Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution
Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading d...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of memory and language 2006-07, Vol.55 (1), p.1-17 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 17 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Journal of memory and language |
| container_volume | 55 |
| creator | Green, Matthew J. Mitchell, Don C. |
| description | Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85631608</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ739049</ericid><els_id>S0749596X06000210</els_id><sourcerecordid>85631608</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-9ee7388242793cbb268253b7643d41983c01c0f50223132ef31f7f9765d81cc13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV-L1TAQxYMoeF39AIIPRdG31pmk-YdPy7KuyoIgCr6FNE0vKW1zTdqF--1t915cEPRpYM7vDIc5hLxEqBBQvO-rfhwqCiAqYBUAe0R2CFqUoCg-JjuQtS65Fj-fkmc59wCIXNId-XbZZD85X8SuSN4Ohb8L7f3C7m2Y8ly4OB78HOYQp6JdUpj2RT5Os3VzcIUdm7BfwnxczTkOy0Y9J086O2T_4jwvyI-P19-vPpW3X28-X13elo4DzKX2XjKlaE2lZq5pqFCUs0aKmrU1asUcoIOOA6UMGfUdw052WgreKnQO2QV5d7p7SPHX4vNsxpCdHwY7-bhko7hgKECt4Ou_wD4uaVqzGYocmBBcr9Cbf0GooFZMaqArhSfKpZhz8p05pDDadDQIZivC9GYtwmxFGGBmLWL1vD1fttnZoUt2ciE_GKXSqOstwasT51Nwf-TrL5JpuJc_nOX1p3fBJ5Nd2JpqQ_JuNm0M_wnxGx9NpQo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1804837902</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Green, Matthew J. ; Mitchell, Don C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Green, Matthew J. ; Mitchell, Don C.</creatorcontrib><description>Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMLAE6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Ambiguity ; Biological and medical sciences ; Constraint-based models ; Differences ; Eye Movements ; Eyes & eyesight ; Figurative Language ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Grammar ; Human parsing ; Language ; Misconceptions ; Predictor Variables ; Production and perception of written language ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reading Processes ; Sentence Structure ; Simulation ; Studies ; Syntactic ambiguity resolution ; Syntactic processing ; Syntax</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2006-07, Vol.55 (1), p.1-17</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-9ee7388242793cbb268253b7643d41983c01c0f50223132ef31f7f9765d81cc13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-9ee7388242793cbb268253b7643d41983c01c0f50223132ef31f7f9765d81cc13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X06000210$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ739049$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17891949$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Green, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Don C.</creatorcontrib><title>Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.</description><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Constraint-based models</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Eye Movements</subject><subject>Eyes & eyesight</subject><subject>Figurative Language</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Grammar</subject><subject>Human parsing</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Predictor Variables</subject><subject>Production and perception of written language</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Sentence Structure</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Syntactic ambiguity resolution</subject><subject>Syntactic processing</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kV-L1TAQxYMoeF39AIIPRdG31pmk-YdPy7KuyoIgCr6FNE0vKW1zTdqF--1t915cEPRpYM7vDIc5hLxEqBBQvO-rfhwqCiAqYBUAe0R2CFqUoCg-JjuQtS65Fj-fkmc59wCIXNId-XbZZD85X8SuSN4Ohb8L7f3C7m2Y8ly4OB78HOYQp6JdUpj2RT5Os3VzcIUdm7BfwnxczTkOy0Y9J086O2T_4jwvyI-P19-vPpW3X28-X13elo4DzKX2XjKlaE2lZq5pqFCUs0aKmrU1asUcoIOOA6UMGfUdw052WgreKnQO2QV5d7p7SPHX4vNsxpCdHwY7-bhko7hgKECt4Ou_wD4uaVqzGYocmBBcr9Cbf0GooFZMaqArhSfKpZhz8p05pDDadDQIZivC9GYtwmxFGGBmLWL1vD1fttnZoUt2ciE_GKXSqOstwasT51Nwf-TrL5JpuJc_nOX1p3fBJ5Nd2JpqQ_JuNm0M_wnxGx9NpQo</recordid><startdate>20060701</startdate><enddate>20060701</enddate><creator>Green, Matthew J.</creator><creator>Mitchell, Don C.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060701</creationdate><title>Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution</title><author>Green, Matthew J. ; Mitchell, Don C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-9ee7388242793cbb268253b7643d41983c01c0f50223132ef31f7f9765d81cc13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Constraint-based models</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Eye Movements</topic><topic>Eyes & eyesight</topic><topic>Figurative Language</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Grammar</topic><topic>Human parsing</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Predictor Variables</topic><topic>Production and perception of written language</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Sentence Structure</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Syntactic ambiguity resolution</topic><topic>Syntactic processing</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Green, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Don C.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Green, Matthew J.</au><au>Mitchell, Don C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ739049</ericid><atitle>Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2006-07-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>1-17</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><coden>JMLAE6</coden><abstract>Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these competition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.</abstract><cop>San Diego, CA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0749-596X |
| ispartof | Journal of memory and language, 2006-07, Vol.55 (1), p.1-17 |
| issn | 0749-596X 1096-0821 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85631608 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Ambiguity Biological and medical sciences Constraint-based models Differences Eye Movements Eyes & eyesight Figurative Language Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Grammar Human parsing Language Misconceptions Predictor Variables Production and perception of written language Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reading Processes Sentence Structure Simulation Studies Syntactic ambiguity resolution Syntactic processing Syntax |
| title | Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T22%3A19%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Absence%20of%20real%20evidence%20against%20competition%20during%20syntactic%20ambiguity%20resolution&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Green,%20Matthew%20J.&rft.date=2006-07-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=1-17&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft.coden=JMLAE6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85631608%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1804837902&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ739049&rft_els_id=S0749596X06000210&rfr_iscdi=true |