Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:55:41.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priming is swell, but it's far from simple

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Jayden Ziegler ,
Jesse Snedeker  and
Eva Wittenberg
Jayden Ziegler
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]@wjh.harvard.eduhttp://www.jaydenziegler.comhttps://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/research/snedeker/jesse-snedeker/
Jesse Snedeker
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]@wjh.harvard.eduhttp://www.jaydenziegler.comhttps://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/research/snedeker/jesse-snedeker/
Eva Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, La Jolla, CA 92093. [email protected]://www.evawittenberg.com/i/start.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e312
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

Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G. & Scheepers, C. (2007) Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 54(3):218–50. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arunachalam, S. (2013) Experimental methods for linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(4):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G., Bock, K. & Goldberg, A. (2002) How abstract is grammar? Evidence from structural priming in language production. Poster presented at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958) The child's learning of English morphology. WORD 14(2–3):150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (2012) Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4):833–49. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlin, T. C. (1897) Studies for students: The method of multiple working hypotheses. The Journal of Geology 5(8):837–48.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemla, E. & Bott, L. (2015) Using structural priming to study scopal representations and operations. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1):157–72. doi:10.1162/ling.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho-Reyes, S., Mack, J. E. & Thompson, C. K. (2016) Grammatical encoding and learning in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language 91:202–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Cowart, W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Sage.Google Scholar
Erickson, L. C. & Thiessen, E. D. (2015) Statistical learning in language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition. Developmental Review 37:66–108.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, V. S. (2003) The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48:379–98. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00523-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. (2002) Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of abstract structure in 2.5-year-olds' interpretation of novel verbs. Developmental Science 5(1):55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankland, S. M. & Greene, J. D. (2015) An architecture for encoding sentence meaning in left mid-superior temporal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(37):11732–37. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421236112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65(2):203–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Haxby, J. V., Gobbini, M. I., Furey, M. L., Ishai, A., Schouten, J. L. & Pietrini, P. (2001) Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science 293:2425–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, J. (2009) The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua 119:425–44. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. (1990) Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17(2):357–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pothos, E. M. (2007) Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin 133(2):227–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993) Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8:1–56.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, A. S. (1967) Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6(6):855–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Hauser, M. D., Seibel, R., Kapfhamer, J., Tsao, F. & Cushman, F. (2008) Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Cognition 107:479–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salamoura, A. & Williams, J. N. (2007) Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(4):627–60. doi:10.1017/S0142716407070348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Keller, F. (2005) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115:1497–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012) Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's core syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48(03):609–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T. & Almeida, D. (2013) A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from linguistic inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134: 219–48. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thothathiri, M. & Snedeker, J. (2008a) Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition 108:51–68. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thothathiri, M. & Snedeker, J. (2008b) Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2):188–213. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. & Snedeker, J. (2016a) Structural priming across development: The lexical boost, abstract priming, and task demands. Poster presented at the Forty-first Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. & Snedeker, J. (2016b) Toward a comprehensive view of structural priming: What gets primed when. Poster presented at the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar