Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger.

By K. Christianson, A. Hollingworth, John F. Halliwell, Fernanda Ferreira. 2001

577 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Computational Linguistics & Semantics, 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 Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Computational Linguistics & Semantics

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference (2019, neutral): “(Christianson et al., 2001).”
Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies (2022, methodology): “For example, the control sentence corresponding to the OT garden path sentence in Figure 1, is “While the student read, the notes that were long and boring blew oﬀ the desk” Christianson et al. (2001).”
Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. (2007, background): “Indeed, there is evidence that, in syntactically ambiguous sentences and in non-canonical, syntactically complex sentences, these heuristic mechanisms can sometimes lead participants to come to final interpretations (‘good enough’ representations) that are not syntactically licensed (Caplan et al., ”
The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. (2003, unknown): “…the person was under time pressure, as often happens in normal conversations; or it might be that the comprehender s processing system terminated its operations because the pseudo-parse reached some criterion level of confidence (as argued in Christianson et al., 2001, for reanalysis processes).”
The Acquisition of Anaphora by Simple Recurrent Networks (2013, background): “…Menders & Morris 1989, and Konieczny 2005), as well as less extreme departures from hierarchy (e.g., “Good Enough Parsing’’ effects observed in Christianson et al. 2001 and Ferreira, Christianson & Mollingworth 2001) do suggest that some local parsing alternatives are activated, even if only…”
Semantics and the electrophysiology of meaning: Tense, aspect, event structure (2004, background): “[25] show that, while readers correctly respond for the affirmative to ‘Did the baby play in the crib?’, they also answer positively to ‘Did Anna dress the baby?’.”
Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing (2016, background): “Christianson et al. (2001) reported that adult English speakers sometimes incorrectly interpret sentences like (4) as indicating that ‘Anna dressed the baby’ despite the fact that that this”
Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution (2008, background): “( 2001 ) observed, even after a sentence has been re-analysed, aspects of the initial parse can still persist, ie, the initial interpretation is not necessarily fully eradicated (see also Tabor, Galantucci, & Richardson, 2004 ).”
Clearing the garden-path: improving sentence processing through cognitive control training (2014, methodology): “, ‘‘hid’’) were borrowed from Christianson et al. (2006) and were used to create 12 ambiguous and 12 unambiguous sentences per assessment (see examples 1 and 2 above).”
Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies (2012, background): “A final piece of evidence for underspecification is delivered by the accuracy in the comprehension questions, which confirms the signature prediction of good-enough processing: a low performance in comprehension questions about sentences in which the dispreferred attachment site was ultimately the c”