Literature DB >> 11368528

Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger.

K Christianson1, A Hollingworth, J F Halliwell, F Ferreira.   

Abstract

In the literature dealing with the reanalysis of garden path sentences such as While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods, it is generally assumed either that people completely repair their initial incorrect syntactic representations to yield a final interpretation whose syntactic structure is fully consistent with the input string or that the parse fails. In a series of five experiments, we explored the possibility that partial reanalyses take place. Specifically, we examined the conditions under which part of the initial incorrect analysis persists at the same time that part of the correct final analysis is constructed. In Experiments 1a and 1b, we found that both the length of the ambiguous region and the plausibility of the ultimate interpretation affected the likelihood that such sentences would be fully reanalyzed. In Experiment 2, we compared garden path sentences with non-garden path sentences and compared performance on two different types of comprehension questions. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we constructed garden path sentences using a small class of syntactically unique verbs to provide converging evidence against the position that people employ some sort of "general reasoning" or pragmatic inference when faced with syntactically difficult garden paths. The results from these experiments indicate that reanalysis of such sentences is not always complete, so that comprehenders often derive an interpretation for the full sentence in which part of the initial misanalysis persists. We conclude that the goal of language processing is not always to create an idealized structure, but rather to create a representation that is "good enough" to satisfy the comprehender that an appropriate interpretation has been obtained. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11368528     DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  69 in total

1.  Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis.

Authors:  F Ferreira; K Christianson; A Hollingworth
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2001-01

2.  Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation.

Authors:  Thomas P Urbach; Marta Kutas
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

Review 3.  Aging and self-regulated language processing.

Authors:  Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow; Lisa M Soederberg Miller; Christopher Hertzog
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Younger and Older Adults' "Good-Enough" Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences.

Authors:  Kiel Christianson; Carrick C Williams; Rose T Zacks; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Discourse Process       Date:  2006

5.  Heavy NP shift is the parser's last resort: Evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Adrian Staub; Charles Clifton; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.059

6.  THE SYNTAX-DISCOURSE DIVIDE: PROCESSING ELLIPSIS.

Authors:  Lyn Frazier; Charles Clifton
Journal:  Syntax       Date:  2005-08

7.  Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing.

Authors:  Julie A Van Dyke
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Separate streams or probabilistic inference? What the N400 can tell us about the comprehension of events.

Authors:  Gina R Kuperberg
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.331

9.  Good-enough language processing: evidence from sentence-video matching.

Authors:  Gaurav Kharkwal; Karin Stromswold
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2014-02

10.  On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension.

Authors:  Kristen M Tooley; Kathryn Bock
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-05-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.