Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., and Tanenhaus, Meters. K. (1993). Framework consequences from inside the syntactic ambiguity resolution: discourse and you can semantic influences from inside the parsing reduced relative conditions. Can be. J. Exp. Psychol. 37, 276–309. doi: /h0078826
Sprouse, J., Bets, Meters., and Phillips, C. (2012a). A test of one’s family anywhere between doing work-thoughts strength and you will syntactic island effects. Code 88, 82–123. doi: /lan.
Sprouse, J., Bets, Meters., and you can Phillips, C. (2012b). Working-thoughts strength and you can area effects: a note of your own affairs plus the things. Words 88, 401–407. doi: /lan.
Szabolcsi, Good. (2006). “Strong compared to. weakened islands,” on the Blackwell Spouse in order to Sentence structure, Vol. cuatro, eds M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (Malden, MA: Blackwell), 479–531. doi: 470996591.ch64
Szabolcsi, An excellent., and you may den Dikken, M. (2003). “Countries,” about Next Glot Globally County-of-the-Article Publication, eds L. Cheng and Roentgen. Sybesma (Berlin: Mouton de- Gruyter), 213–240.
Szabolcsi, An excellent., and Zwarts, F. (1993). Weakened islands and you can an enthusiastic algebraic semantics getting range delivering. Nat. Lang. Semant https://datingranking.net/pl/dil-mil-recenzja/. 1, 235–284. doi: /BF00263545
Thothathiri, Yards., and you may Snedeker, J. (2008a). Give and take: syntactic priming throughout verbal words comprehension. Cognition 108, 51–68. doi: /j.knowledge.
Thothathiri, Meters., and Snedeker, J. (2008b). Syntactic priming throughout language knowing during the three and you can four-year-old students. J. Mem. Lang. 58, 188–213. doi: /j.jml.
Tooley, K. Meters., and you can Traxler, Yards. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects from inside the recognition: a serious opinion. Lang. Linguistpass cuatro, 925–937. doi: /j.1749-818X.9.x
Traxler, Yards. J. (2008). Lexically independent syntactic priming of adjunct affairs when you look at the into the-range phrase understanding. Psychon. Bull. Rev. fifteen, 145–155. doi: /PBR.15.1.149
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., and you may Sturt, P. (2014). On the resource off countries. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 761–770. doi: 96
Copyright © 2017 Manage and you can Kaiser. This can be an open-accessibility post distributed beneath the regards to the fresh Creative Commons Attribution License (CC Of the). Use, shipments or reproduction in other online forums try allowed, considering the first publisher(s) or licensor are paid hence the first book within journal are cited, in accordance with recognized instructional behavior. No have fun with, shipment or breeding are allowed and therefore will not follow this type of terminology.
Both phenomena of priming and you will satiation appear to be like for every single other: In both cases, it is exposure that impacts how structures try processed. Despite this similarity, even though, this new literatures into the priming and you will satiation allow us into the relative separation from one various other. Then it partly due to differences in their methodological life style. Priming, for instance, might have been examined almost entirely with grammatical phrases (however, come across Kaschak and you can Glenberg, 2004; Iva; etcetera.), tend to by means of production-oriented methods where the dependent changeable is the ratio from samples about what a person supplies the newest primed structure. Around are also recognition-situated studies out of priming (get a hold of Tooley and Traxler, 2010 getting remark), in which the situated variable is usually ease of control (because the measured by the vision-record, ERP, self-paced training, etc.). Satiation, in comparison, has utilized traditional acceptability judgments observe if improved coverage advances the fresh acceptability of ungrammatical sentences. Prior focus on satiation has never made any direct claims throughout the simple operating for those ungrammatical sentences. Therefore, the brand new larger relationships between priming and you will satiation might have been one of ‘oranges and you can oranges’ since prospective matchmaking anywhere between these phenomena features mainly started skipped.
In the first fresh data off satiation, Snyder (2000) asked native English audio system to help you speed brand new grammaticality of a lot models from island structures. step one Members ranked per sentence style of all in all, five times. To choose whether there had been one change in ratings, just how many ‘grammatical/acceptable’ responses in the first several vs. the past one or two exposures is actually opposed. Phrases was said to raise, otherwise ‘satiate,’ in the event that there were more ‘grammatical/acceptable’ solutions regarding the last half than in the initial half of one’s data.
Recurring activation profile generally to locate priming in the lexical devices and that connect to the higher syntactic framework (elizabeth.g., Pickering and you may Branigan, 1998; Branigan ainsi que al., 1999; Pickering ainsi que al., 2000; even though discover Scheepers, 2003). While the recent exposure temporarily advances the activation amount of syntactic structures, priming occurs when the parser selects formations being more vigorous during the memories, age.grams., structures with high residual activation account. Since these accounts attribute priming with the minute-by-time activation amounts of brand of lexicon-to-design combos, nevertheless they expect an initial-term time direction for priming (e.grams., Roelofs, 1992; Pickering and you will Branigan, 1998). Particularly, while the activation off lexical units is thought in order to decay rapidly and instantly, priming outcomes is quick-lived. Next, given that recurring activation account take priming to help you encompass the links anywhere between lexical tools in addition to their large syntactic structure, it account plus predicts a more powerful priming impression whenever best and target phrases express lexical activities (age.g., Pickering and you may Branigan, 1998; Cleland and you will Pickering, 2003). Indeed, this ‘lexical boost’ impression might have been duplicated in a few design education (e.g., Pickering and you can Branigan, 1998; Cleland and Pickering, 2003; Bernolet et al., 2013) along with lots of recognition knowledge (see Tooley and you may Traxler, 2010 for remark). step three But, almost every other work indicates that priming can always exist absent lexical repetition from inside the manufacturing (age.grams., Pickering and you will Branigan, 1998; Scheepers, 2003; Kaschak and you may Glenberg, 2004; Hartsuiker et al., 2004) and you may knowing (elizabeth.g., Luka and you can Barsalou, 2005; Thothathiri and you will Snedeker, 2008a,b; Traxler, 2008; Ivaa,b).
Removed along with her, these types of show mean that priming can get, in fact, become you are able to even with formations you to first have a look unsuitable. Still, as functions investigating priming that have ungrammatical phrases is relatively the fresh, the new restrictions associated with the priming perception are nevertheless unclear and the mechanisms and/or process you to underlie priming within the ungrammatical phrases aren’t yet , well-knew. More over, early in the day functions has had a tendency to sometimes consider only 1 specific particular anomaly, otherwise has actually categorized with her various types of ungrammatical phrases instead of researching her or him methodically. Therefore, that isn’t yet , known just how generalizable previous findings is, otherwise whether or not different types of ungrammaticality will get pattern in another way with regard on the chances of priming.
Lexical Repetition
If it’s the existence of this new pit site – perhaps not the new island-producing keywords itself – one signals “ungrammaticality”, after that comprehenders matical up until they achieve the phrase-final wh-pit. To put it differently, maybe score advancements noticed having CNPC isles – and you will missing for Topic islands – may not be owing to people theoretical differences between the 2 islands, but just that CNPC islands efficiently appear grammatical for an extended period of time.
Structure
- ^Ross (1967) distinguishes between a couple of sandwich-kinds of CNPC abuses: extraction off a family member-clause NP and extraction off an effective sentential fit NP. Adopting the Snyder (2000) while some, we focus on simply sentential matches.
- ^Once more, numerical differences between Lag1 and you may Lag5 weren’t opposed individually, because talked about inside the footnote eight.