The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 138 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension
Open accessAbstract
When we read or listen to language, we are faced with the challenge of inferring intended messages from noisy input. This challenge is exacerbated by considerable variability between and within speakers. Focusing on syntactic processing (parsing), we test the hypothesis that language comprehenders rapidly adapt to the syntactic statistics of novel linguistic environments (e.g., speakers or genres). Two self-paced reading experiments investigate changes in readers' syntactic expectations based on repeated exposure to sentences with temporary syntactic ambiguities (so-called "garden path sentences"). These sentences typically lead to a clear expectation violation signature when the temporary ambiguity is resolved to an a priori less expected structure (e.g., based on the statistics of the lexical context). We find that comprehenders rapidly adapt their syntactic expectations to converge towards the local statistics of novel environments. Specifically, repeated exposure to a priori unexpected structures can reduce, and even completely undo, their processing disadvantage (Experiment 1). The opposite is also observed: a priori expected structures become less expected (even eliciting garden paths) in environments where they are hardly ever observed (Experiment 2). Our findings suggest that, when changes in syntactic statistics are to be expected (e.g., when entering a novel environment), comprehenders can rapidly adapt their expectations, thereby overcoming the processing disadvantage that mistaken expectations would otherwise cause. Our findings take a step towards unifying insights from research in expectation-based models of language processing, syntactic priming, and statistical learning.
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
Cites
Elman, J. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1 · Cited by 11,212
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924
Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 · Cited by 5,659
Perception of the speech code.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0020279 · Cited by 3,722
Toward an instance theory of automatization.
Logan, G. D. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.4.492 · Cited by 3,466
Integration of Visual and Linguistic Information in Spoken Language Comprehension
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7777863 · Cited by 2,929
Language style as audience design
Bell, A. (1984) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s004740450001037x · Cited by 2,904
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676 · Cited by 2,259
Expectation-based syntactic comprehension
Levy, R. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 · Cited by 2,202
Cited by
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 · Cited by 1,087
Self-citationThe Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1500031x · Cited by 733
Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2013) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013 · Cited by 461
Self-citationThe Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use
Diessel, H. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108671040 · Cited by 419
Reasoning in Reference Games: Individual- vs. Population-Level Probabilistic Modeling
Franke, M., & Degen, J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154854 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-10-30
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e77661
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992115411
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 138
- FWCI
- 13.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
- The paper
- Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
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.