (β=0.296, p=.005). PVC and DOC primes do not differ in priming magnitude (β=−0.069, p=.503). Consistent with identical structural representations under the SC analysis.
Cross-references #
Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000: The same two constructions (dative alternation + particle placement) studied from a processing perspective — heaviness drives linearization while abstract structure drives priming.Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.DativeAlternation: Records both DOC and PD frames as grammatical — the precondition for the priming study.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.instBEqPrimingContrast.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.instBEqCellRate.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Table 1 cell rates #
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.baseline_doc = { condition := "DOC prime", docPct := 59, pdPct := 41 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.baseline_pd = { condition := "PD prime", docPct := 49, pdPct := 51 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.pv_pvc = { condition := "PVC prime", docPct := 58, pdPct := 42 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.HaddicanEtAl2026.pv_nonpvc = { condition := "non-PVC prime", docPct := 52, pdPct := 48 }
Instances For
Regression contrasts #
Baseline replication: DOC primes boost DOC production relative to PD primes (β=0.569, SE=0.114, p<.001).
Equations
Instances For
Key finding: PVC primes boost DOC production relative to non-PVC control primes (β=0.296, SE=0.105, p=.005).
Equations
Instances For
PVC and DOC primes do not differ in their priming of DOCs (β=−0.069, SE=0.104, p=.503; combined 2×4 model, n.9).
Equations
Instances For
Verification theorems #
DOC priming is strictly stronger than PD non-priming (baseline effect).
PVC primes DO boost DOC production.
PVC and DOC primes yield equivalent magnitude — no significant difference.
Lexical items #
Experimental PVC primes derive from the ParticleVerbs inventory.
The ApplP analysis uses a LOW applicative.
Equations
Instances For
Structural analyses #
DOC, Small Clause: [VP V [SC DP_goal DP_theme]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
DOC, Applicative (@cite{halle-marantz-1993}; @cite{bruening-2010a}):
[ApplP DP_goal [Appl' Appl [VP V DP_theme]]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
PVC, Small Clause (@cite{aarts-1989}; @cite{dendikken-1995}):
[VP V [SC DP Prt]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
PVC, Complex predicate: [VP [V lift+up] DP]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
PD, Prepositional dative (control): [VP [V' V DP_theme] [PP P DP_goal]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Non-PVC transitive control: [VP V DP]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{dendikken-1995} SC family #
Resultative, Small Clause: [VP V [SC DP AP]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Causative, Small Clause: [VP V [SC DP VP]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Explicit shapes #
Structural isomorphism #
SC-DOC and SC-PVC share tree shape.
ApplP-DOC and ComplexPred-PVC have different shapes.
SC-DOC differs from ApplP-DOC.
SC-DOC differs from PD.
SC-PVC differs from PD.
The non-PVC transitive control has a different shape from SC-DOC.
The non-PVC control has the SAME shape as the complex predicate PVC.
SC is the unique source of DOC/PVC tree-shape isomorphism.
Den Dikken SC family isomorphism #
All four SC constructions are pairwise isomorphic.
None of the SC family members are isomorphic with PD.
SC family categorization #
The SC family spans all four lexical categories {A, N, P, V}.
Nested SC for DOC #
Nested SC DOC: give [SC book [PP to Hsu]].
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{bruening-2021}: process-level isomorphism #
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Bridge to experimental data #
The SC analysis predicts DOC/PVC isomorphism and DOC/PD non-isomorphism.
The ApplP + ComplexPred combination predicts DOC/PVC non-isomorphism.
PVC priming magnitude equals DOC priming magnitude, as SC predicts.
The complex predicate PVC analysis cannot explain the priming asymmetry.