**The main effect of semantic plausibility** We predict that our participants rely on the good-enough processing strategy, so semantically implausible sentences will trigger more incorrect responses than semantically plausible sentences. If they do not use the good-enough strategy and rely on algorithmic processing, we won’t find a difference in the number of incorrect responses to the questions after semantically plausible and semantically implausible sentences. **The main effect of syntactic closure** Previous studies on Russian sentences with a participial clause attached to one of the two nouns in the noun phrase have found that participants preferred to attach the participial clause to the first noun in the noun phrase (Chernova & Slioussar, 2014, 2016), i.e. showed a high-attachment preference. We hypothesize that in our experiments all participants will also show a high-attachment preference and will interpret the participial clause as related to the first noun in the noun phrase more often than to the second noun. **The main effect of noise** We hypothesize that both visual and auditory noise will increase the cognitive load and that participants will use one of the two strategies in noisy as compared to no-noise conditions: - Participants will read sentences faster and will make more response errors in noisy conditions than in the no-noise condition (i.e., the accelerating main effect of noise on reading time and accuracy). - Participants will read sentences slower and will make the same amount of response errors in noisy conditions as in no-noise condition (i.e., the slow down main effect of noise on reading time). **The main effect of age** Based on the study of Malyutina and colleagues (2018), we expect that older participants will read sentences slower than younger participants. We expect that adolescents will read sentences slower and make more response errors than young adults. **Plausibility x Noise interaction** Previous studies have shown that uncertain input can trigger reliance on the good-enough processing (Levy, 2011). As external noise increases the uncertainty about the input, we expect that participants may rely on the good-enough processing strategy more in noisy conditions than in no-noise condition. In that case, we expect to observe that the number of response errors in semantically implausible sentences will be greater in noisy conditions than in the no-noise condition. However, if participants strategically slow down to counteract external noise and to be able to process noisy conditions deeply, we will observe that they read semantically implausible sentences slower in noisy conditions than in the no-noise condition and the accuracy decrease in semantically implausible sentences will not depend on noise. **Plausibility x Age interaction** We expect that older participants will rely more on the good-enough processing than younger participants, see (Malyutina & den Ouden, 2016). In our experiment, it will manifest as follows: older participants will make more question response errors in semantically implausible sentences than younger participants. Current knowledge about language processing in adolescents does not allow us to form any firm expectation. If adolescents show a smaller accuracy decrease in semantically implausible sentences than adults, it would mean that they have less experience with the good-enough sentence processing strategy. In that case we also expect that adolescents will need more time to process complex syntactic structure and semantic mismatch. However, if adolescents make more mistakes in semantically implausible sentences than adults, it would mean that they have acquired the good-enough strategy but still have problems processing complex syntactic structures. So the outcome will provide evidence on what is acquired earlier: algorithmic processing of complex syntactic structures or good-enough sentence processing strategy. **Age x Noise interaction** Previous studies have shown that older people are more sensitive to noise and that noise affects language processing in older people more than in younger people (Gao et al., 2012; Wayne et al., 2016). In our experiment, we expect that older participants will have a greater disadvantage in noisy conditions than younger participants. Older participants will read sentences in the presence of noise slower than younger participants and will make more response errors in the presence of noise. We think that adolescents will be more vulnerable to noise than young adults. We expect that adolescents will be less attentive in noisy conditions than young adults, i.e. they will show a greater accuracy decrease and will read sentences slower in the presence of noise. Although alternatively they might read them more superficially and therefore faster. **Plausibility x Age x Noise interaction** We hypothesize that in noisy conditions older participants will be more prone to the good-enough processing than younger participants. It will manifest in a greater accuracy decrease in semantically implausible sentences in noisy conditions compared to the no-noise condition in older than younger participants.