Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued
against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these com-
petition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the
models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and
claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain
entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.
%0 Journal Article
%1 GreenMitchell2006
%A Green, Matthew J.
%A Mitchell, Don C.
%D 2006
%J Journal of Memory and Language
%K ambiguityresolution article cognitivemodeling competition computationalpsycholinguistics connectionism eyetracking sentenceprocessing
%N 55
%P 1--17
%T Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution
%X Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued
against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these com-
petition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the
models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and
claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain
entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.
@article{GreenMitchell2006,
abstract = { Using evidence from eye-tracking studies, Van Gompel, Pickering, Pearson, and Liversedge (2005) have argued
against currently implemented constraint-based models of syntactic ambiguity resolution. The case against these com-
petition models is based on a mismatch between reported patterns of reading data and the putative predictions of the
models. Using a series of detailed simulations, we show that there are marked differences between the actual and
claimed predictions of one of the main exemplar models. As a consequence, we argue that the existing data remain
entirely compatible with at least one current constraint-based account. We end with a brief discussion of the implications for a range of other implemented models.
},
added-at = {2006-11-14T23:11:45.000+0100},
author = {Green, Matthew J. and Mitchell, Don C.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21d653527199e5257a0de8da46a166e76/tmalsburg},
interhash = {634ebd4bbf0776f89e5ce6518de8ee86},
intrahash = {1d653527199e5257a0de8da46a166e76},
journal = {Journal of Memory and Language },
keywords = {ambiguityresolution article cognitivemodeling competition computationalpsycholinguistics connectionism eyetracking sentenceprocessing},
number = 55,
pages = {1--17},
school = {School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QG, UK},
timestamp = {2011-07-17T21:50:33.000+0200},
title = {Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution},
year = 2006
}