Pronominal Anaphor Resolution and the Underlying Cognitive Mechanism
- 1 College of Foreign Languages and Culture, Chengdu University, Chengdu, China
- 2 College of International Studies, Southwest University, Chongqing, China
Abstract
When people tend to refer to a previous mentioned discourse entity, they can use various types of anaphoric expressions, such as pronouns, definite noun phrases, proper names or expressions that are introduced by a lexical modifier or a comparative adjective. Among the different types of anaphoric expressions, pronoun is most common and frequently used which contains only a little information about the referent, while definite expressions contain much richer semantic information. As pronouns contain very little information on their own, they are always ambiguous. The cognitive mechanism that underlies the comprehension of pronouns, especially the ones with ambiguities, catches the interests of many researchers. Various tasks have been used to investigate this issue and the results did not go for the same direction. A combination of multiple research methods is needed for a better and deeper understanding of anaphora.
- Ariel, M. (1991). The Function of Accessibility in a Theory of Grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-L
- Ariel, M. (2006). Accessibility Theory. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (pp. 15-18). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04291-7
- Christianson, K., et al. (2001). Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
- Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.
- Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms That Improve Referential Access. Cognition, 32, 99-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90001-2
- Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 69, 274-307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535
- MacDonald, M. C., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring Inhibition and Facilitation from Pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 469-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90067-A
- McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1995). The Time Course of Anaphor Resolution: Effects of Implicit Causality and Gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1025
- Mitkov, R. (1999). Multilingual Anaphora Resolution. Machine Translation, 14, 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011184828072
- Rigalleau, F., & Caplan, D. (2000). Effects of Gender Marking in Pronominal Coindexation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 23-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755884
- Seddik, K. M., & Farghaly, A. (2014). Anaphora Resolution. In: I. Zitouni (Ed.), Natural Language Processing of Semitic Languages: Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing (pp. 247-277). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45358-8_8
- Stewart, A. J., Holler, J., & Kidd, E. (2007). Shallow Processing of Ambiguous Pronouns: Evidence for Delay. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1680-1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601160807
- Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Form of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
- Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against Competition during Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003