Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T10:38:27.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural priming is a useful but imperfect technique for studying all linguistic representations, including those of pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Alice Rees  and
Lewis Bott
Alice Rees
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom. Reesa34@cardiff.ac.uk Bottla@cardiff.ac.uk http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/reesa34.php http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/bottla.php
Lewis Bott
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom. Reesa34@cardiff.ac.uk Bottla@cardiff.ac.uk http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/reesa34.php http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/bottla.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Structural priming is a useful tool for investigating linguistics representations. We argue that structural priming can be extended to the investigation of pragmatic representations such as Gricean enrichments. That is not to say priming is without its limitations, however. Interpreting a failure to observe priming may not be as simple as Branigan & Pickering (B&P) imply.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e307
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

Bott, L. & Chemla, E. (2016) Shared and distinct mechanisms in deriving linguistic enrichment. Journal of Memory and Language 91:117–40. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R. (2008) A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 25(2):93–139.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2013) Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Speech acts, ed. Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., pp. 41–58. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:169–90.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2014) Self-, other-, and joint monitoring using forward models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8:132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, A. & Bott, L. (2015) The role of the alternative in the derivation of scalar implicatures. Work presented at XPRAG 2015, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Rees, A. & Bott, L. (2016) Priming implicit communication. Work presented at Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing 2016, September 1–3, 2016, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar