People perceive sentences more favourably after hearing or reading them many times. A prominent approach in linguistic theory argues that these types of exposure effects (satiation effects) show direct evidence of a generative approach to linguistic knowledge: only some sentences improve under repeated exposure, and which sentences do improve can be predicted by a model of linguistic competence that yields natural syntactic classes. However, replications of the original findings have been inconsistent, and it remains unclear whether satiation effects can be reliably induced in an experimental setting at all. Here we report four findings regarding satiation effects in wh-questions across German and English. First, the effects pertain to zone of well-formedness rather than syntactic class: all intermediate ratings, including calibrated fillers, increase at the beginning of the experimental session regardless of syntactic construction. Second, though there is satiation, ratings asymptote below maximum acceptability. Third, these effects are consistent across judgments of superiority effects in English and German. Fourth, wh-questions appear to show similar profiles in English and German, despite these languages being traditionally considered to differ strongly in whether they show effects on movement: violations of the superiority condition can be modulated to a similar degree in both languages by manipulating subject-object initiality and animacy congruency of the wh-phrase. We improve on classic satiation methods by distinguishing between two crucial tests, namely whether exposure selectively targets certain grammatical constructions or whether there is a general repeated exposure effect. We conclude that exposure effects can be reliably induced in rating experiments but exposure does not appear to selectively target certain grammatical constructions. Instead, they appear to be a phenomenon of intermediate gradient judgments.

It is controversial which idioms can occur with which syntactic structures. For example, can Mary kicked the bucket (figurative meaning: ‘Mary died’) be passivized to The bucket was kicked by Mary? We present a series of experiments in which we test which structures are compatible with which idioms in German (for which there are few experimental data so far) and English, using acceptability judgments. For some of the tested structures – including German left dislocation, scrambling, and prefield fronting – it is particularly contested to what extent they are restricted by semantic factors and, as a consequence, to what extent they are compatible with idioms. In our data, these structures consistently showed similar limitations: they were fully compatible with one subset of our test idioms (those categorized as semantically compositional) and degraded with another (those categorized as non-compositional). Our findings only partly align with previously proposed hierarchies of structures with respect to their compatibility with idioms.

No abstract

Idiomatic verb phrases (e.g., kick the bucket, fig. 'to die') vary in their syntactic flexibility: they can undergo operations like, e.g., passivization (“The bucket was kicked”) to varying degrees. We (re-)consider potential sources of this variability. It has been proposed that compositionality influences syntactic flexibility of idioms. In the first part of the paper, we reassess this finding from a methodological perspective by replicating earlier experiments on German and English, in which we change the previously used – and potentially biased – methods of measuring compositionality. Our results for German are compatible with the view that higher compositionality makes some of the tested structures more acceptable (most consistently: scrambling, prefield fronting, and which-questions), while we do not find a connection between compositionality and flexibility for English. In the second part of the paper, we present an additional experiment following up on the German findings. We extend the empirical domain and explore factors which – in contrast to compositionality – have the potential of explaining the syntactic flexibility of both idioms and non-idioms. We find that definiteness influences the flexibility of idioms and non-idioms in similar ways, supporting the view that both types of expressions are subject to the same grammatical rules. We discuss referentiality as a potential underlying semantic source for the behavior of both idioms and non-idioms.