Abstract
The experiments reported in this article used a delayed same/different sentence matching task with concurrent measurement of eye movements to investigate the nature of the plausibility effect. The results clearly show that plausibility effects are not due to low level lexical associative processes, but arise as a consequence of the processing of the earliest or most basic form of sentential meaning. In fact, when sentential implausibility and lexical association are varied simultaneously, it is only sentential implausibility that exerts an effect. Effects of implausibility occur rapidly—sometimes parafoveally—and are localised in the regions of the sentence where the implausibility occurs, suggesting an incremental interpretive process progressing on a roughly word-by-word basis. It is suggested that plausibility effects result from the operation of a heuristically-driven process of sentential interpretation. This appears to behave in a ‘modular’ fashion, despite being influenced by real world knowledge and probabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blodgett A., Boland J.E. (2004). Differences in the timing of implausibility detection for recipient and instrument prepositional phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33, 1–24
Fodor J.A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York
Fodor J.A., Garrett M.F., Walker E.C.T., Parkes C.H. (1980). Against definitions. Cognition 8, 263–367
Forster K.I. (1974). The role of semantic hypotheses in sentence processing. In: Bresson F., Mehler J.(eds). Current Problems in Psycholinguistics. Editions du C.N.R.S., Paris
Forster K.I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In: Cooper W.E., Walker E.C.T. (eds). Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–81
Forster K.I. (1987). Binding, plausibility, and modularity. In: Garfield J.L. (eds). Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Forster K.I., Olbrei I. (1973). Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis. Cognition 2, 319–347
Forster K.I., Ryder L.A. (1971). Perceiving the structure and meaning of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 285–296
Katz J.J., Fodor J.A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39, 170–210
Kennedy A., Murray W.S., Boissiere C. (2004). Parafoveal pragmatics revisited. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. (Special Issue), 16: 128–153
Kennedy A., Murray W.S., Jennings F., Reid C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, SI 51–76
Kucera H., Francis W.N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Brown University Press, Providence, RI
Marks L.E., Miller G.A. (1964). The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3, 1–5
McCawley J.D. (1971). Where do noun phrases come from. In: Steinberg D.D., Jakobovits L.A. (eds). Semantics. CUP, Cambridge
Murray, W. S. (1982). Sentence matching: The influence of meaning and structure. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Monash University.
Murray W.S. (1998). Parafoveal pragmatics. In: Underwood G. (eds). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 181–200
Murray W.S. (2000). Sentence processing: Issues and measures. In: Kennedy A., Radach R., Heller D., Pynte J. (eds). Reading as a Perceptual Process. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 649–664
Murray, W. S., & Marshall, J.-A. (2004). More parafoveal pragmatics. Paper presented at the Sixth European Workshop on Language Comprehension, Oleron, May.
Murray W.S., Rowan M. (1998). Early, mandatory, pragmatic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, 1–22
Ratcliff, J. (1983). Inference processes in the early stages of sentence comprehension: A study of the plausibility effect. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Monash University.
Rayner K., Warren T., Juhasz B.J., Liversedge S.P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 30, 1290–1301
Rosenberg S. (1969). The recall of verbal material accompanying semantically well-integrated and semantically poorly-integrated sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 732–736
Rosenberg S., Jarvella R.J. (1970). Semantic integration and sentence perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9, 548–553
Traxler M.J., Pickering M.J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 454–475
Watson, I. J. (1976). The processing of implausible sentences. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Monash University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Particular thanks are due to Ken Forster for kindling the ideas which led to much of this work and to Merrill Garrett for posing impossible challenges, which, probably to everyone’s surprise, could in fact be met. I am also much indebted to Claire Boissiere, Emma Clayes, Clare Dobbin, Alan Kennedy, Julie-Ann Marshall, Ashley Murray, and Murray Rowan for their collaboration in this research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murray, W.S. The Nature and Time Course of Pragmatic Plausibility Effects. J Psycholinguist Res 35, 79–99 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9005-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9005-4