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.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).