Two structural-priming experiments investigated how bilinguals represent syntactic structures. According to the shared-syntax account (Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004), bilinguals have a single syntactic representation for structures that exist in both languages, whereas separatesyntax accounts claim that the representations for these structures are language specific. Our experiments tested native speakers of Swedish who were highly proficient in English. The results showed that structural priming within language and between languages was equally strong. This indicates that representations of syntactic structures from different languages are shared and, therefore, supports the shared-syntax account.

No abstract

Two experiments investigated whether the choice of anaphoric expression is affected by the presence of an addressee. Following a context sentence and visual scene, participants described a target scene that required anaphoric reference. They described the scene either to an addressee (Experiment 1) or without an addressee (Experiment 2). When an addressee was present in the task, participants used more pronouns and fewer repeated noun phrases when the referent was the grammatical subject in the context sentence and no competitor was mentioned. They used fewer pronouns and more repeated noun phrases when a visual competitor was present on the scene than when there was no visual competitor. In the absence of an addressee, linguistic context effects were the same as when an addressee was present, but the visual effect of the competitor disappeared. We conclude that visual salience effects are due to adjustments that speakers make when they produce reference for an addressee, whereas linguistic salience effects appear whether or not speakers have addressees.Is anaphoric reference cooperative 3 Is anaphoric reference cooperative?One of the main concerns in discourse and dialogue studies has been speakers' level of cooperation with their addressees when referring to various discourse elements under discussion (e.g., Ariel, 1990;Bard et al., 2000;Brennan, 1995;Brennan & Clark, 1996;Clark & Murphy, 1982;Dell & Brown, 1991;Galati & Brennan, 2006;Horton & Gerrig, 2002;Horton & Keysar, 1996;Keysar et al., 2000). Speakers can use different referring expressions when they establish a link between different mentions of the same entity in the discourse. The linguistic form of these expressions varies with respect to how explicitly they are linked to their antecedents in the prior discourse (e.g., referring back to a footballer as 'the footballer', 'the player', 'Wayne Rooney' or 'he'). An ideal dialogue can be claimed to follow a cooperative principle (Grice, 1975) according to which speakers provide information that makes the interpretation of the utterances clear to their addressees. Whether the linguistic form that speakers choose for their referring expression can be seen to reflect this cooperative principle has been one of the central issues in studies of dialogue. In the present study, we focused on anaphoric expressions, that is, expressions (e.g., pronouns) that refer back to a recently mentioned constituent and investigated whether the form of these expressions differed when speakers completed a picture story to an addressee and when they completed the same picture story without an addressee being present.The idea that speakers adapt to their addressees' needs and knowledge in their contributions to the on-going dialogue has been termed audience design (e.g., Clark & Murphy, 1982;Galati & Brennan, 2010;Horton & Gerrig, 2002). According to collaborative models of discourse (e.g., Brennan & Clark, 1996;Hanna & Tanenhaus, 2004;Heller, Gorman, & Tanenhaus, 2012;Horton & Gerrig, 2002, 2005Lockridge & Brennan, 2002...

No abstract