Constantijn van der Burght

Presentations

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
  • van der Burght, C. L., Schipperus, L., & Meyer, A. S. (2023). Does syntactic category constrain semantic interference during sentence production? A replication of Momma et al. (2020). Poster presented at the 29th Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference (AMLaP 2023), Donostia–San Sebastián, Spain.
  • van der Burght, C. L., & Meyer, A. S. (2023). Does syntactic category constrain semantic interference effects during sentence production? A replication of Momma et al (2020). Poster presented at the 19th NVP Winter Conference on Brain and Cognition, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands.

    Abstract

    The semantic interference effect in picture naming entails longer naming latencies for pictures presented with semantically related versus unrelated distractors. One factor suggested to influence the effect is word category. However, results have been inconclusive. Momma et al. (2020) used a sentence-picture interference paradigm where the sentence context (“her singing” or “she’s singing”) disambiguated the word category (noun or verb, respectively) of distractor and target, manipulating their word category match/mismatch. Semantic interference was only found when distractor and target belonged to the same word category, suggesting that syntactic category constrains lexical competition during sentence production. Considering this important theoretical conclusion, we conducted a preregistered replication study with Dutch participants, mirroring the design of the original study. In each of 2 experiments, 60 native speakers read sentences containing sentence-final distractor words that had to be interpreted as nouns or verbs, depending on the sentence context. Subsequently, they named target action pictures as either verbs (experiment 1) or nouns (experiment 2). Results of Experiment 1 showed a main effect of relatedness, suggesting a semantic interference effect regardless of word category. We discuss differences between the original and current study results with cross-linguistic differences in (de)compositional processing and frequency of distractor forms.

Share this page