Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context

Altmann, Gerry T. M.; Garnham, Alan; Dennis, Yvette

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(92)90035-v

Cited by 196 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there were significant differences in the probability of regressing from this region in different conditions, as discussed below, and as a result first pass time may have been differentially influenced by trials in which the reader regressed after making only one or two fixations (see Altmann, Garnham, & Dennis, 1992;Rayner & Sereno, 1994;Staub & Clifton, 2006). Therefore, first pass time for those trials on which readers did not make a regressive eye movement was also computed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis☆

Staub

2007

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two eye movement experiments examined effects on syntactic reanalysis when the correct analysis was briefly entertained at an earlier point in the sentence. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences containing a noun phrase coordination/clausal coordination ambiguity, while in Experiment 2 they read sentences containing a subordinate clause object/main clause subject ambiguity. The critical conditions were designed to induce readers to construct the ultimately correct analysis just prior to being garden-pathed by the incorrect analysis. In both experiments, the earliest measures of the garden path effect were not modulated by this manipulation. However, there was significantly less regressive re-reading of the sentence in those conditions in which the correct analysis was likely to have been constructed, then abandoned, at an earlier point. These results suggest that a syntactic analysis that is abandoned in the course of processing a sentence is not lost altogether, and can be re-activated or retrieved from memory. Implications for models of initial syntactic analysis and reanalysis are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis☆

Staub

2007

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We think that the overall results support the notion that the noun phrase region was easier to process when the verb was obligatorily transitive, since the percent regressions data reflect a very small proportion of trials, and the first pass data, by contrast, reflect processing on every trial. (For discussion of the interpretation of the first pass and regression measures, see Altmann, 1994;Altmann, Garnham, & Dennis, 1992;Rayner & Sereno, 1994a, 1994b.) Nevertheless, one of our goals for Experiment 2 was to clarify the pattern of results on the noun phrase region.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heavy NP shift is the parser’s last resort: Evidence from eye movements☆

Staub

Clifton

Frazier

2006

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two eye movement experiments explored the roles of verbal subcategorization possibilities and transitivity biases in the processing of heavy NP shift sentences in which the verb's direct object appears to the right of a post-verbal phrase. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences in which a prepositional phrase immediately followed the verb, which was either obligatorily transitive or had a high transitivity bias (e.g., Jack praised/watched from the stands his daughter's attempt to shoot a basket). Experiment 2 compared unshifted sentences to sentences in which an adverb intervened between the verb and its object, and obligatorily transitive verbs to optionally transitive verbs with widely varying transitivity biases. In both experiments, evidence of processing difficulty appeared on the material that intervened between the verb and its object when the verb was obligatorily transitive, and on the shifted direct object when the verb was optionally transitive, regardless of transitivity bias. We conclude that the parser adopts the heavy NP shift analysis only when it is forced to by the grammar, which we interpret in terms of a preference for immediate incremental interpretation. KeywordsSentence comprehension; Parsing; Heavy NP shift; Argument structure; Eye movements Consider the comprehension of sentences in which a direct object is separated from the verb by intervening material, as in (1) below: (1) Lucy ate t i with a fork [the extremely delicious, bright green broccoli] i . This construction is known as heavy NP shift. According to the classic syntactic account (Ross, 1967; but cf. Kayne, 1998;Rochemont & Culicover, 1997), heavy NP shift involves a movement operation that displaces the verb's direct object from its underlying position adjacent to the verb, where it receives both accusative case and a thematic role, to an adjoined position to the right of other verbal arguments and/or adjuncts. As in other movement operations, a trace of the moved constituent remains in the pre-movement position. Notably, heavy NP shift is typically able to apply only when the direct object noun phrase is relatively long or "heavy" relative to the intervening constituent, as evidenced by the comparative awkwardness of (2a) and the unacceptability of (2b):

show abstract

“…The parsing model promoted by Frazier and colleagues (Frazier, 1987;Frazier & Rayner, 1990) treats ambiguity resolution in terms of garden-pathing, rather than competition. However, other researchers (Altmann, Garnham, & Dennis, 1992;Juliano & Tanenhaus, 1993;Small, Cottrell, & Tanenhaus, 1988;Taraban & McClelland, 1988;Trueswell & Tanenhaus, 1992;Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Kello, 1993) have found that linguistic processing is best viewed in terms of an ongoing competition between alternatives.…”

Section: Automaticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

MacWhinney¹

2001

Cognition and Second Language Instruction

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language learning is a three-way interaction between the input, the learner, and the interactional context (Bloom, 1974). This three-way interaction provides a general framework for understanding first and second language acquisition, in both naturalistic and formal contexts. In order to elaborate this general framework, we need to model its three components:1. The input. We need to know how the linguistic input can be structured to maximize effective learning. What aspects of the phonology, syntax, semantics, and morphology of the input does the learner use to "crack the code" of the new language? 2. The learner. We need to understand exactly how the cognitive abilities of the learner shape the process and outcome of second language instruction. 3. The context. Traditionally, the classroom environment maintains a rather uniform structure in which interaction is controlled by the instructor. How does this framework affect learning and how can it be varied to improve the learning process?This paper will examine these three components within the framework of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, 1987; MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). To quantify the role of the input in second language learning, the model relies on the concepts of cue reliability and availability. To characterize the cognitive abilities of the learner, the model relies on findings from cognitive neuroscience. To understand the role of the context, the model elaborates the concepts of environmental and social support. The Competition Model views both first and second language learning as constructive, data-driven processes that rely not on universals of linguistic structure, but on universals of cognitive structure. It attributes development to learning and transfer, rather than to the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1965). The InputThe Competition Model is designed to quantify the ways in which distributional properties of the input control language learning and language processing. The basic claim of the model in regard to input is that language comprehension is based on the detection of a series of cues and the reliability and availability of these determines the strength of cues in comprehension. The model contrasts sharply with generative grammar in this regard. Generative grammar views language through the lens of abstract trees in a universal deep structure. The Competition Model recognizes the importance of surface phrase structure, but relates all sentence processing to cue detection and interpretation. Those cues that are highest in reliability and availability are the ones that most strongly control comprehension and which are acquired first during language learning.In order to elaborate this simple relation between cues and comprehension, we need to specify how languages distribute cues across sentences. To do this, the Competition Model has turned to crosslinguistic studies of sentence processing. In particular, the forms or

show abstract

Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context

Cited by 196 publications

References 12 publications

The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis☆

The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis☆

Heavy NP shift is the parser’s last resort: Evidence from eye movements☆

The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About