Readers' sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 511-522

  Klin, Celia M ^a   Weingartner, Kristin M ^a   Guzmán, Alexandria E ^a   Levine, William H ^b  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; READING; RECALL; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME; VERBAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 3042764297     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195843     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ALBRECHT, J. E., & MYERS, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1459-1468.
2. ALBRECHT, J. E., & MYERS, J. L. (1998). Accessing distant text information during reading: Effects of contextual cues. Discourse Processes, 26, 87-107.
3. ALMOR, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748-765.
4. BAKER, L., & WAGNER, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination, Memory & Cognition, 15, 247-255,
5. BATTIG, W. F., & MONTAGUE, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1-46.
6. BIRCH, S. L., ALBRECHT, J. E., & MYERS, J. L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30, 285-304.
7. BIRCH, S. L., & GARNSEY, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 232-267.
8. BIRCH, S. [L.], & RAYNER, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653-660.
9. BREDART, S., & DOCQUIER, M. (1989). The Moses illusion: A follow-up on the focalization effect. Current Psychology of Cognition, 9, 357-362.
10. CARPENTER, P. A., & JUST, M. A. (1977). Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 217-241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. CARREIRAS, M., CARRIEDO, N., ALONSO, M. A., & FERNÁNDEZ, A. (1997). The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 438-446.
12. CORBETT, A. (1984). Prenominal adjectives and the disambiguation of anaphoric nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 683-695.
13. CUTLER, A., & FODOR, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49-59.
14. DELL, G. S., MCKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.
15. FRANCIS, W. N., & KUČERA, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16. GERNSBACHER, M. A., & JESCHENIAK, J. D. (1995). Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 24-58.
17. GIVÓN, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5-55.
18. KINTSCH, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
19. KINTSCH, W. (1992). How readers construct situation models for stories: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In A. F. Healy & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 2, pp. 261-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. LEVINE, W. H., GUZMÁN, A. E., & KLIN, C. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 594-617.
21. LEVINSON, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. MAGLIANO, J. P., & SCHLEICH, M. C. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models, Discourse Processes, 29, 83-112.
23. MCKOON, G., WARD, G., RATCLIFF, R., & SPROAT, R. (1993). Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 56-75.
24. MORRIS, R. K., & FOLK, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading, Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313-1322.
25. MORROW, D. G. (1985). Prepositions and verb aspect in narrative understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 390-404.
26. MYERS, J. L., & O'BRIEN, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
27. NI, W., CRAIN, S., & SHANKWEILER, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions in syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
28. O'BRIEN, E. J., RANEY, G. E., ALBRECHT, J. E., & RAYNER, K. (1997). Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors. Discourse Processes, 23, 1-24.
29. RUSSELL, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479-493.
30. SEDIVY, J. C., TANENHAUS, M. K., CHAMBERS, C. G., & CARLSON, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
31. VAN DEN BROEK, P., RISDEN, K., & HUSEBYE-HARTMANN, E. (1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353-373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. ZWAAN, R. A., MADDEN, C. J., & WHITTEN, S. N. (2000). The presence of an event in the narrated situation affects its availability to the comprehender. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1022-1028.