Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Child Development Research
Volume 2014, Article ID 475315, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/475315
Research Article

Children’s and Adolescents’ Processing of Temporary Syntactic Ambiguity: An Eye Movement Study

School of Psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

Received 11 April 2014; Revised 17 July 2014; Accepted 30 July 2014; Published 19 August 2014

Academic Editor: Glenda Andrews

Copyright © 2014 Paul E. Engelhardt. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. C. Trueswell, I. Sekerina, N. M. Hill, and M. L. Logrip, “The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children,” Cognition, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 89–134, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. E. Engelhardt, K. G. D. Bailey, and F. Ferreira, “Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity?” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 554–573, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. J. Spivey, M. K. Tanenhaus, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy, “Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 447–481, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. K. Tanenhaus, M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy, “Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension,” Science, vol. 268, no. 5217, pp. 1632–1634, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. H. Clahsen and C. Felser, “Grammatical processing in language learners,” Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3–42, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. Felser, T. Marinis, and H. Clahsen, “Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: a study of relative clause attachment,” Language Acquisition, vol. 11, pp. 127–163, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  7. I. A. Sekerina, K. Stromswold, and A. Hestvik, “How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns?” Journal of Child Language, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 123–152, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. Snedeker and J. C. Trueswell, “The developing constraints on parsing decisions: the role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 238–299, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. M. J. Traxler, “Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 75–96, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. H. S. S. L. Joseph, S. P. Liversedge, H. I. Blythe, S. J. White, S. E. Gathercole, and K. Rayner, “Children's and adults' processing of anomaly and implausibility during reading: evidence from eye movements,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 708–723, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. Rayner, T. Warren, B. J. Juhasz, and S. P. Liversedge, “The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1290–1301, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. F. Ferreira and C. Clifton Jr., “The independence of syntactic processing,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 348–368, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. L. Frazier, “Sentence processing: a tutorial review,” in Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading, M. Coltheart, Ed., pp. 601–681, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  14. L. Frazier and K. Rayner, “Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 178–210, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. N. P. Friedman and A. Miyake, “The relations among inhibition and interference control processes: a latent-variable analysis,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 101–135, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. N. P. Friedman, A. Miyake, R. P. Corley, S. E. Young, J. C. DeFries, and J. K. Hewitt, “Not all executive functions are related to intelligence,” Psychological Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 172–179, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. Miyake and N. P. Friedman, “The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Miyake, N. P. Friedman, M. J. Emerson, A. H. Witzki, A. Howerter, and T. D. Wager, “The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 49–100, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. Adams and S. E. Gathercole, “Limitations in working memory: implications for language development,” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 95–116, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. D. Baddeley, Working Memory, Thought, and Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2007.
  21. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, “A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension,” Psychological Review, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 329–354, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. J. King and M. A. Just, “Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 580–602, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. C. MacDonald, M. A. Just, and P. A. Carpenter, “Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 56–98, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. A. Mendelsohn and N. Pearlmutter, “Individual differences in attachment preferences,” in Proceedings of the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY, USA, 1999.
  25. G. Andrews, D. Birney, and G. S. Halford, “Relational processing and working memory capacity in comprehension of relative clause sentences,” Memory and Cognition, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1325–1340, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. Daneman and P. A. Carpenter, “Individual differences in working memory and reading,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 19, pp. 450–466, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. D. Caplan and G. S. Waters, “Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 77–126, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. G. DeDe, K. Kemtes, D. Caplan, and G. Waters, “The relationship between age, verbal working memory, and language comprehension,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 601–616, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. R. Booth, C. A. Perfetti, B. MacWhinney, and S. B. Hunt, “The association of rapid temporal perception with orthographic and phonological processing in children and adults with reading impairment,” Scientific Studies of Reading, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 101–132, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. B. Swets, T. Desmet, D. Z. Hambrick, and F. Ferreira, “The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 64–81, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. K. Christianson, A. Hollingworth, J. F. Halliwell, and F. Ferreira, “Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 368–407, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. K. Christianson, C. C. Williams, R. T. Zacks, and F. Ferreira, “Younger and older adults' “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences,” Discourse Processes, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 205–238, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. E. Engelhardt, F. Ferreira, and E. G. Patsenko, “Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 639–645, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. P. E. Engelhardt, J. T. Nigg, L. A. Carr, and F. Ferreira, “Cognitive inhibition and working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 591–605, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. F. Ferreira, “Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: implications for models of sentence processing and re-analysis,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. N. D. Patson, E. S. Darowski, N. Moon, and F. Ferreira, “Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: evidence from a paraphrasing task,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 280–285, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. R. P. G. van Gompel, M. J. Pickering, J. Pearson, and G. Jacob, “The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: evidence from structural priming,” Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 335–362, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. R. L. Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 1993.
  39. T. P. Alloway, Automated Working Memory Assessment, Pearson Assessment, London, UK, 2007.
  40. J. N. Towse, U. Hutton, and G. J. Hitch, “Humpty Dumpty had a great—banana? Children’s sentence completions on a working memory reading task,” Tech. Rep. CDRG1, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  41. T. Manly, V. Anderson, I. Nimmo-Smith, A. Turner, P. Watson, and I. H. Robertson, “The differential assessment of children's attention: The Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA-Ch), normative sample and ADHD performance,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1065–1081, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. I. H. Robertson, T. Ward, V. Ridgeway, and I. Nimmo-Smith, “The structure of normal human attention: the test of everyday attention,” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 525–534, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. Hahne and A. Friederici, “Development patterns of brain activity,” in Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition, J. Weissenborn and B. Höhle, Eds., vol. 2, pp. 231–246, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  44. M. C. MacDonald, N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg, “Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution,” Psychological Review, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 676–703, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. M. C. MacDonald and M. S. Seidenberg, “Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension,” in Handbook of Psycholinguistics, M. J. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher, Eds., pp. 581–611, Elsevier, London, UK, 2nd edition, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  46. M. J. Spivey and M. K. Tanenhaus, “Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1521–1543, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. F. Ferreira, P. E. Engelhardt, and M. W. Jones, “Good enough language processing: a satisficing approach,” in Proceedings of the 31st Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, N. Taatgen, H. Rijn, J. Nerbonne, and L. Schomaker, Eds., pp. 413–418, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, Tex, USA, 2009.
  48. F. Ferreira, K. G. D. Bailey, and V. Ferraro, “Good-enough representations in language comprehension,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–15, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. F. Ferreira and N. Patson, “The good enough approach to language comprehension,” Language and Linguistics Compass, vol. 1, pp. 71–83, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  50. G. Gigerenzer, “Why heuristics work,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 3, pp. 30–29, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  51. G. Gigerenzer and D. G. Goldstein, “Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality,” Psychological Review, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 650–669, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten, Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2001.
  53. J. D. Fodor, “Parsing to learn,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 339–374, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. P. J. Price, M. Ostendorf, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, and C. Fong, “The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 2956–2970, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. J. Snedeker, K. Thorpe, and J. C. Trueswell, “On choosing the parse with the scene: the role of visual context and verb bias in ambiguity resolution,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, J. Moore and K. Stenning, Eds., pp. 964–969, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2001.
  56. S. R. Speer, M. M. Kjelgaard, and K. M. Dobroth, “The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 249–271, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. K. Rayner, “Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 211–236, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Kemper, “Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults,” Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 277–287, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. S. Kemper, A. Crow, and K. Kemtes, “Eye-fixation patterns of high- and low-span young and older adults: down the garden path and back again,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 157–170, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. K. A. Kemtes and S. Kemper, “Younger and older adults' on-line processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 362–371, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. D. Caplan and G. Waters, “Working memory and connectionist models of parsing: a reply to MacDonald and Christiansen,” Psychological Review, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus