Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Online representations of non-canonical sentences are more than good-enough

Cutter, Michael G.; Paterson, Kevin B.; Filik, Ruth

Online representations of non-canonical sentences are more than good-enough Thumbnail


Authors

Michael G. Cutter

Kevin B. Paterson

RUTH FILIK ruth.filik@nottingham.ac.uk
Associate Professor



Abstract

Proponents of good-enough processing suggest that readers often (mis)interpret certain sentences using fast-and-frugal heuristics, such that for non-canonical sentences (e.g., The dog was bitten by the man) people confuse the thematic roles of the nouns. We tested this theory by examining the effect of sentence canonicality on the reading of a follow-up sentence. In a self-paced reading study, 60 young and 60 older adults read an implausible sentence in either canonical (e.g., It was the peasant that executed the king) or non-canonical form (e.g., It was the king that was executed by the peasant), followed by a sentence that was implausible given a good-enough misinterpretation of the first sentence (e.g., Afterwards, the peasant rode back to the countryside) or a sentence that was implausible given a correct interpretation of the first sentence (e.g., Afterwards, the king rode back to his castle). We hypothesised that if non-canonical sentences are systematically misinterpreted, then sentence canonicality would differentially affect the reading of the two different follow-up types. Our data suggested that participants derived the same interpretations for canonical and non-canonical sentences, with no modulating effect of age group. Our findings suggest that readers do not derive an incorrect interpretation of non-canonical sentences during initial parsing, consistent with theories of misinterpretation effects that instead attribute these effects to post-interpretative processes.

Citation

Cutter, M. G., Paterson, K. B., & Filik, R. (2022). Online representations of non-canonical sentences are more than good-enough. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(1), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211032043

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date May 20, 2021
Online Publication Date Jun 29, 2021
Publication Date 2022-01
Deposit Date May 21, 2021
Publicly Available Date Jun 29, 2021
Journal Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Print ISSN 1747-0218
Electronic ISSN 1747-0226
Publisher SAGE Publications
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 75
Issue 1
Pages 30-42
DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211032043
Keywords Experimental and Cognitive Psychology; Physiology (medical); Physiology; General Psychology; Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology; General Medicine
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/5565211
Publisher URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/17470218211032043

Files





Downloadable Citations