Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T14:57:23.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural priming can inform syntactic analyses of partially grammaticalized constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Elaine J. Francis
Elaine J. Francis*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2038. ejfranci@purdue.edu http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ejfranci/ejfrancis.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Branigan & Pickering (B&P) argue successfully that structural priming provides valuable information for developing psychologically plausible syntactic and semantic theories. I discuss how their approach can be used to help determine whether partially grammaticalized constructions that have undergone semantic change also have undergone syntactic reanalysis. I then consider cases in which evidence from priming cannot distinguish between competing syntactic analyses.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e288
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. & Loebell, H. (1990) Framing sentences. Cognition 35(1):1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Walter de Gruyter/Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler syntax, vol. 10. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2010) Category change in English with and without structural change. In: Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, ed. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G., pp. 105–28. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flett, S. (2006) A comparison of syntactic representation and processing in first and second language production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J. & Yuasa, E. (2008) A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44:45–86.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003) Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 49(4):537–55. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.002.Google Scholar
Raffray, C. N., Pickering, M. J., Cai, Z. G. & Branigan, H. P. (2014) The production of coerced expressions: Evidence from priming. Journal of Memory and Language 74:91–106. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.004.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1991) Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, E. (2014) With light verb constructions from syntax to concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar