Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger

Christianson, Kiel; Hollingworth, Andrew; Halliwell, John F.; Ferreira, Fernanda

doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0752

Cited by 435 publications

(657 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

517

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies have examined the influence of an incorrect initial parse of a sentence on the ultimate interpretation of the sentence (Christianson et al, 2001) and on the acceptability of a spoken sentence containing a disfluency (Lau & Ferreira, 2005), and have explored the role of this incorrect initial parse as a structural prime (Kaschak & Glenberg, 2004;van Gompel et al, 2006). The present study, by contrast, examines the influence of a briefly-entertained correct initial parse of a garden path sentence on the later syntactic analysis of the same sentence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Several recent studies, involving a range of constructions and methodologies, have provided evidence that a syntactic analysis that is constructed or activated prior to a revision can indeed exert a continued influence on processing (Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira, 2001;Kaschak & Glenberg, 2004;Lau & Ferreira, 2005;van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, & Jacob, 2006). These studies have examined the influence of an incorrect initial parse of a sentence on the ultimate interpretation of the sentence (Christianson et al, 2001) and on the acceptability of a spoken sentence containing a disfluency (Lau & Ferreira, 2005), and have explored the role of this incorrect initial parse as a structural prime (Kaschak & Glenberg, 2004;van Gompel et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a now well-known series of experiments, Christianson et al (2001) had participants read sentences containing a subordinate clause object/main clause object ambiguity (as in Experiment 2 of the present article), e.g., While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed. They found a persistent tendency for participants to respond to comprehension questions as if they had maintained the subordinate clause object analysis of of the ambiguous noun phrase (the baby); e.g., they tended to say "yes" to the question, Did Anna dress the baby?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Moreover, the Christianson et al (2001) results have been criticized because of the possibility that merely presenting the alternative question "Did Anna dress the baby?" was sufficient to activate the incorrect interpretation .…”

Section: Good Enough 'Cause That's All You've Gotmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing.

Dyke¹

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

190

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence from 3 experiments reveals interference effects from structural relationships that are inconsistent with any grammatical parse of the perceived input. Processing disruption was observed when items occurring between a head and a dependent overlapped with either (or both) syntactic or semantic features of the dependent. Effects of syntactic interference occur in the earliest online measures in the region where the retrieval of a long-distance dependent occurs. Semantic interference effects occur in later online measures at the end of the sentence. Both effects endure in offline comprehension measures, suggesting that interfering items participate in incorrect interpretations that resist reanalysis. The data are discussed in terms of a cue-based retrieval account of parsing, which reconciles the fact that the parser must violate the grammar in order for these interference effects to occur. Broader implications of this research indicate a need for a precise specification of the interface between the parsing mechanism and the memory system that supports language comprehension.Keywords cue-based memory retrieval; interference; complexity effects; sentence processing; constraint-based parsing Interference effects in sentence processing are beginning to be recognized, but the conditions that give rise to these effects are not well understood (Gordon, Hendrick, & Johnson, 2001, 2004Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003;Van Dyke & McElree, 2006). colleagues (2001, 2004) observed that the classic processing advantage for subject-relative clauses over objectrelative clauses was reduced or eliminated when the second noun phrase (NP) in sentences such as 1a and 1b was either a pronoun (you or everyone) or a proper name (Joe). They attributed their result to a reduction in similarity-based interference that occurs when the two NPs have different referential characteristics (i.e., common NPs refer via their description; pronouns and proper names refer directly to objects previously established in the discourse). Thus, on this account, interference effects are due to the presence of NPs with shared referential characteristics.(1a) The banker that praised [the barber/a barber/Joe/you/everyone] climbed the mountain.(1b) The banker that [the barber/a barber/Joe/you/everyone] praised climbed the mountain.Several researchers have suggested an alternative account, one that implicates retrieval as the source of interference effects (Lewis, Vasishth, & Van Dyke, 2006;McElree, Foraker, & Dyer, 2003;Van Dyke, 2002;Van Dyke & Lewis, 2003;Van Dyke & McElree, 2006). Although these are not the first sentence-processing theories to include a retrieval component, previous theories (e.g., Gibson, 1998Gibson, ,2000 have emphasized decay as the source of processing complexity, on Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie A. Van NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript the basis of hypothesized memory demands that certain structures present for comprehenders. In contrast, approaches...

show abstract

“…Reanalysis processes sometimes leave the comprehender with an interpretation of the sentence that merges the original and corrected structures (i.e. they believe that Bush spoke to Blair and the media and that the media reported the story), demonstrating that the comprehension system does not always clean up all the semantic consequences of syntactic revision [36]. Third, although the parser is capable of performing garden-path repair, certain features of a sentence can make the process difficult.…”

Section: Disfluencies and Human Parsing Basic Findings In Human Parsingmentioning

confidence: 99%