When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing

REFERENCES

• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Eds.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495–522. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.011
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (in press). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K. (2008). Sensitivity to changes in garden path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 391–403. doi: 10.1007/s10936-008-9072-4
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 136–166. doi: 10.1080/10888431003636787
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 538–544.
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. doi: 10.1017/S0142716406060024
   Google Scholar
• den Ouden, D-B., Dickey, M. W., Anderson, C., & Christianson, K. (2016). Neural correlates of early-closure garden-path processing: Effects of prosody and plausibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1028416
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Christianson, K. (in press). Is now-or-never language processing good enough? Commentary on Christiansen & Chater (in press). Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20. doi: 10.1023/A:1005290706460
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘Good Enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1/1-2, 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 289–296. doi: 10.3758/BF03211044
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8051–8056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216438110
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (2016). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and nonnative garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.984231
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kamas, E. N., Reder, L. M., & Ayers, M. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses illusion: response bias not sensitivity. Memory and Cognition, 24, 687–699. doi: 10.3758/BF03201094
   Google Scholar
• Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
   Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1991). How readers construct situation models for stones: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In A. F. Healy, S. M. Kosslyn, & R. M. Sluffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essuys in honor of William K. Esles (Vol. 2, pp. 261–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1–36. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   Google Scholar
• Kos, M., Vosse, T., van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   Google Scholar
• Lassotta, R., Omaki, A., & Franck, J. (2016). Developmental changes in the misinterpretation of garden-path wh-questions in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1054845
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008a). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA), pp. 234–243.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008b). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086–21090. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907664106
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J-H., & Christianson, K. (2013a). Integrating meaning and structure in L1-L2 and L2-L1 translations. Second Language Research, 29, 233–256. doi: 10.1177/0267658312462019
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J-H., & Christianson, K. (2013b). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 518–537. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000351
   Google Scholar
• Lim, J-H., & Christianson, K. (2015). L2 sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1283–1315. doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000290
   Google Scholar
• Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602
   Google Scholar
• Malyutina, S., & den Ouden, D-B. (2016). What is it that lingers? Garden-path (mis)interpretations in younger and older adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1045530
   Google Scholar
• Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures ot detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, C. M. (2015). The interaction of images and text during comprehension of garden-path sentences: is integration better than good enough? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/78616
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., Darowski, E. S., Moon, N., & Ferreira, F. (2009). Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 280–285.
   Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., & Husband, M. E. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.992445
   Google Scholar
• Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recopition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–442. doi: 10.3758/BF03208784
   Google Scholar
• Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel, I. (2006). Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject-object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1098, 139–152. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.080
   Google Scholar
• Shafto, M., & MacKay, D. G. (2000). The Moses, mega-Moses, and Armstrong Illusions: Integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 11, 372–378. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00273
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006
   Google Scholar
• Slattery, T. J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Stites, M. C., Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2013). The psychologist said quickly, “dialogue descriptions modulate reading speed!”. Memory & Cognition, 41, 137–151. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0248-7
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C. Jr., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36, 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehensions: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001
   Google Scholar
• van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
   Google Scholar
• van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181–1197. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
   Google Scholar
• van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002
   Google Scholar
• von der Malsburg, T., & Vasishth, S. (2013). Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1545–1578. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.728232
   Google Scholar
• Wonnacott, E., Joseph, H., Adelman, J., & Nation, K. (2016). Is children's reading ‘Good Enough’? Links between online processing and comprehension as children read syntactically ambiguous sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1011176
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., & Christianson, K. (2016). I “hear” what you're “saying”: Auditory perceptual simulation during silent reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1018282
   Google Scholar