Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension

People comprehend utterances rapidly and without conscious effort. Traditional theories assume that sentence processing is algorithmic and that meaning is derived compositionally. The language processor is believed to generate representations of the linguistic input that are complete, detailed, and accurate. However, recent findings challenge these assumptions. Investigations of the misinterpretation of both garden-path and passive sentences have yielded support for the idea that the meaning people obtain for a sentence is often not a reflection of its true content. Moreover, incorrect interpretations may persist even after syntactic reanalysis has taken place. Our good-enough approach to language comprehension holds that language processing is sometimes only partial and that semantic representations are often incomplete. Future work will elucidate the conditions under which sentence processing is simply good enough.

[1]  J. Sachs Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse , 1967 .

[2]  S. Fillenbaum Pragmatic normalization: Further results for some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. , 1974 .

[3]  J. Gerring A case study , 2011, Technology and Society.

[4]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

[5]  M. Mattson,et al.  From words to meaning: A semantic illusion , 1981 .

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

[7]  J. Henderson,et al.  Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Stephen B. Barton,et al.  A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment , 1993, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[11]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[12]  M. Pickering,et al.  Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[13]  Charles Clifton,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing: Evaluating Models of Human Sentence Processing , 1999 .

[14]  M. Pickering,et al.  Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , 1999 .

[15]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The Misinterpretation of Passive Sentences , 2000 .

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

[17]  Peter W. Jusczyk,et al.  How Infants Adapt Speech-Processing Capacities to Native-Language Structure , 2002 .