Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 505–525 | Cite as

Effect of Repeated Evaluation and Repeated Exposure on Acceptability Ratings of Sentences

  • Jennifer Zervakis
  • Reiko Mazuka


This study investigated the effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on grammatical acceptability ratings for both acceptable and unacceptable sentence types. In Experiment 1, subjects in the Experimental group rated multiple examples of two ungrammatical sentence types (ungrammatical binding and double object with dative-only verb), and two difficult to process sentence types [center-embedded (2) and garden path ambiguous relative], along with matched grammatical/non-difficult sentences, before rating a final set of experimental sentences. Subjects in the control group rated unrelated sentences during the exposure period before rating the experimental sentences. Subjects in the Experimental group rated both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences as more acceptable after repeated evaluation than subjects in the Control group. In Experiment 2, subjects answered a comprehension question after reading each sentence during the exposure period. Subjects in the experimental group rated garden path and center-embedded (1) sentences as higher in acceptability after comprehension exposure than subjects in the control group. The results are consistent with increased fluency of comprehension being misattributed as a change in acceptability.


Acceptability Satiation Mere exposure Syntactic priming Misattribution 


  1. Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, R. R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branigan, H. P. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics, Compass, 1, 1–16 (online journal).Google Scholar
  8. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 635–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional-phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braze, F. D. (2003). Grammaticality, acceptability and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Dissertation abstracts international section A: Humanities & social sciences. 63(8-A).Google Scholar
  12. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, J. K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of Linguistic Theory. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1974). Psychological processes as linguistic explanation. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  16. Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowart, W. (1994). Anchoring and grammar effects in judgments of sentence acceptability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1171–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path. The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Crocker, M. W., & Keller, F. (2006). Probabilistic grammars as models of gradience in language processing. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspective (pp. 227–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esposito, N. J., & Pelton, L. H. (1971). Review of the measurement of semantic satiation. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewky, M. (2006). Gradience in Grammar. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fanselow, G., & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 291–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Featherston, S. (2004). The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical Theoretical and Computational Perspectives (pp. 187–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Fodor, J., & Nickels, S. (2011). Prosodic phrasing as a source of center-embedding difficulty. Poster presented at the 2nd experimental and theoretical approaches to prosody conference. McGill University, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoover, M. L. (1992). Sentence processing strategies in Spanish and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 450–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keller, F. (2003). A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the  25\(^{th}\) annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 646–651). MA: Boston.Google Scholar
  30. Kucera, H.,& Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Larkin, L. W.,& Burns, D. (1977). Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure. Memory& Cognition, 5, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, R. L.,& Nakayama, M. (2002). Syntactic and positional similarity effects in the processing of Japanese embeddings. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Luka, B. J.,& Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436– 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J.,& Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y.,& Van Zandt, B. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 646–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagata, H. (1988). The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagata, H. (1989). Repetition effect in judgments of grammaticality of sentences: Examination with ungrammatical sentences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Noppeney, U.,& Price, C. J. (2004). An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 702–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oppenheimer, D. M.,& Frank, M. C. (2007). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106, 1178–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickering, M. J.,& Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pickering, M. J.,& Traxler, M. J. (2004, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented at the 17th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  43. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schütze, C. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Snider, N.,& Jaeger, T. F. (2009). Syntax in flux: Structural priming maintains probabilistic representations. Poster presented at 15th annual conference on architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  46. Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whittlesea, B. W. A.,& Williams, L. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zajonc, R. B., Shaver, P., Tavris, C.,& van Kreveld, D. (1972). Exposure, satiation and stimulus discriminability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 270–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zervakis, J.,& Rubin, D. C. (2002). Production and recognition bias of stylistic sentences using a story reading task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 107–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Services Research and Development, Durham VA Medical Center (152) Department of Veteran AffairsDurhamUSA
  2. 2.RIKEN Brain Science InstituteSaitamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and NeuroscienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations