Variable binding and coreference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 39-56

  Cunnings, Ian ^a   Patterson, Clare ^b   Felser, Claudia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Eye movements; Memory retrieval; Pronoun resolution; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887588177     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arnold J.E., Brown-Schmidt S., Trueswell J.C. Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 2007, 22:527-565.
2. Avrutin, S. (1994). Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference. Doctoral thesis, MIT.
3. Avrutin S. Development of the syntax-discourse interface 1999, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
4. Baayen H. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Baayen H., Davidson D., Bates D. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
6. Badecker W., Straub K. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:748-769.
7. Barr D., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. Random-effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68:255-278.
8. Berman M., Jonides J., Lewis R. In search of decay in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2009, 35:317-333.
9. Bosch P. Agreement and anaphora: A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse 1983, Academic Press, London.
10. Burkhardt, P. (2005). The syntax-discourse interface. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11. Burzio L. Anaphora and soft constraints. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax 1998, MIT Press, Massachusetts. P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, D. Pesetsky (Eds.).
12. Carminati M., Frazier L., Rayner K. Bound variables and c-command. Journal of Semantics 2002, 19:1-34.
13. Chambers C., Smyth R. Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 39:593-608.
14. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
15. Collins C. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry 2005, 36:289-298.
16. Cooreman, A., & Sanford, A. (1996). Focus and syntactic subordination in discourse. Technical report RP-79. Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.
17. Cunnings I., Felser C. The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes 2013, 28:188-219.
18. Dillon, B. (2011). Structured access in sentence comprehension. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Maryland.
19. Dillon B., Mishler A., Sloggett S., Phillips C. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modelling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 69:85-103.
20. Evans G. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 1980, 11:337-362.
21. Foley C., Nunez del Prado Z., Barbier I., Lust B. Knowledge of variable binding in VP ellipsis: Language acquisition research and theory converge. Syntax 2003, 6:52-83.
22. Foraker S., McElree B. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Availability vs. accessibility. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:357-383.
23. Frazier L., Clifton C. On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:125-140.
24. Garvey C., Caramazza A. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 1974, 5:459-464.
25. Gernsbacher M. Language comprehension as structure building 1990, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
26. Gernsbacher M.A., Hargreaves D.J. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 1988, 27:699-717.
27. Gordon P.C., Grosz B.J., Gilliom L.A. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science 1993, 17:311-347.
28. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R. The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science 1998, 22:389-424.
29. Grodzinsky Y., Reinhart T. The innateness of binding and of coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 1993, 24:69-101.
30. Heim, I. (1992). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989. New York: Garland.
31. Heim, I. (1998). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. In Sauerland, G., & Percus, O. (Eds.), The interpretive tract. MIT working papers in linguistics (Vol. 25, pp. 205-246). MIT: Cambridge, MA.
32. Heim, I. (2007). Forks in the road to rule I. In M. Abdurrahman, A. Schardl, & M. Walkow (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-eighth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. University of Ottawa (26-28 October 2007).
33. Hendriks P., Spenader J. When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 2006, 13:319-348.
34. Järvikivi J., van Gompel R., Hyönä J., Bertram R. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science 2005, 16:260-264.
35. Jonides J., Lewis R., Nee D., Lusting C., Berman M., Moore K. The mind and brain of short term memory. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:193-224.
36. Kazanina N., Lau E., Liberman M., Yoshida M., Phillips C. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backward anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:384-409.
37. Koornneef A. Eye-catching anaphora 2008, LOT International Dissertation Series, Utrecht.
38. Koornneef, A., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2006). Towards a modular approach to anaphora processing. In R. Artstein, & M. Poesio (Eds.), Ambiguity in Anaphora workshop proceedings (pp. 65-72). Malaga: ESSLLI.
39. Koornneef, A., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, 37). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
40. Koornneef A. Looking at anaphora: The psychology reality of the Primitives of Binding model. The linguistic enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge of linguistics 2010, 141-166. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. T. Everaert, H. Lentz, T. de Mulder, A. Nilsen, A. Zondervan (Eds.).
41. Kush, D. (2013). Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing. Doctoral thesis, University of Maryland.
42. Lewis R.L., Vasishth S., Van Dyke J.A. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:44-54.
43. Martin A., McElree B. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:879-906.
44. McElree B. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2000, 29:111-123.
45. McElree B., Foraker S., Dyer L. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:67-91.
46. Nairne J. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 1990, 18:251-269.
47. Oberauer K., Kliegl R. A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:601-626.
48. Prince A., Smolensky P. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar 2004, Blackwell, Oxford.
49. Rayner K. Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422.
50. Reinhart T. Anaphora and semantic interpretation 1983, Croom Helm, London.
51. Reuland E. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 2001, 32:439-492.
52. Reuland E. Anaphora and language design 2011, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
53. Roberts C. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 1989, 12:683-721.
54. Sanford & Garrod Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech 1988, 31:43-56.
55. Streb J., Henninghausen E., Rösler F. Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2004, 33:175-201.
56. Sturt P. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:542-562.
57. Van Dyke J. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2007, 33:407-430.
58. Van Dyke J., Johns C. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 2012, 6:193-211.
59. Van Dyke J., McElree B. Retrieval interference in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:157-166.
60. Van Dyke J., McElree B. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 65:247-263.
61. Van Gompel R., Liversedge S. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2003, 29:128-139.
62. Vasić N., Avrutin S., Ruigendijk E. Interpretation of pronouns in VP-ellipsis constructions in Dutch Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language 2006, 96:191-206.
63. Wagers M., Lau E., Phillips C. Attraction in comprehension: Representation and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:206-237.
64. Xiang M., Dillon B., Phillips C. Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language 2009, 108:40-55.