title: The functions of structural priming.
abstract: Structural priming refers to speakers' tendency to produce sentences with previously heard or produced syntactic structures. We review arguments and evidence for three common accounts of the functions of structural priming. One is that structural priming enhances fluency. Only some (reaction time and fluency measure) evidence supports this view. A second account argues that structural priming stems from implicit learning of how features of meaning are linked to syntactic configurations. We describe evidence suggesting that structural priming exhibits effects characteristic of both learning and implicitness. A third account claims that structural priming is an aspect of coordination or alignment among interlocutors. Consistent with this, some evidence shows that structural priming involves a shorter-term component that is broadly sensitive to repeated bindings of wide-ranging types of knowledge. Together, these observations suggest that structural priming is likely a multifaceted force that reflects implicit learning and, possibly independently, alignment among interlocutors.
authors: University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
authors: Victor S
authors: VS
authors: Ferreira
authors: Kathryn
authors: K
authors: Bock
references: Lang Speech. 1998 Apr-Jun;41 ( Pt 2):143-84
references: 10194875
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):635-40
references: 10682206
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):217-29
references: 10709186
references: Cognition. 2000 May 15;75(2):B13-25
references: 10771277
references: Cognition. 2000 May 15;75(2):B27-39
references: 10771278
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Jun;129(2):177-92
references: 10868333
references: Cognition. 2001 Feb;78(2):123-64
references: 11074248
references: Mem Cognit. 2000 Dec;28(8):1297-302
references: 11219957
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):126-31
references: 12026944
references: Cogn Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):337-74
references: 12480478
references: Cognition. 2003 Oct;89(3):179-205
references: 12963261
references: Cognition. 2003 Nov;90(1):29-49
references: 14597269
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jan;8(1):8-11
references: 14697397
references: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):150-71
references: 1546115
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Apr;27(2):169-90; discussion 190-226
references: 15595235
references: Psychol Rev. 1992 Apr;99(2):195-231
references: 1594723
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2005 Jul;34(4):365-99
references: 16142588
references: Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):234-72
references: 16637761
references: Cognition. 2007 Sep;104(3):437-58
references: 16973143
references: Cognition. 1990 Apr;35(1):1-39
references: 2340711
references: Cognition. 1989 Mar;31(2):163-86
references: 2721134
references: J Mem Lang. 2003 Nov;49(4):537-555
references: 28066128
references: Mem Cognit. 1987 Sep;15(5):379-88
references: 3670057
references: Cognition. 1987 Nov;27(2):181-218
references: 3691025
references: Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):123-47
references: 9009882
references: Dev Psychol. 1999 Jan;35(1):29-44
references: 9923462
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 1999 Jan;28(1):71-92
references: 9949715