The logic of syntactic priming and acceptability judgments

Area of Science:

• Linguistics
• Psycholinguistics
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• Structural priming is proposed as a methodology in linguistics.
• Branigan & Pickering (B&P) advocate for structural priming.
• The theoretical underpinnings of priming require examination.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critique the methodological advocacy of structural priming by B&P.
• To highlight the absence of a theory of priming in B&P's work.
• To propose acceptability judgments as a superior diagnostic tool for structural inferences.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of B&P's arguments for structural priming.
• Comparative evaluation of structural priming and acceptability judgments.
• Examination of the logical basis of structural diagnostics.

Main Results:

• Structural priming, as advocated by B&P, suffers from a lack of theoretical grounding.
• This theoretical deficit weakens the claims regarding priming as a valid methodology.
• Acceptability judgments provide a more robust method for inferring syntactic structures.

Conclusions:

• The theoretical basis of a linguistic methodology is crucial for its validity.
• Acceptability judgments offer clearer insights into syntactic structure compared to structural priming.
• A thorough understanding of the logic behind structural diagnostics is essential in linguistic research.