Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36929033›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2023

Predictive structure building in language comprehension: a large sample study on incremental licensing and parallelism.

Hiroki Fujita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hiroki FujitaDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany. hiroki.fujita@uni-potsdam.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7649-9707

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 500540359
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In online language comprehension, the parser incrementally builds hierarchical syntactic structures. The predictive nature of this structure-building process has been the subject of extensive debate. A previous study observed that when a wh-phrase indicates parallelism between the upcoming wh-clause and a preceding clause (e.g., John told some stories, but we couldn't remember which stories…), the parser predictively constructs the wh-clause. This observation demonstrates predictive structure building. However, the study also suggests that the parser does not make a prediction when the wh-phrase indicates that parallelism does not hold (e.g., John told some stories … with which stories…), a potential limit to the prediction of syntactic structures. Crucially, these findings are controversial because the study did not observe processing difficulty when disambiguating input indicated that the predicted continuation was inconsistent with the globally grammatical structure (garden-path effects). The controversial results may be due to a lack of statistical power. Therefore, the present study conducted a large-scale replication study (324 participants and 24 sets of materials). The results revealed that the parser predicts the clausal structure, irrespective of the type of wh-phrase. There was also evidence of garden-path effects, supporting the finding that the parser makes a prediction. These observations suggest that the prediction algorithm inherent in the human parser is more powerful than assumed by the previous study and that the parser attempts to construct globally grammatical structures during revision.

Indexed as

ComprehensionLanguageHumansMental RecallSoftwareGarden-pathIncremental licensingLanguage comprehensionParallelismParsingPrediction

Identifiers

PMID36929033
PMCPMC10110650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.