The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1472-1504

  Fukumura, Kumiko ^a   van Gompel, Roger P G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animacy; Discourse; Pronoun; Reference

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ANIMACY; ARTICLE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; WORKING MEMORY; WRITTEN LANGUAGE;

EID: 84858022158     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.506444     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3): 435-483.
2. Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C. and Sanford, A. J. 1983. The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 35: 427-440.
3. Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents, London: Routledge.
4. Arnold, J. E. 2001. The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31(2): 137-162.
5. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S. and Trueswell, J. C. 2000. The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1): B13-B26.
6. Arnold, J. E. and Griffin, Z. M. 2007. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4): 521-536.
7. Baddeley, A. D. 1986. Working memory, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
8. Bock, J. K. and Levelt, W. J. M. 1994. "Language production: Grammatical encoding". In Handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gernsbacher, M. A. 945-984. San Diego, CA: Academic.
9. Bock, J. K. and Warren, R. K. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1): 47-67.
10. Bock, K., Loebell, H. and Morey, R. 1992. From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1): 150-171.
11. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J. and Tanaka, M. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2): 172-189.
12. Brennan, S. E. 1995. Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2): 137-167.
13. Clancy, P. M. 1980. "Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse". In The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, Edited by: Chafe, W. Vol. 3, 127-201. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14. Clark, H. H. and Begun, J. S. 1971. Semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14(1): 34-46.
15. Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Dahl, O. and Fraurud, K. 1996. "Animacy in grammar and discourse". In Reference and referent accessibility, Edited by: Fretheim, J. K. G. T. 47-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Davidson, D. 1971. "Agency". In Agent, action, and reason, Edited by: Binkley, R. B. R. and Marras, A. 43-61. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
18. Ehrlich, S. 1990. Point of view: A linguistic analysis of literary style, London: Routledge.
19. Ferreira, F. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6): 715-736.
20. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R. and Rogers, E. S. 2005. How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?. Cognition, 96(3): 263-284.
21. Fletcher, C. R. 1984. Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(4): 487-493.
22. Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. 1985. "Information packaging in the clause". In Language typology and syntactic description, Edited by: Shopen, T. Vol. 1, 282-364. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Foraker, S. and McElree, B. 2007. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3): 357-383.
24. Fowler, R. 1977. Linguistics and the novel, London: Routledge.
25. Fukumura, K. and Van Gompel, R. P. G. 2010. Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference?. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1): 52-66.
26. Fukumura, K., Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470210903490969
27. García, E. C. 1996. What "reflexivity" is really like. Linguistics, 34(1): 1-51.
28. Garvey, C. and Caramazza, A. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(3): 459-464.
29. Givón, T. 1983. "Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction". In Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, Edited by: Givón, T. 1-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of anaphoric expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2): 274-307.
31. Itagaki, N. and Prideaux, G. D. 1985. Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua, 66(2-3): 135-149.
32. Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1): 122-149.
33. Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Kintsch, W. and Van Dijk, T. A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5): 363-394.
35. Kuno, S. and Kaburaki, E. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4): 627-672.
36. Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application, Vol. 2, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37. Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, CA: MIT Press.
38. McDonald, J. L., Bock, K. and Kelly, M. H. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25: 188-230.
39. Pearson, J., Stevenson, R. and Poesio, M. 2001. "The effects of animacy, thematic role, and surface position on the focusing of entities in discourse". In Proceedings of the first workshop on cognitively plausible models of semantic processing, Edited by: Poesio, M. University of Edinburgh, UK.
40. Pollatsek, A. and Well, A. D. 1995. On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3): 785-794.
41. Prat-Sala, M. and Branigan, H. P. 2000. Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2): 168-182.
42. Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
43. Sanford, A. J. and Garrod, S. C. 1981. Understanding written language, Chichester, UK: Wiley.
44. Silverstein, M. 1976. "Hierarchy of features an ergativity". In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, Edited by: Dixon, R. M. W. 112-171. Canberra, Australia: Humanities Press.
45. Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A. and Kleinman, D. 1994. Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4): 519-548.
46. Stevenson, R. J., Knott, A., Oberlander, J. and McDonald, S. 2000. Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interaction among focusing, thematic roles and coherance relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15: 225-262.
47. Van Nice, K. Y. and Dietrich, R. 2003. Task sensitivity of animacy effects: Evidence from German picture descriptions. Linguistics, 41(5): 825-849.
48. Winer, B. 1971. Statistical principles in experimental design, New York: McGraw-Hill.
49. Yamamoto, M. 1999. Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.