Two eye-tracking experiments were conducted to compare the online reading and offline comprehension of main verb/reduced relative garden-path sentences and local coherence sentences. Rereading of early material in garden-path reduced relatives should be revisionary, aimed at reanalysing an earlier misparse; however, rereading of early material in a local coherence reduced relative need only be confirmatory, as the original parse of the earlier portion of these sentences is ultimately correct. Results of online and offline measures showed that local coherence structures elicited signals of reading disruption that arose earlier and lasted longer, and local coherence comprehension was also better than garden path comprehension. Few rereading measures in either sentence type were predicted by structural features of these sentences, nor was rereading related to comprehension accuracy, which was extremely low overall. Results are discussed with respect to selective reanalysis and good-enough processing.
AbneyS. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144.
2.
AltmannG., & SteedmanM. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
3.
AmlundJ. T., KardashC. A. M., & KulhavyR. W. (1986). Repetitive reading and recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 49–58.
4.
BeverT. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In HayesJ. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
5.
CalvoM. G. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9, 365–381.
6.
ChristiansenM. H., & ChaterN. (in press). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
7.
ChristiansonK. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-Enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 817–828.
8.
ChristiansonK., HollingworthA., HalliwellJ. F., & FerreiraF. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
9.
ChristiansonK., & LukeS. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166.
10.
ChristiansonK., LukeS. G., & FerreiraF. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 538–544.
FerreiraF. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–120.
13.
FerreiraF., BaileyK. G. D., & FerraroV. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
14.
FerreiraF., & ChristiansonK. (in press). Is now-or-never language processing Good Enough? Commentary on Christiansen & Chater. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
15.
FerreiraF., ChristiansonK., & HollingworthA. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20.
16.
FerreiraF., & CliftonC.Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
17.
FerreiraF., & HendersonJ. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
18.
FerreiraF., & PatsonN. D. (2007). The “Good Enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.
19.
FineA. B., JaegerT. F., FarmerT. A., & QianT. (2013). Rapid expectation adaption during syntactic comprehension. PLOS One, 8(10), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
20.
FodorJ. D., & FrazierL. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN?Cognition, 47, 247–275.
21.
FrazierL. (1998). Getting there (slowly). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 123–146.
22.
FrazierL., & CliftonC.Jr. (1996). Construal. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
23.
FrazierL., & FodorJ. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
24.
FrazierL., & RaynerK. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
25.
FrazierL., & RaynerK. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 505–526.
26.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
27.
GibsonE. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In MarantzA., MiyashitaY., & O'NeilW. (Eds.), Image language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
GibsonE., BergenL., & PiantadosiS. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8051–8056.
29.
GorrellP. (1998). Syntactic analysis and reanalysis in sentence processing. In FodorJ. D. & FerreiraF. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 201–246). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30.
GrodnerD., GibsonE., & TunstallS. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 267–295.
31.
HusseyE. K., WardN., ChristiansonK., & KramerA. F. (2015, November 3). Language and memory improvements following tDCS of executive-control brain regions. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141417
32.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
33.
KimballJ. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47.
LevyR., BicknellK., SlatteryT., & RaynerK. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086–21090.
36.
LewisR. L. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In FodorJ., & FerreiraF. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 247–284). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
37.
LiversedgeS. P., PatersonK. B., & PickeringM. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Dordrecht: Elsevier Science.
38.
LogačevP., & VasishthS. (2016). Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementationsThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 996–1012.
39.
MacDonaldM. C., PearlmutterN. J., & SeidenbergM. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
40.
MeseguerE., CarreiraM., & CliftonC.Jr. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30, 551–561.
41.
MitchellD. C., ShenX., GreenM. J., & HodgsonT. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye- movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 266–293.
42.
PatsonN. D., DarowskiE. S., MoonN., & FerreiraF. (2009). Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 280–285.
43.
PickeringM. J., & TraxlerM. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
44.
PollatsekA., & WellA. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794.
45.
PritchettB. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
47.
RaynerK., PollatsekA., AshbyJ., & CliftonC.Jr. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
48.
SchotterE. R., TranR., & RaynerK. (2014). Don't believe what you read (only once): Comprehension Is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226.
49.
SlatteryT. J., SturtP., ChristiansonK., YoshidaM., & FerreiraF. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120.
SturtP., PickeringM. J., ScheepersC., & CrockerM. W. (2001). The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort?Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 283–307.
52.
SwetsB., DesmetT., CliftonC., & FerreiraF.Jr. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36, 201–216.
53.
TaborW., GalantucciB., & RichardsonD. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.
54.
TaborW., & HutchinsS. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.
55.
TownsendD. J., & BeverT. G. (2001). Sentence comprehensions: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
TraxlerM. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and Good-Enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611.
57.
TrueswellJ. C., TanenhausM. K., & GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
58.
van GompelR. P. G., PickeringM. J., PearsonJ., & JacobG. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362.
59.
von der MalsburgT., & VasishthS. (2011). What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis?Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 109–127.
60.
von der MalsburgT., & VasishthS. (2013). Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1545–1578.
61.
ZhouP., & ChristiansonK. (2016). I “hear” what you're “saying”: Auditory perceptual simulation, reading speed, and reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 972–995.
