Abstract
Syntactically ambiguous sentences are sometimes read faster than disambiguated strings. Models of parsing have explained this tendency by appealing either to a race in the construction of alternative structures or to reanalysis. However, it is also possible that readers of ambiguous sentences save time by strategically underspecifying interpretations of ambiguous attachments. In a self-paced reading study, participants viewed sentences with relative clauses that could attach to one of two sites. Type of question was also manipulated between participants in order to test whether goals can influence reading/parsing strategies. The experiment revealed an ambiguity advantage in reading times, but only when participants expected superficial comprehension questions. When participants expected queries about relative clause interpretation, disambiguating regions were inspected with more care, and the ambiguity advantage was attenuated. However, even when participants expected relative clause queries, question-answering times suggested underspecified representations of ambiguous relative clause attachments. The results support the construal and “good-enough” models of parsing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Chater, N., Crocker, M., & Pickering, M. (1998). The rational analysis of inquiry: The case of parsing. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 441–468). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chater, N., Oaksford, M., Nakisa, R., & Redington, M. (2003). Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 90, 63–86.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
Clifton, C., Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 555–568.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 231–240.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.-M., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131–167.
Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 1–17.
Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 530–538.
Lewis, R. L. (2000). Falsifying serial and parallel parsing models: Empirical conundrums and an overlooked paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 241–248.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
Marcus, M. P. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcus, M. P., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129–136). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 283–312.
Mistler-Lachman, J. L. (1972). Levels of comprehension in processing of normal and ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 614–623.
Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229–235.
Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 385–406.
Sanford, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language, 17, 188–206.
Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 574–591.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1–38.
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 507–524.
Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1521–1543.
Spivey-Knowlton, M. [J.], & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11, 449–494.
Sturt, P., & Crocker, M. W. (1997). Thematic monotonicity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 297–322.
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 & Language, 45, 283–307.
Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888.
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.
Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491–515.
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (1991). The use of higher-level constraints in monitoring for a change in speaker demonstrates functionally distinct levels of representation in discourse comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 6, 49–77.
Townsend, D. J., Hoover, M., & Bever, T. G. (2000). Word-monitoring tasks interact with levels of representation during speech comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 265–274.
Traxler, M. J. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1107–1121.
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 558–592.
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 284–307.
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraintbased and two-stage models. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 225–258.
Weber-McRoy, S., & Hirst, G. (1990). Race-based parsing and syntactic disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 14, 313–353.
Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 339–364.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C. et al. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition 36, 201–216 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.201
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.201