3.1 - Sentence Comprehension

Question 0

Is parsing immediate or delayed?

Answer 0

Immediate

It happens very quickly & unconciously

Question 1

What is Parsing?

Answer 1

Determining the linguistic relationship among parts of a sentence

Question 2

What is Just & Carpenter’s (1980) Immediacy Principle?

Answer 2

Immediately after a word is heard or read…

- The meaning is accessed from memory
- It is placed into the assumed syntactic structure

Question 3

If we parse a sententence incorrectly, do we have to go back and reparse it?

Answer 3

Yes

Question 4

What is the Wait & See Approach to Parsing?

Answer 4

We wait until we have all necessary information then we interpret

It’s an error free approach but is time consuming

Question 5

What are garden path sentences?

Answer 5

Sentences where part way through we realized we need to reinterpret them

“The horse raced past the barn fell.”

Question 6

Garden Path Sentences support the _____.

Answer 6

Immediacy Principle

Question 7

What is the Modular Approach to parsing?

Answer 7

There are three modules: Phonology, Syntax, Semantics

Comprehension is the result of modules

In parsing, only syntax is considered. Semantics is not considered

Question 8

What is Late Closure?

Answer 8

We attach the next piece of syntax to the phrase currently being processed

We “Close” clause boundaries at the last possible moment

Example: “Since Jay always jogs a mile seems like a very short distance to him.”

“Because Jay always jogs a mile…” <– We should have closed

Question 9

What did Frazier & Rayner do in their 1982 eye-tracking experiment (Jay jogs)?

Answer 9

Used eye-tracking

Gave people the first parts of sentences: “Since Jay always jogs a mile…”

Then gave them either
- “…seems like a short distance to him.”
Late Closure fails!

• “…this seems like a short distance to him”
  Late Closure works!

Question 10

What did Frazier & Rayner discover in their 1982 eye-tracking experiment (Jay jogs)? What did this support?

(2)

Answer 10

Found that people had longer fixations in the first phrase ending (the garden path, Jay jogs)

This supports late closure

Question 11

What is the Minimal Attachment (MA) theory?

Answer 11

That we attach items in a way that creates the fewest number of new constituents

Example:
“Tracy picked up John and his friend…”
We expect a NP conjunction (“…at the bar.”) but we can also end this with a new NP (“…went back to the bar”)

We prefer the 1st type of ending (NP conjunction)

Question 12

Does the Minimal Attachment (MA) theory state that sentences are harder to process when there are more constituents?

Answer 12

Yes

Question 13

What did Frazier & Rayner do in their 1982 sentence comprehension experiment (spy-cop)? What took subjects longer to read?

Answer 13

Gave subjects the sentence
“The spy saw the cop…”

Then gave one of two possible endings
“…with the binoculars but the cop didn’t see him.”
“…with the revolver but the cop didn’t see him.”

The binoculars sentence took subjects longer to read

Question 14

What is the Interactive Approach to parsing?

Answer 14

That Parsing involves more than just syntax

Question 15

What is MacDonald et al’s (1994) Constraint-Based Model?

Answer 15

We use all available information when we parse sentences (Syntactical, lexical, contexual, etc.)

Syntax & semantic interact during comprehension

Question 16

What did Rayner et al do in their 1983 experiment (flowers)?

Answer 16

Gave people less plausible sentences (“The florist sent the flowers was very pleased”) and more plausible sentences (“The actor sent the flowers was very pleased”)

Question 17

What did Rayner et al find in their 1983 experiment (flowers)? What theory did this support?

Answer 17

People experienced garden paths on both florist sentences. Plausibility didn’t matter.

Supports modular theory

Question 18

What did Trueswell et al do in their 1994 eye-tracking experiment (evidence)?

Answer 18

Gave subjects two sentence beginnings

• The defendant examined…
• The evidence examined…

Then gave the same ending
- …by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

Question 19

What did Trueswell et al learn in their 1994 eye-tracking experiment (evidence)? What theory does this support?

Answer 19

Subjects had an easier time with the sentence beginning with defendant than the evidence one.

Supports the interactive model

Question 20

Do we use our semantic knowledge to determine if Minimal Aattachement is possible?

Answer 20

Yes

Question 21

What did Ferreira & Clifton do in their 1986 experiment (editor)?

Answer 21

Gave subjects one of two sentences

• The editor played the tape and agreed it was a big story
• The editor played the tape agreed it was a big story

Sentence was placed in one of two paragraphs

• 1st was longer, more complex, and had only one editor
• 2nd was shorter, simplistic, with multiple editors

Question 22

Did context affect how Ferreira & Clifton’s subjects read the sentences in their 1986 experiment (editor)? What theory does this support?

Answer 22

Not - no effect from context

This supports the modular approach

Question 23

What was Boland trying to discover in his 1997 experiment (duck)?

Answer 23

Does lexical preference matter?

Question 24

What did Boland do in his 1997 experiment (duck)?

Answer 24

Gave subjects two sentences:

- Jane saw her duck and fall down.
- Jane saw her duck and some eggs.

Question 25

What did Boland find in his 1997 experiment (duck)? What model did this prove?

Answer 25

Most people prefer the definition of “getting lower”

Most people experience Garden Paths on second sentence

Proves the Interactive Model