Making and Correcting Errors during Sentence Comprehension: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Structurally Ambiguous Sentences

By Lyn Frazier, Keith Rayner. 1982

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference (2019, background): “Several of our subcases in the subsequence heuristic are inspired by psycholinguistics research on garden path sentences (Bever, 1970; Frazier and Rayner, 1982) and local coherence (Tabor et al., 2004); these works have similar aims as our subsequence heuristic but are concerned with the…”
Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing (2011, background): “…when there is more than one available and in whether this preference results in the adoption of a single analysis to be pursued (compare, e.g., Frazier & Rayner, 1982), a list of ranked alternatives (e.g., Gibson, 1991), or differing strengths of activation (e.g., McRae, SpiveyKnowlton &…”
An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing (2015, background): “We take inspiration from Frazier and Rayner (1982) and other psycholinguists and propose repair actions as a light-weight alternative to beam-search.”
Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities (2003, background): “For example, Frazier and Rayner (1982) manipulated the length of the ambiguous region in early and late closure sentences and found increased reading times in the disambiguating region for long regions as compared to shorter ones.”
What if This Modified That? Syntactic Interventions with Counterfactual Embeddings (2021, background): “The second corpus, dubbed the NP/Z corpus, was inspired by classic psycholinguistic studies of the garden-pathing effect in online sentence processing (Frazier and Rayner, 1982; Tabor and Hutchins, 2004).”
TIMED AND UNTIMED GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS MEASURE DISTINCT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE (2015, background): “…out of the critical part of the sentence indicate reanalysis and controlled processing (compare Clifton & Staub, 2011 ; Clifton et al., 2007 ; Frazier & Rayner, 1982 ; Meseguer et al., 2002 ; Mitchell, Shen, Green, & Hodgson, 2008 ; Reichle et al., 2009 ; Von der Malsburg & Vasishth, 2011 ).”
Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies (2012, background): “Consider the sentence in (1), taken from Frazier and Rayner (1982).”
The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English (2003, result): “reported in comparable studies with adults ( Frazier & Rayner, 1982, among others).”
Plausibility and grammatical agreement (2003, background): “…model, assumes distinct processing stages similar to the encapsulated production model: an initial stage in which an encapsulated syntactic representation is formed, followed by a stage of semantic integration (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Rayner, Carlson, & Frazier, 1983).”
The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals (2007, background): “For example, one such theory, the Garden-Path Model (Frazier, 1978; Frazier and Rayner, 1982), predicted that new, incoming words should attach to the most recently processed node in the phrase marker (i.e. NP2 in the sentences above), irrespective of the language being processed.”
SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION IN L2 LEARNERS (2003, background): “Frazier and her colleagues (Frazier, 1987; Frazier & Clifton, 1996; Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Rayner, Carlson, & Frazier, 1983) have attributed it to the existence of a fully innate set of processing strategies.”
The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models (2003, background): “Second, when readers do not have information about where the spaces are between upcoming words, saccade length decreases and reading is slowed considerably (McConkie & Rayner 1975; Morris et al. 1990; Pollatsek & Rayner 1982; Rayner et al. 1998a).”