Cited by 950Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?

Bock, Kathryn, Griffin, Zenzi M.·2000·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Structural priming in language production is a tendency to recreate a recently uttered syntactic structure in different words. This tendency can be seen independent of specific lexical items, thematic roles, or word sequences. Two alternative proposals about the mechanism behind structural priming include (a) short-term activation from a memory representation of a priming structure and (b) longer term adaptation within the cognitive mechanisms for creating sentences, as a form of procedural learning. Two experiments evaluated these hypotheses, focusing on the persistence of structural priming. Both experiments yielded priming that endured beyond adjacent sentences, persisting over 2 intervening sentences in Experiment 1 and over 10 in Experiment 2. Although memory may have short-term consequences for some components of this kind of priming, the persisting effects are more compatible with a learning account than a transient memory account.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • L2 learners who perform the same task again have presumably activated linguistic expressions they had produced in the first performance.

    “Second, L2 learners who perform the same task again have presumably activated linguistic expressions they had produced in the first performance.”

    From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Bock & Griffin, 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2000
Volume
129
Issue
2
Pages
177-192
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2145719099
Cited by
950
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 90
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH18990)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD021011, R01 HD 21011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
structural priming, language production, syntactic priming, implicit learning, procedural learning, short-term memory, sentence production, syntactic memory
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psycholinguistics, Mental Recall, Semantics, Students, Verbal Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review