The Nature and Time Course of Pragmatic Plausibility Effects

The experiments reported in this article used a delayed same/different sentence matching task with concurrent measurement of eye movements to investigate the nature of the plausibility effect. The results clearly show that plausibility effects are not due to low level lexical associative processes, but arise as a consequence of the processing of the earliest or most basic form of sentential meaning. In fact, when sentential implausibility and lexical association are varied simultaneously, it is only sentential implausibility that exerts an effect. Effects of implausibility occur rapidly—sometimes parafoveally—and are localised in the regions of the sentence where the implausibility occurs, suggesting an incremental interpretive process progressing on a roughly word-by-word basis. It is suggested that plausibility effects result from the operation of a heuristically-driven process of sentential interpretation. This appears to behave in a ‘modular’ fashion, despite being influenced by real world knowledge and probabilities.

[1]  Wayne S. Murray Commentary on Section 4 – Sentence Processing: Issues and Measures , 2000 .

[2]  James D. McCawley,et al.  Where do noun phrases come from , 1969 .

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

[4]  K. Forster,et al.  Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis , 1973 .

[5]  J. Fodor,et al.  The structure of a semantic theory , 1963 .

[6]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

[7]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Early, Mandatory, Pragmatic Processing , 1998 .

[8]  Sheldon Rosenberg,et al.  The recall of verbal material accompanying semantically well-integrated and semantically poorly-integrated sentences , 1969 .

[9]  Robert J. Jarvella,et al.  Semantic integration and sentence perception , 1970 .

[10]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  Joël Pynte,et al.  Reading as a Perceptual Process , 2000 .

[12]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[13]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sentences , 1964 .

[14]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[15]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Chapter 8 – Parafoveal Pragmatics , 1998 .

[16]  Kenneth I. Forster,et al.  Perceiving the Structure and Meaning of Sentences. , 1971 .

[17]  Julie E Boland,et al.  Differences in the Timing of Implausibility Detection for Recipient and Instrument Prepositional Phrases , 2004, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  Jay L. Garfield,et al.  Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understanding , 1987 .

[19]  W. Cooper,et al.  Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. , 1980 .

[20]  Wayne S. Murray,et al.  Parafoveal pragmatics revisited , 2004 .

[21]  C. Reid,et al.  Parsing Complements: Comments on the Generality of the Principle of Minimal Attachment , 1989 .

[22]  R. J. Gonsalves For definitions: A reply to Fodor, Garrett, Walker, and Parkes , 1988, Cognition.