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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-17 |
Journal | Journal of Memory and Language |
Volume | 55 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 27 Apr 2006 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jul 2006 |
Keywords
- Syntactic ambiguity resolution
- Human parsing
- Constraint-based models