▁C Is ▁like ▁( a ) ▁than ▁when ▁processing ▁gram mat ical ▁cla us al ▁compar atives ▁like ▁( b ). ▁Christ ensen ▁has ▁suggested ▁this ▁shows ▁C Is ▁are ▁easy ▁to ▁process ▁but ▁as ▁they ▁are ▁n ons ens ical , ▁processing ▁is ▁" sh allow ". ▁Low ▁L IF G ▁activation ▁levels ▁also ▁suggest ▁that ▁people ▁do ▁not ▁perce ive ▁C Is ▁as ▁being ▁sem ant ically ▁anom alous . ▁ ▁Ex plan ations ▁Town send ▁and ▁B ever ▁have ▁pos ited ▁that ▁E scher ▁sentences ▁get ▁perce ived ▁as ▁acceptable ▁because ▁they ▁are ▁an ▁apparent ▁bl end ▁of ▁two ▁gram mat ical ▁templates . ▁( a ) ▁More ▁people ▁have ▁gone ▁to ▁Russia ▁than ▁I ▁... ▁( could ▁believe ). ▁( b ) ▁... ▁people ▁have ▁gone ▁to ▁Russia ▁[ more ] ▁than ▁I ▁have ... ▁ ▁Well wood ▁and ▁colle agues ▁have ▁noted ▁in ▁response ▁that ▁the ▁possibility ▁of ▁each ▁clause ▁being ▁gram mat ical ▁in ▁a ▁different ▁sentence ▁( a , ▁b ) ▁does ▁not ▁guarantee ▁a ▁bl end ▁( c ) ▁would ▁be ▁acceptable . ▁( a ) ▁Mary ▁is ▁too ▁tall ▁to ▁get ▁on ▁this ▁ride . ▁( b ) ▁Mary ▁has ▁r idden ▁some ▁ride ▁as ▁many ▁times ▁as ▁Bill ▁has . ▁( c ) ▁→ * M ary ▁is ▁too ▁tall ▁as ▁Bill ▁has . ▁Well wood ▁and ▁colle agues ▁also ▁interpret ▁Town send ▁and ▁B ever ' s ▁theory ▁as ▁requiring ▁a ▁shared ▁lex ical ▁element ▁in ▁each ▁template . ▁If ▁this ▁version