Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- 1 Sentence Acceptability Experiments: What, How, and Why
- 2 Response Methods in Acceptability Experiments
- 3 Approaching Gradience in Acceptability with the Tools of Signal Detection Theory
- 4 Variation in Participants and Stimuli in Acceptability Experiments
- 5 Acceptability, Grammar, and Processing
- 6 Satiation
- 7 Acceptability (and Other) Experiments for Studying Comparative Syntax
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- Index
- References
6 - Satiation
from Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- 1 Sentence Acceptability Experiments: What, How, and Why
- 2 Response Methods in Acceptability Experiments
- 3 Approaching Gradience in Acceptability with the Tools of Signal Detection Theory
- 4 Variation in Participants and Stimuli in Acceptability Experiments
- 5 Acceptability, Grammar, and Processing
- 6 Satiation
- 7 Acceptability (and Other) Experiments for Studying Comparative Syntax
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- Index
- References
Summary
Satiation refers to an increase, over time, in the willingness of a native-speaker consultant to agree that a given syntactic structure is grammatically well-formed. Studies show that satiation can be induced under laboratory conditions, within a single testing session; that the effect is restricted to a small number of sentence types (chiefly those involving wh-extraction from wh-islands, subjects, and certain complex NPs); that experimentally induced satiation can persist for at least four weeks; and that satiation sometimes ”carries over” to syntactically related sentence types. Tables are provided showing the methods and findings of satiation studies on seven different types of syntactic violation. Larger issues include (i) whether the satiable sentence types form a natural class within generative syntax; (ii) whether satiation is a unitary phenomenon, or merely a family of similar phenomena; and (iii) how, in principle, satiation can serve as a tool for language research.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 154 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 1–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2006.00001.xGoogle Scholar
Braze, F. D. (2002). Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-LaBarge, R. E., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2018). Frequency effects in Subject Islands. Journal of Linguistics, 1–47. DOI:10.1017/S0022226718000294Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmanian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013). Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 51–70. DOI 10.1007/s10936-012–9210-xGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using syntactic satiation effects to investigate subject islands. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
Do, M. & Kaiser, E. (2017). A closer look: Investigating the mechanisms of syntactic satiation. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., & Rubin, E. J., eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
Do, M., Kaiser, E., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2016). Spanish speakers’ acquisition of English subject–verb inversion: Evidence from satiation. In Stringer, D., Garrett, J., Halloran, B., & Mossman, S., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
Francom, J. C. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2004). On the syntax and processing of wh-questions in Spanish. In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodríguez, A., & Schmeiser, B., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 237–250.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Arnon, I., Sag, I. A., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 48–87. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.572401Google Scholar
Jakobovits, L. A. & Lambert, W. E. (1961). Semantic satiation among bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 576–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiss, K. É. (1987). Review of Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13) by Noam Chomsky. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 37(1), 213–221. www.jstor.org/stable/44362775Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luka, B. J. & Barsalou, L. J. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.Google Scholar
Maia, M. (2013). Linguística experimental: Aferindo o curso temporal e a profundidade do processamento. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 21, 9–42.Google Scholar
Nagata, H. (1990). Speaker’s sensitivity to rule violations in sentences. Psychologia, 33, 179–184.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (1994). A psycholinguistic investigation of weak crossover, islands, and syntactic satiation effects: Implications for distinguishing competence from performance. Poster presentation, CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, CUNY Graduate Center, New York. www.williamsnyder.org/papers/1994Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2018). On the nature of syntactic satiation. Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs. www.williamsnyder.org/papers/2018Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80–126.Google Scholar
Zervakis, J. & Mazuka, R. (2013). Effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on acceptability ratings of sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 505–525. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012–9233-3Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by