Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T17:01:29.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between priming and linguistic representations is mediated by processing constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

L. Robert Slevc  and
Iva Ivanova
L. Robert Slevc
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. slevc@umd.edu http://lmcl.umd.edu
Iva Ivanova
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79902.imivanova@utep.edu https://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=76103
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the nature of linguistic representations undoubtedly will benefit from multiple types of evidence, including structural priming. Here, we argue that successfully gaining linguistic insights from structural priming requires us to better understand (1) the precise mappings between linguistic input and comprehenders' syntactic knowledge; and (2) the role of cognitive faculties such as memory and attention in structural priming.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e310
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F. & Cleland, A. A. (2007) Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition 104:163–97.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
Ivanova, I., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., Costa, A. & Pickering, M. J. (2017) Do you what I say? People reconstruct the syntax of anomalous utterances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(2):175–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., Wardlow, L., Gollan, T. H. & Ferreira, V. (2013) The (un)automaticity of syntactic processing in language production. Twenty-sixth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Columbia, SC.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, E. F. & Ferreira, F. (2005) Lingering effects of disfluent material on comprehension of garden path sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5):633–66.Google Scholar
Melinger, A. & Dobel, C. (2005) Lexicallydriven syntactic priming. Cognition 98(1):B11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slevc, L. R. & Ferreira, V. S. (2013) To err is human, to structurally prime from errors is also human. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39(3):985–92.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R. & Momma, S. (2015) Noisy evidence and plausibility influence structural priming. Poster presented at the Annual Architectures & Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) Meeting, Valetta, Malta.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2014) Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(11):605–11.Google Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J. & Jacob, G. (2006) The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language 55(3):335–62. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004.Google Scholar