Retracing the garden-path: Nonselective rereading and no reanalysis.

• The results of two large-scale eye-tracking studies are reported. • A novel variable trailing mask paradigm was used to determine whether amount or location of rereading of NP/Z garden-path sentences was related to offline comprehension. • E1 presented comprehension questions after each sentence, and E2 presented the comprehension questions both before and after each sentence. • Results provide strong evidence (of multiple types) against selective reanalysis of NP/Z garden-paths. When people read temporarily ambiguous ("garden-path") sentences, the forward movement of their eyes is often interrupted by regressions. These regressions are usually followed by rereading some portion of the previously read text. Frazier and Rayner (1982) proposed the Selective Reanalysis Hypothesis (SRH), which proposed that readers regress to critical choice points in the syntactic phrase marker of garden-paths where misparses had occurred, and furthermore, then reanalyzed the syntactic structure to arrive at a correct parse in most cases. A considerable amount of more recent work, however, suggests that readers often do not derive a correct parse or interpretation from such sentences. If these more recent observations are accurate, perhaps rereading is not necessarily strategic, controlled, or predictable. The current study consists of two large-scale eye-tracking experiments designed specifically to examine where and how much people reread garden-path sentences, and whether rereading influences comprehension accuracy. A variable text-masking paradigm was employed to restrict access to portions of garden-paths and non-garden-paths during rereading. Scanpath analyses were used to determine whether some or all participants targeted syntactically critical parts of previously read text. Comprehension questions probed final interpretations. In short, readers often misinterpreted the garden-paths, and no rereading measures predicted better comprehension. Furthermore, scanpath analyses revealed considerable variation across and within readers; only small percentages of trials conformed to structurally-based predictions. Taken together, we fail to find support for structurally strategic rereading. We therefore propose that rereading of these sentences is more often "confirmatory" than "revisionary" in nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]