Ambiguous pronoun resolution contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts

Psychological Science

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 260-264

  Järvikivi, Juhani ^a,b   Van Gompel, Roger P G ^a   Hyönä, Jukka ^b   Bertram, Raymond ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FINLAND; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENTS; FINLAND; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 17444381226     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

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. Carreiras, M., Gernsbacher, M.A., & Villa, V. (1995). The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 124-129.
3. Chambers, C., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 593-608.
4. Crawley, R., Stevenson, R., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 245-264.
5. Frederiksen, J. (1981). Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning pronominal referents. Discourse Processes, 4, 323-347.
6. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
7. Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.
8. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699-717.
9. Gernsbacher, M.A., Hargreaves, D.J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735-755.
10. Gordon, P.C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231.
11. Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., & Gilliom, L.A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
12. Gordon, P.C., Hendrick, R., & Foster, K.L. (2000). Language comprehension and probe-list memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 766-775.
13. Hakulinen, A., & Karlsson, F. (1979). Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Finnish syntax]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Gummerus.
14. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2003, March). The quest for a referent: Investigating the interpretation of pronouns and demonstratives in real time. Poster presented at the 16th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Boston.
15. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113-147.
16. Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
17. Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197-229.
18. Stevenson, R., Nelson, A.W.R., & Stenning, K. (1995). The role of parallelism in strategies of pronoun comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 393-418.
19. Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.