Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution
Authors: Green, M.J. and Mitchell, D.C.
Journal: Journal of Memory and Language
Volume: 55
Issue: 1
Pages: 1-17
ISSN: 0749-596X
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003
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. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: Scopus
Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution
Authors: Green, M.J. and Mitchell, D.C.
Journal: JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE
Volume: 55
Issue: 1
Pages: 1-17
eISSN: 1096-0821
ISSN: 0749-596X
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution
Authors: Green, M.J. and Mitchell, D.C.
Journal: Journal of Memory and Language
Volume: 55
Pages: 1-17
Publisher: Elsevier
Source: Manual