Parafoveal pragmatics revisited

The results of two experiments are reported, examining eye movements as participants read the initial sentence in a sentence‐matching task. The sentences employed had a NP1‐verb‐NP2 construction and the pragmatic plausibility of the relationship between the verb and the two nouns was independently manipulated. The aim of the first experiment was to investigate the claim that the plausibility of a NP1‐verb relationship influences reading time on NP1 even before the verb is directly inspected. The data confirm the existence of such “parafoveal pragmatic” effects, but suggest that sublexical properties of the particular nouns employed may also exert a parafoveal effect on foveal processing. Experiment 2 was carried out as a control. A contingent presentation procedure ensured that the critical verb remained masked until it was directly inspected. Parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects exerted by the verb were removed by this procedure, although effects relating to properties of the nouns remained. The results confirm the presence of processing interactions involving sublexical properties of the two nouns, even though these were quite widely separated. Overall, the results of the two experiments suggest that, for this task, there is a genuine parafoveal‐on‐foveal effect attributable to purely pragmatic relationships involving the initial noun and verb in the sentences employed. In addition, there is evidence of longer range parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects of orthographic properties of the words employed.

[1]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  Human sentence processing: a semantics-oriented parsing approach , 1996 .

[2]  K. Rayner,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998 .

[3]  Geoffrey Underwood,et al.  Attentional Demands on the Processing of Neighbouring Words , 2000 .

[4]  M. Pickering,et al.  Eye guidance in reading and scene perception , 1998 .

[5]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading , 2004 .

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

[7]  J. O'Regan.  Eye movements and reading. , 1990, Reviews of oculomotor research.

[8]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Parafoveal Processing in Word Recognition , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading? , 2004 .

[10]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  The Influence of Parafoveal Words on Foveal Inspection Time: Evidence for a Processing Trade-Off , 1998 .

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

[12]  Cécile Beauvillain,et al.  Calibration of an eye-movement system for use in reading , 1995 .

[13]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  A test of parafoveal‐on‐foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words , 2004 .

[14]  K. Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  J. Henderson,et al.  Eye movement control during reading: fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[16]  C. Clifton,et al.  Effects of the Focus Particle Only and Intrinsic Contrast on Comprehension of Reduced Relative Clauses , 2000 .

[17]  K. Rayner.  The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  J. Henderson,et al.  Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  G. McConkie,et al.  The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading , 1975 .

[20]  George W. McConkie,et al.  Eye Movement Control during Reading: The Effect of Word Units. Technical Report No. 310. , 1984 .

[21]  R. E. Morrison,et al.  Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: evidence for parallel programming of saccades. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[23]  A. Kennedy,et al.  The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading , 2004 .

[24]  Seth N. Greenberg,et al.  Allocation of Visuo-Spatial Attention and Saccade Programming During Reading , 2000 .

[25]  K. Rayner,et al.  Mindless reading revisited: Eye movements during reading and scanning are different , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  F. Vitu,et al.  The influence of parafoveal preprocessing and linguistic context on the optimal landing position effect , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  A. Kennedy,et al.  Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[29]  J. H. Bertera,et al.  The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.