Abstract
The symptom of a garden path in sentence processing is an apparent anomaly in the input string. This anomaly signals to the parser that an error has occurred, and provides cues for how to repair it. Anomaly detection is thus an important aspect of sentence processing. In the present study, we investigated how the parser responds to unambiguous sentences that contain syntactic anomalies and pragmatic anomalies, examining records of eye movement during reading. While sensitivity to the two kinds of anomaly was very rapid and essentially simultaneous, qualitative differences existed in the patterns of first-pass reading times and eye regressions. The results are compatible with the proposal that syntactic information and pragmatic information are used differently in garden-path recovery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley.
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S., & Carlson, G. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774–806.
Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34–44.
Chodorow, M. S. (1979). Time-compressed speech and the study of lexical and syntactic processing. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crain, S., Ni, W., Shankweiler, D., Conway, L., & Braze, D. (1996). Meaning, memory and modularity. In C. Schütze (Ed.) Proceedings of the NELS 26 Sentence Processing Workshop. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 9.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
Ferreira, F. & Fodor, J. D. (in press). Reanalysis in sentence processing. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (in press). Garden path diagnosis: The grammatical dependency principle. In M. Ryan (Ed.), CUNY Forum (vol. 20).
Fodor, J. D., Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Tasks and timing in the perception of linguistic anomaly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 25–57.
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1995). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
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.
Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157–176.
Gibson, E. (1991). A computational theory of linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Gorrell, P. (1989). Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 61–74.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483.
Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1990). Semantic priming in visual and auditory lexical decision: A between modality comparison. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 281–312.
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1994). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1988). Event-related brain potential studies of language. In P. K. Ackles, J. F. Jennings, & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 23, 477–494.
McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 134–157.
Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based processing classes: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.
Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related brain potentials and language comprehension. In: M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.
Osterhout, L., Nicol, J., McKinnon, R., Ni, W., Fodor, J. D., & Crain, S. (1994). An event-related brain potential investigation of the temporal course of sentence comprehension. Poster presented at the 7th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, City University of New York, New York.
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. J. (1995). Subject-verb agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Paper presented at the 8th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction between syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.
Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J. (1987). Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219–246.
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ni, W., Fodor, J.D., Crain, S. et al. Anomaly Detection: Eye Movement Patterns. J Psycholinguist Res 27, 515–539 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024996828734
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024996828734