Why reread? Evidence from garden-path and local coherence structures

References

• Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129–144. doi: 10.1007/BF01069051
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   Google Scholar
• Amlund, J. T., Kardash, C. A. M., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1986). Repetitive reading and recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 49–58. doi: 10.2307/747959
   Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Calvo, M. G. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9, 365–381. doi: 10.1080/09658210143000083
   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. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-Enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 817–828. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
   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
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “Good-Enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–120. 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. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20. doi: 10.1023/A:1005290706460
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
   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, 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaption during syntactic comprehension. PLOS One, 8(10), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Frazier, L. (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 47, 247–275.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1998). Getting there (slowly). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 123–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1023241830722
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
   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
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 505–526. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90137-9
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   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
• Gorrell, P. (1998). Syntactic analysis and reanalysis in sentence processing. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 201–246). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Tunstall, S. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 267–295. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2808
   Google Scholar
• Hussey, E. K., Ward, N., Christianson, K., & Kramer, A. F. (2015, November 3). Language and memory improvements following tDCS of executive-control brain regions. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141417
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   Google Scholar
• Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). 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
• Lewis, R. L. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In J. Fodor, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 247–284). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Dordrecht: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Logačev, P., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Understanding underspecification: A comparison of two computational implementations The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 996–1012. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   Google Scholar
• Meseguer, E., Carreira, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30, 551–561. doi: 10.3758/BF03194956
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., & Hodgson, T. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye- movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 266–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.002
   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
• Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.
   Google Scholar
• Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension Is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226. doi: 10.1177/0956797614531148
   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
• Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00647-4
   Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., Scheepers, C., & Crocker, M. W. (2001). The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 283–307. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2776
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. Jr. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36, 201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   Google Scholar
• Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.
   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
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
   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
• von der Malsburg, T., & Vasishth, S. (2011). What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 109–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.004
   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
• Zhou, P., & Christianson, K. (2016). I “hear” what you’re “saying”: Auditory perceptual simulation, reading speed, and reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 972–995. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1018282
   Google Scholar