Against repair-based reanalysis in sentence comprehension.
Structural reanalysis is generally assumed to be representation-preserving, whereby the initial analysis is manipulated or repaired to arrive at a new structure. This paper contends that the theoretical and empirical basis for such approaches is weak. A conceptually simpler alternative is that the processor reprocesses (some portion of) the input using just those structure-building operations available in first-pass parsing. This reprocessing is a necessary component of any realistic processing model. By contrast, the structural revisions required for second-pass repair are more powerful than warranted by the abilities of the first-pass parser. This paper also reviews experimental evidence for repair presented by Sturt, Pickering, and Crocker (1999). We demonstrate that the Sturt et. al. findings are consistent with a reprocessing account and present a self-paced reading experiment intended to tease apart the repair and reprocessing accounts. The results support a reprocessing interpretation of Sturt et. al.'s data, rendering a repair-based explanation superfluous.
Grodner
Daniel
D
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, NE20-437, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. dgrodner@tedlab.mit.edu
Gibson
Edward
E
Argaman
Vered
V
Babyonyshev
Maria
M
D003071:Cognition; D006801:Humans; D011932:Reading; D013067:Speech Perception; D013997:Time Factors; D014705:Verbal Behavior