Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-dqfph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T10:31:06.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the nature of structure in structural priming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Nayoung Kwon  and
Yoonhyoung Lee
Nayoung Kwon
Affiliation:
Department of English, Konkuk University, Seoul,143-701, Republic of Korea. nayoung.kw@gmail.com
Yoonhyoung Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, 712-749, Republic of Korea. yhlee01@yu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Like Branigan & Pickering (B&P), we agree that processing evidence is important for linguistic theorization; however, without much evidence of priming of hierarchical argument structure independent of linear ordering, the nature of “structure” in structural priming remains unclear. Consequently, it is an empirical question whether structural priming and acceptability judgments tap into cognitive processes of a similar nature.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e299
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, J. K. (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18(3):355–87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1989) Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition 31(2):163–86. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90022-X.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, vol. 119. MIT Press. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(86)90008-5.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977) On Wh-movement. In: Formal syntax, ed. Akmajian, A., Culicover, P. & Wasow, T., pp. 71–132. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hare, M. L. & Goldberg, A. E. (1999) Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Hahn, M. & Stones, S. C., pp. 208–11. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Westenberg, C. (2000) Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition 75(2):B27–39. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K. (2009) Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology 58(1):68–101. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1969) On pronominalization and the chain of command. In: Modern studies in English, ed. Reibel, D. A., Schane, S. A. & Cliffs, E., pp. 160–86. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F. & Sorace, A. (2012b) Is young children's passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4):568–87. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998) The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4):633–51.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P. & McLean, J. F. (2002) Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language 46(3):586–605. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2824.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and semantic interpretation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheepers, C., Sturt, P., Martin, C. J., Myachykov, A., Teevan, K. & Viskupova, I. (2011) Structural priming across cognitive domains: From simple arithmetic to relative-clause attachment. Psychological Science 22(10):1319–26. doi:10.1177/0956797611416997.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. & Kwon, N. (2015) The processing of raising and nominal control: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology 6:331.Google Scholar