Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Material Type: Notes; Class: PSYCHOLING: APPROACHES; Subject: Linguistics; University: University of Maryland; Term: Unknown 2006;
Typology: Study notes
1 / 22
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
and
Strong contextual biases are ineffective (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986) John worked as a reporter for a newspaper. He knew a major story was brewing over the mayor scandal. He went to his editors with a tape and some photos because he needed their approval to go ahead with the story. He ran a tape for one of his editors, and he showed some photos to the other. (a) The editor played the tape agreed the story was big. (b) The editor played the tape and agreed the story was big. The other editor urged John to be cautious.
Strong plausibility biases are ineffective (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986) (a) The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable. (b) The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.
Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Frequency-Based Accounts
Journal of Memory and Language 43, 447- (Hana’s Presentation)
Serial Lexical-Guidance Account Serial-Likelihood Account
(1a) The athlete realized her potential one day might make her a world-class sprinter. (1b) The athlete realized her exercises one day might make her a world-class sprinter. If readers adopt an object analysis first, they would realize that (1b) is less plausible before the word “might” than (1a) is. This should show up as either increased reading time and/or more regressive eye-movements in (1b) as opposed to (1a) before the word “might.” Readers find it more difficult to give up a plausible analysis that turns out to be wrong and easy to give up an implausible analysis. Therefore, if readers adopt an object analysis first, they will find it harder to adopt the correct sentential-complement analysis in (1a) and easier to switch analyses in (1b) This should show up as either increased reading time and/or more regressive eye-movements after disambiguation (after “might”) in (1a) as opposed to (1b).
Noun Region Postnoun Region Verb Region Postverb Region
(3a) While the pilot was flying the plane that had arrived stood over by the fence. (3b) While the pilot was flying the horse that had arrived stood over by the fence. The ambiguity here is whether “the plane” or “the horse” is the object of flying or the subject of “stood.” For both (3a) and (3b) “was flying” turns out to be intransitive. Both frequency-based accounts predict that readers will assume that “plane/horse” is the subject of the sentence therefore will not run into any problems such as the implausibility of flying a horse. However, if neither frequency-based account is correct, and readers first assume that plane/horse is the object of “was flying,” then a crossover pattern similar to those found in Experiments 1 and 2 is predicted. There will be more difficulty with (3b) than (3a) before “stood” and more difficulty with (3a) than (3b) after “stood.” (3a) While the pilot was flying the plane that had arrived stood over by the fence. (3b) While the pilot was flying the horse that had arrived stood over by the fence.
