Structural priming is poorly understood and cannot inform accounts of grammar for two reasons. First, those who view performance as grammar + processing will always be able to attribute psycholinguistic data to processing rather than grammar. Second, structural priming may be simply an example of hysteresis effects in general action planning. If so, then priming offers no special insight into grammar.

Branigan & Pickering (B&P) claim that the success of structural priming as a method should “end the current reliance on acceptability judgments.” Structural priming is an interesting and useful phenomenon, but we are dubious that the effect is powerful enough to test many detailed claims about specific points of syntactic theory.

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.

Structural priming makes a valuable contribution to psycholinguistics, but it taps into implicit memory representations and processes that may differ from what is deployed during online language processing. As a result, the strength of inductive inference regarding linguistic representation is rather limited. We question whether implicit memory for language can and should be equated with linguistic representation or with language processing.

Branigan & Pickering (B&P) propose that the structural priming paradigm is a Royal Road to linguistic representations of any kind, unobstructed by influences of psychological processes. In my view, however, they are too optimistic about the versatility of the paradigm and, more importantly, its ability to provide direct evidence about the nature of stored linguistic representations.

Priming reflects the reactivation of processing routines that map strings of words onto semantic representations (and vice versa) without the mediation of syntactic structure, including the “flat structure” that Branigan & Pickering (B&P) propose. Key evidence for this claim comes from the possibility of priming relations involving subject-verb sequences, which are not syntactic constituents.

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.

In developmental psycholinguistics, we have, for many years, been generating and testing theories that propose both descriptions of adult representations and explanations of how those representations develop. We have learnt that restricting ourselves to any one methodology yields only incomplete data about the nature of linguistic representations. We argue that we need a multi-method approach to the study of representation.

Recent findings show that experience with a syntactic structure has long-term consequences for how that structure will be processed in the future, which suggests that linguistic representations are not static entities that can be probed reliably without alteration. Thus, leveraging the effect of previous exposure to a syntactic structure appears to be an inappropriate method for studying invariant properties of language.

Understanding the nature of linguistic representations undoubtedly will benefit from multiple types of evidence, including structural priming. Here, we argue that successfully gaining linguistic insights from structural priming requires us to better understand (1) the precise mappings between linguistic input and comprehenders' syntactic knowledge; and (2) the role of cognitive faculties such as memory and attention in structural priming.

Branigan & Pickering (B&P) advocate the use of syntactic priming to investigate linguistic representations and argue that it overcomes several purported deficiencies of acceptability judgments. While we recognize the merit of drawing attention to a potentially underexplored experimental methodology in language science, we do not believe that the empirical evidence supports B&P's claims about acceptability judgments. We present the relevant evidence.

Clearly, structural priming is a valuable tool for probing linguistic representation. But we don't think that the existing results provide strong support for Branigan & Pickering's (B&P's) model, largely because the priming effects are more confusing and diverse than their theory would suggest. Fortunately, there are a number of other experimental tools available, and linguists are increasingly making use of them.

Structural priming offers a powerful method for experimentally investigating the mental representation of linguistic structure. We clarify the nature of our proposal, justify the versatility of priming, consider alternative approaches, and discuss how our specific account can be extended to new questions as part of an interdisciplinary programme integrating linguistics and psychology as part of the cognitive sciences of language.

Socioeconomic differences in behaviour are pervasive and well documented, but their causes are not yet well understood. Here, we make the case that a cluster of behaviours is associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES), which we call “the behavioural constellation of deprivation.” We propose that the relatively limited control associated with lower SES curtails the extent to which people can expect to realise deferred rewards, leading to more present-oriented behaviour in a range of domains. We illustrate this idea using the specific factor of extrinsic mortality risk, an important factor in evolutionary theoretical models. We emphasise the idea that the present-oriented behaviours of the constellation are a contextually appropriate response to structural and ecological factors rather than a pathology or a failure of willpower. We highlight some principles from evolutionary theoretical models that can deepen our understanding of how socioeconomic inequalities can become amplified and embedded. These principles are that (1) small initial disparities can lead to larger eventual inequalities, (2) feedback loops can embed early-life circumstances, (3) constraints can breed further constraints, and (4) feedback loops can operate over generations. We discuss some of the mechanisms by which SES may influence behaviour. We then review how the contextually appropriate response perspective that we have outlined fits with other findings about control and temporal discounting. Finally, we discuss the implications of this interpretation for research and policy.

“Low-agency” public health interventions do not rely on individuals using their personal resources to benefit. These help people enact the choices they wish to make and are likely to increase objective and perceived control. Lower-agency interventions have been criticised as constraining individual choice. Pepper & Nettle show that this is unlikely to be the case.

Although the authors make a compelling case that early-life deprivation leads to present orientation, we believe that such behaviors may be better understood in terms of an underlying risk-management strategy, in which those who experience such deprivation are more risk-averse. The model we sketch accommodates the authors' present-orientation observations and further explains differences in risk preferences and social preferences.

Although it is a welcome and timely idea, the behavioural constellation of deprivation (BCD) needs to explain how the development of personal control, trust, and perception of future risk is mediated through relationships with parents. Further, prioritising the present over the future may not be the essence of this constellation; perhaps not quite being, either in the present or in the future, is a better depiction.

Pepper & Nettle describe possible processes underlying what they call a behavioral constellation of deprivation (BCD). Although we are certain about the application of evolutionary models to our understanding of poverty, we are less certain about the utility of behavioral constellations. The empirical record on poverty-related behaviors is much more divergent and broad than such constellations suggest.

The significance of the contextually appropriate response perspective (CARP) can be judged, in part, by its potential to stimulate new research and guide public policy. To illustrate this potential, I move beyond socioeconomic status differences in behavior and apply CARP to broader, policy-relevant issues in criminology. In this area, CARP sheds new light on some old problems.

We support Pepper and Nettle's (P&N's) hypothesised adaptive responses to deprivation. However, we argue that adaptive responses to stress shift with age. Specifically, present-oriented behaviours are adaptive for young people (e.g., in terms of mating and reproduction) but costly for older people in deprived communities who would benefit from investing in grandchildren. Epigenetic mechanisms may be responsible for age-related tactical shifts.