Reanalysis in sentence processing: evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models

Roger P. G. van-Gompel (Lead / Corresponding author), Martin J. Pickering, Matthew J. Traxler

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    91 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Two eye-tracking experiments investigated processing of VP-NP attachment ambiguities. Experiment 1 tested sentences in which there was an initial bias toward VP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment than when it disambiguated them to VP attachment or when it was consistent with either analysis. Experiment 2 tested sentences in which there was no initial bias toward either VP or NP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment or VP attachment than when it was consistent with either analysis. We argue that these results challenge theories that assume a competition mechanism, such as constraint-based lexicalist accounts (e.g., MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; McRae, Spivey-Knowlton, & Seidenberg, 1998; Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995) and fixed-choice two-stage models (e.g., Frazier, 1987). We interpret the results in terms of the unrestricted race model (cf. Traxler, Pickering, & Clifton, 1998).
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)225-258
    Number of pages34
    JournalJournal of Memory and Language
    Volume45
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2001

    Fingerprint

    Semantics
    experiment
    Processing
    semantics
    evidence
    Experiments
    trend
    Reanalysis
    Sentence Processing
    Experiment

    Keywords

    • Sentence processing
    • Syntactic ambiguity resolution
    • Reanalysis
    • Competition

    Cite this

    @article{a87b36e63b5f496f8cae37eba3ceae9b,
    title = "Reanalysis in sentence processing: evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models",
    abstract = "Two eye-tracking experiments investigated processing of VP-NP attachment ambiguities. Experiment 1 tested sentences in which there was an initial bias toward VP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment than when it disambiguated them to VP attachment or when it was consistent with either analysis. Experiment 2 tested sentences in which there was no initial bias toward either VP or NP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment or VP attachment than when it was consistent with either analysis. We argue that these results challenge theories that assume a competition mechanism, such as constraint-based lexicalist accounts (e.g., MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; McRae, Spivey-Knowlton, & Seidenberg, 1998; Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995) and fixed-choice two-stage models (e.g., Frazier, 1987). We interpret the results in terms of the unrestricted race model (cf. Traxler, Pickering, & Clifton, 1998).",
    keywords = "Sentence processing, Syntactic ambiguity resolution, Reanalysis, Competition",
    author = "van-Gompel, {Roger P. G.} and Pickering, {Martin J.} and Traxler, {Matthew J.}",
    note = "dc.publisher: Elsevier",
    year = "2001",
    month = "8",
    doi = "10.1006/jmla.2001.2773",
    language = "English",
    volume = "45",
    pages = "225--258",
    journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
    issn = "0749-596X",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "2",

    }

    Reanalysis in sentence processing : evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. / van-Gompel, Roger P. G. (Lead / Corresponding author); Pickering, Martin J.; Traxler, Matthew J.

    In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 45, No. 2, 08.2001, p. 225-258.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Reanalysis in sentence processing

    T2 - evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models

    AU - van-Gompel, Roger P. G.

    AU - Pickering, Martin J.

    AU - Traxler, Matthew J.

    N1 - dc.publisher: Elsevier

    PY - 2001/8

    Y1 - 2001/8

    N2 - Two eye-tracking experiments investigated processing of VP-NP attachment ambiguities. Experiment 1 tested sentences in which there was an initial bias toward VP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment than when it disambiguated them to VP attachment or when it was consistent with either analysis. Experiment 2 tested sentences in which there was no initial bias toward either VP or NP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment or VP attachment than when it was consistent with either analysis. We argue that these results challenge theories that assume a competition mechanism, such as constraint-based lexicalist accounts (e.g., MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; McRae, Spivey-Knowlton, & Seidenberg, 1998; Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995) and fixed-choice two-stage models (e.g., Frazier, 1987). We interpret the results in terms of the unrestricted race model (cf. Traxler, Pickering, & Clifton, 1998).

    AB - Two eye-tracking experiments investigated processing of VP-NP attachment ambiguities. Experiment 1 tested sentences in which there was an initial bias toward VP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment than when it disambiguated them to VP attachment or when it was consistent with either analysis. Experiment 2 tested sentences in which there was no initial bias toward either VP or NP attachment. Readers experienced more difficulty when semantic information disambiguated the sentences to NP attachment or VP attachment than when it was consistent with either analysis. We argue that these results challenge theories that assume a competition mechanism, such as constraint-based lexicalist accounts (e.g., MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; McRae, Spivey-Knowlton, & Seidenberg, 1998; Spivey-Knowlton & Sedivy, 1995) and fixed-choice two-stage models (e.g., Frazier, 1987). We interpret the results in terms of the unrestricted race model (cf. Traxler, Pickering, & Clifton, 1998).

    KW - Sentence processing

    KW - Syntactic ambiguity resolution

    KW - Reanalysis

    KW - Competition

    U2 - 10.1006/jmla.2001.2773

    DO - 10.1006/jmla.2001.2773

    M3 - Article

    VL - 45

    SP - 225

    EP - 258

    JO - Journal of Memory and Language

    JF - Journal of Memory and Language

    SN - 0749-596X

    IS - 2

    ER -