Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger
Abstract
In the literature dealing with the reanalysis of garden path sentences such as While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods, it is generally assumed either that people completely repair their initial incorrect syntactic representations to yield a final interpretation whose syntactic structure is fully consistent with the input string or that the parse fails. In a series of five experiments, we explored the possibility that partial reanalyses take place. Specifically, we examined the conditions under which part of the initial incorrect analysis persists at the same time that part of the correct final analysis is constructed. In Experiments 1a and 1b, we found that both the length of the ambiguous region and the plausibility of the ultimate interpretation affected the likelihood that such sentences would be fully reanalyzed. In Experiment 2, we compared garden path sentences with non-garden path sentences and compared performance on two different types of comprehension questions. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we constructed garden path sentences using a small class of syntactically unique verbs to provide converging evidence against the position that people employ some sort of "general reasoning" or pragmatic inference when faced with syntactically difficult garden paths. The results from these experiments indicate that reanalysis of such sentences is not always complete, so that comprehenders often derive an interpretation for the full sentence in which part of the initial mis…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs respond similarly to humans on garden path sentences.
“Furthermore, researchers applied garden path sentences -sentences that lead the reader to initially interpret them incorrectly due to their ambiguous structure -to LLMs, showing that the models respond similarly to humans (Aher et al., 2023;Christianson et al., 2001).”
From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Christianson et al., 2001
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052 · see citing works
Editing episodic memory following the identification of error
Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/02724988843000168 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference
McCoy, R. T., Pavlick, E., & Linzen, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1334 · Cited by 944 · see citing works
Continuity and shallow structures in language processing
CLAHSEN, H., & FELSER, C. (2006) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716406060206 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Aging and self-regulated language processing.
Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Miller, L. M. S., & Hertzog, C. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.582 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
The role of language processing in language acquisition
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015) · Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/lab.5.4.01phi · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C. Y., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13988 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
- Authors
- Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 368-407
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117994434
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 3.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- garden-path sentences, syntactic reanalysis, thematic roles, sentence comprehension, syntactic ambiguity, language processing
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Reaction Time, Semantics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review