On-line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 843-875

  Moxey, Linda M ^a   Filik, Ruth ^a   Paterson, Kevin B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Focus; Plural pronomial reference; Quantifiers

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HEAD MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MENTAL TASK; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 70450255142     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960802634038     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Altmann, G. T. M. (1994). Regression-contingent analyses of eye-movements during sentence processing: Reply to Rayner and Sereno. Memory and Cognition, 22, 286-290.
2. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159-219.
3. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100, 434-463.
4. Clark, H. H. (1976). Semantics and comprehension. The Hague: Mouton.
5. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 81-105.
6. Horn, L. R. (2001). A natural history of negation. CSLI publications, Stanford University, CA, USA.
7. Kibble, R. (1997). Complement anaphora and monotonicity In G J. M. Kruiff, G V. Morrill, & R. T. Oehrle (Eds.), Formal grammar (pp. 125-126). Proceedings, Aix-en-Provence, France.
8. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C, & Strube, G (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348.
9. iversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55-75). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
10. Moxey, L. M. (2006). Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the Presupposition Denial account. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 422-439.
11. Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). Communicating quantities: A psychological perspective. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
12. Nouwen, R. (2003). Complement anaphora and interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 73-113.
13. Nouwen, R. (2008). What's in a quantifier? In T. Lentz, H. de Mulder, O. Nilsen, & A. Zandervan (Eds.), Theoretical validity and psychological reality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Noveck, I. A. (2004). Pragmatic inferences related to logical terms. In I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 301-21). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
15. Paterson, K. B., Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Dawydiak, E. (1998). Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 290-306.
16. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
17. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Regression-contingent analyses: A reply to Altmann. Memory and Cognition, 22, 291-292.
18. Sanford, A. J., Dawydiak, E., & Moxey, L. M. (2007). A unified account of quantifier perspective effects in discourse. Discourse Processes, 44, 1-32.
19. Sanford, A. J., & Filik, R. (2007). 'They' as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye-tracking reveals a processing cost. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 171-178.
20. Wason, P. C. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 4, 7-11.