Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Linguistic theory holds that the structure of a sentence can be described in abstract syntactic terms, independent of the specific words the sentence contains. Nonlinguistic behavior, including goal-directed action, is also theorized to have an underlying structural, or “syntactic,” organization. We propose that purposive action sequences are represented cognitively in terms of a means-ends parse, which is a formal specification of how actions fit together to accomplish desired outcomes. To test this theory, we leveraged the phenomenon of structural priming in two experiments. As predicted, participants read sentences describing action sequences faster when these sentences were presented amid other sentences sharing the same parse. Results from a second experiment indicate that the underlying representations relevant to observed action sequences are not strictly tied to language processing. Our results suggest that the structure of goal-directed behavior may be represented abstractly, independently of specific actions and goals, just as linguistic syntax is thought to stand independent of other levels of representation.

Keywords

event perception action understanding goal-directed behavior priming

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Cordova

Botvinick

(2010). Abstract representations of goal-directed behavior: An fMRI study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Baker

C.L.

Tenenbaum

Saxe

R.R.

(2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113, 329–349.

Baldwin

(2008). Pragmatics of human action In Shipley

T.F.

Zacks

J.M.

(Eds.), Understanding events (pp. 96–129). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Bauer

(2008). Event memory in infancy and early childhood. In Shipley

T.F.

Zacks

J.M.

(Eds.), Understanding events (pp. 130–159). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Berridge

K.C.

Fentress

J.C.

Parr

(1987). Natural syntax rules control action sequences of rats. Behavioral Brain Research, 23, 59–68.

Bock

J.K.

Loebell

(1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.

Botvinick

M.M.

(2008). Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 201–208.

Brainard

D.H.

(1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

Chomsky

(1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

10.

Csibra

Gyorgy

(2007). ‘Obsessed with goals’: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124, 60–78.

11.

Frawley

(1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Frazier

Taft

Roeper

Clifton

Ehrlich

(1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12, 421–430.

13.

Galambos

J.A.

(1986). Knowledge structures for common activities. In Abelson

R.P.

Black

J.B.

Galambos

J.A.

(Eds.), Knowledge structures (pp. 21–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Garrett

M.F.

(1976). Syntactic processes in sentence production. In Wales

R.J.

Walker

E.C.T.

(Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 231–256). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.

15.

Goldberg

A.E.

(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.

16.

Goldin-Meadow

W.C.

Ozyurek

Mylander

(2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 9163–9168.

17.

Lashley

K.S.

(1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In Jeffress

L.A.

(Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The Hixon symposium (pp. 112–136). New York, NY: Wiley.

18.

McElree

Griffith

(1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 134–157.

19.

Mitchell

D.C.

(1994). Sentence parsing. In Gernsbacher

(Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375–409). New York, NY: Academic Press.

20.

Pickering

M.J.

Ferreira

V.S.

(2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.

21.

Schank

R.C.

Abelson

R.P.

(1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Schwartz

M.F.

Reed

E.S.

Montgomery

M.W.

Palmer

Mayer

N.H.

(1991). The quantitative description of action disorganization after brain damage: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 381–414.

23.

Sommerville

J.A.

Woodward

A.L.

. (2005). Infants’ sensitivity to the causal features of means–end support sequences in action and perception. Infancy, 8, 119–145.

24.

Trabasso

Wiley

(2005). Goal plans of action and inferences during comprehension of narratives. Discourse Processes, 39, 128–164.

25.

Traxler

M.J.

(2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 149–155.

26.

Whiten

Flynn

Brown

Lee

(2006). Imitation of hierarchical action structure by young children. Developmental Science, 9, 574–582.

27.

Zacks

J.M.

Tversky

(2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.00 MB