Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 371-400

  Kazanina, Nina ^a   Phillips, Colin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Backwards anaphora; Cataphora; Principle C; Russian; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE TEST; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; READING; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE TESTS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REACTION TIME; READING; RUSSIA; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77649088549     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210902974120     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Antonyuk, S., & Bailyn, J. (2008). Backward pronominalization in Russian: A syntactic account. Handout from talk presented at the 17th meeting of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-17). May, 2008, New Haven, CT, Yale University.
2. Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax, 12, 93-134.
3. Avrutin, S., & Reuland, E. (2004). Backward anaphora and tense interpretation. In L. Verbitskaya (Ed.), Teoreticheskie problemy jazykoznanija [Theoretical issues in language research]. St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg University Press.
4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
6. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748-769.
7. Barss, A. (2003). Anaphora: A reference guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
8. Buring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
10. Clifton, C., Kennison, S. M., & Albrecht, J. E. (1997). Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276-292.
11. Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Huang, C.-T. J. (2000). Longdistance reflexives. New York: Academic Press.
12. Cowart, W., & Cairns, H. S. (1987). Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory & Cognition, 15, 318-331.
13. Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers. In D. Dowty, D. Kartunnen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psycholinguistic, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 94-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331-344.
15. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
16. Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18,51-60.
17. Gordon, P., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.
18. Harris, C. L., & Bates, E. A. (2002). Clausal back-grounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 237-269.
19. Huang, Y. (2004). Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 288-314). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
20. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,3,228-238.
21. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159-201.
22. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709-748.
23. Kazanina, N. (2005). The acquisition and processing of backwards anaphora. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
24. Kazanina, N., Lau, E., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384-409.
25. Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2001). Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In A. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 413-424). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
26. Kennison, S. M. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 335-352.
27. Koster, J., & Reuland, E. (1992). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Lee, M.-W., & Williams, J. N. (2006). The role of grammatical constraints in intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and "subordination". In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275-329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18,5-19.
31. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
32. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
33. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 261-321.
34. Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439-492.
35. Reuland, E., & Avrutin, S. (2005). Binding and beyond: Issues in backward anaphora. In A. Branco, T. McEnery, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational modeling (pp. 139-162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193-241.
37. Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227-245.
38. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542-562.
39. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454-475.
41. van Gompel, R. P. G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 128-139.
42. van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language, 108, 40-55.