|
A garden-path sentence is a grammatically correct sentence that starts in such a way that a reader's most likely interpretation will be incorrect; the reader is lured into a parse that turns out to be a dead end or yields a clearly unintended meaning. "Garden path" refers to the saying "to be led down [or up] the garden path", meaning to be deceived, tricked, or seduced. In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Fowler describes such sentences as unwittingly laying a "false scent".
Such a sentence leads the reader toward a seemingly familiar meaning that is actually not the one intended. It is a special type of sentence that creates a momentarily ambiguous interpretation because it contains a word or phrase that can be interpreted in multiple ways, causing the reader to begin to believe that a phrase will mean one thing when in reality it means something else. When read, the sentence seems ungrammatical, makes almost no sense, and often requires rereading so that its meaning may be fully understood after careful parsing.
* to parse; To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech
with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
When reading a sentence, readers will analyze the words and phrases they see
and make inferences about the sentence’s grammatical structure and meaning in a process /called parsing.
* analyze; To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.
Generally, readers will parse the sentence chunks at a time and will try to interpret the meaning of the sentence at each interval. As readers are given more information they make an assumption of the contents and meaning of the whole sentence.
With each new portion of the sentence encountered, they will try to make that part make sense with the sentence structures /that they have already interpreted and their assumption about the rest of the sentence.
The garden-path sentence effect occurs when the sentence has a phrase or word with an ambiguous meaning that the reader interprets in a certain way, and when they read the whole sentence there is a difference in what has been read and what was expected.
The reader must then read and evaluate the sentence again to understand its meaning. The sentence may be parsed and interpreted in different ways /due to the influence of pragmatics, semantics, or other factors describing the extralinguistic context.
Various
strategies can be used when parsing a sentence, and there is much
debate over which parsing strategy humans use. Differences in parsing
strategies can be seen from the effects of a reader attempting to parse a
part of a sentence that is ambiguous in its syntax or meaning. For this
reason, garden-path sentences are often studied as a way to test which
strategy humans use.[9] Two debated parsing strategies that humans are thought to use are serial and parallel parsing.
Serial parsing is where the reader makes one interpretation of the ambiguity, and continues to parse the sentence in the context of that interpretation. The reader will continue to use the initial interpretation as reference for future parsing until disambiguating information is given.
Parallel parsing is where the reader recognises and generates multiple interpretations of the sentence and stores them until disambiguating information is given, at which point only the correct interpretation is maintained.
When ambiguous nouns appear, they can function as both the object of the first item or the subject of the second item. In that case the former use is preferred. It is also found that the reanalysis of a garden-path sentence gets more and more difficult with the length of the ambiguous phrase.
A research paper published by Meseguer, Carreiras and Clifton (2002) stated that intensive eye movements are observed when people are recovering from a mild garden-path sentence. They proposed that people use two strategies, both of which are consistent with the selective reanalysis process described by Frazier and Rayner in 1982. According to them, the readers predominantly use two alternative strategies to recover from mild garden-path sentences.
Partial reanalysis occurs when analysis is not complete. Frequently, when people can make even a little bit of sense of the later sentence, they stop analyzing further so the former part of the sentence still remains in memory and does not get discarded from it.
Therefore, the original misinterpretation of the sentence remains even after the reanalysis is done; hence participants' final interpretations are often incorrect.
One way to determine the brain processes involved is the use of brain electrophysiology. Brain electrophysiology is used to study the impact of disfluencies in sentence processing by the brain, which specifically use event-related potentials (ERPs). ERPs are voltages generated by the brain that can be measured through a device placed on the scalp.
It is also observed that specific components of the ERPs can be
associated with the activation of different and specific linguistic
processes of the brain.[14] Within ERPs, P600 is the most important component. Its activation occurs when the parser comes across a syntactic violation such as The broker persuaded to sell the stock
or when the parser synthesizes an unsatisfactory disambiguation on an ambiguous string of words such as The doctor charged the patient was lying.[16]
Hence the activation of P600 marks the parser's attempt to revise the sentence's structural mis-match or ambiguity. However it is also observed that the activation of P600 may be low or completely absent if the parser is asked to pay attention only to the semantic aspects of a sentence either through an explicit instruction[17] or through the use of specific words as a way to force a semantic analysis of the sentence.[18] The result of yet another study conducted by Osterhout in 1997 reveal that the activation of P600 varies with the parser's own attentions to the syntactic violations of the sentence.[19]
Disfluent
sentences have a direct effect on the way a sentence structure is built
in the parser's mind. Depending on its location within a sentence, a
disfluency either aids in the computation of a sentence or forces the
parser to linger on the sentence for a longer period of time. It is
observed that the more an individual lingers on an incorrect parse, the
more it is likely that the sentence will end up being interpreted
incorrectly.
It also appears that the presence of a disfluency in a sentence—caused by filled and long silent parses—does not elicit the P600. Instead, it elicits another ERP component, N400, which gets activated when people try to integrate a new word into the preceding sentence's context.