LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Recent work has suggested that readers 19 initial and incorrect interpretation of temporarily ambiguous ("garden path") sentences (e.g., Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira, 2001) sometimes lingers even after attempts at reanalysis. These lingering effects have been attributed to incomplete reanalysis. In two eye tracking experiments, we distinguish between two types of incompleteness: the language comprehension system might not build a faithful syntactic structure, or it might not fully erase the structure built during an initial misparse. The first experiment used reflexive binding and the Gender Mismatch paradigm to show that a complete and faithful structure is built following processing of the garden-path. The second experiment used two-sentence texts to examine the extent to which the garden-path meaning from the first sentence interferes with reading of the second. Together, the results indicate that misinterpretation effects are attributable not to failure in building a proper structure, but rather to failure in cleaning up all remnants of earlier attempts to build that syntactic representation.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Kallmeyer, L. & Romero, M. (2007). Reflexives and Reciprocals in LTAG. In Geertzen, J., Thijsse, E., Bunt, H., and Schiffrin, A. (Eds) Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-7), 271-282, Tilburg
    • Kaschak, M. P. & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 450-467.
    • Kreiner, H., Sturt, P., & Garrod, S. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 239-261.
    • Lau, E. F. & Ferreira, F. (2005). Lingering effects of disfluent material on comphrehension of garden path sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 633-666.
    • Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29: 375-419.
    • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.
    • Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (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.
    • MacDonald, M.C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
    • MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article