Syntactic Persistence in Language Production

J. Kathryn Bock · Cognitive Psychology · 1986 · linguistics · 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 · record bock1986-syntactic
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Replication status is 'replicated' on the paper's own internal evidence only: Experiment 3 is stated to replicate Experiment 2 with a stronger cover task. No external replication is claimed. Claim type is 'existence' because the demonstrated phenomenon (structural repetition under controlled conditions) is the headline result; the activation-of-syntactic-procedures account is offered as the explanation and would read as 'mechanism'. 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 9 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.definitions[3].evidence, content_tags.findings[0].evidence, content_tags.findings[1].evidence, content_tags.findings[2].evidence, content_tags.findings[3].evidence, content_tags.quantities[1].evidence, content_tags.quantities[2].evidence, content_tags.variables[0].evidence, content_tags.variables[3].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

11 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
priming 2 fields · confidence-interval 2 fields · Confidence intervals 2 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · productivity 2 fields · variance 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 11 concept tags on this paper, 4 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 4 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

priming syntactic priming language production structural persistence association secondariness modulation syntactic persistence priming effect lexical repetition passive syntactic (structural) priming: producing or hearing a sentence structure makes speakers more likely to reuse that same structure in a later, content-unrelated utterance - so syntax is represented and primed independently of meaning activation syntactic form sentence production persistence speech errors productivity structural syntactic priming procedure frequency or recency of use confidence-interval Confidence intervals correlation hypothesis-testing p-value statistical-significance t-test t statistic variance behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 4 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 4 · content_tags 9 · controls 1 · limitations 4 · mechanisms 1 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	syntactic persistence in language production Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic (structural) priming: producing or hearing a sentence structure makes speakers more likely to reuse that same structure in a later, content-unrelated utterance - so syntax is represented and primed independently of meaning	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	it is unclear whether syntactic intrusions/perseverations can be accounted for in the same way Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The null effect of the agency manipulation carries the usual indeterminacy of null results and may reflect a weak manipulation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The symmetry between syntactic and conceptual matching rests on unreliable differences and a very small item sample. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Both lines of evidence for the isolability of syntactic processing are described by the author as tentative. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
controls	the filler items were tested on a schedule that reached 33, 78, 85 and 100 per cent by the end of each successive quarter of the list Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that recognition performance depends on how recently an item appeared rather than on the priming manipulation · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	syntactic persistence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic persistence	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming effect	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	lexical repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical repetition	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	passive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: passive	`concepts[10]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE EFFECT IS ON WHAT SPEAKERS CHOOSE, AND IT IS SYMMETRIC: `Quotation withheld` Not a latency, not an accuracy - a shift in which of two grammatical options a speaker takes, in both directions equally. The symmetry matters: a bias toward one form would be explicable by that form being easier, and a bias toward whichever form was just heard is not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE DEFLATIONARY READING IS CLOSED IN ONE SENTENCE: `Quotation withheld` Prime and target share no words, and the effect survives. This is the sentence that makes it SYNTACTIC priming rather than a long-range word priming - and every other priming record in this corpus (meyer1971, neely1977, hutchison2003) is about exactly the relation Bock is ruling out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	IT MEETS lashley1951 ACROSS THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AND NEITHER CITES THE OTHER. Lashley: `syntax is NOT INHERENT in the words employed or in the idea to be expressed` - argued from the impossibility of associative chains, with no experiment attached. Bock: syntactic form persists across utterances sharing neither words nor message. The argument and the demonstration, both merged into this corpus tonight, thirty-five years and one discipline apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE STRATEGIC EXPLANATIONS ARE NAMED AND REMOVED: `Quotation withheld` Not rehearsal, not cohesion. The same move as marcel1983's second mask and erb2019's overlap control - naming the alternatives and closing them rather than reporting the effect and leaving them standing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → activation-based theories of language production Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the competition model of Bates and MacWhinney (1982; MacWhinney, Bates, & Kliegl, 1984) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Levelt and Kelter (1982) and Weiner and Labov (1983) on repetition of syntactic form in natural speech Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	replicates → Experiment 2 of this paper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	lexical repetition —distinct-from→ priming effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE EDGE THAT MAKES THE PAPER SYNTACTIC. 'lexical repetition does…' - both endpoints named, the relation is exactly non-inclusion, and it is the paper's own conclusion rather than a framing. Weight 0.95. 'distinct-from' is the right type here for once - elsewhere tonight it has had to stand in for 'co-occurs but does not cause' (mcmahon-olson2007) and lost half a sentence doing it; here non-necessity IS distinctness and nothing is lost. 'seem to' is the authors' hedge and stays inside the quote. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but lexical repetition 'does not seem to be a necessary component' of priming; hedged. also in: lexical repetition · priming effect	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	syntactic persistence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic persistence	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: activation	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence-interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: confidence-interval	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: hypothesis-testing	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

content_tags.quantities[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.quantities[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.findings[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.findings[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.variables[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries no measurable character damage at all.
content_tags.variables[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries no measurable character damage at all.
content_tags.definitions[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries no measurable character damage at all.

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.