Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:58:31.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural priming supports grammatical networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Richard Hudson
Richard Hudson*
Affiliation:
Linguistic Department, University College London, London WC1E 6BT. r.hudson@ucl.ac.ukwww.dickhudson.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As Branigan & Pickering (B&P) argue, structural priming has important implications for the theory of language structure, but these implications go beyond those suggested. Priming implies a network structure, so the grammar must be a network and so must sentence structure. Instead of phrase structure, the most promising model for syntactic structure is enriched dependency structure, as in Word Grammar.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e295
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

Allan, K. (2006) Lexicon: Structure. In: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, second edition, ed. Brown, K., pp. 148–51. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dell, G., Chang, F. & Griffin, Z. (1999) Connectionist models of language production: Lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science 23(4):517–42.Google Scholar
Duran-Eppler, E. (2011) Emigranto. The syntax of German-English code-switching. Braumüller.Google Scholar
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. (1996) Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Mahowald, K. & Gibson, E. (2015) Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(33):10336–41.Google Scholar
Gildea, D. & Temperley, D. (2010) Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science 34:286–310.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2010) The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007) Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010) An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, J. & Liu, H. (2015) The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications – based on a parallel English-Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences 50:93–104.Google Scholar
Kübler, S., McDonald, R. & Nivre, J. (2009) Dependency parsing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 2:1–127.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, I. (2009) Dependency in natural language. In: Dependency in linguistic description, ed. Polguère, A. & Mel'čuk, I., pp. 1–110. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (2006) Language and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Percival, K. (1990) Reflections on the history of dependency notions in linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 17:29–47.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. & Barry, G. (1991) Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 6:229–59.Google Scholar
Reisberg, D. (2007) Cognition. Exploring the science of the mind, third media edition. Norton.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajicová, E. & Panevova, J. (1986) The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Academia.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (2015) Elements of structural syntax, trans. Osborne, T. & Kahane, S.. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar