Previous studies have reliably shown that the initial misanalysis of garden-path sentences lingers even after the whole sentence is processed. However, other aspects of the resulting representation of these sentences are far from being clear. Some authors argue that comprehenders form a full analysis of the sentence which is faithful to the input and that the fact that the misanalysis lingers is due to an inhibition failure. Recently, it has been shown that comprehenders might not manage to create a coherent representation at all, at least in the case of more demanding garden-path structures. The aim of the current paper is to examine resulting representations of garden-path sentences in more detail. To do this, four self-paced reading experiments in Czech were conducted, which differed in the presentation mode (word-by-word and sentence-at-once) and comprehension question format (yes-no questions and open-ended questions). The experiments replicated effects typical for the lingering initial misanalysis, but provided mixed evidence for other aspects of resulting representations. In most cases, participants managed to build a coherent representation that was faithful to the input. However, both the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results showed that comprehenders sometimes maintained multiple local interpretations at once or even failed to build a coherent representation of a garden-path sentence. Thus, we argue that resulting representations of garden-path sentences are in fact not uniform, but rather diverse, and they vary both in their faithfulness to the presented input and in their internal coherence.

ERCEL Lab Faculty of Arts Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Institute of Czech Language and Theory of Communication Faculty of Arts Charles University Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Frazier L, Fodor JD. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978;6(4):291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 DOI

Frazier L, Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology. 1982;14(2):178–210. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 DOI

MacDonald MC, Pearlmutter NJ, Seidenberg MS. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological review. 1994;101(4):676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 PubMed DOI

Trueswell JC. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 1996;35(4):566–585. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0030 DOI

Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 1994;33(3):285–318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 DOI

Malyutina S, den Ouden DB. What is it that lingers? Garden-path (mis)interpretations in younger and older adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2016;69(5):880–906. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1045530 PubMed DOI

Fodor JD, Inoue A. Attach anyway. In: Fodor JD, Ferreira F, editors. Reanalysis in sentence processing. Springer; 1998. p. 101–141.

Lewis RL, Vasishth S, Van Dyke JA. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2006;10(10):447–454. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 PubMed DOI PMC

Van Dyke JA, Johns CL. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and linguistics compass. 2012;6(4):193–211. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.330 PubMed DOI PMC

Parker D, Shvartsman M, Van Dyke JA. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In: Escobar L, Torrens V, Parodi T, editors. Language processing and disorders. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2017. p. 121–144.

Christianson K, Hollingworth A, Halliwell JF, Ferreira F. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology. 2001;42(4):368–407. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752 PubMed DOI

Christianson K, Williams CC, Zacks RT, Ferreira F. Younger and Older Adults’ “Good-Enough” Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences. Discourse Processes. 2006;42(2):205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6 PubMed DOI PMC

Patson ND, Darowski ES, Moon N, Ferreira F. Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2009;35(1):280–285. PubMed

Van Gompel RP, Pickering MJ, Pearson J, Jacob G. The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language. 2006;55(3):335–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004 DOI

Nakamura C, Arai M. Persistence of initial misanalysis with no referential ambiguity. Cognitive Science. 2016;40(4):909–940. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12266 PubMed DOI

Jacob G, Felser C. Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2016;69(5):907–925. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984231 PubMed DOI

Cunnings I. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2017;20(4):659–678. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000675 DOI

Fujita H, Cunnings I. Reanalysis processes in non-native sentence comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2021;24(4):628–641. doi: 10.1017/S1366728921000195 DOI

Fujita H, Cunnings I. Reanalysis and lingering misinterpretation of linguistic dependencies in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 2020;115:104154. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104154 DOI

Chromý J. When readers fail to form a coherent representation of garden-path sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2022;75(1):169–190. doi: 10.1177/17470218211037152 PubMed DOI

Slattery TJ, Sturt P, Christianson K, Yoshida M, Ferreira F. Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language. 2013;69(2):104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001 DOI

Sturt P. Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition. 2007;105(2):477–488. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.009 PubMed DOI

Huang Y, Ferreira F. What causes lingering misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Incorrect syntactic representations or fallible memory processes? Journal of Memory and Language. 2021;121:104288. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104288 DOI

Qian Z, Garnsey S, Christianson K. A comparison of online and offline measures of good-enough processing in garden-path sentences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2018;33(2):227–254. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1379606 DOI

Christianson K, Luke SG. Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2011;15(2):136–166. doi: 10.1080/10888431003636787 DOI

Christianson K, Luke SG, Hussey EK, Wochna KL. Why reread? Evidence from garden-path and local coherence structures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2017;70(7):1380–1405. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1186200 PubMed DOI

Fried M. Plain vs. situated possession in Czech: A constructional account. In: McGregor WB, editor. The Expression of Possession. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter; 2009. p. 213–248.

Fodor JD, Inoue A. Syntactic Features in Reanalysis: Positive and Negative Symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2000;29(1):25–36. doi: 10.1007/BF01708419 PubMed DOI

Podsakoff N, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PubMed DOI

Smith G, Franck J, Tabor W. Encoding interference effects support self-organized sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology. 2021;124:101356. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101356 PubMed DOI

Dahl Ö. Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny. Lingua International review of general linguistics. 2008;118(2):141–150.

Drummond A. IBEX farm (version 0.3.9)[Computer software]; 2011.

Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:14065823. 2014;.

Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RH, others. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017;82(13):1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13 DOI

Bates D, Kliegl R, Vasishth S, Baayen H. Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:150604967. 2015;.

Jaeger TF. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008;59(4):434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 PubMed DOI PMC

Schad DJ, Vasishth S, Hohenstein S, Kliegl R. How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language. 2020;110:104038. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038 DOI

Swets B, Desmet T, Clifton C, Ferreira F. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition. 2008;36(1):201–216. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.201 PubMed DOI

Ozuru Y, Briner S, Kurby CA, McNamara DS. Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale. 2013;67:215–227. doi: 10.1037/a0032918 PubMed DOI

Ferreira F, Patson ND. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass. 2007;1(1-2):71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x DOI

Paape D, Hemforth B, Vasishth S. Processing of ellipsis with garden-path antecedents in French and German: Evidence from eye tracking. PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0198620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198620 PubMed DOI PMC

Paape D, Vasishth S. Is reanalysis selective when regressions are consciously controlled? Glossa Psycholinguistics. 2022;1(1). doi: 10.5070/G601139 DOI

Ferreira F, Yang Z. The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes. 2019;56(7):485–495. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591885 DOI

Chromý J, Vojvodić S. When and where did it happen? Systematic differences in recall of core and optional sentence information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2023. PubMed PMC

Fine AB, Jaeger TF, Farmer TA, Qian T. Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PloS one. 2013;8(10):e77661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 PubMed DOI PMC

Prasad G, Linzen T. Rapid syntactic adaptation in self-paced reading: Detectable, but only with many participants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2021;47(7):1156–1172. PubMed

Learning or Boredom? Task Adaptation Effects in Sentence Processing Experiments