Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T08:28:55.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Text frequency does not correlate with priming sensitivity – a response to De Smet and Van de Velde

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

MARTIN HILPERT
MARTIN HILPERT*
Affiliation:
Institute of English Language and Literature, University of Neuchâtel, Espace Louis-Agassiz 1, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their contribution to this special issue, De Smet & Van de Velde suggest that the analysability of a morphologically complex word is an indicator of how easily that word is primed by elements that are formed by the same word formation process. To illustrate, hearing or reading the words roughly, equally and luckily within a short span of time should activate the word formation process of ly-suffixation in the listener's mind, so that the subsequent production of fully compositional ly-adverbs, as for instance permanently or comfortably, should become relatively more likely.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 341 - 347
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, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed 3 April 2017).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/ (accessed 3 April 2017).Google Scholar
Gonnerman, Laura M., Seidenberg, Mark S. & Andersen, Elaine S.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 323–45.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26 (1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian & Snider, Neal E.. 2007. Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In Wolter, Lynsey & Thorson, Jill (eds.), University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences 3 (1), 26–44.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar