| phenomenon | structural priming— “When people talk or write, they tend to repeat the underlying basic structures that they recently produced or experienced others produce.” |
| claim-type | existence— “In conclusion, taken together, these results provide compelling evidence for autonomous syntax: The production of a sentence critically depends upon an abstract syntactic form that is defined in terms of part-of-speech forms (e.g., nouns, verbs, prepositions) and phrasal constituents organized from those (noun phrases, verb phrases… |
| method — evidence | — “In short, structural priming is an informative and heavily investigated phenomenon and therefore warrants an extensive and directed review.” |
| transfer | from psycholinguistics of comprehension (into production): 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— “Indeed, priming between production and comprehension, just like priming between writing and speaking, supports the claim that both processes draw on common representations of linguistic information, particularly ones associated with syntax.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | 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.— “On this account, priming is due to residual activation of combinatorial and lemma nodes, as well as the links between the two (as illustrated in Panel C of Figure 2 ). More specifically, lexically independent priming occurs as a result of the residual activation” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | 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.— “The core idea is that for people to produce and comprehend language, they must learn how their different linguistic and language-related representations relate or map onto one other. To produce or understand the word cat , a language user must learn that the meaning of domestic feline maps onto the word cat (which is a noun), which in turn… | mechanisms[1] |
| contradicts | functionalist approaches to syntactic structure (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982) and connectionist views that eschew traditional syntactic representations (McClelland, St. John, & Taraban, 1989)— “This runs against more functionalist approaches to syntactic structure (e.g., Bates & MacWhinney, 1982 ), as well as other views that eschew traditional representations of syntactic knowledge (e.g., McClelland, St. John, & Taraban, 1989 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | transformational accounts of syntactic production with a deep-structure level (Chomsky, 1965)— “In fact, this animacy effect disconfirms a transformational account of syntactic production.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | 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— “In the language sciences, a ubiquitous form of such repetition is structural priming , a tendency to repeat or better process a current sentence because of its structural similarity to a previously experienced (“prime”) sentence ( Bock, 1986 ). The recent explosion of research in structural priming has made it the dominant means of… | senses[0] |
| sense | 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— “Some researchers use the term syntactic priming (e.g., Pickering & Branigan, 1999 ), but we shall use structural priming because it encompasses abstract linguistic priming that need not be syntactic (e.g., Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992 ), and indeed does not presuppose the existence of specifically syntactic representations” | senses[1] |
| sense | 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— “the tendency to be affected by the repetition of aspects of knowledge can be used to diagnose the nature of that knowledge. So in this case, the tendency to repeat aspects of sentence structure helps researchers identify some of the representations that people construct” | senses[2] |
| sense | 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— “we feel that it is critical that investigations using structural priming should not primarily be cast as investigations about structural priming. Sometimes, structural priming is merely a dependent variable, when patterns of priming are used to infer the operation of certain kinds of representations or processes (e.g., when priming suggests… | senses[3] |
| sense | 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— “One is a two-locus account, which assumes that separate mechanisms or cognitive systems lead to abstract (lexically independent) priming and lexicalized (lexically boosted) priming. The other is a one-locus account, which assumes that a single mechanism can explain both abstract priming and the lexical boost. The two-locus account suggests… | senses[4] |
| sense | 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— “Structural priming has proved to be a strong, versatile, and resilient phenomenon. It is informative about the mechanisms that underlie language use in many different populations, and appears to facilitate both language learning and communication. We predict that it will remain a central psycholinguistic method for many years to come” | senses[5] |
| sense | '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.— “We also avoid the term syntactic persistence ( Bock, 1986 ) because not all structural priming effects involve perseveration (e.g., Smith & Wheeldon, 2001 ).” | senses[6] |
| sense | '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.— “Moreover, syntactic priming is also used to refer to the facilitatory effects of a syntactically congruent context on lexical processing (e.g., Deutsch & Bentin, 1994 ; Wicha et al., 2005 ; Wright & Garrett, 1984 ).” | senses[7] |
| sense | '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.— “Note that 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.” | senses[8] |
| control | a CONTROL EXPERIMENT in which the primes had the same noun-phrase types but were modified by ADVERBIAL clauses instead of relative clauses — held — rules out that the priming comes from the noun phrases or from lexical repetition rather than from the relative-clause structure itself— “Specifically, in a control experiment, subjects produced primes that had the same types of noun phrases, but that were modified by adverbial clauses rather than relative clauses (“the servant of the actress when she…” instead of “the servant of the actress who…”).” | controls[0] |
| effect direction | residual activation —causes→ syntactic priming — increases— “But when a sentence contains the same verb as a previous sentence (e.g., give ), syntactic priming results from residual activation of the pre-activated lemma node ( give ), of the strengthened link between this lemma node and the NP,NP combinatorial node, and (as in lexically independent priming) of the combinatorial node itself”— “syntactic priming results from residual activation” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | residual activation —causes→ syntactic priming — 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.— “But when a sentence contains the same verb as a previous sentence (e.g., give ), syntactic priming results from residual activation of the pre-activated lemma node ( give ), of the strengthened link between this lemma node and the NP,NP combinatorial node, and (as in lexically independent priming) of the combinatorial node itself” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | residual activation —causes→ syntactic priming — 0.8— “But when a sentence contains the same verb as a previous sentence (e.g., give ), syntactic priming results from residual activation of the pre-activated lemma node ( give ), of the strengthened link between this lemma node and the NP,NP combinatorial node, and (as in lexically independent priming) of the combinatorial node itself” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | syntactic priming —same-as→ structural priming — 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.— “Some researchers use the term syntactic priming (e.g., Pickering & Branigan, 1999 ), but we shall use structural priming because it encompasses abstract linguistic priming that need not be syntactic (e.g., Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992 ), and indeed does not presuppose the existence of specifically syntactic representations” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | syntactic priming —same-as→ structural priming — 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.— “Some researchers use the term syntactic priming (e.g., Pickering & Branigan, 1999 ), but we shall use structural priming because it encompasses abstract linguistic priming that need not be syntactic (e.g., Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992 ), and indeed does not presuppose the existence of specifically syntactic representations” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | syntactic priming —same-as→ structural priming — 0.95— “Some researchers use the term syntactic priming (e.g., Pickering & Branigan, 1999 ), but we shall use structural priming because it encompasses abstract linguistic priming that need not be syntactic (e.g., Bock, Loebell, & Morey, 1992 ), and indeed does not presuppose the existence of specifically syntactic representations” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | implicit learning —causes→ structural priming — 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.— “These findings, together with a few other properties of structural priming (noted below), has led to a view that it at least in part reflects the operation of an implicit learning mechanism” | concept_edges[2] |
| effect direction | implicit learning —causes→ structural priming — increases— “These findings, together with a few other properties of structural priming (noted below), has led to a view that it at least in part reflects the operation of an implicit learning mechanism”— “These findings, together with a few other properties of structural priming (noted below), has led to a view that it at least in part reflects the operation of an implicit learning” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | implicit learning —causes→ structural priming — 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.— “These findings, together with a few other properties of structural priming (noted below), has led to a view that it at least in part reflects the operation of an implicit learning mechanism” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | implicit learning —causes→ structural priming — 0.8— “These findings, together with a few other properties of structural priming (noted below), has led to a view that it at least in part reflects the operation of an implicit learning mechanism” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | lexical boost —part-of→ structural priming — '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.— “We refer to this as the lexical boost to structural priming. Corpus studies have also provided evidence of a lexical boost” | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | lexical boost —part-of→ structural priming — 0.9— “We refer to this as the lexical boost to structural priming. Corpus studies have also provided evidence of a lexical boost” | concept_edges[3] |
| note | structural priming —is-a→ repetition — 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.— “In the language sciences, a ubiquitous form of such repetition is structural priming , a tendency to repeat or better process a current sentence because of its structural similarity to a previously experienced (“prime”) sentence ( Bock, 1986 ). The recent explosion of research in structural priming has made it the dominant means of… | concept_edges[5] |
| weight | structural priming —is-a→ repetition — 0.9— “In the language sciences, a ubiquitous form of such repetition is structural priming , a tendency to repeat or better process a current sentence because of its structural similarity to a previously experienced (“prime”) sentence ( Bock, 1986 ). The recent explosion of research in structural priming has made it the dominant means of… | concept_edges[5] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | replicated |
| limitation | Observing structural priming does not license the inference that abstract syntax caused it.— “However, this does not mean that whenever structural priming is observed, it is always caused by abstract syntactic knowledge.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The evidence on whether thematic roles affect priming is contradictory and unresolved by this review.— “In sum, the effects of thematic roles on priming are mixed, and more work is needed to determine how they fit into the mapping from message to syntax.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | All cross-linguistic priming evidence comes from typologically and genetically related languages.— “More immediately, they provide evidence about the degree of sharing of grammar between languages, though it is important to note that all languages explored thus far (English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Greek) are genetically and typologically related.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Why priming in comprehension usually needs a boost cannot be decided from current evidence.— “Overall, it is unclear whether priming in comprehension generally requires a boost because priming of comprehension involve different cognitive bases than priming of production, or because priming of comprehension is typically assessed with less sensitive reaction-time measures.” | limitations[3] |