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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
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 5 relations 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 | structural priming 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 | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Residual activation (the one-locus account): using a construction leaves its combinatorial node and the lemma linked to it partly activated, so the same structure is cheaper to produce for a while. The lexical boost falls out of the same machinery - a repeated verb re-activates both the lemma AND the strengthened link to the node - which is what makes it ONE locus. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Implicit learning: producing or understanding a structure requires having learned how meaning relationships map onto functional elements and onto constituent order, and every sentence experienced re-weights those mappings. On this account priming is not a trace that decays but the visible edge of the same learning that acquired the grammar. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Observing structural priming does not license the inference that abstract syntax caused it. 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 evidence on whether thematic roles affect priming is contradictory and unresolved by this review. 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 | All cross-linguistic priming evidence comes from typologically and genetically related languages. 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 | Why priming in comprehension usually needs a boost cannot be decided from current evidence. 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 | |
| transfers | priming between production and comprehension, and between writing and speaking, is read as evidence that the two processes draw on the SAME representations - a claim that carries structure across the production/comprehension divide Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a CONTROL EXPERIMENT in which the primes had the same noun-phrase types but were modified by ADVERBIAL clauses instead of relative clauses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the priming comes from the noun phrases or from lexical repetition rather than from the relative-clause structure itself · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | structural priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lexical boost Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical boost | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | residual activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: residual activation | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | implicit learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implicit learning | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | abstract syntactic form Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: abstract syntactic form | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | syntactic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic priming | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dialogue | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper'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[8] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| senses | structural priming - THE LINGUISTICS SENSE, and it shares almost nothing with the social-psychology sense this corpus is otherwise full of except the word. The prime is a SENTENCE, the primed thing is its STRUCTURE, the response is another sentence, and the effect is defined disjunctively: to repeat OR BETTER PROCESS a current sentence because of its structural similarity to a previously experienced one. No concept is activated, no behaviour is influenced, no attitude is reached 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 | structural priming versus syntactic priming - A NAME CHOSEN AGAINST A THEORY, and the clearest instance of it in this corpus. The review drops `syntactic priming` (Pickering's own term from 1999) for `structural priming` on the explicit ground that the old name PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIFICALLY SYNTACTIC REPRESENTATIONS - the very thing the method is used to test. A term retired because it smuggles in the conclusion, with the reason stated in the sentence that retires it 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 | priming as a DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT - the reason the field runs these experiments at all, and the review states the logic in general form before applying it: because being affected by repetition depends on how knowledge is represented, the pattern of what does and does not prime is used to READ OFF the representations. The effect is evidence about something else 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 | USING priming versus investigating priming - the review's own closing recommendation, and it is this project's central distinction stated by the people who own the term: an investigation USING structural priming should not be cast as an investigation ABOUT structural priming, because when priming is merely a dependent variable the real subject is the representation under test. A field telling itself to keep instrument and object apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | one-locus versus two-locus - the field's name for its own open question, and it is a question about IDENTITY rather than about size: is the lexical boost the same mechanism as abstract priming working harder, or a second mechanism altogether? The review states the test that would separate them - a dissociation the two-locus account predicts and the one-locus account does not - and does not claim to have it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | priming as a METHOD, said in as many words in the review's last sentence - not a phenomenon the field studies but an instrument it expects to keep using, described by its instrumental virtues (strong, versatile, resilient) rather than by what it is Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | 'syntactic persistence' - A THIRD CANDIDATE NAME REFUSED, AND ON A DIFFERENT GROUND FROM THE SECOND: 'We also avoid the term SYNTACTIC PERSISTENCE (Bock, 1986) because not all structural priming effects involve perseveration.' A senses row records 'syntactic priming' refused because it PRESUPPOSES A THEORY. This one is refused because its extension is wrong - the name describes a property only some instances have. TWO DIFFERENT WAYS FOR A NAME TO FAIL, IN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, and the review distinguishes them without naming the distinction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | 'syntactic priming' - AND A SECOND, INDEPENDENT REASON TO DROP IT: THE NAME IS ALREADY TAKEN. 'Moreover, syntactic priming is also used to refer to the facilitatory effects of a syntactically congruent context on lexical processing.' Not a theoretical objection at all but a COLLISION - the same string already names a different phenomenon in a neighbouring literature, with three citations given. The same shape as 'newman2003' refusing 'connectivity' because graph theory had it first, and another of this record's senses carries only the theory-laden objection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | 'priming' - PROCEDURE OR EFFECT, AND THE REVIEW FLAGS THE AMBIGUITY IN ITS OWN CENTRAL WORD: 'the term priming can also refer to the experimental procedure (and the closely related data that are extracted from natural language corpora) rather than an explanation of the underlying cognitive processes.' A PROCESS/PRODUCT AMBIGUITY - the method that produces the effect, and the effect. A senses row records the review's closing move of treating priming AS a method; this is the review saying at the outset that the word already does both jobs, which is why that closing move is available to it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → functionalist approaches to syntactic structure (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982) and connectionist views that eschew traditional syntactic representations (McClelland, St. John, & Taraban, 1989) 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 | contradicts → transformational accounts of syntactic production with a deep-structure level (Chomsky, 1965) 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 | |
| concept_edges | residual activation —causes→ syntactic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: Weighted 0.8, not higher, because the review presents this as ONE OF TWO live accounts and declines to choose between them. This span is also the one-locus account's answer to the lexical boost: a repeated verb re-activates the lemma, the strengthened link AND the combinatorial node, so the bigger effect needs no second mechanism. also in: residual activation · syntactic priming | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | syntactic priming —same-as→ structural priming 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: A DELIBERATE RENAMING WITH THE REASON ATTACHED, and the discarded term is Pickering's own from 1999. The stated ground is that the old name PRESUPPOSES what the method is supposed to test - whether the primed representations are syntactic at all - so the rename is an argument, not a matter of style. Confidence 0.95: the paper states the identity itself.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says 'structural priming' ENCOMPASSES priming that need not be syntactic; same-as is loose. also in: syntactic priming · structural priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | implicit learning —causes→ structural priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: The rival account, at the same weight as residual activation because the review gives it the same standing. 'at least in part' is the field's own hedge, and the review's summary position is that the two accounts may not be as incompatible as is usually assumed.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span reports 'a view that' structural priming in part reflects implicit learning. also in: implicit learning · structural priming | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | lexical boost —part-of→ structural priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'the lexical boost TO structural priming' - the field's own preposition makes it a component of the effect rather than a separate one. Whether it is a separate MECHANISM is exactly what one-locus / two-locus disputes, so the edge records the part relation the term commits to and nothing more. also in: lexical boost · structural priming | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | structural priming —is-a→ repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Recorded because the superordinate is chosen and not obvious: this field files priming under REPETITION - alongside imitation, perseveration and learning - rather than under activation or accessibility, which is where the social-psychology records in this corpus put it. The same word, filed under two different genera. also in: structural priming · repetition | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | In naturally occurring pairs, both members used the same construction in nearly two-thirds of cases, and more so when prime and target shared a verb. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Abstract syntactic form - parts of speech and the phrasal constituents built from them - has a large influence on structural priming, which the review takes as the method's central evidential yield for autonomous syntax while explicitly denying that it is the only thing that primes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Repeating the verb enhances priming, and in at least one study priming was not significant without verb repetition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | structural priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | lexical boost Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical boost | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | syntactic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic priming | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 3003 — prepositional-object / double-object sentence pairs Gries identified in a corpus of British English Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-thirds — the share of those corpus pairs whose two members used the same construction - priming visible in unarranged speech Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | verb repetition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: verb repetition | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
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.