The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context
Open accessAbstract
Pragmatic factors, such as referential context, influence the decisions of the syntactic processor. At issue, however, has been whether such effects take place in the first or second pass analysis of the sentence. It has been suggested that eye movement studies are the only appropriate means for deciding between first and second pass effects. In this paper, we report two experiments using ambiguous relative/complement sentences and unambiguous controls. In Experiment 1 we show that referential context eliminates all the first pass reading time differences that are indicative of a garden path to the relative continuation in the null context. We observe, however, that the context does not eliminate the increased proportion of regressions from that disambiguating continuation. We therefore introduce a regression-contingent analysis of the first pass reading times and show that this new measure provides an important tool for aiding in the interpretation of the apparently conflicting data. Experiment 2 investigated whether the results of Experiment 1 were an artifact of the kinds of questions about the contexts that were asked in order to encourage subjects to attend to the contexts. The results demonstrated that the use of explicity referential questions had little effect. There was some small evidence for a garden path effect in this second experiment, but the regression-contingent measure enabled us to locate all garden path effects in only a small proportion of trials and to conclude that context does influence the initial decisions of the syntactic processor.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Rayner, K. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470210902816461 · Cited by 2,682
Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1012551108 · Cited by 695
The communicative function of ambiguity in language
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 · Cited by 628
Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C. (1994) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969408402115 · Cited by 379
Metadata
- Authors
- Altmann, G. T. M., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Memory and Language
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 685-712
- ISSN
- 0749-596X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048242713
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0749-596x(92)90035-v
- The paper
- Altmann, G. T. M., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(92)90035-v
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.