| P · prime | a previously produced syntactic structure |
| T · target | a picture to describe |
| B · baseline | structure chosen with no prior form |
| E · priming effect | increased reuse of the primed structure |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | syntactic persistence in language production— “This involves the repetition of syntactic forms across successive utterances.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Speakers tend to repeat the syntactic forms of sentences in subsequent utterances that are minimally related in lexical, conceptual, or discourse content.” | |
| method — evidence | — “All of the experiments employed a syntactic priming paradigm that created a controlled analog of the situations that have revealed syntactic repetition in natural speech.” | |
| mechanism | 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— “Speakers tend to repeat the syntactic forms of sentences in subsequent utterances that are minimally related in lexical, conceptual, or discourse content” | mechanisms[0] |
| extends | activation-based theories of language production— “The advantage of the syntactic activation hypothesis is that it provides a unitary explanation for phenomena that otherwise seem quite disparate.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the competition model of Bates and MacWhinney (1982; MacWhinney, Bates, & Kliegl, 1984)— “This view of linguistic rules as graded rather than fully determinate is comparable to that incorporated into the competition model of Bates and MacWhinney (1982; MacWhinney, Bates, & Kliegl, 1984).” | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | Levelt and Kelter (1982) and Weiner and Labov (1983) on repetition of syntactic form in natural speech— “A parsimonious explanation of these results, and those of previous investigations (Levelt & Kelter, 1982; Weiner & Labov, 1983), is that the production of sentences results in the activation or strengthening of the syntactic rules or procedures involved in their creation.” | claim_relations[2] |
| replicates | Experiment 2 of this paper— “The results thus replicated those of Experiment 2, but with a different cover task that encouraged fuller processing of the primes.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE EFFECT IS ON WHAT SPEAKERS CHOOSE, AND IT IS SYMMETRIC: `Active and passive utterances EACH increased in frequency by 8% following corresponding primes.` 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— “Active and passive utterances each increased in frequency by 8% following corresponding primes.” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE DEFLATIONARY READING IS CLOSED IN ONE SENTENCE: `However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.` 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— “However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.” | senses[1] |
| sense | 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— “The repetition effect was found for two different types of sentences, with use of the alternative forms of each type (active versus passive transitives, and prepositional versus double-object datives) varying as a function of the form of a previous sentence.” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE STRATEGIC EXPLANATIONS ARE NAMED AND REMOVED: `These variations occurred under conditions in which there was little or no impetus for the active maintenance of the priming sentences in memory, or for the use of syntactic devices to create discourse coherence.` 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— “These variations occurred under conditions in which there was little or no impetus for the active maintenance of the priming sentences in memory, or for the use of syntactic devices to create discourse coherence.” | senses[3] |
| control | 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 — held — rules out that recognition performance depends on how recently an item appeared rather than on the priming manipulation— “In every list, 33, 78, 85, and 100% of all previous filler items were tested by the end of each of the four respective quarters of the list.” | controls[0] |
| audit | lexical repetition —distinct-from→ priming effect — 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.— “However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | lexical repetition —distinct-from→ priming effect — 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.— “However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | lexical repetition —distinct-from→ priming effect — 0.95— “However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | it is unclear whether syntactic intrusions/perseverations can be accounted for in the same way— “In the case of syntactic intrusions or perseverations, however, it is not clear that the effects can be accounted for in a comparable way.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The null effect of the agency manipulation carries the usual indeterminacy of null results and may reflect a weak manipulation.— “The absence of an agency effect creates the usual indeterminacy associated with null results, leaving open the possibility that message factors may have had a less consistent impact than syntactic factors because the agency manipulation was weak.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The symmetry between syntactic and conceptual matching rests on unreliable differences and a very small item sample.— “But because the differences were unreliable and based on a very limited sample of items, this symmetry should be treated cautiously.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Both lines of evidence for the isolability of syntactic processing are described by the author as tentative.— “Two types of evidence for such isolability were found, although both must be regarded as tentative.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | priming is specific to sentence form, independent of content— “effects of priming were specific to features of sentence form, independent of sen-” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.findings[2] |
| not machine-vouched | finding — 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] |
| finding | syntax may form a functionally independent subsystem— “some syntactic processes are organized into a functionally independent sub-” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.findings[3] |
| not machine-vouched | finding — 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] |
| quantity | 2 further experiments — follow-up studies on conceptual variation— “Two further experiments showed” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| not machine-vouched | quantity — 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[1] |
| quantity | 3 experiments — all found form-specific priming— “all three experiments found evidence” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| not machine-vouched | quantity — 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] |
| variable | syntactic form (manipulated across trials)— “priming sentence in one of several syntactic forms” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT] | content_tags.variables[0] |
| evidence status note | variable — 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. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| not machine-vouched | variable — 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[0] |
| variable | frequency or recency of use (probabilistic factors shaping form choice)— “such probabilistic factors as the frequency or” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT] | content_tags.variables[3] |
| evidence status note | variable — 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. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| not machine-vouched | variable — 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] |
| definition | syntactic persistence— “a tendency to repeatedly employ the same syntactic form” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | activation— “the activation or strengthening of information implies a quasi-neurological energizing, excitation, or threshold reduction” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | syntactic priming procedure— “were examined with a syntactic priming procedure” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT] | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| evidence status note | definition — 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. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| not machine-vouched | definition — 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] |
| key-terms | syntactic priming, language production, activation, syntactic form, sentence production, persistence, priming, speech errors, productivity, structural |
| concept | syntactic persistence — not defined in this paper's own words; PRIMING OF FORM RATHER THAN CONTENT. Hearing a passive makes you produce a passive - about a different picture, with different words. 'The repetition effect was found for two different types of sentences ... varying as a function of the form of a previous sentence'. Every other priming record in this corpus primes an item with a RELATED item; this one primes a structure with no shared content— “The repetition effect was found for two different types of sentences, with use of the alternative forms of each type (active versus passive transitives, and prepositional versus double-object datives) varying as a function of the form of a previous sentence.” | concepts[7] |
| concept | priming effect — not defined in this paper's own words; here measured as a change in what speakers CHOOSE to say, not how fast they say it. 'Active and passive utterances each increased in frequency by 8%' - a production measure, so the effect is on selection among grammatical alternatives rather than on recognition latency— “Active and passive utterances each increased in frequency by 8% following corresponding primes.” | concepts[8] |
| concept | lexical repetition — not defined in this paper's own words; whether the prime and the target share words. The obvious deflationary explanation, and the paper closes it: 'lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.' Without that sentence the result reads as word priming with extra steps— “However, lexical repetition does not seem to be a necessary component of the priming effect.” | concepts[9] |
| concept | passive — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the two transitive forms the effect runs between, and the alternation is what makes the measure possible - a speaker describing a picture can say it either way, so a shift in the proportion is a shift in nothing but form— “Active and passive utterances each increased in frequency by 8% following corresponding primes.” | concepts[10] |
| confidence-interval CI | as written: Confidence intervals— “Confidence intervals (shown in Table 1) for the differences between the means were constructed using the appropriate values of the t statistic” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| evidence status note | confidence-interval — 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. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| correlation r | as written: correlated— “descriptions of pictures with human versus nonhuman agents showed that the use of passive sentences was highly correlated with nonhuman agency” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| evidence status note | correlation — 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. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: hypothesis— “An alternative hypothesis is that it is not typeor token-based sentence representations that are responsible for the repetition effect, but the syntactic processes responsible for their generation or interpretation” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | hypothesis-testing — 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. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .05— “All of these differences were significant for both subjects and items (p < .05).” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significant— “All of these differences were significant for both subjects and items (p < .05).” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| t-test t | as written: t statistic— “Confidence intervals (shown in Table 1) for the differences between the means were constructed using the appropriate values of the t statistic” | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| evidence status note | t-test — 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. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| variance σ² | — “None of the interactions involving the prime agency factor were significant, with all Fs < 1 in analyses of variance treating subjects as random effects, and all Fs < 1.07 in analyses of variance treating items as random effects” | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| evidence status note | variance — 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. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824