The disruption that occurs in response to reading about implausible events in unambiguous sentences can be informative about the time course of semantic interpretation (e.g., Hagoort, Hald, Bastiaansen, & Petersson, 2004; Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006; Warren & McConnell, 2007). Two eye-tracking studies used implausible sentences to investigate whether local factors like the structural relationships and the distance between words cueing a plausibility violation influence how quickly those words are integrated into a global semantic interpretation. Experiment 1 suggested that eye-movement disruption was unaffected by the number of words intervening between the words cueing the implausibility. Experiment 2 demonstrated that eye-movement disruption to implausibility occurred along the same time course regardless of whether the words cueing the implausibility were in a theta-assigning relation or not. These results suggest that these local structural factors do not influence how quickly new words are integrated into a semantic representation, but rather the global event representation determines the time course over which implausibility is detected.
AltmannG.GarnhamA.HenstraJ. (1998). Late closure in context.Journal of Memory and Language38, 459–484.
2.
BolandJ. E. (2005). Visual arguments.Cognition95, 237–274.
3.
ChristiansonK.HollingworthA.HalliwellJ. F.FerreiraF. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden-path linger.Cognitive Psychology42, 368–407.
4.
CliftonC.Jr.SpeerS.AbneyS. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions.Journal of Memory and Language30, 251–271.
5.
CliftonC.Jr.StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences.van GompelR. P. G.FisherM. H.MurrayW. S.HillR. L.Eye movements: A window on mind and brainAmsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland341–371.
6.
CookA.MyersJ. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influence of context and world knowledge.Journal of Memory and Language50, 268–288.
7.
DickeyM. W.ThompsonC. K. (2004). The resolution and recovery of filler-gap dependencies in aphasia: Evidence from on-line anomaly detection.Brain and Language88, 1108–127.
8.
FerreiraF.PatsonN. D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension.Language and Linguistics Compass1, 71–83.
9.
FerrettiT. R.McRaeK.HatherellA. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts.Journal of Memory and Language44, 516–547.
10.
FilikR. (2008). Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements.Cognition106, 1038–1046.
11.
ForsterK. I.OlbreiI. (1974). Semantic heuristics and semantic analysis.Cognition2, 319–347.
12.
ForsterK. I.RyderL. (1971). Perceiving the structure and meaning of sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior10, 285–296.
13.
GarrodS.TerrasM. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution.Journal of Memory and Language42, 526–544.
14.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.Cognition68, 1–76.
15.
GibsonE. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity.MiyashitaY.MarantzA.O'NeilW.Image, language, brainCambridge, MA: MIT Press95–126.
16.
GibsonE.WarrenT. (2004). Reading time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies.Syntax7, 55–78.
17.
GrodnerD.GibsonE. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity.Cognitive Science29, 261–290.
18.
HagoortP.HaldL.BastiaansenM. C. M.PeterssonK. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension.Science304, 438–440.
19.
HareM.ElmanJ. L.TabaczynskiT.McRaeK. (2009). The wind chilled the spectators, but the wine just chilled: Sense, structure, and sentence comprehension.Cognitive Science33, 4610–628.
20.
HawkinsJ. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituencyNew York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HessD. J.FossD. J.CarrollP. (1995). Effects of local and global context on lexical processing during language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 62–82.
22.
KennisonS. M. (1999). Processing agentive “by”-phrases in complex event and nonevent nominals.Linguistic Inquiry30, 502–508.
23.
KuceraH.FrancisW. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American EnglishProvidence, RI: Brown University Press.
24.
KuperbergG. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.Brain Research1146, 23–49.
25.
MorrisR. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixations times in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 192–103.
26.
MurrayW. S. (2000). Sentence processing: Issues and measures.KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.PynteJ.Reading as a perceptual processOxford, UK: Elsevier649–664.
27.
MurrayW. S. (2006). The nature and time course of pragmatic plausibility effects.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research35, 79–99.
28.
NieuwlandM. S.Van BerkumJ. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18, 1098–1111.
29.
O'BrienE.RaneyG. E.AlbrechtJ. E.RaynerK. (1997). Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors.Discourse Processes23, 1–24.
30.
PatsonN. D.FerreiraF. (2009). Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs.Journal of Memory and Language60, 4464–486.
31.
PerfettiC. A.BrittM. A. (1995). Where do propositions come from?.WeaverC. AMannesS.FletcherC. R.Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter KintschHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin and Review124, 372–422.
33.
RaynerK.ChaceK. H.SlatteryT. J.AshbyJ. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading.Scientific Studies of Reading10, 3241–255.
34.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye-movements in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition30, 1290–1301.
35.
ShützeC. T.GibsonE. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment.Journal of Memory and Language40, 409–431.
36.
SpeerS. R.CliftonC. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension.Memory & Cognition26, 965–978.
37.
StewartA. J.PickeringM. J.SturtP. (2004). Using eye movements during reading as an implicit measure of the acceptability of brand extensions.Applied Cognitive Psychology18, 697–709.
38.
TaborW.GalantucciB.RichardsonD. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing.Journal of Memory and Language50, 355–370.
39.
van BerkumJ. J. A.HagoortP.BrownC. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience11, 657–671.
40.
WarrenT.GibsonE. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity.Cognition85, 79–112.
41.
WarrenT.GibsonE. (2005). Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts.Language and Cognitive Processes20, 751–767.
42.
WarrenT.McConnellK. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14, 770–775.
43.
WarrenT.McConnellK.RaynerK. (2008). Effects of context on eye movements when reading about plausible and impossible events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34, 1001–1010.
