1887

Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network

image of Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network

This book brings together research in cognitive linguistics and experimental psychology to construct a psychologically plausible account of grammar as a mental network. To explore the organisation of this network, the author examines evidence from structural priming, which occurs when speakers’ processing of a grammatical construction is affected by prior exposure to the same or a similar construction. Previous experimental findings are innovatively reinterpreted to shed light on various aspects of the grammatical network, including the strength of the similarities between constructions, the level of abstraction at which they are represented and the ways in which similar constructions can either boost or inhibit each other. Moreover, new experiments are reported that extend structural priming to phenomena like the resultative, the depictive and the caused-motion construction. The book is directed at theoretical linguists, psycholinguists and cognitive psychologists alike, showcasing how recent work in these areas can be integrated and extended.

References

  1. 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. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, M. L. , Haywood, S. , Rajendran, G. , & Branigan, H.
    (2011) Evidence for syntactic alignment in children with autism. Developmental Science, 14 (3), 540–548. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2010.01001.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01001.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, G. T. M. , & Kamide, Y.
    (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73 (3), 247–264. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1177/0142723720949723
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723720949723 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2020b) Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40 (5–6), 509–559. 10.1177/0142723719869731
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869731 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, J. R.
    (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22 (3), 261–295. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(83)90201‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Arai, M. , van Gompel, R. P. G. , & Scheepers, C.
    (2007) Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54 (3), 218–250. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baayen, H. R. , & Milin, P.
    (2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3 (2), 12–28. 10.21500/20112084.807
    https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807 [Google Scholar]
  12. Baddeley, A.
    (2010) Working memory. Current Biology, 20 (4), R136–R140. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bader, M. , & Häussler, J.
    (2010) Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (2), 273–330. 10.1017/S0022226709990260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990260 [Google Scholar]
  14. Baker, M. C.
    (1997) Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp.73–137). Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Barabási, A.-L.
    (2016) Network science. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  18. Barlow, M.
    (2013) Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (4), 443–478. 10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar [Google Scholar]
  19. Barlow, M. , & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of grammar. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bates, D. , Mächler, M. , Bolker, B. , & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1). 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bates, E. , Devescovi, A. , Hernandez, A. , & Pizzamiglio, L.
    (1996) Gender priming in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics, 58 (7), 992–1004. 10.3758/BF03206827
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206827 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Behrens, H.
    (2009) Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47 (2), 383–411. 10.1515/LING.2009.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.014 [Google Scholar]
  25. Belligh, T. , & Willems, K.
    (2022) Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions. Lingua, 280 , 103425. 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103425
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103425 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. 10.1007/BF01067522
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067522 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  29. Bernolet, S. , Collina, S. , & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2016) The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91 , 99–116. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Bernolet, S. , & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2010) Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?Cognition, 114 (3), 455–461. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bernolet, S. , Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (2009) Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112 (2), 300–317. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2012) Effects of phonological feedback on the selection of syntax: Evidence from between-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (3), 503–516. 10.1017/S1366728911000162
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000162 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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. 10.1088/1742‑5468/2008/10/P10008
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 [Google Scholar]
  34. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Boas, H. C. , & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Bock, K.
    (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3), 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. (1989) Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31 (2), 163–186. 10.1016/0010‑0277(89)90022‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90022-X [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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. 10.1037/0096‑3445.129.2.177
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177 [Google Scholar]
  40. Bock, K. , & Loebell, H.
    (1990) Framing sentences. Cognition, 35 (1), 1–39. 10.1016/0010‑0277(90)90035‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I [Google Scholar]
  41. Bock, K. , Loebell, H. , & Morey, R.
    (1992) From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 150–171. 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.150
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Boot, I. , & Pecher, D.
    (2010) Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (5), 942–954. 10.1080/17470210903134351
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903134351 [Google Scholar]
  44. Boroditsky, L.
    (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75 (1), 1–28. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Bott, L. , & Chemla, E.
    (2016) Shared and distinct mechanisms in deriving linguistic enrichment. Journal of Memory and Language, 91 , 117–140. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104082
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104082 [Google Scholar]
  47. Boyce, V. , & Levy, R. P.
    (2023) A-maze of Natural Stories: Comprehension and surprisal in the Maze task. Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2 (1), 1–34. 10.5070/G6011190
    https://doi.org/10.5070/G6011190 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Branigan, H. P. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (2017) An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40 , e282. 10.1017/S0140525X16002028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16002028 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.3758/BF03212972
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212972 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2000) Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75 (2), B13–B25. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00081‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. 10.1037/0278‑7393.31.3.468
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.468 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Bresnan, J.
    (1982) Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry, 13 (3), 343–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (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]
  57. 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]
  58. Bresnan, J. , & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86 (1), 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  59. Buchanan, M.
    (2002) Nexus: Small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. W. W. Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 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. 10.1075/cal.27.09bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud [Google Scholar]
  61. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Bybee, J.
    (1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 34 , 421–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  65. (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. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004 [Google Scholar]
  66. Bybee, J. , & Eddington, D.
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of “becoming.” Language, 82 (2), 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  67. Cai, Z. G. , & Connell, L.
    (2015) Space-time interdependence: Evidence against asymmetric mapping between time and space. Cognition, 136 , 268–281. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.039
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.039 [Google Scholar]
  68. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  69. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, Special Volume 1, 1–28. 10.24338/cons‑381
    https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-381 [Google Scholar]
  70. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104031 [Google Scholar]
  71. Casasanto, D. , & Boroditsky, L.
    (2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106 (2), 579–593. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  72. 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. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01094.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01094.x [Google Scholar]
  73. 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. 10.1515/9783110626438‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-008 [Google Scholar]
  74. Chang, F. , Bock, K. , & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places?Cognition, 90 (1), 29–49. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00123‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9 [Google Scholar]
  75. Chang, F. , Dell, G. S. , & Bock, K.
    (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113 (2), 234–272. 10.1037/0033‑295X.113.2.234
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 [Google Scholar]
  76. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104354
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104354 [Google Scholar]
  77. 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. 10.1080/23273798.2022.2159991
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2159991 [Google Scholar]
  78. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  80. Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2019) ordinal – Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019.12-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Christiansen, M. H. , & MacDonald, M. C.
    (2009) A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59 (s1), 126–161. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00538.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x [Google Scholar]
  82. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  83. 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. 10.1075/tsl.92.09col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.92.09col [Google Scholar]
  84. (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. 10.1515/9783110701371‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701371-005 [Google Scholar]
  85. Collins, A. M. , & Loftus, E. F.
    (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407–428. 10.1037/0033‑295X.82.6.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 [Google Scholar]
  86. 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. 10.3758/BF03196267
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196267 [Google Scholar]
  87. Cowan, N.
    (2005) Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Cowie, A.
    (1982) Polysemy and the structure of lexical fields. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 11 (2), 51–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 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. 10.3758/PBR.15.5.967
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.967 [Google Scholar]
  90. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  91. (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. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  92. (2007) Construction Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.463–508). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0018 [Google Scholar]
  93. (2020) Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Brill. 10.1163/9789004363533
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004363533 [Google Scholar]
  94. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  95. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2015) Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.650–668). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-033 [Google Scholar]
  97. Daelemans, W. , De Smedt, K. , & Gazdar, G.
    (1992) Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18 (2), 205–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 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. 10.22599/jesla.7
    https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.7 [Google Scholar]
  99. 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. 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.05des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.05des [Google Scholar]
  100. 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. 10.1017/S1360674317000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000168 [Google Scholar]
  101. 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. 10.17851/2237‑2083.25.3.1685‑1716
    https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.25.3.1685-1716 [Google Scholar]
  102. De Vaere, H. , Kolkmann, J. , & Belligh, T.
    (2020) Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 170 , 96–111. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  103. 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. 10.1038/nn1504
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504 [Google Scholar]
  104. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.296–322). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  105. (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  106. (2023) The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009327848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009327848 [Google Scholar]
  107. Diessel, H. , & Tomasello, M.
    (2005) A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81 (4), 882–906. 10.1353/lan.2005.0169
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169 [Google Scholar]
  108. 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. 10.1515/9783110292022‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-004 [Google Scholar]
  109. Drummond, A. D.
    (2013) Ibex Farm. https://spellout.net/ibexfarm [suspended on30 September 2021]
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Du Bois, J. W.
    (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63 (4), 805–855. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  111. 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. 10.1515/9783110245837.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837.213 [Google Scholar]
  112. 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. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00716.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00716.x [Google Scholar]
  113. Ellis, N. C. , & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 558–589. 10.1093/applin/aml028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028 [Google Scholar]
  114. Elman, J. L.
    (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14 (2), 179–211. 10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1 [Google Scholar]
  115. (2004) An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (7), 301–306. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  116. Emonds, J.
    (1972) Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8 (4), 546–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Fahlman, S. E.
    (1979) NETL: A system for representing and using real-world knowledge. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4917.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4917.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  118. Fellbaum, C.
    (Ed.) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  119. 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. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00523‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00523-5 [Google Scholar]
  120. 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. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1800
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1800 [Google Scholar]
  121. Ferrer i Cancho, R. , Solé, R. V. , & Köhler, R.
    (2004) Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E, 69 (5), 051915. 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915
    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915 [Google Scholar]
  122. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 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. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  124. 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. 10.1037/xlm0000236
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000236 [Google Scholar]
  125. Fine, A. B. , Jaeger, T. F. , Farmer, T. A. , & Qian, T.
    (2013) Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLOS ONE, 8 (10), e77661. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 [Google Scholar]
  126. Flach, S.
    (2020) Schemas and the frequency/acceptability mismatch: Corpus distribution predicts sentence judgments. Cognitive Linguistics, 31 (4), 609–645. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑2040
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-2040 [Google Scholar]
  127. 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. 10.1017/S1366728911000551
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000551 [Google Scholar]
  128. Forster, K. I.
    (2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5 (3), 347–357. 10.1075/ml.5.3.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.05for [Google Scholar]
  129. Forster, K. I. , Guerrera, C. , & Elliot, L.
    (2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (1), 163–171. 10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  130. 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. 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90008‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 [Google Scholar]
  131. Fried, M. , & Boas, H. C.
    (Eds.) (2005) Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4 [Google Scholar]
  132. Gallant, J. , & Libben, G.
    (2020) Can the maze task be even more amazing? Adapting the maze task to advance psycholinguistic experimentation. The Mental Lexicon, 15 (2), 366–383. 10.1075/ml.20027.gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20027.gal [Google Scholar]
  133. 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. 10.1177/2396941518779939
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518779939 [Google Scholar]
  134. 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. 10.1075/tilar.31.09gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.31.09gar [Google Scholar]
  135. 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]
  136. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194959
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194959 [Google Scholar]
  137. 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. 10.1515/9783110199178.3.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  138. (2010) The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  139. (2020) Ten lectures on event structure in a network theory of language. Brill. 10.1163/9789004375291
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375291 [Google Scholar]
  140. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  141. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  143. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  144. (2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.14–31). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002 [Google Scholar]
  145. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Goldberg, A. E. , & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  147. 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. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90009‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0 [Google Scholar]
  148. 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. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01150.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01150.x [Google Scholar]
  149. 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. 10.1017/S014271642000048X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271642000048X [Google Scholar]
  150. Gries, S. Th.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (4), 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  151. (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. 10.1075/hcp.32.15gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.15gri [Google Scholar]
  152. Gries, S. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  153. Gries, S. Th. , & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3 , 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  154. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  155. 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. 10.18653/v1/N18‑1108
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1108 [Google Scholar]
  156. 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. 10.1075/cal.27.03gys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.03gys [Google Scholar]
  157. Hall, B. C.
    (1965) Subject and object in modern English [Doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
  158. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3 (1), 37–81. 10.1017/S0022226700012949
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012949 [Google Scholar]
  159. 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. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00257
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00257 [Google Scholar]
  160. 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]
  161. Harley, H.
    (2003) Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2 , 31–70. 10.1075/livy.2.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har [Google Scholar]
  162. Hartmann, S.
    (2019) Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure, 12 (3), 297–333. 10.3366/word.2019.0151
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0151 [Google Scholar]
  163. Hartmann, S. , & Ungerer, T.
    (2023) Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. 10.1017/S0022226723000117
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117 [Google Scholar]
  164. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  165. Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Kolk, H. H. J.
    (1998) Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41 , 143–184. 10.1177/002383099804100202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099804100202 [Google Scholar]
  166. Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Westenberg, C.
    (2000) Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75 (2), B27–B39. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00080‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00080-3 [Google Scholar]
  167. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 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. 10.1515/9783110356854.167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.167 [Google Scholar]
  169. Hilpert, M.
    (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 113–147. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  170. (2019a) Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. (2019b) Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure, 12 (3), 261–273. 10.3366/word.2019.0149
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0149 [Google Scholar]
  172. (2021) Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  173. 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. 10.1017/S1360674316000496
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000496 [Google Scholar]
  174. Hilpert, M. , & Perek, F.
    (2022) You don’t get to see that every day: On the development of permissive get . Constructions and Frames, 14 (1), 13–40. 10.1075/cf.00056.hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil [Google Scholar]
  175. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  176. Hoffmann, T.
    (2017) Construction Grammars. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.310–329). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.020 [Google Scholar]
  177. Hoffmann, T. , & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  178. 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. 10.1080/01690965.2011.572401
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.572401 [Google Scholar]
  179. 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. 10.1075/cal.3.10hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.10hol [Google Scholar]
  180. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10 , 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  181. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2023.104416
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2023.104416 [Google Scholar]
  182. Hudson, R.
    (1984) Word Grammar. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. (2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. (2008) Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp.257–302). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199178.3.257
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  185. (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. 10.1017/S002222671500016X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671500016X [Google Scholar]
  186. Huettig, F. , Audring, J. , & Jackendoff, R.
    (2022) A parallel architecture perspective on pre-activation and prediction in language processing. Cognition, 224 , 105050. 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105050
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105050 [Google Scholar]
  187. Ibbotson, P. , Salnikov, V. , & Walker, R.
    (2019) A dynamic network analysis of emergent grammar. First Language, 39 (6), 652–680. 10.1177/0142723719869562
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869562 [Google Scholar]
  188. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104052
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104052 [Google Scholar]
  189. Jackendoff, R.
    (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51 (3), 639–671. 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  190. (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  191. (1990) Semantic structures. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  192. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  193. (2013) Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.70–92). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0005 [Google Scholar]
  194. Jackendoff, R. , & Audring, J.
    (2020) The texture of the lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198827900.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198827900.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  195. Jackson, C. N.
    (2018) Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research, 34 (4), 539–552. 10.1177/0267658317746207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317746207 [Google Scholar]
  196. 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]
  197. 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  198. 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]
  199. Janiszewski, C. , & Wyer, R. S., Jr.
    (2014) Content and process priming: A review. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (1), 96–118. 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  200. Jespersen, O.
    (1965) A modern English Grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax. (Vol.2). George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. 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. 10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.717632 [Google Scholar]
  202. 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]
  203. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (1996) Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25 (5), 675–701. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  204. Kaschak, M. P.
    (2007) Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory & Cognition, 35 (5), 925–937. 10.3758/BF03193466
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193466 [Google Scholar]
  205. 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. 10.3758/s13423‑011‑0157‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0157-y [Google Scholar]
  206. 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. 10.3758/s13421‑010‑0042‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0042-3 [Google Scholar]
  207. Katz, J. J.
    (1964) Mentalism in linguistics. Language, 40 (2), 124–137. 10.2307/411571
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411571 [Google Scholar]
  208. 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. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  209. 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. 10.1177/0023830913496052
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913496052 [Google Scholar]
  210. Kittilä, S.
    (2005) Recipient-prominence vs. Beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9 (2), 269–297. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.2.269 [Google Scholar]
  211. Konopka, A. E. , & Bock, K.
    (2009) Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58 (1), 68–101. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  212. Konradt, A. , & Szendrői, K. E.
    (2020, September4). Is syntactic priming a mere constituent structure repetition? New evidence from English-speaking adults and children. AMLaP 2020, University of Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  213. 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. 10.3758/APP.72.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  214. Kuperberg, G. R. , & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2016) What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31 (1), 32–59. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 [Google Scholar]
  215. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065 [Google Scholar]
  216. 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. 10.1525/collabra.59
    https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.59 [Google Scholar]
  217. Kuznetsova, A. , Brockhoff, P. B. , & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13). 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  218. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  219. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (1), 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  220. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. Lamb, S. M.
    (1999) Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.170
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.170 [Google Scholar]
  222. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. (1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127–161). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  224. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–63). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  225. (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]
  226. (2006) On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (1), 107–151. 10.1515/COG.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  227. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  228. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.225–267). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  229. (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. 10.1037/15969‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003 [Google Scholar]
  230. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18 (2), 141–165. 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  231. 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]
  232. Ledoux, K. , Traxler, M. J. , & Swaab, T. Y.
    (2007) Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18 (2), 135–143. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2007.01863.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01863.x [Google Scholar]
  233. Lenci, A.
    (2018) Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4 (1), 151–171. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑030514‑125254
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254 [Google Scholar]
  234. Lenth, R.
    (2021) emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
    [Google Scholar]
  235. Lev-Ari, S.
    (2016) Selective grammatical convergence: Learning from desirable speakers. Discourse Processes, 53 (8), 657–674. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1094716
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1094716 [Google Scholar]
  236. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. Levin, B. , & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  238. 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. 10.1007/s10936‑016‑9456‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9456-9 [Google Scholar]
  239. 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. 10.1027/1618‑3169/a000089
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000089 [Google Scholar]
  240. 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. 10.3758/BF03212113
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212113 [Google Scholar]
  241. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  242. 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. 10.1037/11587‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11587-001 [Google Scholar]
  243. MacWhinney, B. , & O’Grady, W.
    (Eds.) (2015) The handbook of language emergence. Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118346136
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136 [Google Scholar]
  244. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  245. 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]
  246. 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. 10.1073/pnas.1907367117
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907367117 [Google Scholar]
  247. 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. 10.1126/science.1139940
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139940 [Google Scholar]
  248. Melinger, A. , & Dobel, C.
    (2005) Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98 (1), B11–20. 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  249. Messenger, K.
    (Ed.) (2022) Syntactic priming in language acquisition: Representations, mechanisms and applications. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.31 [Google Scholar]
  250. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  251. Meyer, A. S.
    (2017) Structural priming is not a Royal Road to representations. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40 , e305. 10.1017/S0140525X1700053X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1700053X [Google Scholar]
  252. 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. 10.1037/h0031564
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564 [Google Scholar]
  253. 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. 10.3758/BF03209002
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209002 [Google Scholar]
  254. Michaelis, L. A.
    (1994) A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, 18 (1), 45–70. 10.1075/sl.18.1.04mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18.1.04mic [Google Scholar]
  255. Miller, C. A. , & Deevy, P.
    (2006) Structural priming in children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20 (5), 387–399. 10.1080/02699200500074339
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500074339 [Google Scholar]
  256. Monsell, S. , & Hirsh, K. W.
    (1998) Competitor priming in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24 (6), 1495–1520. 10.1037/0278‑7393.24.6.1495
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.6.1495 [Google Scholar]
  257. Myslín, M. , & Levy, R.
    (2016) Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition, 147 , 29–56. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.021 [Google Scholar]
  258. Nesset, T. , & Janda, L.
    (2023) A network of allostructions: Quantified subject constructions in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics, 34 (1), 67–97. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0117
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0117 [Google Scholar]
  259. 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]
  260. 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. 10.7554/eLife.33468
    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468 [Google Scholar]
  261. 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. 10.1080/01690965.2013.766355
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.766355 [Google Scholar]
  262. 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]
  263. 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. 10.1080/01690965.2012.672752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.672752 [Google Scholar]
  264. (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. 10.1080/17470218.2014.918632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.918632 [Google Scholar]
  265. 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. 10.1075/cal.27.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per [Google Scholar]
  266. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (3), 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  267. (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. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  268. (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  269. (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54 (1), 149–188. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  270. (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. 10.1075/cal.27.04per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.04per [Google Scholar]
  271. Perek, F. , & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2015) Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84 , 108–127. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  272. (2017) Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition, 168 , 276–293. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  273. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  274. Petré, P. , & Anthonissen, L.
    (2020) Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 31 (2), 185–212. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0033 [Google Scholar]
  275. 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. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 [Google Scholar]
  276. 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. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2824
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2824 [Google Scholar]
  277. Pickering, M. J. , & Ferreira, V. S.
    (2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (3), 427–459. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  278. Pickering, M. J. , & Gambi, C.
    (2018) Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (10), 1002–1044. 10.1037/bul0000158
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158 [Google Scholar]
  279. 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. 10.1037/a0029181
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029181 [Google Scholar]
  280. 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. 10.1515/9781614510888.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510888.29 [Google Scholar]
  281. Pijpops, D.
    (2020) What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 , 283–294. 10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij [Google Scholar]
  282. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  283. 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. 10.3758/s13423‑021‑01985‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01985-y [Google Scholar]
  284. Potter, M. C. , & Lombardi, L.
    (1998) Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38 (3), 265–282. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2546
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2546 [Google Scholar]
  285. Primus, B.
    (1999) Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110912463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912463 [Google Scholar]
  286. Pulvermüller, F.
    (2002) The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615528
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615528 [Google Scholar]
  287. (2010) Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language, 112 (3), 167–179. 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  288. 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. 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  289. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  290. 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]
  291. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  292. Rapoport, T. R.
    (1999) Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language, 75 (4), 653–677. 10.2307/417729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417729 [Google Scholar]
  293. Rappaport Hovav, M. R. , & Levin, B.
    (2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44 (1), 129–167. 10.1017/S0022226707004975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975 [Google Scholar]
  294. 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]
  295. Rees, A. , & Bott, L.
    (2018) The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 176 , 1–14. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.024 [Google Scholar]
  296. Reitter, D. , Keller, F. , & Moore, J. D.
    (2011) A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35 (4), 587–637. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01165.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01165.x [Google Scholar]
  297. Romain, L.
    (2022) Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 33 (1), 35–64. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0021 [Google Scholar]
  298. Rosch, E. H.
    (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4 (3), 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  299. 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]
  300. Ross, J. R.
    (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax [Doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
  301. Rothstein, S.
    (2017) Secondary predication. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2nd ed., pp.1–30). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom025
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom025 [Google Scholar]
  302. 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. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  303. 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. 10.7551/mitpress/5236.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5236.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  304. Ruppenhofer, J. , Ellsworth, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , Johnson, C. R. , Baker, F. C. , & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  305. 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. 10.1017/S0142716407070348
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070348 [Google Scholar]
  306. Saussure, F. de
    (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Payot. Translated by Wade Baskin . New York: Philosophical Library 1959.
    [Google Scholar]
  307. Schacter, D. L.
    (1987) Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13 (3), 501–518. 10.1037/0278‑7393.13.3.501
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501 [Google Scholar]
  308. 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]
  309. 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]
  310. Scheepers, C.
    (2003) Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89 (3), 179–205. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00119‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00119-7 [Google Scholar]
  311. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  312. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and- Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3 (1), 3–25. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  313. Schmid, H.-J.
    (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. 10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  314. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  315. 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. 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90011‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N [Google Scholar]
  316. 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. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  317. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0024209
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024209 [Google Scholar]
  318. 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. 10.1037/a0036796
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036796 [Google Scholar]
  319. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  320. Siew, C. S. Q.
    (2018) The orthographic similarity structure of English words: Insights from network science. Applied Network Science, 3 (1), 1–18. 10.1007/s41109‑018‑0068‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-018-0068-1 [Google Scholar]
  321. 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]
  322. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  323. 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. 10.1162/tacl_a_00504
    https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00504 [Google Scholar]
  324. 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. 10.1037/0278‑7393.13.1.64
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.64 [Google Scholar]
  325. 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. 10.1075/cal.32.07smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.07smi [Google Scholar]
  326. 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. 10.1075/cal.27.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  327. Sommerer, L.
    (2020) Why we avoid the ‘multiple inheritance’ issue in Usage-based cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 , 320–331. 10.1075/bjl.00056.som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00056.som [Google Scholar]
  328. 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. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0013 [Google Scholar]
  329. Sommerer, L. , & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  330. Steels, L.
    (Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  331. (2017) Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9 (2), 178–225. 10.1075/cf.00002.ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste [Google Scholar]
  332. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2013) Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.290–306). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0016 [Google Scholar]
  333. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  334. 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. 10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3 [Google Scholar]
  335. Suttle, L. , & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1237–1269. 10.1515/ling.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  336. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197808
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197808 [Google Scholar]
  337. Taylor, J. R.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  338. 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. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0007 [Google Scholar]
  339. 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]
  340. 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. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00404
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00404 [Google Scholar]
  341. Thothathiri, M. , & Snedeker, J.
    (2008) Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108 (1), 51–68. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  342. Tomasello, M.
    (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  343. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  344. Tooley, K. M.
    (2020) Contrasting mechanistic accounts of the lexical boost. Memory & Cognition, 48 (5), 815–838. 10.3758/s13421‑020‑01019‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01019-3 [Google Scholar]
  345. (2022) Structural priming during comprehension: A pattern from many pieces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 10.3758/s13423‑022‑02209‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02209-7 [Google Scholar]
  346. Tooley, K. M. , & Bock, K.
    (2014) On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132 (2), 101–136. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  347. 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. 10.1177/1747021819834247
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819834247 [Google Scholar]
  348. Tooley, K. M. , & Traxler, M. J.
    (2010) Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4 (10), 925–937. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00249.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00249.x [Google Scholar]
  349. Touretzky, D. S.
    (1986) The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman.
    [Google Scholar]
  350. Traugott, E. C. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  351. Traxler, M. J.
    (2008) Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (1), 149–155. 10.3758/PBR.15.1.149
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.149 [Google Scholar]
  352. Traxler, M. J. , & Tooley, K. M.
    (2008) Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic?Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (5), 609–645. 10.1080/01690960701639898
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701639898 [Google Scholar]
  353. 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. 10.1037/a0036377
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036377 [Google Scholar]
  354. Tuggy, D.
    (1993) Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 273–290. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273 [Google Scholar]
  355. 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. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0016 [Google Scholar]
  356. (2022) Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10 (1), 159–182. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0008 [Google Scholar]
  357. (2023) A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, Special Issue “35 Years of Constructions,”1–20. 10.24338/cons‑543
    https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-543 [Google Scholar]
  358. (in press). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin?Constructions and Frames.
    [Google Scholar]
  359. Ungerer, T. , & Hartmann, S.
    (in press). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  360. 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. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  361. van Gompel, R. P. G. , & Arai, M.
    (2018) Structural priming in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21 (3), 448–455. 10.1017/S1366728917000542
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000542 [Google Scholar]
  362. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  363. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  364. 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. 10.1080/23273798.2022.2036782
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2036782 [Google Scholar]
  365. van Trijp, R.
    (2020) Making good on a promise: Multidimensional constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 , 357–370. 10.1075/bjl.00059.tri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00059.tri [Google Scholar]
  366. 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. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  367. Vernice, M. , Pickering, M. J. , & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2012) Thematic emphasis in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27 (5), 631–664. 10.1080/01690965.2011.572468
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.572468 [Google Scholar]
  368. 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. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2008/030)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/030) [Google Scholar]
  369. Wasow, T.
    (1997) Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9 (1), 81–105. 10.1017/S0954394500001800
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
  370. Watts, D. J.
    (2007) A twenty-first century science. Nature, 445 (7127), 489. 10.1038/445489a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/445489a [Google Scholar]
  371. Weber, K. , & Indefrey, P.
    (2009) Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46 (4), 1164–1172. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.040
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.040 [Google Scholar]
  372. 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. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  373. 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. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845691
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845691 [Google Scholar]
  374. 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. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  375. Wertheimer, M.
    (1923) Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologische Forschung, 4 (1), 301–350. 10.1007/BF00410640
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640 [Google Scholar]
  376. Winkler, S.
    (1997) Focus and secondary predication. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110815214
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815214 [Google Scholar]
  377. Wittenberg, E.
    (2016) With light verb constructions from syntax to concepts. Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  378. Wittgenstein, L.
    (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  379. Witzel, J. , & Forster, K.
    (2014) Lexical co-occurrence and ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29 (2), 158–185. 10.1080/01690965.2012.748925
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.748925 [Google Scholar]
  380. 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. 10.1007/s10936‑015‑9356‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9356-4 [Google Scholar]
  381. 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. 10.1007/s10936‑011‑9179‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9179-x [Google Scholar]
  382. 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. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  383. 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. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  384. 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]
  385. Zehentner, E.
    (2019) Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110633856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 [Google Scholar]
  386. 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. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
  387. 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. 10.1007/s10936‑012‑9233‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9233-3 [Google Scholar]
  388. 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. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  389. Ziegler, J. , Bencini, G. , Goldberg, A. , & Snedeker, J.
    (2019) How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193 , 104045. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104045
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104045 [Google Scholar]
  390. Ziegler, J. , & Snedeker, J.
    (2018) How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179 , 221–240. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  391. (2019) The use of syntax and information structure during language comprehension: Evidence from structural priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34 (3), 365–384. 10.1080/23273798.2018.1539757
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1539757 [Google Scholar]
  392. 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. 10.1111/cogs.12687
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12687 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027249531
Loading
/content/books/9789027249531
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027249531
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error