Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:53:32.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic levels, lexicalism, and ellipsis: The jury is still out

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Robert J. Hartsuiker  and
Sarah Bernolet
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [email protected]://users.ugent.be/~rhartsui/
Sarah Bernolet
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Structural priming data are sometimes compatible with several theoretical views, as shown here for three key theoretical claims. One reason is that prime sentences affect multiple representational levels driving syntactic choice. Additionally, priming is affected by further cognitive functions (e.g., memory). We therefore see priming as a useful tool for the investigation of linguistic representation but not the only tool.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e294
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

Bernolet, S., Collina, S. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2016) The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language 91:99–116.Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J. & Pickering, M. J. (2009) Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition 112(2):300–17. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013.Google Scholar
Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J. & Sturt, P. (2013) Processing verb-phrase ellipsis in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence against the syntactic account. Language and Cognitive Processes 28:810–28. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.665932.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90(1):29–49. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9.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
Garrett, M. F. (1975) The analysis of sentence production. In: The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 9, ed. Bower, G. H., pp. 133–77. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S. & Vanderelst, D. (2008) Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2):214–38. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science 11:201–58.Google Scholar
Pappert, S. & Pechmann, T. (2014) Priming word order by thematic roles: No evidence for an additional involvement of phrase structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(11):2260–78. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.918632.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
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar, vol. 8. University of Chicago Press.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
Vernice, M., Pickering, M. J. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012) Thematic emphasis in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(5):631–64. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.572468.Google Scholar