Cited by 615Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationReading and Literacy Development

Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger

Christianson, Kiel, Hollingworth, Andrew, Halliwell, John F., Ferreira, Fernanda·2001·Cognitive Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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