Implicit Learning and Syntactic Persistence: Surprisal and Cumulativity

By T. Florian Jaeger, Neal Snider. 2007

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6cf5115dca04fd6e5b76b4c8648e9d395c44abf2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics (2015, unknown): “In usage-based linguistics, surprisal has been studied in particular in studies of structural priming, for example, when Jaeger and Snider (2008) show that surprising structures—for example, when a verb that is strongly attracted to 15 Language Learning 65:Suppl.”
Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density (2010, background): “Syntactic persistence – Optional that-mentioning is also affected by syntactic persistence, that is whether the most recent CC was produced with or without a complementizer that (Ferreira, 2003; Jaeger & Snider, 2008).”
Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English (2009, unknown): “…Ferreira, Bock, Wilson, & Cohen, 2008; Hartsuiker, Bernolet, Schoonbaert, Speybroeck, & Vanderelst, 2008; Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi, 2004; Jaeger & Snider, 2008; Kaschak & Borreggine, 2008; Konopka & Bock, 2009; Savage, Lieven, Theakston, & Tomasello, 2003; Thothathiri & Snedeker, 2008).”
Is young children's passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. (2012, methodology): “Following Jaeger and Snider (2008), we included two variables to measure effects of participants’ prior production: the number of passives produced previously by the participant, and the number of actives produced previously by the participant; and two variables to measure effects of participants’…”