1. “Traditional” constraint-based (interactionist) and garden-path (syntax-first) theories differ in many ways, but ther

[correctanswer]

1. “Traditional” constraint-based (interactionist) and
garden-path (syntax-first) theories differ in many ways, but there
is one assumption both types of models (“all theories”) make with
respect to this final product (representations) of parsing. What is
it? (Please do not quote, but note that the answer to this question
can be found both in the Abstract and in the first paragraph of the
paper.)
The interactionist, "traditional" theory suggests that
analyses are proposed at the same time, whereas the garden-path
theory proposes analyses in a certain sequence (not at the same
time). The syntactic information processed from the garden-path
theory is completely isolated from our real-world understanding.
While in the "traditional" constraint-based theory there is
communication between the syntactic processor and any significant
information source.
2. How does the “Good-Enough” proposal differ from these
traditional accounts of the final representation of parsing? How
does the Moses Illusion offer an illustration of that
difference?
it does not provide enough detail to decipher key
differences in sentence meaning, only provides a "good-enough"
interpretation that appeases the comprehender.
3. HOW do the Christiansen et al. (2001) and Ferreira
& Stacey (2000) studies support the good-enough account? Choose
one study and describe the stimuli/findings and explain the
implications of the findings for sentence comprehension
processes.
The Christiansen et al. (2001) study supports the
good-enough account. This study addressed the"straightforward
question whether people delete from memory their initial
misinterpretation of a sentence after reanalysis"
The study conveyed that the initial misinterpretation
stuck around and caused comprehenders to end up with a
representation in which "the baby" was both the subject of "played"
and the object of "dressed."These results clearly suggest that the
meaning people obtain for a sentence is often not an accurate
reflection of what it is really trying to say/ made up
of
4. According to the concluding paragraphs, what is the
context in which we usually use language, and why is it relevant to
this approach?
The context in which we usually use language is in
conversation or dialogue. Meaning, certain sentences can be
understood, because the overall communicative context would support
the interpretation