Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1169-1206

  Koornneef, Arnout W ^a   Sanders, Ted J M ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Coherence relations; Connectives; Eye tracking; Implicit causality; Implicit consequentiality; Language comprehension; Pronoun resolution

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84883643066     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation (pp. 29-88). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2. Au, T. K. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104-122.
3. Barth-Weingarten, D. (2003). Concession in spoken English. On the realization of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen: Narr.
4. Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics, 36, 463-486.
5. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 14, 237-273.
6. Clifton, C., Jr, Bock, J., & Rado, J. (2000). Effects of the focus particle only and intrinsic contrast on comprehension of reduced relative clauses. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 591-619). Oxford: Elsevier.
7. Commandeur, E. (2010). Implicit causality and implicit consequentiality in language comprehension (TICC Dissertation Series 14). Tilburg University.
8. Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2011). The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 381-403.
9. Crinean, M., & Garnham, A. (2006). Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 636-648.
10. Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 247-255.
11. Featherstone, C., & Sturt, P. (2010). Because there was cause for concern: An investigation into the word-specific prediction account of the implicit causality effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 3-15.
12. Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 52-66.
13. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.
14. Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 517-543.
15. Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.
16. Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1975). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227-243.
17. Greene, S. B., & McKoon, G. (1995). Telling something we can't know: Experimental approaches to verbs exhibiting implicit causality. Psychological Science, 6, 262-270.
18. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
20. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
21. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1-44.
22. Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 51-76.
23. Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35-62.
24. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
25. Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445-465.
26. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Long, D. L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 545-570.
28. Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The linguistic description of minimal social scenarios affects the extent of causal inference making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 918-932.
29. Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2010). Incremental discourse processing: How coherence relations influence the resolution of pronouns. In M. Everaert, T. Lentz, H. de Mulder, Ø. Nilsen, & A. Zondervan (Eds.), The linguistics enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (pp. 167-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2001). WebCelex. Retrieved from http://www.mpi.nl/world/celex (accessed 10 June 2010).
32. McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 543-566.
33. McKoon, G., Greene, S. B., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1040-1052.
34. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
35. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of construal theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Oxford: Elsevier.
36. Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 780-788.
37. Pit, M. (2006). Determining subjectivity in text: The case of backward causal connectives in Dutch. Discourse Processes, 41, 151-174.
38. Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 5-16.
39. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
40. Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in contexts. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147.
41. Sanders T., & Spooren, W. (2009). Causal categories in discourse - Converging evidence from language use. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 205-246). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
42. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1-35.
43. Schaich, E., & Hamerle, A. (1984). Verteilungsfreie statistische Prüfverfahren. Berlin: Springer.
44. Spooren, W. P. M. S. (1989). Some aspects of the form and interpretation of global contrastive coherence relations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
45. Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519-548.
46. Stevenson, R. J., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., & McDonald, S. (2000). Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 225-262.
47. Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (1998). Implicit consequentiality. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1031-1036). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 423-443.
49. Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 481-497.
50. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158-171.
51. Versteeg, N. (2009). What you Know is What you Parse: How situational knowledge affects sentence processing. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.
52. Vonk, W. (1985). The immediacy of inferences in the understanding of pronouns. In G. Rickheit & H. Strohner (Eds.), Inferences in text processing (pp. 201-218). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
53. Wolf, F., Gibson, E., & Desmet, T. (2004). Discourse coherence and pronoun interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 665-75.