Repetition is a central phenomenon of behavior, and researchers make extensive use of it to illuminate psychological functioning. 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 investigating the processes involved in the production (and increasingly, comprehension) of complex expressions such as sentences. This review considers its implications for the representation of syntax and the mechanisms of production, comprehension, and their relationship. It then addresses the potential functions of structural priming, before turning to its implications for first language acquisition, bilingualism, and aphasia We close with theoretical and empirical recommendations for future investigations. KeywordsSyntax; Priming; Grammatical structure; Language production; Language comprehension A central phenomenon in experimental psychology is repetition -when we perform an action that is the same in some respects as an action we have performed before, or that we have observed others perform before. Repetition is central because it can reflect the operation of many different underlying psychological mechanisms. It can reflect learning and development (as we acquire a capability, we begin to repeat the products of that capability), imitation (we can repeat others' behavior to accomplish social as well as learning and development goals), and (lack of) executive control (when repetitive behavior reflects a perseverative tendency and so an inability to inhibit a previous and now potent response). Repetition is also inversely related to creativity, in that when we repeat a previous behavior, we forgo the opportunity to create a novel behavior instead.In the past couple of decades, research in the language sciences has revealed a new and striking form of repetition that we here call structural priming. When people talk or write, they tend to repeat the underlying basic structures that they recently produced or experienced others produce. This phenomenon has been the subject of heavy empirical scrutiny. Some of this scrutiny has been because, as in other domains in cognitive psychology (e.g., priming in the word-recognition literature; e.g., McNamara, 2005), 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 when producing or comprehending language. As Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin Pickering, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom. Email: martin.pickering@ed.ac.uk. we shall see, much structural priming is unusually abstract, evidently ...

Bilinguals spontaneously switch languages in conversation even though laboratory studies reveal robust cued language switching costs. The authors investigated how voluntary-switching costs might differ when switches are voluntary. Younger (Experiments 1–2) and older (Experiment 3) Spanish–English bilinguals named pictures in 3 conditions: (a) dominant-language only, (b) nondominant-language only, and (c) using “whatever language comes to mind” (in Experiment 2, “using each language about half the time”). Most bilinguals, particularly balanced bilinguals, voluntarily mixed languages even though switching was costly. Unlike with cued switching, voluntary switching sometimes facilitated responses, switch costs were not greater for the dominant language, and age effects on language mixing and switching were limited. This suggests that the freedom to mix languages voluntarily allows unbalanced and older bilinguals to function more like balanced and younger bilinguals. Voluntary switch costs reveal an expanded role for inhibitory control in bilingual language production and imply a mandatory separation by language in bilingual lexical selection.

No abstract

Does producing a word slow performance of a concurrent, unrelated task? In 2 experiments, 108 participants named pictures and discriminated tones. In Experiment 1, pictures were named after cloze sentences; the durations of the word-production stages of lemma and phonological word-form selection were manipulated with high- and low-constraint cloze sentences and high- and low-frequency-name pictures, respectively. In Experiment 2, pictures were presented with simultaneous distractor words; the durations of lemma and phoneme selection were manipulated with conceptually and phonologically related distractors. All manipulations, except the phoneme-selection manipulation, delayed tone-discrimination responses as much as picture-naming responses. These results suggest that early word-production stages--lemma and phonological word-form selection--are subject to a central processing bottleneck, whereas the later stage--phoneme selection--is not.

When speakers produce words, lexical access proceeds through semantic and phonological levels of processing. If phonological processing begins based on partial semantic information, processing is cascaded; otherwise, it is discrete. In standard models of lexical access, semantically processed words exert phonological effects only if processing is cascaded. In 3 experiments, speakers named pictures of objects with homophone names (ball), while auditory distractor words were heard beginning 150 ms prior to picture onset. Distractors speeded picture naming (compared with controls) only when related to the nondepicted meaning of the picture (e.g., dance), exhibiting an early phonological effect, thereby supporting the cascaded prediction. Distractors slowed picture naming when categorically (e.g., frisbee) related to the depicted picture meaning, but not when associatively (e.g., game) related to it. An interactive activation model is presented.

We investigated the consequences of bilingualism for verbal fluency by comparing bilinguals to monolinguals, and dominant versus non-dominant-language fluency. In Experiment 1, bilinguals produced fewer correct responses, slower first response times and proportionally delayed retrieval, relative to monolinguals. In Experiment 2, similar results were obtained comparing the dominant to the non-dominant languages within bilinguals. Additionally, bilinguals produced significantly lower-frequency words and a greater proportion of cognate responses than monolinguals, and bilinguals produced more cross-language intrusion errors when speaking the non-dominant language, but almost no such intrusions when speaking the dominant language. These results support an analogy between bilingualism and dual-task effects (Rohrer et al., 1995), implying a role for between-language interference in explaining the bilingual fluency disadvantage, and suggest that bilingual fluency will be maximized under testing conditions that minimize such interference. More generally, the findings suggest a role for selection by competition in language production, and that such competition is more influential in relatively unconstrained production tasks.

No abstract

To what extent does human cognition influence the structure of human language? Recent experiments using elicited pantomime suggest that the prevalence of Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order across the world's languages may arise in part because SOV order is most compatible with how we conceptually represent transitive events (Goldin-Meadow, So, Özyürek, & Mylander, 2008). However, this raises the question as to why non-SOV orders exist. Two recent studies (Meir, Lifshitz, Ilkbasaran, & Padden, 2010; Gibson et al., 2013) suggest that SOV might be suboptimal for describing events in which both the agent and patient are plausible agents (e.g. a woman pushing a boy); we call these “reversible” events. We replicate these findings using elicited pantomime and offer a new interpretation. Meir et al.'s (2010) account is framed largely in terms of constraints on comprehension, while Gibson et al.'s (2013) account involves minimizing the risk of information loss or memory degradation. We offer an alternative hypothesis that is grounded in constraints on production. We consider the implications of these findings for the distribution of constituent order in the world's spoken languages and for the structure of emerging sign languages.