Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:54:30.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priming methods in semantics and pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Mora Maldonado ,
Benjamin Spector  and
Emmanuel Chemla
Mora Maldonado
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, CNRS, EHESS, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]@ens.frhttp://mmaldonado.psycholinguae.fr/https://sites.google.com/site/bspectorpage/ Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, CNRS, EHESS, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/
Benjamin Spector
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, CNRS, EHESS, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]@ens.frhttp://mmaldonado.psycholinguae.fr/https://sites.google.com/site/bspectorpage/
Emmanuel Chemla
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, CNRS, EHESS, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected]://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Structural priming is a powerful method to inform linguistic theories. We argue that this method extends nicely beyond syntax to theories of meaning. Priming, however, should still be seen as only one of the tools available for linguistic data collection. Specifically, because priming can occur at different, potentially conflicting levels, it cannot detect every aspect of linguistic representations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e303
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

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.Google Scholar
Champollion, L. (in press) Distributivity, collectivity and cumulativity. In: Wiley's companion to semantics, ed. Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullman, H. & Zimmermann, T. E.. Wiley.Google Scholar
Chemla, E. & Bott, L. (2014) Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130(3):380–96.Google Scholar
Chemla, E. & Bott, L. (2015) Using structural priming to study scopal representations and operations. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1):157–72. doi:10.1162/ling.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Fox, D. & Spector, B. (2012) Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. Portner, P., Maienborn, C. & von Heusinger, K., pp. 2297–331. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler syntax, vol. 10. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof.Google Scholar
Feiman, R. & Snedeker, J. (2016) The logic in language: How all quantifiers are alike, but each quantifier is different. Cognitive Psychology 87:29–52. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.04.002.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1987) Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In: Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches, ed. Gardenfors, P., pp. 151–80. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maldonado, M., Chemla, E. & Spector, B. (2017) Priming plural ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 95:89–101.Google Scholar
Raffray, C. N. & Pickering, M. J. (2010) How do people construct logical form during language comprehension? Psychological Science 21(8):1090–97. doi:10.1177/0956797610375446.Google Scholar
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
Spector, B. (2007) Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In: Questions in dynamic semantics, current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, ed. Aloni, M., Butler, A. & Dekker, P., pp. 225–49. Elsevier.Google Scholar
van Rooij, R. & Schulz, K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13:491–519.Google Scholar