Choosing anaphoric expressions: do people take into account likelihood of reference?

Kumiko Fukumura, Roger Van Gompel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Research has shown that following a sentence fragment such as John impressed Mary because…, people are most likely to refer to John, whereas following John admired Mary because…, Mary is the preferred referent. Two written completion experiments investigated whether such semantic biases affect the choice of anaphor (pronouns vs. names). Experiment 1 investigated biases due to verb semantics, and Experiment 2 contrasted biases due to different connectives (because vs. so). Frequency-based accounts such as proposed by Arnold (2001) and functional linguists (e.g., [Givón, 1988] and [Givón, 1989]) suggest that the likelihood of reference to a particular discourse entity should affect the choice of anaphor: more pronouns (relative to names) for the bias-consistent entity than the bias-inconsistent entity. Although the semantics of the verb and connective had strong effects on the choice of referent, neither experiment showed any effect of semantic bias on the choice of anaphoric form. In contrast, structural factors did affect anaphoric choice.
LanguageEnglish
Pages52-66
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume62
Issue number1
Early online date17 Oct 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

Fingerprint

Semantics
trend
semantics
Names
Experiments
experiment
Anaphoric
Research
Experiment
discourse
Entity

Keywords

  • anaphor
  • reference
  • pronouns
  • repeated name penalty
  • implicit causality
  • language production

Cite this

Fukumura, Kumiko ; Van Gompel, Roger. / Choosing anaphoric expressions : do people take into account likelihood of reference?. In: Journal of Memory and Language. 2010 ; Vol. 62, No. 1. pp. 52-66.
@article{6c8bbc6ac11c40eb91925faa8c7bd578,
title = "Choosing anaphoric expressions: do people take into account likelihood of reference?",
abstract = "Research has shown that following a sentence fragment such as John impressed Mary because…, people are most likely to refer to John, whereas following John admired Mary because…, Mary is the preferred referent. Two written completion experiments investigated whether such semantic biases affect the choice of anaphor (pronouns vs. names). Experiment 1 investigated biases due to verb semantics, and Experiment 2 contrasted biases due to different connectives (because vs. so). Frequency-based accounts such as proposed by Arnold (2001) and functional linguists (e.g., [Giv{\'o}n, 1988] and [Giv{\'o}n, 1989]) suggest that the likelihood of reference to a particular discourse entity should affect the choice of anaphor: more pronouns (relative to names) for the bias-consistent entity than the bias-inconsistent entity. Although the semantics of the verb and connective had strong effects on the choice of referent, neither experiment showed any effect of semantic bias on the choice of anaphoric form. In contrast, structural factors did affect anaphoric choice.",
keywords = "anaphor, reference, pronouns, repeated name penalty, implicit causality, language production",
author = "Kumiko Fukumura and {Van Gompel}, Roger",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "52--66",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
number = "1",

}

Choosing anaphoric expressions : do people take into account likelihood of reference? / Fukumura, Kumiko; Van Gompel, Roger.

In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 52-66.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choosing anaphoric expressions

T2 - Journal of Memory and Language

AU - Fukumura, Kumiko

AU - Van Gompel, Roger

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - Research has shown that following a sentence fragment such as John impressed Mary because…, people are most likely to refer to John, whereas following John admired Mary because…, Mary is the preferred referent. Two written completion experiments investigated whether such semantic biases affect the choice of anaphor (pronouns vs. names). Experiment 1 investigated biases due to verb semantics, and Experiment 2 contrasted biases due to different connectives (because vs. so). Frequency-based accounts such as proposed by Arnold (2001) and functional linguists (e.g., [Givón, 1988] and [Givón, 1989]) suggest that the likelihood of reference to a particular discourse entity should affect the choice of anaphor: more pronouns (relative to names) for the bias-consistent entity than the bias-inconsistent entity. Although the semantics of the verb and connective had strong effects on the choice of referent, neither experiment showed any effect of semantic bias on the choice of anaphoric form. In contrast, structural factors did affect anaphoric choice.

AB - Research has shown that following a sentence fragment such as John impressed Mary because…, people are most likely to refer to John, whereas following John admired Mary because…, Mary is the preferred referent. Two written completion experiments investigated whether such semantic biases affect the choice of anaphor (pronouns vs. names). Experiment 1 investigated biases due to verb semantics, and Experiment 2 contrasted biases due to different connectives (because vs. so). Frequency-based accounts such as proposed by Arnold (2001) and functional linguists (e.g., [Givón, 1988] and [Givón, 1989]) suggest that the likelihood of reference to a particular discourse entity should affect the choice of anaphor: more pronouns (relative to names) for the bias-consistent entity than the bias-inconsistent entity. Although the semantics of the verb and connective had strong effects on the choice of referent, neither experiment showed any effect of semantic bias on the choice of anaphoric form. In contrast, structural factors did affect anaphoric choice.

KW - anaphor

KW - reference

KW - pronouns

KW - repeated name penalty

KW - implicit causality

KW - language production

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 52

EP - 66

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

IS - 1

ER -