Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:43:22.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considering experimental and observational evidence of priming together, syntax doesn't look so autonomous

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Nicholas A. Lester ,
John W. Du Bois ,
Stefan Th. Gries  and
Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín
Nicholas A. Lester
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. [email protected]@[email protected]@linguistics.ucsb.eduhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/dubois/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/fermin-moscoso-del-prado-martin
John W. Du Bois
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. [email protected]@[email protected]@linguistics.ucsb.eduhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/dubois/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/fermin-moscoso-del-prado-martin
Stefan Th. Gries
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. [email protected]@[email protected]@linguistics.ucsb.eduhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/dubois/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/fermin-moscoso-del-prado-martin
Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. [email protected]@[email protected]@linguistics.ucsb.eduhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/dubois/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/fermin-moscoso-del-prado-martin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Branigan & Pickering (B&P) that structural priming experiments should supplant grammaticality judgments for testing linguistic representation. However, B&P overlook a vast (corpus-)linguistic literature that converges with – but extends – the experimental findings. B&P conclude that syntax is functionally independent of the lexicon. We argue that a broader approach to priming reveals cracks in the façade of syntactic autonomy.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e300
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

Bybee, J. L. (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82:711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1995) Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71:490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In: Handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D., pp. 295–321. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25:359–410.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Hobson, R. P. & Hobson, J. A. (2014) Dialogic resonance and intersubjective engagement in autism. Cognitive Linguistics 25:411–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009) Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7:187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T., ed. (1983) Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross–language study. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4):365–99. doi:10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Jackendoff, R. (2013) Constructions in the parallel architecture. In: The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., pp. 70–92. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2010) Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61:23–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2013) Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1):57–83.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1984) Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. Linguistics 22:197–224.Google Scholar
Lester, N. A., Feldman, L. B. & Moscosodel Prado Martín, F. (2017) You can take a noun out of syntax…: Syntactic similarity effects in lexical priming. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T. & Davelaar, E., pp. 2537–42. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Lester, N. A. & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2016) Syntactic flexibility in the noun: Evidence from picture naming. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D. & Trueswell, J. C., pp. 2585–90. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Kim, A. & Trueswell, J. C. (2003) Studying the grammatical aspects of word recognition: Lexical priming, parsing, and syntactic-ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32:57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1999) Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3:136–41.Google Scholar
Smith, M. & Wheeldon, L. (2001) Syntactic priming in spoken sentence production: An online study. Cognition 78:123–64. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00110-4.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8:209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110197808.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A. (1991) The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer “that” in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15:237–51.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F. & Orr, D. M. (2011) Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In: Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, ed. Simon, H. J. & Wiese, H., pp. 175–96. deGruyter.Google Scholar