Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension

By Fernanda Ferreira, Karl G. D. Bailey, Vittoria Ferraro. 2002

813 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fce6f6b85c3477b18e6f3c03149b07e41f1c6f56

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials (2005, background): “Recent proposals by Ferreira, Bailey, and Ferraro (2002) and Kamide et al. (2003) allow greater independence for semantic processing.”
Semantics and the electrophysiology of meaning: Tense, aspect, event structure (2004, positive): “Such a mechanism does make processing non-compositional [49, 50].”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “As may be true across cognition (e.g., Simon 1956), the language system may be a satisficer rather than a maximizer (Ferreira et al. 2002).”
The neurobiology of language beyond single words. (2014, background): “This result suggests that either BA 44 is not involved in any sentence-level unification process or this unification process is not necessarily active for passive listening, for instance because a good-enough processing strategy (Ferreira et al. 2002) does not require a full compositional analysis.”
Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. (2007, result): “This situation is akin to what Ferreira and colleagues have termed “good enough” language processing (Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira, 2001; Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002; Ferreira, Christianson, & Hollingworth, 2001), in which ambiguous constructions such as that in Sentence”
Eye Movements as Reflections of Comprehension Processes in Reading (2006, background): “This response indicates a failure to notice the Noah/Moses inconsistency (i.e., it was Noah and not Moses who took the animals on the ark), although participants demonstrate awareness that Noah was the one who built the ark.”
Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations (2013, positive): “The data suggest that the semantic interpretation created from the initial syntactic structure persists and affects the processing of subsequent material, consistent with Sturt’s (2007) notion of semantic persistence, as well as some versions of the Good Enough processing view (Christianson et al., ”
MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond (2013, background): “Ferreira et al. (2002) introduced the phrase “good-enough processing” to refer to the listeners’ and readers’ interpretation strategies.”
The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. (2003, positive): “The idea that heuristics are used during comprehension allows us to account for cases in which people sometimes process sentences shallowly (Ferreira et al., 2002; Oakhill & Garnham, 1996; Oakhill, Garnham, & Vonk, 1989; Sanford, 2002).”