Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution

Matthew James Green, D C Mitchell (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-17
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume55
Issue number1
Early online date27 Apr 2006
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2006

Keywords

  • Syntactic ambiguity resolution
  • Human parsing
  • Constraint-based models

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this