Syntactic Ambiguity: Temporary Ambiguity and Garden-Path Effects #
Temporary syntactic ambiguity arises when an initial substring of a sentence is compatible with multiple structural analyses. The parser must commit to one analysis before the disambiguating material arrives. When the initial commitment turns out to be incorrect, a garden-path effect results: the reader experiences processing difficulty at the point of disambiguation, often visible as longer reading times and/or regressive eye movements.
CC/RC Ambiguity #
The best-studied case is the complement clause (CC) vs. relative clause (RC) ambiguity in English (@cite{altmann-garnham-dennis-1992}):
- He told the woman that he'd risked his life for many people ... (CC)
- He told the woman that he'd risked his life for to install ... (RC)
The substring the woman that he'd risked his life for is temporarily ambiguous between a CC complement of told and an RC modifying the woman.
Theoretical Hypotheses #
Two hypotheses frame the debate (@cite{paape-vasishth-2026}):
Context-sensitive attachment: Discourse context modulates first-pass parsing choices. A mismatch between context and disambiguation (e.g., non-unique referents with CC continuation) increases garden-pathing. Predicts a context × disambiguation interaction.
Context-insensitive attachment: The parser relies on purely syntactic preferences (e.g., minimal attachment), ignoring discourse context during first-pass processing. Context may only affect later reanalysis stages. Predicts a disambiguation main effect with no interaction.
@cite{paape-vasishth-2026} shows the answer is a graded compromise: first-pass parsing is partially context-sensitive, and context also affects reanalysis — "the answer is both."
Cross-references #
- Related to
FillerGap/: RC analysis involves a filler-gap dependency - Related to
Reference/: The context manipulation involves referential uniqueness (one vs. two potential referents for a definite NP)
The two readings of a temporarily ambiguous CC/RC string.
- complementClause : Disambiguation
Complement clause: told the woman [that he'd risked his life for many people]
- relativeClause : Disambiguation
Relative clause: told [the woman that he'd risked his life for] to install ...
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.instBEqDisambiguation.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Referential context: whether the discourse makes the definite NP's referent uniquely identifiable without a modifier.
- uniqueReferent : ReferentialContext
Only one possible referent (e.g., a man and a woman) — a bare definite the woman suffices, so an RC modifier is pragmatically unnecessary.
- nonUniqueReferents : ReferentialContext
Multiple possible referents (e.g., two women) — a bare definite the woman violates uniqueness, so an RC modifier is pragmatically licensed.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether the referential context supports the disambiguation type. Non-unique referents support RC (the modifier is needed to identify the referent); unique referents support CC (no modifier needed).
Equations
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.contextSupports Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.ReferentialContext.nonUniqueReferents Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.Disambiguation.relativeClause = true
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.contextSupports Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.ReferentialContext.uniqueReferent Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.Disambiguation.complementClause = true
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.contextSupports x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
An experimental condition in the CC/RC × context design.
- disambiguation : Disambiguation
- context : ReferentialContext
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Whether disambiguation and context match (context supports the actual disambiguation).
Equations
Instances For
The context-sensitive attachment hypothesis predicts that context and disambiguation interact: garden-path difficulty depends on whether the context supports the actual disambiguation.
Formalized as: for a fixed disambiguation type, changing context from supporting to non-supporting increases garden-path difficulty. For RC, this means non-unique → unique increases difficulty; for CC, unique → non-unique increases difficulty.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The context-insensitive hypothesis predicts no interaction: the parser always prefers the syntactically simpler analysis (CC), and the same garden-path magnitude obtains regardless of context.
Instances For
RC disambiguation is harder than CC on the processing profile: the RC requires crossing a clause boundary (the relative clause) and involves a filler-gap dependency that increases locality.
Equations
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.disambiguationProfile Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.Disambiguation.relativeClause = { locality := 3, boundaries := 1, referentialLoad := 1, ease := 0 }
- Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.disambiguationProfile Phenomena.SyntacticAmbiguity.Disambiguation.complementClause = { locality := 1, boundaries := 0, referentialLoad := 0, ease := 1 }