Accessibility theory: an overview

Human Cognitive Processing

Volumn 8, Issue , 2001, Pages 29-87

  Ariel, Mira ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899141037     PISSN: 13876724     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari     Document Type: Chapter

References (203)

1. Accessibility theory is very much in tune with many recent psycholinguistic proposals, where mental accessibility of various referents has been experimented with. In fact, these experiments (together with discourse data) form the empirical basis of accessibility theory. However, psycholinguists and linguists approach the accessibility of mental representations with different goals in mind. Whereas the psycholinguists are interested in learning about human memory, the linguists are interested in learning about natural langauge expressions. Hence, the psycholinguists use pronouns in order to draw conclusions about working memory, and any definite lexical NPs (definite descriptions and first names) to learn about the reinstatement process from memory. In contrast, the linguist must establish a form-function correlation for each referring expression type. The psycholinguists see anaphora in general as a coherence device, and do not pay careful attention to minute differences between different anaphoric devices. They ignore nonanaphoric referential uses. In addition, psycholinguists are interested in how the processing of anaphora is performed, in how speakers assess the degree of accessibility of mental representations to their addressees (Morton Ann Gernsbacher, personal communcation). They want to define processing cues, which are different from linguistic codes (see Garnham, Oakhill & Cruttenden 1992; Garrod, Freudenthal & Boyle 1994; MacDonald & MacWhinney 1990; McDonald & MacWhinney 1995; Rinck & Bower 1995, inter alia), and to find when the accessing is performed, (e.g. Cacciari, Carreiras & Cionini 1997; Garnham, Traxler, Oakhill & Gernsbacher 1996; Lucas, Tanenhaus & Carlson 1990; McDonald & MacWhinney 1995). All of these are not of direct interest to the linguist. Last, many psycholinguists are committed to a dichotomy between working and long term memory, and therfore invariably compare two accessibility contexts or two referring expressions at a time. I find that unacceptable from a linguist's point of view, since the impression cretaed is that language poses a binary decision, parallel to the short-long term memory division, where in reality, referring expression must be selected from a large variety of referring expressions.
2. Zeroes are empty argument slots, as in '0 [=you] wanna go?'.
3. I thank Jack Du Bois (personal communication) for providing me with this example. All the examples in this text are taken from Du Bois (2000), unless otherwise specified.
4. See Schilperoord (1996) for an argument that degree of accessibility (resulting from the hierarchical structure of the text) determines pause lengths.
5. Note that definite descriptions count as quite low accessibility markers here. Other researchers, however, have sometimes had to say that definite descriptions refer to the most “salient” or contextually uniquely identified referents (e.g.Chafe 1994, 1996; McCawley 1979), in order to make sure that addressees interpret the expression as referring to the immediately relevant entity. See Walker and Prince (1996, ex 1) where the guy is preferentially understood to refer to the non-topic 'guy', rather than to the topical 'guy', and ex. 13, where in a discourse about two sisters, her sister changes its reference to whoever is not the sister in focus.
6. Cliticized pronouns are shortened pronouns, e.g., 'ya'.
7. Note the following example (Jury), where the molester is first referred to as he, then, strictly speaking, he is not referred to for a few intonation units I marked with *. Still, he is later referred to again with a pronoun: RICKIE: You know like, (H) but he was making, * I don't know how you describe it, * you know how you can be like a nuisance to someone? *REBECCA: [Mhm]. *RICKIE: [Or].. you may smell or some[thi]ng, *REBECCA: [Yeah]. *RICKIE: you know like that you [know, *REBECCA: [Yeah]. *RICKIE: or] moving around, * you know like, … as he wanted her to move. Indeed, Mauner, Tanenhaus, and Carlson (1995) found that missing agents in agentless passive sentences were processed nonetheless.
8. Independently, Terken and Nooteboom (1988) found that one previous mention was not suYcient for subjects to treat an entity as Given. In fact, Maes and Noordman (1995) also argue for special functions of these second mentions (see below).
9. In addition, in order to reduce all distinctions to one binary distinction, Givón simply ignores many referential devices, e.g., names (and first, last and full names each code a different degree of accessibility), and agreement markers. He also lumps together referential forms which have different distributional patterns, e.g., zero and pronoun.
10. Nurit Assayag (personal communication) brought to my attention the following example (from her originally Hebrew conversational data), where the speaker refers to herself by too low an accessibility marker (a full pronoun rather than zero in the second mention) in order to maintain a syntactic parallelism with the preceding clause: So I began and nobody said anything. So I continued and nobody said anything.
11. But note that Bird-David's research is on naming rather than on referential forms per se. This is true for all the anthropological work on names.
12. However, Givón's examination of another novel which alternates between the perspectives of the two main characters (Cold mountain) revealed a different pattern: The zero/pronoun versus NP distribution for references to the two characters is either similar, or else, there are more full NPs for the other than for the self. At first blush, these findings seem contradictory, but actually, once the author relinquishes the narrator's role to some character, that character's consciousness is at work. Of course, normally, that entails the centrality of the self (Givón's novel), but at other times, the other is so central to the self that the other merits a higher rate of high accessibility markers (Cold mountain). This last point deserves further checking.
13. This finding contradicts Bernstein's (1970) conviction that speakers of lower classes only use the restricted code.
14. Note, however, that first mentions are more highly accessible only when all other factors are equal. When a non-first mention is marked as focus, as in wh-clefts, it is the second mention entity, coded by the focussed NP that is more highly accessible (see Almor 1999).
15. In fact, I have already brieXy argued that the accessibility markers used to access inferred entities manifest accessibility differences (Ariel 1990, pp. 184-190).
16. See Van den Broek (1990) for the importance of predictive inferences in general.
17. We can similarly establish that some NPs are marked for low or no cataphoricity. Quantified NPs, for example, are known to serve as antecedents for intra-sentential anaphora, but not for extra-sentential anaphora.
18. But first, note that referring expressions are not only measurable along one dimension. Thus, as Downing points out, classifiers also exempt speakers from marking the social status of the (human) referent. Also, as Kirsner (1990) argues, while the Dutch definite article and the distal demonstrative are sometimes interchangeable, the latter are used when the entity referred to has been distinguished from others, while the demonstratives (both the distal and the proximate) are used when the speaker needs to alert the addressee to seek out the referent. Similarly, Epstein (1998a) argues that the has additional functions to reference establishing, e.g., marking the referent as prominent. Second, expressions commonly used to refer are not always used referentially, and as such are also otherwise classified (most notably, definite descriptions, which are sometimes used attributively or generically - see Mueller-Lust & Gibbs 1991).
19. But although Cacciari et al. (1997) found that gendered anaphoric expressions speeded up interpretations even when there was no competition over antecednthood, Garnham et al. 1992 suggest that the gender cue is not always used by subjects.
20. However, we need to also examine the informativity and length of the lexical NPs involved.
21. In fact, C. L. Baker (personal communication) agreed with me on this point.
22. I completely reject Reboul's (1997) assumption of an 'all or none' grammatical/extragrammatical status for reference interpretation. The fact that some aspects of referentiality are better accounted for by a pragmatic theory does not mean that all must be accounted for by pragmatic principles.
23. I actually believe that the 'avoid pronoun' principle is superXuous (see Ariel 1990, pp. 100-105). In this case, then, I suggest to replace a grammatical principle with a functional principle.
24. One should however remember to distinguish between long and short reXexives. Accessibility theory predicts that they would be used differently, and indeed they are (see Reinhart & Reuland 1993).
25. I thank Jack Du Bois for giving me the PP reXexive examples.
26. See Mithun (1996, p. 231) for a similar finding.
27. Reboul (1997) argues against accessibility theory, but in effect against all attempts to offer a linguistic theory for extrasentential referential forms. Although she herself does not propose a specific account, she believes that with Relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson 1986) “one can account for the use of referring expressions, if one considers the semantic content of such expressions and the relationship between their semantic content and their referring ability” (p. 91, emphasis added). I had in fact argued against the first part of such a proposal in Ariel (1990, p. 83-86). I have shown that many referring expressions do not differ with respect to their semantic content, but they signal a different degree of accessibility nonetheless (e.g., it/that; name/shortened name; full pronouns/reduced pronouns/verbal person agreement markers). Degree of accessibility could be seen as the relationship between the semantics of the expression and referring ability, but it is not a transparently inferred relationship. Differences between languages which have the same referential forms (e.g., English, Hebrew and Chinese all have pronouns and zeroes, but they use them quite differently) are also left unaccounted for under an exclusively pragmatic theory.
28. In fact, Tao (1996) is the only one who claims to have different findings, where zero (in Chinese) is used to shift, rather than to maintain reference.
29. The theories also differ in scope of application. Only Levinson has argued that his principles actually replace the binding rules (and see also Garcia, 1996).
30. Gundel et al. (1993) claim that unlike 'referentials', 'uniquely identifiables' are identified based on the referring expression alone without reference to the rest of the sentence. I doubt that context is ever ignored. In any case, it is hard to know how one could check whether or not sentential (or other) context was actually used in the interpretative process. 31. In fact, Chambers and Smyth (1998) point out that Centering theory also cannot account for the acceptability of examples such as: Josh criticized Paul and then Marie insulted him, where the pronoun does not refer to the most prominent forward looking center, nor is it the subject (and topic?) of either clauses. For other arguments against centering theory, see Chambers and Smyth (1998).
31. Kirsner argues that deze (+NP) codes HIGH DEIXIS, which often translates to relative low accessibility (in terms of referential distance and antecednt complexity). Note, however, that Kirsner's own attempt to incorporate the higher effort required in HIGH DEIXIS with references to entities physically near, rather than far from the speakers is unconvincing. Also, if important entities require HIGH DEIXIS, does that mean that pronouns coding continuing discourse topics are HIGH DEIXIS too? In other words, Dutch poses a puzzle as to why its proximate demonstrative marks higher accessibility for physical pointings but lower accessibility for discoursal refernces, when compared with the distal demonstrative (but see Piweck et al., as cited in Beun & Cremers 1998, for a different claim re the deictic usage of the proximate and distal demonstratives in Dutch). I tentatively suggest that this has to do with the markedness of the proximate demonstrative (by far the rarer form in spoken Dutch). Thus, there is a potential conXict between demonstratives (in general) and definite descriptions. In terms of accessibility coding, the demonstrative should be the shorter form, but in terms of frequency it is the definite (or the distal demonstrative) which is predicted to be the shorter form. However, once length is established via markednmess (i.e., demonstratives are longer than definites) this formal difference in attenuation may affect the degree of accessibility later attributed to them.
32. If we replace Givenness with degree of accessibility, we can perhaps also explain why proper names pattern with 3rd persons in split ergative systems (both are not extremely highly accessible), rather than with 1st/2nd persons, even though they are (almost) equally Given (see Dixon 1979, p. 87).
33. In fact, Du Bois (to appear) proposes that the deeper generalization behind the distribution of agents versus intransitive subjects and objects is sensitive to low versus high processing costs. It is the highly demanding NPs which are restricted in distribution. Indeed, other things being equal, high accessibility marking entails a low processing cost because the entity is highly accessible, and low accessibility marking entails a high processing cost because the entity is not so easily retrievable. However, pragmatically motivated exceptions to accessibility theory do occur, where highly accessible entities are referred to by relatively low accessibility markers (e.g., epithets), or vice versa (less common), where entities of a relatively low degree of accessibility are referred to by high accessibility markers. Accessibility theory predicts that both cases entail a high cost of processing, and hence, they should pattern as high processing cost entities, rather than according to either their marking or their real cognitive accessibility. This hypothesis requires testing. I thank Jack Du Bois for discussing this point with me.
34. It is also possible that using high accessibility markers (usually zeroes or pronouns) promotes the dependence of the interpretation based on another linguistic marker, which is required for nonreferentials.
35. As Morton Ann Gernsbacher (personal communication) reminds me, a huge task still remains of finding psycholinguistic lab evidence for the continuum of accessibility.
36. In fact, the children tested initially referred to the protagonists with indefinte NPs (and not pronouns), and they did from time to time refer to secondary characters by pronouns. Unfortunately, Karmiloff-Smith does not provide actual numbers. Also, the opportunity to refer to secondary charaters by pronouns was quite limited, since they were mentioned twice at most.
37. Unlike McDonald and MacWhinney (1995), Garnham et al. (1996) too find that relevant semantic information takes effect only at the integration stage. Cacciari et al. (1997) suggest that the different findings re when semantic information is used in reference tracking may actually point to differences between different languages.
38. The psycholinguists also have contradicting results sometimes, e.g., Garrod and Sanford (1982) versus Albrecht and Clifton (1998) re anaphoric references to a conjoined NP antecedent when the anaphor is a subject.
39. Aissen, J. (1997). On the syntax of obviation. Language, 73, 705-750.
40. Albrecht, J. E., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1998). Accessing singular antecedents in conjoined phrases. Memory and Cognition, 26, 599-610.
41. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106, 748-765..
42. Almor, A. (in press). Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor processing. In M. Pickering, C. Clifton, & M. Crocker (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms in sentence comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Ariel, M. (1985a). Givenness marking. PhD thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
44. Ariel, M. (1985b). The discourse functions of Given information. Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 99-113.
45. Ariel, M. (1987). The grammaticalization of accessibility. Ms. Tel Aviv University (A much abridged version of this appeared as Part II of Ariel 1990).
46. Ariel, M. (1988a). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65-87.
47. Ariel, M. (1988b). Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 567-600.
48. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun Phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
49. Ariel, M. (1994). Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 3-42.
50. Ariel, M. (1996). Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 13-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Ariel, M. (1998a). Three grammaticalization paths for the development of person verbal agreement in Hebrew. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp. 93-112). Stanford: CSLI/Cambridge University Press.
52. Ariel, M. (1998b). The linguistic status of the 'here and now'. Cognitive linguistics, 9, 189-237.
53. Ariel, M. (1998c). Mapping so-called 'pragmatic' phenomena according to a 'linguistic-extralinguistic' distinction: The case of propositions marked 'accessible'. In M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54. Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in language 23, 217-264. Ariel, M. Ms. Linguistic pragmatics.
55. Ariel, M. (2000). The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (Eds), Usage-based models of language (pp. 197-260). Stanford: CSLI.
56. Arnold, J. (1997). What is salience?: The role of topic and focus in processing reference. Unpublished Ms. Stanford University.
57. Arnold, J. (to appear). Multiple constraints on choice of reference: Null, pronominal, and overt reference in Mapudungun. In J. W. Du Bois, L. Kumpf & W. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
58. Bach, K. (1998). A review of Thorstein Fretheim and Jeanette K. Gundel (Eds.) Reference and referent accessibility. Pragmatics and cognition, 6, 335-57.
59. Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reXexives in British English. Language, 71, 63-101.
60. Beeman, M., & Gernsbacher, M. A.. Structure building and coherence inferencing during comprehension. University of Oregon manuscript.
61. Bernstein, B. A. (1970). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization: With some reference to educability. In F. William (Ed.), Language and poverty. Chicago: Markam.
62. Beun, R. J., & Cremers, A. H. M. (1998). Object reference in a shared domain of conversation. Pragmatics and cognition, 6, 21-52.
63. Blackwell, S. E. (2000). Anaphora interpretations in Spanish utterances and the neoGricean pragmatic theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 289-424.
64. Bouchard, D. (1983). The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. In P. Sells, & C. Jones (Eds.), NELS 13. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
65. Bouchard, D. (1985). The binding theory and the notion of Accessible SUBJECT. Linguistic inquiry, 16, 117-33.
66. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and cognitive processes, 10, 137-67.
67. Brizuela, M. (1997). The selection of definite expressions in Spanish: A note on the notion of processing eVort. Paper presented at the International cognitive linguistics conference at Amsterdam.
68. Broek, P. van den, (1990). The causal inference marker: Toward a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. A Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423-445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69. Cacciari, C., Carreiras, M., & Cionini, C. (1997). When words have two genders: Anaphor resolution for Italian functionally ambiguous words. Journal of memory and language, 37, 517-32.
70. Cameron, R. (1997) Accessibility theory in a variable syntax of Spanish. Journal of pragmatics, 28, 29-67.
71. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic press.
72. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
73. Chafe, W. L. (1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 37-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
74. Chambers, C. G., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of memory and language, 39, 593-608.
75. Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 127-202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
76. Clark, H. H., & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search for referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and cognition, 7, 35-41.
77. Clark H. H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78. Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1987). Discourse structures and anaphora: Some experimental results. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp.635-653). Hove, East Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum.
79. Comrie, B. (1983). Form and function in explaining language universals. Linguistics, 21, 87-103.
80. Comrie, B. (1988a). Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. BLS, 14, 265-79.
81. Comrie, B. (1988b). Coreference and conjunction reduction in grammar and discourse. In J. A Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 186-208). Oxford: Blackwell.
82. Comrie, B. (1994). Coreference: Between grammar and discourse. Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Kansai Linguistic society (1993), 1-10.
83. Dahl, Ö., & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
84. Dolman, R. (1998). Comparing referential forms in narratives of children aged 5-6 from low and high socioeconomic classes. A seminar paper, Tel Aviv University.
85. Doron, E. (1982). On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas linguistic forum, 19, 1-48.
86. Downing, P. A. (1986). The anaphoric use of classifiers in Japanese. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 345-375). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
87. Downing, P. A. (1996). Proper names as a referential option in English conversation. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 95-143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
88. Du Bois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 203-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
89. Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343-365). Asterdam: John Benjamins.
90. Du Bois, J.W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805-855.
91. Du Bois, J. W. (1991). Definiteness, reference, and analogues. Paper presented at the cognitive linguistics symposium, UC San Diego.
92. Du Bois, J. W. (2000). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. 3 CD-ROMs. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
93. Du Bois, J.W. (to appear). Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2. Erlbaum.
94. Du Bois, J. W., & Thompson, S. A. (1991). Dimensions of theory of information Xow. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara.
95. Epstein, R. (1998a). Reference and definite referring expressions. Pragmatics and cognition, 6, 189-207.
96. Epstein, R. (1998b). Definiteness and the construction of discourse referents. Unpublished MS. Rutgers University-Camden.
97. Faltz, L. M.(1977). ReXexivization: A study in universal syntax. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
98. Farmer, A., & Harnish, H. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds), The pragmatic perspective: Proceedings of the international pragmatics conference (pp. 547-566). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
99. Fowler, C. A., Levy, E. T., & Brown, J. M. (1997). Journal of memory and language, 37, 24-40.
100. Fraurud, K. (1996). Cognitive ontology and NP form. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 65-87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
101. Garcia, E. C. (1983). Context dependence of language and linguistic analysis. In F. Klein-Andreu (Ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax (pp. 181-207). New York: Academic Press.
102. Garcia, E. C. (1996). What “reXexivity” is really like. Linguistics, 34, 1-51.
103. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cruttenden, H. (1992). The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns. Language and cognitive processes, 7, 231-255.
104. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Ehrlich, M. F. (1995). Representations and processes in the interpretation of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and French. Journal of memory and language, 34, 41-62.
105. 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.
106. Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of memory and language, 33, 39-68.
107. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focused memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of semantics, 1, 21-41.
108. Gernsbacher, M.. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99-156.
109. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
110. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms on language comprehension: The structure building framework. The psychology of learning and motivation, 27, 217-263.
111. Gernsbacher, M.. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 17, 245-262.
112. Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of memory and language, 28, 735-755.
113. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Jescheniak, J. D. Ms. Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse.
114. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Shroyer, S. (1989). The cataphoric use of indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and cognition, 17, 536-540.
115. Giora, R., & Lee, C. (1996). Written discourse segmentation: The function of unstressed pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 113-140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
116. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study (pp.1-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
117. Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 5-55.
118. Givón, T. (1998). The usual suspects: The grammar of perspective in narrative fiction. University of Oregon Institute of Cognitive and decision sciences: Technical report no. 98-06.
119. Glenberg, A. M., & Kruley, P. (1992). Picture and anaphora: Evidence for independent processes. Memory and cognition, 20, 461-471.
120. Gordon, P. C., & Davina, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of memory and language, 34, 216-231.
121. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-348.
122. Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and cognition, 23, 313-323.
123. Greene, S. B., Gerrig, R. J., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1994). Unheralded pronouns and management by common ground. Journal of memory and language, 33, 511-526.
124. Grosz, B. J. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 84-105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
125. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1986). Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Unpublished Ms.
126. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. IRCS Report 95-01. The Institute for research in cognitive science, University of Pennsylvania.
127. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
128. Gundel, J. K., & Mulkern, A. E. (1998). Quantity implicatures in reference understanding. Pragmatics and cognition, 6, 21-45.
129. Hakulinen, A. (1987). Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds), The pragmatic perspective: Proceedings of the international pragmatics conference (pp. 141-153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
130. Halmari, H. (1996). On accessibility and coreference. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 155-178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
131. Heller, D. (1998). The demonstrative set-A second pronominal copula in Hebrew. Unpublished Ms. Tel Aviv University.
132. Hermon, G. (1985). Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.
133. Hinds, J. (1983). Topic continuity in Japanese. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study (pp.43-95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
134. Hoek, K. van (1995). Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310-40.
135. Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
136. Hyman, L. M., & Comrie, B. (1981). Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal of African languages and linguistics, 3, 19-37.
137. Jucker, A. H. (1996). News actor labelling in British newspapers. Text, 16, 373-90.
138. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and cognitive processes, 1, 61-85.
139. Keenan, E. L. (1994). Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reXexive pronouns. Unpublished MS, UCLA.
140. Kempson, R. M. (1984). Weak crossover, logical form and pragmatics. Paper delivered at GLOW, April 1984.
141. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Balin, J. A. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of memory and language, 39, 1-20.
142. Khan, G. (1999). A grammar of neo-Aramaic: The dialect of the Jews in Arbel. Leiden: Brill.
143. Kibrik, A. A. (1996). Anaphora in Russian narrative prose: A cognitive calculative account. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 255-303). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
144. Kirsner, R. S. (1979). Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 355-375). New York: Academic Press.
145. Kirsner, R. S. (1990). Grappling with the ill-defined: Problems of theory and data in synchronic grammatical description. In R. Amacker, & R. Engler (Eds.), Présence de Saussure: Actes du Colloque Internationale de Geneve (21-23 Mars 1988) (pp. 187-201). Publications du Cercle Ferdinand de Saussure 1. Librairie Droz, Geneva. 187-201.
146. Kirsner, R. S., & Heuven, V. J. van (1988). The significance of demonstrative position in modern Dutch. Lingua, 76, 209-48.
147. Kronrod, A., & Engel, O. (2001). Accessibility theory and referring expressions in newspaper headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 683-699.
148. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
149. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of linguistics, 23, 379-434.
150. Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of linguistics, 27,107-161.
151. Lichtenberk, F. (1996). Patterns of anaphora in To'aba'ita narrative discourse. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 379-411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
152. Linde, C. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronoun in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. (pp. 337-354). New-York: Academic Press.
153. Lucas, M. M., Tanenhaus, M., & Carlson, G. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory and cognition, 18, 611-631.
154. MacDonald, M., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring inhibition and facilitation from pronouns. Journal of memory and language, 29, 469-92.
155. Maes, A. A., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1995). Demonstrative nominal anaphors: A case of nonidentificational markedness. Linguistics, 33, 255-282.
156. Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E., & Komisarjevsky Tyler, L. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds), Speech, Place and Action (pp. 339-380). Chichester: John Wiley and sons.
157. Matsui, T. (1998). Pragmatic criteria for reference assignment: A relevance-theoretic account of the acceptability of bridging. Pragmatics and cognition, 6, 47-97.
158. Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of memory and language, 34, 357-382.
159. McCawley, J. D. (1979). Presupposition and discourse structure. In C. K. Oh, & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 11: Presupposition (pp. 371-388). New York: Academic press.
160. McEnery, T. & Thomas, J. (1992). The pragmatic basis of automated pronoun resolution. A paper presented at the 4th IPrA conference, Kobe Japan.
161. 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.
162. McKoon, G., Ward, G., Ratcliff, R., & Sproat, R. (1993). Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities. Journal of memory and language, 32, 56-75.
163. Mehudar, O. (1996). The phenomenon of obviation in third person pronouns in Indian languages in light of accessibility theory. A Tel Aviv University seminar paper.
164. Mithun, M. (1996). Prosodic cues to accessibility. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 223-233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
165. Montgomery, M. (1989). Choosing between that and it. In R. W. Fasold, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (pp. 241-254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
166. Mueller-Lust, R. A. G., & Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Inferring the interpretation of attributive and referential definite descriptions. Discourse Processes, 14, 107-31.
167. Mulkern, A. E. (1996). The game of the name. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 235-250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
168. Oakhill, J., Garnham, A., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Cain, K. (1992). How natural are conceptual anaphors? Language and cognitive processes, 7, 257-80.
169. O'Brien, E. J & Albrecht, J. E (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 17, 94-102.
170. Onishi, K. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: When metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory and cognition, 21, 763-772.
171. Paterson, K. B., Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Dawydiak, Eugene (1998). Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of memory and language, 39, 290-306.
172. Reboul, A. (1997). What (if anything) is accessibility? A relevance-oriented criticism of Ariel's accessibility theory of referring expressions. In J. H. Connolly, R. M. Vismans, C. S. Butler, & R. A. Gatward (Eds.), Discourse and pragmatics in functional grammar (pp. 91-108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
173. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
174. Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). ReXexivity. Linguistic inquiry, 24, 657-720.
175. Rieder, G., & Mulokandov, N. (1998). The cliticization and deletion of first person pronouns in Hebrew. A seminar paper. Tel Aviv University.
176. Rinck, M., & Bower, G. H. (1995). Anaphora resolution and the focus of attention in situation models. Journal of memory and language, 34, 110-131.
177. Rosén, V. (1996). The interpretation of empty pronouns in Vietnamese. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 251-261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
178. Saadi, I. (1997). Untitled seminar paper. Tel Aviv University.
179. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley and sons.
180. Sanford, A. J., Moore, K., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech, 31, 43-46.
181. Sanford, A. J., & Moxey, L. M. (1995). Notes on plural reference and the scenario-mapping principle in comprehension. In G. Rickheit, & C. Habel (Eds.), Focus and coherence in discourse processing (pp. 18-43). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 18-34.
182. Sanford A. J., Moxey. L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (1996). Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory and cognition, 24, 144-155.
183. Schiffman, R. J. (1984). The two nominal anaphors it and that. In J. Drogo, V. Mishra, & D. Testen (Eds.), Papers from the twentieth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 344-357). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
184. Schilperoord, J. (1996). It's about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
185. Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
186. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
187. Sproat, R., & Ward, G. (1987). Pragmatic considerations in anaphoric island phenomena. CLS, 23, 321-35.
188. Stebbins, T. (1997). Asymmetrical nominal number marking: A functional account. Sprachtypologie and Universalienforschung, 50, 5-47.
189. Tao, L. (1996). Topic discontinuity and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse: Cognitive strategies in discourse processing. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 487-513). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
190. Terken, J., & Nooteboom, S. J. (1988). Opposite effects of accentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information. Language and cognitive processes, 2, 145-163.
191. Tomlin, R. S. (1987). Linguistic reXections of cognitive events. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in Discourse (pp. 455-480). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
192. Toole, J. (1992). Local or global: An investigation of the eVect of genre on referential choice.
193. An MA thesis submitted to Monash University.
194. Toole, J. (1996). The effect of genre on referential choice. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 263-290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
195. Vonk, W., Lettica, G., Hustinx, M., & W. Simons (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and cognitive processes, 7, 301-333.
196. Walker, M. A., Iida, M., & Cote, S. (1990). Centering in Japanese discourse. In COLING 90: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computational linguistics, 251-261.
197. Walker, M. A., & Prince, E. F. (1996). A bilateral approach to Givenness: A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In T. Fretheim, & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 291-306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
198. Ward, G., Sproat, R., & McKoon, G. (1991). A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language, 67, 439-74.
199. Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and ostension in the interpretation of deixis. Language and cognitive processes, 6, 107-35.
200. Ziv, Y. (1994). Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of pragmatics, 22, 629-645.
201. Ziv, Y. (1996). Pronominal reference to inferred antecedents. The Belgian journal of linguistics, 10, 55-67.
202. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1980). Coréférence et pronoms réXéchis: Note sur le contraste lui/luimeme en Français. Linguisticae Investigationes, 4, 131-179.
203. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reXexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language, 65, 695-727.