{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82110"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82110","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Great (Syntactic) Expectations: Multiple Structures and the Case for Parallelism in Language Processing","abstract":"Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) are used to address a controversial issue in language-processing research, namely whether the parser proposes more than one possibility for how a sentence will continue. Relatively little research has used ERPs to answer this question, and previous studies have examined brain responses at a point in the sentence when competing theories would make similar predictions. In two experiments, sentences were presented to participants like The claim that the cop shot the informant might have affected the jury. At shot, these sentences continue as preferred plausible complement clauses. If comprehenders are considering a relative clause, however, this will become implausible at shot (*The claim that the cop shot...). According to serial models, only one interpretation---usually the preferred one---will be selected, and thus plausibility in the relative clause version shouldn't matter. The results show a consistent N400 effect at verbs like shot, suggesting that even though sentences continue plausibly in a way that comprehenders expect, they are nonetheless considering the dispreferred relative clause. These results support parallel interactive models.","abstract_html":"Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) are used to address a controversial issue in language-processing research, namely whether the parser proposes more than one possibility for how a sentence will continue. Relatively little research has used ERPs to answer this question, and previous studies have examined brain responses at a point in the sentence when competing theories would make similar predictions. In two experiments, sentences were presented to participants like The claim that the cop shot the informant might have affected the jury. At shot, these sentences continue as preferred plausible complement clauses. If comprehenders are considering a relative clause, however, this will become implausible at shot (*The claim that the cop shot...). According to serial models, only one interpretation---usually the preferred one---will be selected, and thus plausibility in the relative clause version shouldn't matter. The results show a consistent N400 effect at verbs like shot, suggesting that even though sentences continue plausibly in a way that comprehenders expect, they are nonetheless considering the dispreferred relative clause. These results support parallel interactive models.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wilson, Michael"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Garnsey, Susan M."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-25T20:39:13Z","date_published":"2015-09-25T20:39:13Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:17Z","subjects":["Psychology, Psychobiology"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3223750"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3223750","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82110","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Garnsey, Susan M."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wilson, Michael"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-25T20:39:13Z","10000-01-01","2006"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology, Psychobiology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82110","(MiAaPQ)AAI3223750"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) are used to address a controversial issue in language-processing research, namely whether the parser proposes more than one possibility for how a sentence will continue. Relatively little research has used ERPs to answer this question, and previous studies have examined brain responses at a point in the sentence when competing theories would make similar predictions. In two experiments, sentences were presented to participants like The claim that the cop shot the informant might have affected the jury. At shot, these sentences continue as preferred plausible complement clauses. If comprehenders are considering a relative clause, however, this will become implausible at shot (*The claim that the cop shot...). According to serial models, only one interpretation---usually the preferred one---will be selected, and thus plausibility in the relative clause version shouldn't matter. The results show a consistent N400 effect at verbs like shot, suggesting that even though sentences continue plausibly in a way that comprehenders expect, they are nonetheless considering the dispreferred relative clause. These results support parallel interactive models.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:39:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3223750.pdf: 3161454 bytes, checksum: ca5eef22ea25833d633fdca97e58fb0b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83391 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","103 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Great (Syntactic) Expectations: Multiple Structures and the Case for Parallelism in Language Processing"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Garnsey, Susan M."],"dc:creator":["Wilson, Michael"],"dc:date":["2015-09-25T20:39:13Z","10000-01-01","2006"],"dc:description":["Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) are used to address a controversial issue in language-processing research, namely whether the parser proposes more than one possibility for how a sentence will continue. Relatively little research has used ERPs to answer this question, and previous studies have examined brain responses at a point in the sentence when competing theories would make similar predictions. In two experiments, sentences were presented to participants like The claim that the cop shot the informant might have affected the jury. At shot, these sentences continue as preferred plausible complement clauses. If comprehenders are considering a relative clause, however, this will become implausible at shot (*The claim that the cop shot...). According to serial models, only one interpretation---usually the preferred one---will be selected, and thus plausibility in the relative clause version shouldn't matter. The results show a consistent N400 effect at verbs like shot, suggesting that even though sentences continue plausibly in a way that comprehenders expect, they are nonetheless considering the dispreferred relative clause. These results support parallel interactive models.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:39:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3223750.pdf: 3161454 bytes, checksum: ca5eef22ea25833d633fdca97e58fb0b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83391 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","103 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82110","(MiAaPQ)AAI3223750"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Psychology, Psychobiology"],"dc:title":["Great (Syntactic) Expectations: Multiple Structures and the Case for Parallelism in Language Processing"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:17Z"}