Abstract
This paper presents a study investigating whether and how different kinds of knowledge affect the detection of plausibility and possibility violations. Readers’ eye-movements were monitored while reading sentences describing impossible events cued by selectional restriction violations, extremely implausible events without selectional restriction violations, and plausible events, in order to determine whether the time course of disruption is determined by overall implausibility/unlikelihood, or whether impossibility cued by selectional restriction violations additionally affects disruption. Both early and late fixation measures showed stronger disruption in the impossible/selectional restriction violation condition. However, measures indexing regressive eye-movements showed similar disruption in both extremely implausible conditions. This suggests that the magnitude and latency of disruption to possibility and plausibility violations is not a simple function of the overall implausibility/unlikelihood of the resulting event, but that selectional restriction violations influence the early and late time course of disruption.
Article PDF
References
Connell, L., &Keane, M.T. (2004). What plausibly affects plausibility? Concept coherence and distributional word coherence as factors influencing plausibility judgments.Memory & Cognition,32, 185–197.
Cook, A., &Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influence of context and world knowledge. Journal ofMemory & Language,50, 268–288.
Ehrlich, S. F., &Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye-movements during reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 641–655.
Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., &Perry, N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification.Psychophysiology,20, 400–409.
Garrod, S., &Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,42, 526–544.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., &Watson, D. (2005). The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong interaction in sentence comprehension.Cognition,95, 275–296.
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., &Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension.Science,304, 438–441.
Jackendoff, R. (2002).Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, J., &Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of semantic theory.Language,39, 170–210.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Brown, C. M., &Tyler, L. K. (1988). Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension.Language &Cognitive Processes,3, 1–16.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.
Rayner, K., Carlson, M. A., &Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye-movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 358–374.
Rayner, K., &Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.Memory & Cognition,14, 191–201.
Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., &Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye-movements in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 1290–1301.
Sanford, A., &Garrod, S. (2005). Memory-based approaches and beyond.Discourse Processes,39, 205–224.
Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C., &Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation.Cognition,71, 109–147.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 285–318.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NIH Grant HD048990 to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Warren, T., McConnell, K. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 770–775 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835