Abstract
AbstractA central issue in sentence‐processing research is whether the parser entertains multiple analyses of syntactically ambiguous input in parallel, and whether these analyses compete for selection. In this article, we review theoretical positions for and against such competitive parallelism. We then review empirical evidence, primarily drawing on reading time studies, bearing on the prediction made by parallel competitive models that some cost ought to be associated with processing syntactically ambiguous material. We argue that this prediction is not confirmed by the data, and we discuss recent claims that the models in question do not actually make this prediction. We also emphasize the contrast with lexical ambiguity, where there is clearly a processing cost associated with competition between alternate meanings. Finally, we review a different kind of recent evidence suggesting that two syntactic analyses may indeed coexist under specific circumstances.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have