Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:51:46.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The malleability of linguistic representations poses a challenge to the priming-based experimental approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Rachel Ryskin
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. ryskin@mit.edu
Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203. sarahbrownschmidt@gmail.com

Abstract

Recent findings show that experience with a syntactic structure has long-term consequences for how that structure will be processed in the future, which suggests that linguistic representations are not static entities that can be probed reliably without alteration. Thus, leveraging the effect of previous exposure to a syntactic structure appears to be an inappropriate method for studying invariant properties of language.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F. & Onishi, K. H. (2007) Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 104(3):437–58. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Griffin, Z. M. (2000) The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129:177–92. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J. & Cleland, A. A. (1999) Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6(4):635–40. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212972.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Stewart, A. J. & McLean, J. F. (2000) Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition 28(8):1297–302. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211830.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2):234–72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Janciauskas, M. & Fitz, H. (2012) Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Linguistics and Language Compass 6(5):259–78. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.337.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B. & Jaeger, T. F. (2016) The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42:1362–76.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A. & Qian, T. (2013) Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77661. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S. & Vanderelst, D. (2008) Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2):214–38. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2013) Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1):5783.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y. (2012) Learning individual talkers' structural preferences. Cognition 124(1): 6671. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.001.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J. & Coyle, J. M. (2014) Long and short term cumulative structural priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes 29(6):123. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.641387.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J. & Jones, J. L. (2011a) Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18(6):1133–39. Available at: http://doi.org/10.14440/jbm.2015.54.A.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J. & Schatschneider, C. (2011b) Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition 39(3):381–88. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0042-3.Google Scholar
Long, D. L. & Prat, C. S. (2008) Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory and Cognition 36(2):375–91. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.375.Google Scholar
Luka, B. J. & Barsalou, L. W. (2005) Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52(3):444–67. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.013.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R. & Gibson, E. (2016b) A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 91:527. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryskin, R. A., Qi, Z., Duff, M. C. & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2017) Verb biases are shaped through lifelong learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43(5):781–94.Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M., Swaab, T. Y., Boudewyn, M. A., Zirnstein, M. & Traxler, M. J. (2014b) Evidence for priming across intervening sentences during on-line sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 29(3):289311. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.770892.Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M. & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10):925–37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00249.x.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009) Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58(2):250–71. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002.Google Scholar