Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy

Linguistic Inquiry

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 329-341

  Sprouse, Jon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimental syntax; Island constraints; Magnitude estimation; Satiation; Syntactic priming

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649136031     PISSN: 00243892     EISSN: 00243892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.329     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bard, Ellen Gurman, Dan Robertson, and Antonella Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72:32-68.
2. Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18:355-387.
3. Braze, Forrest David. 2002. Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
4. Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Edelman, Shimon, and Morten Christiansen. 2003. How seriously should we take minimalist syntax? Trends in Cognitive Science 7:60-61.
6. Featherston, Sam. 2005. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax. Lingua 115:1525-1550.
7. Fisher, Ronald. 1922. On the interpretation of chi-squared from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 85:87-94.
8. Goodall, Grant. 2005. Satiation and inversion in wh-questions. Paper presented at the University of Hawaii.
9. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 2000. Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children's and adults' acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
10. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
11. Kaan, Edith, and Laurie Stowe. 2001. Developing an experiment. Ms., University of Groningen.
12. Kaschak, Michael P., and Arthur M. Glenberg. 2004. This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133:450-467.
13. Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
14. Keller, Frank. 2003. A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Richard Alterman and David Kirsh, 652-657. Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
15. Lorch, Robert F., Jr., and Jerome L. Myers. 1990. Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16:149-157.
16. Luka, Barbara J., and Lawrence W. Barsalou. 2005. Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehensionx. Journal of Memory and Language 52:436-459.
17. Noppeney, Uta, and Cathy J. Price. 2004. An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:702-713.
18. Pickering, Martin J., and Holly P. Branigan. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39:633-651.
19. Schütze, Carson. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 575-582.
21. Sprouse, Jon. 2007a. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 1:118-129.
22. Sprouse, Jon. 2007b. A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
23. Stevens, Stanley Smith. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64:153-181.