Hi Jiaying Ye. Your question seems to suggest that semantic processing needs to be treated separately from syntactic processing, when in fact the parsing of a garden path sentence implies an analysis of the semantic (meaning-based) elements within the syntactic (structural) framework of the sentence. Therefore wouldn't it be more constructive to pursue the question of how semantic & syntactic processing contribute to or inhibit comprehension? For that, I recommend the article "Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations" in the Journal of Memory and Language (2013, 69, pp. 104-120) by Slattery et al. The fifth co-author, Fernanda Ferreira, has also done some great work on this subject. Look her up!

Jiaying Ye, I am including the following open access articles for your consideration.

• Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive psychology, 42(4), 368-407. http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/hollingworth/documents/Christetal_CogPsych01.pdf
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults "good-enough" interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse processes, 42(2), 205-238. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761649/
• Farmer, T. A., Anderson, S. E., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths. Journal of memory and language, 57(4), 570-595. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2084067/
• Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 30(1), 3-20. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30937949/Ferreira_etal_2001-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1667579002&Signature=TNxK2IHAg39QuBAy5msOW~mDNCeds1mpF5wU3Ks3ty9HPNsIQWddC-Yl9rL2d-JS~-JenNe7P941dJ7Aghem9OGx0c-4l1KjKH0EkmWNtFWX1LJ3fWtFA-Cum5kPJOVj5ogD9pBCvSc2G9i1ElmsDTLEFYTOJskq6zZgjqube27HJgjw92RpNRkiOApJdot~eHRNovrwNO2JaKexyhm3I3D-hoSInkMG0HIMjMouGn5s2kJEsTwjAxYC0d-VaUcCZ~avFazT3V5IFS3xJnp-K3v4jviUEWjfwFr-PGTGXJsQFIS1Ms1SvFWF1V4DVI43XTi2G-xjJHM0yzHRDsF6Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
• Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2009). ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and language, 108(3), 145-158. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720995/
• Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~scoulson/CNL/kaan-p600.pdf
• Kemper, S., Crow, A., & Kemtes, K. (2004). Eye-fixation patterns of high-and low-span young and older adults: down the garden path and back again. Psychology and Aging, 19(1), 157. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/8605/Kemper%20Eye%20Fixation%20author%20final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222-234. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2495736/component/file_2495759/content
• Lin, C. J. C., & Bever, T. G. (2010). Garden path and the comprehension of head-final relative clauses. In Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 277-297). Springer, Dordrecht. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chien-Jer-Lin/publication/226996824_Garden_Path_and_the_Comprehension_of_Head-Final_Relative_Clauses/links/02e7e5184bd3cf086b000000/Garden-Path-and-the-Comprehension-of-Head-Final-Relative-Clauses.pdf
• Slattery, T. J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 104-120. eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/22639/3/SlatteryetalJML3final.docx.pdf