We report an eye movement experiment investigating the influence of the focus operator only on syntactic processing of “long” relative clause sentences. Paterson, Liversedge, and Underwood (1999) found that readers were garden pathed by “short” reduced relative clause sentences containing the focus operator only. They argued that due to thematic differences between “short” and “long” relative clause sentences, garden path effect might not occur when “long” reduced relative clause sentences are read. Eye-tracking data show that garden path effects found during initial processing of the disambiguating verb of “long” reduced sentences without only were absent or delayed in the case of counterparts with only. We discuss our results in terms of current theories of sentence processing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannG. T. M.SteedmanM. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing.Cognition30, 191–238.
2.
AltmannG. T. M.GarnhamA.HenstraJ. A. (1992). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition20, 209–216.
3.
AltmannG. T. M.GarnhamA.DennisY. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye-movements in context.Journal of Memory and Language31, 685–712.
4.
BeverT. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure.Cognitive development of language.HayesJ. R.New York: John Wiley.
5.
BrittM. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases.Journal of Memory and Language33, 251–283.
6.
BrittM. A.PerfettiC. A.GarrodS.RaynerK. (1992). Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits.Journal of Memory and Language11, 293–314.
7.
CliftonC.BockJ.RadoJ. (2000). Effects of the focus particle only and intrinsic contrast on comprehension of reduced relative causes.Reading as perceptual process.KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.PynteJ.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
8.
CliftonC.KennisonS.AlbrechtJ. (1997). Reading the words her, his, and him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure.Journal of Memory and Language36, 276–292.
9.
CliftonC.FerreiraF. (1989). Ambiguity in context.Language and Cognitive Processes4, SI77–SI104.
10.
CrainS.SteedmanM. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor.Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspective.DowtyD. R.KartunnenL.ZwickyA. M.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FerreiraF.CliftonC. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing.Journal of Memory and Language25, 75–87.
12.
FrazierL. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Sentence parsing strategiesUSA: University of Connecticut Indiana University Linguistics Club PhD thesis.
13.
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the study of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology14, 178–210.
14.
LiversedgeS. P.PatersonK. B.PickeringM. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time.Eye guidance in reading and scene perception.UnderwoodG.Oxford: Elsevier Science.
15.
LiversedgeS. P.PickeringM. J.BraniganH. P.Van GompelR. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and in context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition24, 2461–475.
16.
MacDonaldM. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution.Language and Cognitive Processes9, 157–201.
17.
MacDonaldM. C.PearlmutterN. J.SeidenbergM. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution.Perspectives on sentence processing.CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL.RaynerK.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18.
MacDonaldM. C.PearlmutterN. J.SeidenbergM. S. (1994b). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review101, 676–701.
19.
MitchellD. C.CorleyM. B.GarnhamA. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition18, 69–88.
20.
MurrayW. S.LiversedgeS. P. (1994). Referential context effects on syntactic & processing.Perspectives on sentence processing.CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL.RaynerK.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21.
NiW.CrainS.ShankweilerD. (1996). Side stepping garden paths: The contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities.Language and Cognitive Processes11, 283–334.
22.
PatersonK. B.LiversedgeS. P.UnderwoodG. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of “short” relative clause sentences.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52A, 717–737.
23.
PearlmutterN. J.MacDonaldM. C.Plausibility and syntactic ambiguity resolutionIn Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, IncHillsdale, NJ1992493–503.
24.
PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J.CrockerM. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts.Journal of Memory and Language43, 447–475.
25.
RaynerK.GarrodS.PerfettiC. A. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed.Cognition45, 109–139.
26.
Spivey-KnowltonM. L.SedivyJ. (1994). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints.Cognition55, 227–267.
27.
Spivey-KnowltonM. L.TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K. (1993). Context and syntactic ambiguity resolution.Canadian Journal of Psychology47, 276–309.
28.
TabossiP.Spivey-KnowltonM. JMcRaeK.TanenhausM. K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process.Attention and performance XV.UmiltàC.MoscovitchM.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press589–616.
29.
TanenhausM. K.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.EberhardK. M.SedivyJ. C. (1995). Interpretation of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.Science268, 1632–1634.
30.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (1996). Case marking in the parsing of complement sentences: Evidence from eye movements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49A, 991–1004.
31.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K. (1991). Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity.Language and Cognitive Processes6, 303–338.
32.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation.Journal of Memory and Language33, 285–318.
33.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.KelloC. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition19, 528–553.
34.
Van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J. (2000). Syntactic ambiguity resolution is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution.Reading as a perceptual process.KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD. J.PynteAmsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
