Why reread? Evidence from garden-path and local coherence structures

Two eye-tracking experiments were conducted to compare the online reading and offline comprehension of main verb/reduced relative garden-path sentences and local coherence sentences. Rereading of early material in garden-path reduced relatives should be revisionary, aimed at reanalysing an earlier misparse; however, rereading of early material in a local coherence reduced relative need only be confirmatory, as the original parse of the earlier portion of these sentences is ultimately correct. Results of online and offline measures showed that local coherence structures elicited signals of reading disruption that arose earlier and lasted longer, and local coherence comprehension was also better than garden path comprehension. Few rereading measures in either sentence type were predicted by structural features of these sentences, nor was rereading related to comprehension accuracy, which was extremely low overall. Results are discussed with respect to selective reanalysis and good-enough processing.

[1]  C. Clifton,et al.  Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[2]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[4]  Ting Qian,et al.  Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  W. Tabor,et al.  Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: digging-in effects. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations , 2013 .

[7]  Kiel Christianson,et al.  Is Now-or-Never language processing good enough? , 2016, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Chapter 3 – Eye Movements and Measures of Reading Time , 1998 .

[10]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  Younger and Older Adults' "Good-Enough" Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences , 2006, Discourse processes.

[11]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[12]  M. Pickering,et al.  The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming , 2006 .

[13]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[14]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[15]  Titus von der Malsburg,et al.  Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies , 2012, Language and Cognitive Processes.

[16]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Getting There (Slowly) , 1998 .

[17]  J. Henderson,et al.  Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences ☆ , 1991 .

[18]  K. Rayner,et al.  Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences☆ , 1987 .

[19]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Paul Gorrell,et al.  Syntactic Analysis and Reanalysis in Sentence Processing , 1998 .

[21]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Don’t Believe What You Read (Only Once) , 2014, Psychological science.

[22]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[23]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules , 2001 .

[24]  A Pollatsek,et al.  On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  Leon Bergen,et al.  Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Effects of plausibility on structural priming. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[28]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Context Strengthens Initial Misinterpretations of Text , 2011 .

[29]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[30]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  The Preservation of Structure in Language Comprehension: Is Reanalysis the Last Resort? , 2001 .

[31]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Syntactic Complexity in Ambiguity Resolution , 2002 .

[32]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[33]  M. Tanenhaus.  Afterword The impact of “The cognitive basis for linguistic structures” , 2013 .

[34]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[35]  Kiel Christianson,et al.  When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[37]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis , 2011 .

[38]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Language and Memory Improvements following tDCS of Left Lateral Prefrontal Cortex , 2015, PloS one.

[40]  Emily S. Darowski,et al.  Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: evidence from a paraphrasing task. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing , 2004 .

[42]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[43]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  SUNY Stony,et al.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities : Evidence from self-paced reading , 2010 .

[45]  G. Underwood.  Eye guidance in reading and scene perception , 1998 .

[46]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[47]  Don C. Mitchell,et al.  Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis , 2008 .

[48]  Bradley L. Pritchett.  Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance , 1992 .

[49]  K. Christianson,et al.  I “hear” what you're “saying”: Auditory perceptual simulation, reading speed, and reading comprehension , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[50]  E. Gibson.  The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[51]  Nick Chater,et al.  The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language , 2015, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[52]  Matthew J. Traxler,et al.  Trends in syntactic parsing: anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[53]  K Christianson,et al.  Misinterpretations of Garden-Path Sentences: Implications for Models of Sentence Processing and Reanalysis , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[54]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[55]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Psychology of reading, 2nd ed. , 2012 .

[56]  J. Kimball.  Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[57]  Steven Abney,et al.  A computational model of human parsing , 1989 .

[58]  M. G. Calvo,et al.  Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading , 2001, Memory.

[59]  Jeanne T. Amlund.  Repetitive Reading and Recall of Expository Text. , 1986 .

[60]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Reanalysis and Limited Repair Parsing: Leaping off the Garden Path , 1998 .

[61]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? , 1980, Cognition.