Abstract
ABSTRACT Previous studies have reported that temporarily ambiguous sentences sometimes cause reading disruption (garden-path effects). These studies have interpreted their finding as indicating that the human sentence processing device (the processor) initially assigns incorrect structures and subsequently attempts revision. That is a logical interpretation. However, no previous studies have demonstrated evidence of a causal relationship between garden-path effects and initial misanalysis. Besides, there is currently limited evidence regarding whether the processor conducts revision. The present study reports two self-paced reading experiments that investigated these fundamental issues about garden-path effects. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the processor initially misanalyses temporarily ambiguous sentences and consequently encounters garden-path effects and persists with initial misinterpretations. Experiment 2 similarly observed garden-path effects. Additionally, there was evidence that the processor constructs globally correct structures during revision. These findings provide evidence that garden-path effects result from initial misanalysis, and the processor conducts revision upon disambiguation.
Highlights
In processing temporarily ambiguous sentences, the human sentence processing device sometimes encounters reading difficulty
These studies have interpreted their finding as indicating that the human sentence processing device initially assigns incorrect structures and subsequently attempts revision
There was evidence that the processor constructs globally correct structures during revision. These findings provide evidence that garden-path effects result from initial misanalysis, and the processor conducts revision upon disambiguation
Summary
In processing temporarily ambiguous sentences, the human sentence processing device (the processor) sometimes encounters reading difficulty (garden-path effects). As predicted by Slattery et al, one way to deal with this revision failure is to analyse the main clause without its subject (“After the bank manager telephoned David’s father, ø grew worried and gave himself approximately five days to reply”). Such a null-subject analysis is ungrammatical in English, and the processor may avoid it. In (2), the nominal that is closest to the disambiguating region is “David’s father/mother”, the grammatical main clause subject (After the bank manager telephoned(,) David’s father/mother[temporarily ambiguous phrase] grew[disambiguating region] ...) In this case, revision technically fails, gender mismatch effects should arise. If the processor initially misanalyses the temporarily ambiguous phrase and persists with the misanalysis after disambiguation (Christianson et al, 2001), comprehension accuracy rates should be lower in the ambiguous than unambiguous conditions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
