**Structural Priming and "Noisy" Parsing** Sentence comprehension succeeds despite ambiguous linguistic signals, speaker errors, and environmental distractions. By probabilistic approaches, comprehenders infer a likely intended sentence by integrating their own expectations (e.g., of plausibility) with the likelihood that some “noisy” perceived linguistic input was distorted from an intended sentence (e.g., Levy, 2008). Supporting evidence comes from Gibson et al. (2013), who found that people often rely on plausibility instead of literal syntax when processing implausible sentences like (1) and (2), and so answered “no” to questions like (3). *(1) Implausible double-object dative (DO)*: The author sent an abstract the conference. *(2) Implausible prepositional dative (PD)*: The author sent the conference to an abstract. *(3) Comprehension question*: Did the abstract receive something? Gibson et al found that this was especially likely when the input would require fewer and/or more likely changes to reach a plausible intended sentence. For example, people relied more on plausibility when it would assume a deletion (e.g., inferring (1) contained a non-perceived “to”) than an addition (e.g., inferring (2) did not actually contain a perceived “to”). One possibility is that top-down probabilistic evaluation affects the message-level interpretation while leaving the bottom-up syntactic parse intact. By this account, someone who heard (1) and answered “no” to (3) integrated a DO dative parse with their prior expectations to arrive at a plausible intended message (with a conference, not an abstract, as the recipient). Alternatively, top-down evaluation might influence both the message-level interpretation and the syntactic parse, such that hearing (1) and responding “no” to (3) reflects, in part, arriving at a PD structural parse given an implausible DO dative sentence. This project will evaluate these possibilities by relying on structural priming as an implicit measure of a listener’s syntactic parse. If rational inference influences message-level, but not syntactic, processing, priming should be equivalent from implausible sentences like (1) and (2) and from plausible sentences. However, if rational inference influences the syntactic parse, then priming from implausible sentences should be reduced or reversed (i.e., if (1) is parsed as a noisy PD and (2) as a noisy DO).