Various studies within the Good-Enough Approach observe that people often make errors in answering comprehension questions after reading garden-path sentences such as While Anna dressed the baby played in the crib (e.g. Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira, 2001). Recently (Slattery, Sturt, Christianson, Yoshida, & Ferreira, 2013), it has been claimed that readers form a full syntactic analysis of these sentences, but they do not completely prune the original misanalysis. This paper presents evidence that these findings do not hold for all garden-path sentences. The main finding of the Good-Enough Approach – that the comprehension questions targeting the initial misanalysis yield significantly higher rates of incorrect answers after garden-path sentences, in comparison to after control sentences – was replicated here in three self-paced reading experiments on Czech. However, these experiments show a similar pattern of results for other comprehension questions, such as questions targeting an analysis that is not syntactically licensed at any point of processing. These results point out that certain garden-path structures may be very hard to process and that the process of garden-path repair might not be successful at all. Based on these results and the results of previous studies, the idea of a range of difficulty levels for garden-path structures is proposed.

足够好的方法中的各种研究观察到，人们在阅读花园小径句子后经常在回答理解问题时出错，例如当安娜给婴儿床里玩耍的婴儿穿上衣服时（例如 Christianson、Hollingworth、Halliwell 和 Ferreira，2001）。最近（Slattery、Sturt、Christianson、Yoshida 和 Ferreira，2013 年），有人声称读者对这些句子形成了完整的句法分析，但他们并没有完全修剪原始的错误分析。本文提供的证据表明，这些发现并不适用于所有花园小径句子。足够好的方法的主要发现——针对初始错误分析的理解性问题在花园路径句子之后产生的错误答案率明显更高，与 after control 句子相比 - 在三个自定进度的捷克语阅读实验中被复制。然而，这些实验显示了其他理解问题的类似结果模式，例如针对在任何处理点都未获得句法许可的分析的问题。这些结果指出，某些花园小径结构可能非常难以处理，并且花园小径修复过程可能根本不会成功。基于这些结果和先前研究的结果，提出了花园小径结构的一系列难度级别的想法。这些结果指出，某些花园小径结构可能非常难以处理，并且花园小径修复过程可能根本不会成功。基于这些结果和先前研究的结果，提出了花园小径结构的一系列难度级别的想法。这些结果指出，某些花园小径结构可能非常难以处理，并且花园小径修复过程可能根本不会成功。基于这些结果和先前研究的结果，提出了花园小径结构的一系列难度级别的想法。