Cover not available

In:Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network
Tobias Ungerer
[Constructional Approaches to Language 35] 2023
► pp. 205–225

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

References

Published online: 18 July 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.35.refs
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, M. L., Haywood, S., Rajendran, G., & Branigan, H. (2011). Evidence for syntactic alignment in children with autism. Developmental Science, 14(3), 540–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2020a). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40(5–6), 509–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106(1), 87–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54(3), 218–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 73–137). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M. (2013). Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., Devescovi, A., Hernandez, A., & Pizzamiglio, L. (1996). Gender priming in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(7), 992–1004. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2012). Resultative constructions. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 908–933). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(2), 383–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belligh, T., & Willems, K. (2022). Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions. Lingua, 280, 103425. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, T., & Schade, U. (1992). The role of inhibition in a spreading-activation model of language production. I. The psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(6), 405–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., Collina, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2016). The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 99–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112(2), 300–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Effects of phonological feedback on the selection of syntax: Evidence from between-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 503–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104(3), 437–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2017). Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 18–39). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (2010). Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 942–954. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bott, L., & Chemla, E. (2016). Shared and distinct mechanisms in deriving linguistic enrichment. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 117–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyce, V., Futrell, R., & Levy, R. P. (2020). Maze made easy: Better and easier measurement of incremental processing difficulty. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyce, V., & Levy, R. P. (2023). A-maze of Natural Stories: Comprehension and surprisal in the Maze task. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what NOT to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2016). What children learn from adults’ utterances: An ephemeral lexical boost and persistent syntactic priming in adult–child dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 141–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 635–640. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13–B25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 468–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Cleland, A. A. (2007). Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition, 104(2), 163–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 343–434.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 75–96). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. M. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: Small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budts, S., & Petré, P. (2020). Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 317–351). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bunger, A., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Event structure influences language production: Evidence from structural priming in motion event description. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 299–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 34, 421–435.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of “becoming.” Language, 82(2), 323–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cai, Z. G., & Connell, L. (2015). Space-time interdependence: Evidence against asymmetric mapping between time and space. Cognition, 136, 268–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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), 833–849. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, Special Volume 1, 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Wakeford, L. J. (2019). An investigation into the lexical boost with nonhead nouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 104031. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., Fotakopoulou, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Space and time in the child’s mind: Evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 387–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M., & Bencini, G. M. L. (2019). Argument structure constructions. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics – Key topics (pp. 148–165). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, X., Hartsuiker, R. J., Muylle, M., Sarah Slim, M., & Zhang, C. (2022). The effect of animacy on structural priming: A replication of Bock, Loebell and Morey (1992). Journal of Memory and Language, 127, 104354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, X., Wang, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2022). Do structural priming and inverse preference effect demand cognitive resources? Evidence from structural priming in production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 202–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). ordinal – Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019.12-10. [URL]
Christiansen, M. H., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59(s1), 126–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 185–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010). The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French, and Dutch. In F. Zúñiga & S. Kittilä (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp. 219–244). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. In C. Fedriani & M. Napoli (Eds.), The diachrony of ditransitives (pp. 137–168). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corley, M., & Scheepers, C. (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an Internet-based study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 126–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowie, A. (1982). Polysemy and the structure of lexical fields. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 11(2), 51–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, J. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2008). Patterns of experience with verbs affect long-term cumulative structural priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 967–970. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. Constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Construction Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 463–508). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 931–951. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 650–668). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daelemans, W., De Smedt, K., & Gazdar, G. (1992). Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18(2), 205–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Oliveira, C. S. F., de Souza, R. A., & de Oliveira, F. L. P. (2017). Bilingualism effects on L1 representation and processing of argument structure. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1(1), 23–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2016). The root of ruthless: Individual variation as a window on mental representation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(2), 250–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H., & Van de Velde, F. (2017). Experimenting on the past: A case study on changing analysability in English ly-adverbs. English Language & Linguistics, 21(2), 317–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Souza, R. A., & de Oliveira, C. S. F. (2017). Are bilingualism effects on the L1 byproducts of implicit knowledge? Evidence from two experimental tasks. Revista de Estudos Da Linguagem, 25(3), 1685–1716. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Vaere, H., Kolkmann, J., & Belligh, T. (2020). Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 96–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 296–322). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 53–75). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, A. D. (2013). Ibex Farm. [URL] [suspended on 30 September 2021]
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eddington, D., & Ruiz De Mendoza, F. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 213–238). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 301–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1972). Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8(4), 546–561.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahlman, S. E. (1979). NETL: A system for representing and using real-world knowledge. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(2), 379–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R., & Solé, R. V. (2001). The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1482), 2261–2265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R., Solé, R. V., & Köhler, R. (2004). Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E, 69(5), 051915. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1362–1376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLOS ONE, 8(10), e77661. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flach, S. (2020). Schemas and the frequency/acceptability mismatch: Corpus distribution predicts sentence judgments. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(4), 609–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleischer, Z., Pickering, M. J., & Mclean, J. F. (2012). Shared information structure: Evidence from cross-linguistic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 568–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L. (2009). The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Boas, H. C. (Eds.). (2005). Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garraffa, M., Coco, M. I., & Branigan, H. P. (2018). Impaired implicit learning of syntactic structure in children with developmental language disorder: Evidence from syntactic priming. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garraffa, M., & Smith, G. (2022). Syntactic priming as a window to investigate grammatical learning in non-typical populations. In K. Messenger (Ed.), Syntactic priming in language acquisition: Representations, mechanisms and applications (pp. 183–202). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1992). Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In J. A. Hawkins & M. Gell-Mann (Eds.), The evolution of human languages (pp. 3–18). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giavazzi, M., Sambin, S., de Diego-Balaguer, R., Le Stanc, L., Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C., & Jacquemot, C. (2018). Structural priming in sentence comprehension: A single prime is enough. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0194959. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2008). Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 219–256). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Ten lectures on event structure in a network theory of language. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 14–31). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 501–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., Tomlinson, M. T., Echols, C. H., & Love, B. C. (2011). Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 156–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2021). Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 279–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions? In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion (pp. 237–256). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 537–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gulordava, K., Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2018). Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In M. Walker, H. Ji, & A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018 (Vol. 1, pp. 1195–1205). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gyselinck, E. (2020). (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network hierarchy. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 107–140). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, B. C. (1965). Subject and object in modern English [Doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardy, S. M., Segaert, K., & Wheeldon, L. (2020). Healthy aging and sentence production: Disrupted lexical access in the context of intact syntactic planning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208–211). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2003). Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 31–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. (2019). Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure, 12(3), 297–333. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to 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), 214–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41, 143–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75(2), B27–B39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2014). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp. 167–216). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure, 12(3), 261–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Correia Saavedra, D. (2018). The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics, 22(3), 357–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P., & Schultze-Berndt, E. (2005). Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In N. P. Himmelmann & E. F. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp. 1–68). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). Construction Grammars. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 310–329). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Arnon, I., Sag, I. A., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 48–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J., & Hudson, R. A. (2005). Constructions in Word Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 243–272). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 139–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, J., Liu, X., Lu, M., Sun, Y., Wang, S., Branigan, H.P., & Pickering, M.J. (2023). The head constituent plays a key role in the lexical boost in syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 131, 104416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1984). Word Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 257–302). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Review of Rolf Kreyer, The nature of rules, regularities and units in language: A network model of the language system and of language use. Journal of Linguistics, 51(3), 692–696. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. (2022). A parallel architecture perspective on pre-activation and prediction in language processing. Cognition, 224, 105050. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Salnikov, V., & Walker, R. (2019). A dynamic network analysis of emergent grammar. First Language, 39(6), 652–680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanova, I., Horton, W. S., Swets, B., Kleinman, D., & Ferreira, V. S. (2020). Structural alignment in dialogue and monologue (and what attention may have to do with it). Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104052. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2018). Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research, 34(4), 539–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1061–1066). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (2nd ed., pp. 90–96). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janiszewski, C., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2014). Content and process priming: A review. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 96–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English Grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax. (Vol. 2). George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2012). Lexical priming: Associative, semantic, and thematic influences on word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Vol. 2: Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp. 44–72). Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (1996). Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(5), 675–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P. (2007). Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 925–937. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J., & Jones, J. L. (2011). Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1133–1139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 381–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1964). Mentalism in linguistics. Language, 40(2), 124–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–98). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, C. S., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Syntactic priming without lexical overlap in reading comprehension. Language and Speech, 57(2), 181–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. (2005). Recipient-prominence vs. Beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9(2), 269–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konradt, A., & Szendrői, K. E. (2020, September 4). Is syntactic priming a mere constituent structure repetition? New evidence from English-speaking adults and children. AMLaP 2020, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kristjánsson, Á., & Campana, G. (2010). Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(1), 5–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutta, T. J., Kaschak, M. P., Porcellini, A., & Jones, J. L. (2017). Implicit and explicit memory factors in cumulative structural priming. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In M. S. Peña Cervel & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 107–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Entrenchment in cognitive grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 39–56). APA & De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The Hixon Symposium (pp. 112–131). Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18(2), 135–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 151–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, R. (2021). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.4. [URL]
Lev-Ari, S. (2016). Selective grammatical convergence: Learning from desirable speakers. Discourse Processes, 53(8), 657–674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, R., Zhang, Z., & Ni, C. (2017). The impact of world knowledge on the processing of Mandarin possessive reflexive zijide. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 597–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loncke, M., Van Laere, S. M. J., & Desmet, T. (2011). Cross-structural priming: Prepositional phrase attachment primes relative clause attachment. Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 227–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(3), 615–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luka, B. J., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3), 436–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (2007). The concept of inhibition in cognition. In D. S. Gorfein & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 3–23). American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malhotra, G., Pickering, M., Branigan, H., & Bednar, J. A. (2008). On the persistence of structural priming: Mechanisms of decay and influence of word-forms. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 657–662). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Clark, K., Hewitt, J., Khandelwal, U., & Levy, O. (2020). Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48), 30046–30054. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317(5834), 82–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melinger, A., & Dobel, C. (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98(1), B11–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children’s passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 568–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (2017). Structural priming is not a Royal Road to representations. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition. Memory & Cognition, 2(2), 309–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (1994). A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, 18(1), 45–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, C. A., & Deevy, P. (2006). Structural priming in children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20(5), 387–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monsell, S., & Hirsh, K. W. (1998). Competitor priming in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(6), 1495–1520. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myslín, M., & Levy, R. (2016). Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition, 147, 29–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesset, T., & Janda, L. (2023). A network of allostructions: Quantified subject constructions in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics, 34(1), 67–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Rice, S. (2006). Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 225–260). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., … Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. ELife, 7, e33468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nitschke, S., Serratrice, L., & Kidd, E. (2014). The effect of linguistic nativeness on structural priming in comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 525–542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noh, B. (2000). The effect of focus on argument structure: Depictives vs resultatives. In P. Norquest, J. D. Haugen, & S. Bird (Eds.), Papers from the poster session of the 18th Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 79–88). University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pappert, S., & Pechmann, T. (2013). Bidirectional structural priming across alternations: Evidence from the generation of dative and benefactive alternation structures in German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1303–1322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Priming word order by thematic roles: No evidence for an additional involvement of phrase structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2260–2278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percillier, M. (2020). Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 213–242). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 61–85). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 141–166). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition, 168, 276–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peter, M., Chang, F., Pine, J. M., Blything, R., & Rowland, C. F. (2015). When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petré, P., & Anthonissen, L. (2020). Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 185–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Branigan, H. P. (2013). Persistent structural priming and frequency effects during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 890–897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietsch, C., Buch, A., Kopp, S., & de Ruiter, J. (2012). Measuring syntactic priming in dialogue corpora. In B. Stolterfoht & S. Featherston (Eds.), Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure (pp. 29–42). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 283–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pissani, L., & de Almeida, R. G. (2022). Can you mend a broken heart? Awakening conventional metaphors in the maze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(1), 253–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 265–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2002). The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language, 112(3), 167–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., & Knoblauch, A. (2009). Discrete combinatorial circuits emerging in neural networks: A mechanism for rules of grammar in the human brain? Neural Networks, 22(2), 161–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. R. (1999). Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language, 75(4), 653–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. R., & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ-roles? In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 7–36). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees, A., & Bott, L. (2018). The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 176, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35(4), 587–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romain, L. (2022). Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 35–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2003). Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 379–412). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax [Doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
Rothstein, S. (2017). Secondary predication. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2nd ed., pp. 1–30). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2012). The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition, 125(1), 49–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, F. C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. [URL]
Salamoura, A., & Williams, J. N. (2007). Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 627–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(3), 501–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In P. Bański, H. Biber, E. Breiteneder, M. Kupietz, H. Lüngen, & A. Witt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3) (pp. 28–34). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F. (2012). Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 486–493). European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89(3), 179–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheepers, C., Raffray, C. N., & Myachykov, A. (2017). The lexical boost effect is not diagnostic of lexically-specific syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 102–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and- Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–36). APA & De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Kempen, G., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2013). Syntactic priming and the lexical boost effect during sentence production and sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 124(2), 174–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., & Hagoort, P. (2011). A paradox of syntactic priming: Why response tendencies show priming for passives, and response latencies show priming for actives. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e24209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Weber, K., Cladder-Micus, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1448–1460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Wheeldon, L., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siew, C. S. Q. (2018). The orthographic similarity structure of English words: Insights from network science. Applied Network Science, 3(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sikos, L., Greenberg, C., Drenhaus, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2017). Information density of encodings: The role of syntactic variation in comprehension. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3168–3173). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (2005). Depictives in English and Warlpiri. In N. P. Himmelmann & E. F. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp. 69–106). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, A., Jumelet, J., Zuidema, W., & Fernández, R. (2022). Structural persistence in language models: Priming as a window into abstract language representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10, 1031–1050. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, L. M., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1987). Phonological priming in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(1), 64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 185–218). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–306). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theijssen, D., ten Bosch, L., Boves, L., Cranen, B., & van Halteren, H. (2013). Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 227–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theijssen, D., van Halteren, H., Fikkers, K., Groothoff, F., van Hoof, L., van de Sande, E., Tiems, J., Verhagen, V., & van der Zande, P. (2009). A regression model for the English benefactive alternation: An efficient, practical, actually usable approach. In B. Plank, E. Tjong Kim Sang, & T. Van de Cruys (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 115–130). Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thothathiri, M., & Rattinger, M. G. (2016). Acquiring and producing sentences: Whether learners use verb-specific or verb-general information depends on cue validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108(1), 51–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M. (2020). Contrasting mechanistic accounts of the lexical boost. Memory & Cognition, 48(5), 815–838. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Structural priming during comprehension: A pattern from many pieces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M., & Bock, K. (2014). On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132(2), 101–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2019). Lexically-mediated syntactic priming effects in comprehension: Sources of facilitation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(9), 2176–2196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Touretzky, D. S. (1986). The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 149–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic? Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 609–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 905–918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10(1), 159–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, Special Issue “35 Years of Constructions,” 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames.
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (in press). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press.
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., & Arai, M. (2018). Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 448–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Arai, M., & Pearson, J. (2012). The representation of mono- and intransitive structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(2), 384–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Wakeford, L. J., & Kantola, L. (2023). No looking back: The effects of visual cues on the lexical boost in structural priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(1), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2020). Making good on a promise: Multidimensional constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 357–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., & Gámez, P. B. (2015). Exploring interactions between semantic and syntactic processes: The role of animacy in syntactic priming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 15–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vernice, M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2012). Thematic emphasis in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(5), 631–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2008). What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(2), 408–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9(1), 81–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2007). A twenty-first century science. Nature, 445(7127), 489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weber, K., & Indefrey, P. (2009). Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46(4), 1164–1172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. (2005). Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp. 255–273). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, R., Kim, S.-A., & Shin, J.-A. (2022). Structural priming and inverse preference effects in L2 grammaticality judgment and production of English relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 845691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologische Forschung, 4(1), 301–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkler, S. (1997). Focus and secondary predication. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenberg, E. (2016). With light verb constructions from syntax to concepts. Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2014). Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 158–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2016). Incremental sentence processing in Japanese: A maze investigation into scrambled and control sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 475–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, N., Witzel, J., & Forster, K. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(2), 105–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56(3), 165–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yan, H., Martin, R. C., & Slevc, L. R. (2018). Lexical overlap increases syntactic priming in aphasia independently of short-term memory abilities: Evidence against the explicit memory account of the lexical boost. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 48, 76–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yi, E., & Koenig, J.-P. (2016). Why verb meaning matters to syntax. In J. Fleischhauer, A. Latrouite, & R. Osswald (Eds.), Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface (pp. 57–76). Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 167–212). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zervakis, J., & Mazuka, R. (2013). Effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on acceptability ratings of sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(6), 505–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, C., & Hu, B. (2018). The role of event structure in language production: Evidence from structural priming in Chinese motion event descriptions. Lingua, 208, 61–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193, 104045. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., & Snedeker, J. (2018). How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179, 221–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The use of syntax and information structure during language comprehension: Evidence from structural priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 365–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Snedeker, J., & Wittenberg, E. (2018). Event structures drive semantic structural priming, not thematic roles: Evidence from idioms and light verbs. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 2918–2949. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue