Younger and Older Adults' "Good-Enough" Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences.

IF 2.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Kiel Christianson, Carrick C Williams, Rose T Zacks, Fernanda Ferreira
{"title":"Younger and Older Adults' \"Good-Enough\" Interpretations of Garden-Path Sentences.","authors":"Kiel Christianson, Carrick C Williams, Rose T Zacks, Fernanda Ferreira","doi":"10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We report 3 experiments that examined younger and older adults' reliance on \"good-enough\" interpretations for garden-path sentences (e.g., \"While Anna dressed the baby played in the crib\") as indicated by their responding \"Yes\" to questions probing the initial, syntactically unlicensed interpretation (e.g., \"Did Anna dress the baby?\"). The manipulation of several factors expected to influence the probability of generating or maintaining the unlicensed interpretation resulted in 2 major age differences: Older adults were generally more likely to endorse the incorrect interpretation for sentences containing optionally transitive verbs (e.g., hunted, paid), and they showed decreased availability of the correct interpretation of subordinate clauses containing reflexive absolute transitive verbs (e.g., dress, bathe). These age differences may in part be linked to older adults' increased reliance on heuristic-like good-enough processing to compensate for age-related deficits in working memory capacity. The results support previous studies suggesting that syntactic reanalysis may not be an all-or-nothing process and might not be completed unless questions probing unresolved aspects of the sentence structure challenge the resultant interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"42 2","pages":"205-238"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761649/pdf/nihms-13133.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Processes","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We report 3 experiments that examined younger and older adults' reliance on "good-enough" interpretations for garden-path sentences (e.g., "While Anna dressed the baby played in the crib") as indicated by their responding "Yes" to questions probing the initial, syntactically unlicensed interpretation (e.g., "Did Anna dress the baby?"). The manipulation of several factors expected to influence the probability of generating or maintaining the unlicensed interpretation resulted in 2 major age differences: Older adults were generally more likely to endorse the incorrect interpretation for sentences containing optionally transitive verbs (e.g., hunted, paid), and they showed decreased availability of the correct interpretation of subordinate clauses containing reflexive absolute transitive verbs (e.g., dress, bathe). These age differences may in part be linked to older adults' increased reliance on heuristic-like good-enough processing to compensate for age-related deficits in working memory capacity. The results support previous studies suggesting that syntactic reanalysis may not be an all-or-nothing process and might not be completed unless questions probing unresolved aspects of the sentence structure challenge the resultant interpretation.

年轻人和老年人对花园路径句子的 "足够好 "解释。
我们报告了 3 个实验,分别考察了年轻人和老年人对花园路径句子(如 "安娜穿衣服的时候,婴儿在摇篮里玩耍")的 "足够好 "解释的依赖性,具体表现为他们对句法上未授权的初始解释(如 "安娜给婴儿穿衣服了吗?")的提问回答 "是"。对预期会影响产生或维持无许可解释的概率的几个因素进行处理后,发现两个主要的年龄差异:对于含有选择及物动词的句子(如 "打猎"、"付钱"),老年人一般更倾向于赞同不正确的解释,而对于含有反身绝对及物动词的从句(如 "穿衣服"、"洗澡"),老年人则表现出正确解释的可用性降低。这些年龄差异的部分原因可能是老年人更依赖于启发式的 "足够好 "处理来弥补与年龄有关的工作记忆能力的不足。这些结果支持了之前的研究,即句法再分析可能不是一个全有或全无的过程,除非有问题对句子结构中尚未解决的方面提出质疑,否则句法再分析可能不会完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Discourse Processes is a multidisciplinary journal providing a forum for cross-fertilization of ideas from diverse disciplines sharing a common interest in discourse--prose comprehension and recall, dialogue analysis, text grammar construction, computer simulation of natural language, cross-cultural comparisons of communicative competence, or related topics. The problems posed by multisentence contexts and the methods required to investigate them, although not always unique to discourse, are sufficiently distinct so as to require an organized mode of scientific interaction made possible through the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信