Cited by 1,175Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution

Open access
Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., Garnsey, S.M.·1994·Journal of Memory and Language

Abstract

Ferreira and Clifton (1986, Experiment 1) found that readers experienced equal difficulty with temporarily ambiguous reduced relatives clauses when the first noun was animate (e.g., "The defendant examined by the lawyer was . . .") and when it was inanimate and thus an unlikely Agent (e.g., "The evidence examined . . ."). This data pattern suggested that a verb′s semantic constraints do not affect initial syntactic ambiguity resolution. We repeated the experiment using: (1) inanimate noun/verb combinations that did not easily permit a main clause continuation, (2) a baseline condition with morphologically unambiguous verbs (e.g., "stolen"), (3) a homogeneous set of disambiguating prepositional phrases, and (4) a display in which all of the critical regions were presented on the same line of text. In two eye-movement experiments, animacy had immediate effects on ambiguity resolution: only animate nouns showed clear signs of difficulty. Post-hoc regression analyses revealed that what little processing difficulty readers had with the inanimate nouns varied with the semantic fit of individual noun/verb combinations: items with strong semantic fit showed no processing difficulty compared to unambiguous controls, whereas items with weak semantic fit showed a pattern of processing difficulty which was similar to Ferreira and Clifton (1986). The results are interpreted within the framework of an evidential (constraint-based) approach to ambiguity resolution. Analyses of reading times also suggested that the millisecond per character correction for region length is problematic, especially for small scoring regions. An alternative transformation is suggested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-06
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
285-318
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061311021
Cited by
1,175
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 40
FWCI
11.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
syntactic ambiguity resolution, thematic roles, reduced relative clauses, animacy effect, verb semantics, eye movements, reading time

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