Do readers misassign thematic roles? Evidence from a trailing boundary-change paradigm

Christianson, Kiel; Dempsey, Jack; Deshaies, Sarah-Elizabeth M.; Tsiola, Anna; Valderrama, Laura P.

doi:10.1080/23273798.2023.2171071

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the authors in the original and subsequent papers ( Ferreira et al, 2002 , 2009 ; Ferreira and Patson, 2007 ; Ferreira and Lowder, 2016 ; Goldberg and Ferreira, 2022 ) refer to the ideas of good enough representations, good enough approach, good enough processing, and the notion of good enough production/comprehension, but do not state or claim a theory exactly. Yet, others have referred to it as a theory ( Logačev and Vasishth, 2016 ; Christianson et al, 2017 , 2023 ; Zhou et al, 2018 ; Chmiel et al, 2020 ; Huettig et al, 2020 ; Karimi and Diaz, 2021 ; Lopukhina et al, 2022 ). In other words, there is no presentation of “this is how people process language step-by-step,” but rather a rejection of the idea that we carry out complete, “perfect” processing of language in everyday situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good enough processing: what have we learned in the 20 years since Ferreira et al. (2002)?

Frances

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, language processing has been thought of in terms of complete processing of the input. In contrast to this, Ferreira and colleagues put forth the idea of good enough processing. The proposal was that during everyday processing, ambiguities remain unresolved, we rely on heuristics instead of full analyses, and we carry out deep processing only if we need to for the task at hand. This idea has gathered substantial traction since its conception. In the current work, I review the papers that have tested the three key claims of good enough processing: ambiguities remain unresolved and underspecified, we use heuristics to parse sentences, and deep processing is only carried out if required by the task. I find mixed evidence for these claims and conclude with an appeal to further refinement of the claims and predictions of the theory.

show abstract