Editing Syntactic ambiguity (section)

==Models==

===Competition-based model===
Competition-based models hold that differing syntactic analyses rival each other when syntactic ambiguities are resolved. If probability and language constraints offer similar support for each one, especially strong competition occurs. On the other hand, when constraints support one analysis over the other, competition is weak and processing is easy. After van Gompel et al.'s experiments (2005), the reanalysis model has become favoured over competition-based models.<ref name="Gompel"/> Convincing evidence against competition-based models includes the fact that [[Ambiguity#Globally ambiguous|globally ambiguous]] sentences are easier to process than disambiguated (clearer) sentences, showing that the analyses do not compete against each other in  the former. Plausibility tends to strengthen one analysis and eliminate rivalry. However, the model has not been completely rejected. Some theories claim that competition makes processing difficult, if only briefly.<ref name="Gompel"/>

===Reanalysis model===
According to the reanalysis model, processing is hard once the reader has realised that their analysis is false (with respect to the already adopted syntactic structure) and he or she must then return and recheck the structure. Most reanalysis models, like the unrestricted race model, work in series, which implies that only one analysis can be supported at a time.

'''Consider the following statements''':
# "The dog of the woman that had the parasol was brown."
# "The woman with the dog that had the parasol was brown."
# "The dog with the woman that had the parasol was brown."

Research supports the reanalysis model as the most likely reason for why interpreting these ambiguous sentences is hard. <ref name="Gompel">{{Cite journal|title = Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution|date = 4 January 2005|last1 = van Gompel|journal = Journal of Memory and Language|volume = 52|issue = 2|pages = 284–307|doi=10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003|first1 = Roger P.G.|last2 = Pickering|first2 = Martin J.|last3 = Pearson|first3 = Jamie|last4 = Liversedge|first4 = Simon P.|display-authors=etal|citeseerx = 10.1.1.165.8161}}</ref> Results of many experiments tracking the eye-movements of subjects have demonstrated that it is just as hard to process a persistently ambiguous sentence (1) as an unambiguous sentence (2 and 3) because information before the ambiguity only weakly leans towards each possible syntax.<ref name="Gompel"/>

===Unrestricted race model===

The unrestricted race model states that analysis is affected before the introduction of ambiguity and affects which meaning is used (based on [[probability]]) before multiple analyses can be introduced. [[Van Gompel|Gompel]] and Pickering plainly refer to the unrestricted race model as a two-stage reanalysis model. Unlike constraint-based theories, only one analysis can be made at any one time. Thus, reanalysis may sometimes be necessary if information following the first analysis proves it wrong. <ref name="Gompel"/>

However, the name "unrestricted race" comes directly from its properties taken from the constraint-based models. As in constraint-based theories, any source of information can support the different analyses of an ambiguous structure; thus the name. In the model, the other possible structures of an ambiguous sentence compete in a race, with the structure that is constructed fastest being used. The more such an analysis is supported, and the stronger the support is, the more likely this one will be made first.<ref>{{citation|last1=van Gompel |first1=Roger P.G.  |last2=Pickering |first2=Martin J. |date=2000 |title=Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution |citeseerx=10.1.1.165.9576 }}</ref>

'''Consider the following statements:'''

# "The maid of the princess who scratched herself in public was terribly humiliated."
# "The son of the princess who scratched himself in public was terribly humiliated."
# "The son of the princess who scratched herself in public was terribly humiliated."

Research showed that people took less time to read persistently ambiguous sentences (sentence 1) than temporarily ambiguous sentences that were clarified later (sentences 2 and 3). In sentences 2 and 3, the reflexive pronouns “himself” and “herself” clarify that “who scratched” is modifying the son and the princess respectively. Thus, the readers are forced to reanalyse and their reading times will therefore rise. In sentence 1, however, the ambiguity of the reflexive pronoun “herself” fits both the maid and the princess. This means the readers do not have to reanalyse. Thus, ambiguous sentences will take a shorter time to read compared to clarified ones.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Traxler|first1=Matthew J.|last2=Pickering|first2=Martin J.|last3=Clifton|first3=Charles|date=1998-11-01|title=Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Form of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution|journal=Journal of Memory and Language|volume=39|issue=4|pages=558–592|doi=10.1006/jmla.1998.2600|issn=0749-596X}}</ref>

This is called the underspecification account <ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Swets|first1=Benjamin|last2=Desmet|first2=Timothy|last3=Clifton|first3=Charles|last4=Ferreira|first4=Fernanda|date=2008-01-01|title=Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading|journal=Memory & Cognition|language=en|volume=36|issue=1|pages=201–216|doi=10.3758/MC.36.1.201|pmid=18323075|issn=1532-5946|doi-access=free}}</ref> as readers do not stick to a meaning when not provided with clarifying words. The reader understands someone scratched herself but does not seek to determine whether it was the maid or the princess. This is also known as the “good-enough” approach to understanding language.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Ferreira|first1=Fernanda|last2=Bailey|first2=Karl G.D.|last3=Ferraro|first3=Vittoria|date=February 2002|title=Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|language=en-US|volume=11|issue=1|pages=11–15|doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00158|s2cid=4126375|issn=0963-7214}}</ref>