Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:44:17.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Satiation

from Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
William Snyder
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

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

satiationsyntactic satiationgrammaticalityacceptabilitylinguistic judgmentwh-movementisland effectsprocessing difficultyexperimental syntax
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 154 - 180
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google 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
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Satiation
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Satiation
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Satiation
  • Edited by Grant Goodall, University of California, San Diego
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.007
Available formats
×