Nonce word evidence for the misinterpretation of implausible events

References

• Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000519
   PubMed Web of Science ®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). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Brehm, L., & Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2021). Probabilistic online processing of sentence anomalies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(8), 959–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1900579
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bürkner. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, Z. G., Zhao, N., & Pickering, M. J. (2022). How do people interpret implausible sentences? Cognition, 225, 105101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaffin, R., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Learning new word meanings from context: A study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chantavarin, S. (2021). Examining the competing interpretations hypothesis in the comprehension of noncanonical structures [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California Davis. escholarship.org
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Dempsey, J., Deshaies, M., Tsiola, S. E., Valderrama, A. (2023). Do readers misassign thematic roles? Evidence from a trailing boundary-change paradigm. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Dempsey, J., Tsiola, A., & Goldshtein, M.. (2022). What if they’re just not that into you (or your experiment)? On motivation and psycholinguistics. Psychology of learning and motivation-advances in research and theory, 51–88.
   Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., & Luke, S. G. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 136–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003636787
   Web of Science ®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(2), 538–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018027
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(2), 538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(2), 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chromý, J., & Vojvodić, S. (2023). EXPRESS: When and where did it happen? Systematic differences in recall of core and optional sentence information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17470218231159190. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C., & Thierry, G. (2009). The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 21442–21446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908921106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremona, S., Jobard, G., Zago, L., & Mellet, E. (2020). Word meaning contributes to free recall performance in supraspan verbal list-learning tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutter, M. G., Paterson, K. B., & Filik, R. (2022). Online representations of non-canonical sentences are more than good-enough. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211032043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J., & Brehm, L. (2020). Can propositional biases modulate syntactic repair processes? Insights from preceding comprehension questions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(5-6), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1803884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J., & Christianson, K. (2022). Referencing context in sentence processing: A failure to replicate the strong interactive mental models hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 104335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J., Christianson, K., & Tanner, D. (2022). Misretrieval but not misrepresentation: A feature misbinding account of post-interpretive effects in number attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(9), 1727–1745. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211061578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey , J., Liu, Q., & Christianson, K. (2023). EXPRESS: Syntactic adaptation leads to updated knowledge for local structural frequencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.17470218231172908.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1-2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(5), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143947
   Web of Science ®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(20), 8051–8056. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216438110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldshtein, M. (2021). Going beyond our means: A proposal for improving psycholinguistic methods [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ideals.illinois.edu
   Google Scholar
• Hahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00071-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harrington Stack, C. M., James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 864–877. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0808-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Task effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1561–1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 450.Chicago
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008, October). A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 234–243).
   Google Scholar
• Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2016). Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive psychology, 88, 22–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8
   Google Scholar
• Meng, M., & Bader, M. (2021). Does comprehension (sometimes) go wrong for noncanonical sentences? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820947940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolazzi, C. L., Grillo, N., Alexiadou, A., & Santi, A. (2019). Passives are not hard to interpret but hard to remember: evidence from online and offline studies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 991–1015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patson, N. D., & Husband, E. M. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 950–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.992445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2012). Aging, parafoveal preview, and semantic integration in sentence processing: Testing the cognitive workload of wrap-up. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, Z., Garnsey, S., & Christianson, K. (2018). A comparison of online and offline measures of good-enough processing in garden-path sentences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(2), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1379606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R., Futrell, R., Kiran, S., & Gibson, E. (2018). Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the environment. Cognition, 181, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlueter, Z., Parker, D., & Lau, E. (2019). Error-driven retrieval in agreement attraction rarely leads to misinterpretation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01002
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(2), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(2), 431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gompel, R. P., 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(3), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 770–775. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, R. S., & Morris, R. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2), 312–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zehr, J., & Schwarz, F. (2018). Penncontroller for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., & Christianson, K. (2016). I “hear” what you’re “saying”: Auditory perceptual simulation, reading speed, and reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 972–995. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1018282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar