Cited by 266Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage Development and Disorders

The functions of structural priming

Ferreira, Victor S., Bock, Kathryn·2006·Language and Cognitive Processes

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01690960600824609

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Syntactic priming: speakers' likelihood of using a given structure increases after recent experience of that structure, particularly for relatively infrequent structures.

    “There is also laboratory evidence for syntactic priming, with speakers’ likelihood of using a given structure increasing after recent experience of that structure. This holds in particular for relatively infrequent structures”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Ferreira & Bock, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Language and Cognitive Processes
Published
2006-11
Volume
21
Issue
7-8
Pages
1011-1029
ISSN
  • 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0732
OpenAlex
W2031473602
Cited by
266
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Language and Cognitive Processes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH064733, R01MH066089)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD051030, R01HD021011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
structural priming, syntactic priming, implicit learning, speech fluency, reaction time, coordination, binding, sentence production, syntactic structure

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