How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns?

Journal of Child Language

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 123-152

  Sekerina, Irina A ^a   Stromswold, Karin ^b   Hestvik, Arild ^c,d  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^d CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642374430     PISSN: 03050009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0305000903005890     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition 76, B13-B26.
2. Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S., Trueswell, J. & Fagnano, M. (in press). Children's use of gender and order of mention during pronoun comprehension. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (eds), Processing world-situated language: bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Avrutin, S. (1994). Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
4. Booth, J., MacWhinney, B. & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development 71, 981-1003.
5. Chien, Y.-C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1(3), 225-95.
6. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
7. Crain, S. & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, M. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (eds), Natural language parsing. Cambridge: CUP.
8. Crawley, R. A., Stevenson, R. J. & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 245-64.
9. Forster, K. & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 35(1), 116-24.
10. Garrod, S. (1994). Resolving pronouns and other anaphoric devices: the case for diversity in discourse processing. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (eds), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Garvey, C., Caramazza, A. & Yates, J. (1974/5). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition 3, 227-43.
12. Gerken, L. & Shady, M. E. (1996). The picture selection task. In D. MCDaniel, C. MCKee & H. S. Cairns (eds), Methods for assessing children's syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Gernsbacher, M. A. & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 699-717.
14. Goodluck, H., Terzi, A. & Chocano Díaz, G. (2001). The acquisition of control cross-linguistically: structural and lexical factors in learning to licence PRO. Journal of Child Language 28, 153-72.
15. Gordon, P. C. & Scearce, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition 23, 313-23.
16. Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference: a reply to Grimshaw and Rosen. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69-101.
17. Hahne, A. & Friederici, A. (2001). Development patterns of brain activity. In J. Weissenborn & B. Höhle (eds), Approaches to bootstrapping: phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Holcomb, P. J., Coffey, S. A. & Neville, H. J. (1992). Visual and auditory sentence processing: a developmental analysis using event-related brain potentials. Developmental Neuropsychology 8(2-3), 203-41.
19. MCDaniel, D., MCKee, C. & Cairns, H. S. (eds) (1996). Methods for assessing children's syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
20. MCKee, C. (1996). On-line methods. In D. MCDaniel, C. MCKee & H. S. Cairns (eds), Methods for assessing children's syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. Maat, H. P. & Sanders, E. (2001). Subject-pronoun competition in resolving ambiguous anaphors. Paper presented at the workshop 'From Sentence Processing to Discourse Interpretation: Crossing the Borders'. Utrecht University.
22. Musolino, J., Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38, 1-32.
23. Nadig, A. & Sedivy, J. (2000). Children's use of referential pragmatic constraints in production and processing. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
24. Piñango, M. M., Burkhardt, P., Brun, D. & Avrutin, S. (2001). The psychological reality of the syntax-discourse interface: the case of pronominals. Paper presented at the workshop 'From Sentence Processing to Discourse Interpretation: Crossing the Borders'. Utrecht University.
25. Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: guess patterns in acquisition. OTS working papers (Uil-Ots 99001-CL/TL). Utrecht University.
26. Robin, N. & Holyoak, K. J. (1998). Relational complexity and the functions of prefrontal cortex. In M. S. Gazzaniga, R. B. Ivry & G. R. Morgan (eds), Cognitive neuroscience: the biology of mind. New York: WW Norton & Company.
27. Ruffman, T., Garnham, W., Import, A. & Connoly, D. (2001). Does eye gaze indicate implicit knowledge of false belief? Charting transitions in knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 80, 201-24.
28. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (in press). Assignment of reference to relatives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: evidence from eye movements. Cognition.
29. Smyth, R. H. (1994), Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23, 197-229.
30. Snedeker, J., Thorpe, K. & Trueswell, J. (2001). On choosing the parse with the scene: the role of visual context and verb bias in ambiguity resolution. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Swinney, D. & Prather, P. (1989). On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: investigations into the development of modularity. In D. S. Gorfein (ed.), Resolving Semantic Ambiguity. Berlin: Springler-Verlag.
32. Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K. & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632-34.
33. Tanenhaus, M. & Trueswell, J. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (eds), Speech, language, and communication. San Diego: Academic Press.
34. Tenny, C. L. (1999). Evidentially and the grammaticalization of sentience. Three phenomena involving evidentiality. Talk presented at the University of Rochester.
35. Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
36. Traxler, M. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 55A(I), 75-96.
37. Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. & Logrip, M. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89-134.
38. Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1981). Children's processing of spoken language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 400-16.
39. Wykes, T. (1981). Inference and children's comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 32, 264-78.
40. Zelaso, P. D., Frye, D. & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development 11, 7-63.