2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.06.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How do people produce ungrammatical utterances?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
20
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
5
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, people may produce constructions that they simultaneously judge ungrammatical themselves (Asudeh, 2011). According to Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, and Branigan (2012) constructions that occur in everyday language, although claimed to be ungrammatical, can still be elicited by syntactic priming. Therefore, we do believe that grammatical norm violations are not truly ungrammatical, but they are not completely like regular grammatical sentences either, at least not for language purists who do not use these constructions themselves.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, people may produce constructions that they simultaneously judge ungrammatical themselves (Asudeh, 2011). According to Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, and Branigan (2012) constructions that occur in everyday language, although claimed to be ungrammatical, can still be elicited by syntactic priming. Therefore, we do believe that grammatical norm violations are not truly ungrammatical, but they are not completely like regular grammatical sentences either, at least not for language purists who do not use these constructions themselves.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the fixation point disappeared, participants saw a sentence on the computer screen and heard a recording of the sentence produced by a female German native speaker. To more closely parallel the confederate scripting paradigm used by Ruf (2011), in which participants heard the prime sentence but did not repeat it out loud, participants were not instructed to repeat the prime sentence (see, e.g., Bock et al, 2007; Flett et al, 2013; Ivanova, Pickering, McLean, Costa, & Branigan, 2012, for similar procedures). Then they saw a picture and decided whether the picture matched the meaning of the sentence they had just heard by pressing a key labeled ja “yes” or nein “no.” After participants made their decision, the target picture appeared and remained on the screen until participants finished producing their sentence.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subscripts indicate coindexation between levels. structural priming between sentences containing a mismatch between syntactic structure and the verb's subcategorization requirements (e.g., The waitress exists the book to the monk primes PO responses [Ivanova et al 2012a; see also Ivanova et al 2012b]) If syntactic representations were bound to lexical content, priming should have occurred only when the syntactic properties of the words were compatible with the sentence structure.…”
Section: Syntactic Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In practice, some researchers have argued that priming may offer an intervention to enhance foreign-language learning (McDonough & Mackey 2006) or recovery from aphasia (Cho-Reyes & Thompson 2012). Moreover, Ivanova et al (2012b) found that participants occasionally produced a DO structure with a verb such as donate after encountering another DO sentence with donate, even though such sentences are usually regarded as unacceptable (Ambridge). In other words, priming can change the speaker's representation (at least temporarily).…”
Section: R6 the Stability Of Linguistic Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%