<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P84-1103">
  <Title>AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION IN THE HUMAN SYNTACTIC PARSER: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="483" end_page="483" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
(5b) COMPLEMENT-BIASING CONTEXT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A psychologist was counseling a married couple.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> One member of the pair was fighting with him but the other one was nice to him.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="483" end_page="483" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
(5c) RELATIVE SENTENCE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The psychologist told the wife that he was having trouble with to leave her husband.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="483" end_page="483" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
(5d) COMPLEMENT SENTENCE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The psychologist told the wife that he was having trouble with her husband.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> So, for example, (5c) preceded by (Sa) is processed smoothly, while (5c) preceded by (Sb) results in garden-pathing at the point of disambiguation (the word &amp;quot;to&amp;quot;). In the present experiment, sentences in which the &amp;quot;that&amp;quot;-clause was disambiguated immediately following the beginning of the clause (5e or 5f) were presented following the contexts of (5a) or (5b).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (Se) RELATIVE SENTENCE The psychologist told the wife that was (yelling to shut up.)</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>