Gender affects semantic competition: The effect of gender in a non-gender-marking language

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1012-1021

  Fukumura, Kumiko ^a   Hyönä, Jukka ^b   Scholfield, Merete ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Gender; Language production; Pronoun; Reference

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CULTURAL FACTOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEMANTICS; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; STUDENT; TRANSLATING (LANGUAGE); UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; SEMANTICS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; STUDENTS; TRANSLATING; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84880660643     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0031215     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allan, D. (1992). The Oxford Placement Test. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
2. Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 714-735. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.714
3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London, England: Routledge.
4. 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 eye tracking. Cognition, 76, B13-B26. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1
5. Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521-536. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
6. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511801686
7. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
8. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61-79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Dell, G. S., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287-314. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K
11. Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
12. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263-284. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
13. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London, England: Sage Publications.
14. Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effects of animacy in the choice of referring expressions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1472-1504. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.506444
15. Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee's discourse model?. Cognitive Science, 36, 1289-1311. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
16. Fukumura, K., Van Gompel, R. P. G., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression?. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 331-344. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.001
17. 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, 63, 1700-1715. doi:10.1080/17470210903490969
18. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
19. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307. doi:10.2307/416535
20. Haywood, S. L., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?. Psychological Science, 16, 362-366. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01541.x
21. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground?. Cognition, 59, 91-117. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
22. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
23. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61-85. doi:10.1080/01690968508402071
24. Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee?. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194-231. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.08.002
25. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-38. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99001776
26. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Slobin, D. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking" In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3