Abstract
The goal of this study is to better understand when (and why) the combination of semantic overlap between antecedent and anaphor and antecedent focus leads to difficulty in anaphor processing. To investigate these questions, three ERP experiments manipulating semantic overlap and focus compared the ERPs from the onset of the anaphor as well as from the onset of the last word in the sentence containing the anaphor. Our results suggest that although the focus status of an antecedent and the semantic overlap between the antecedent and anaphor are important, these factors are not the only significant contributors to online anaphor resolution. Factors such as readers’ expectations about thematic shifts also influence the processing. We consider our results in relation to two accounts of anaphor resolution, the Informational Load Hypothesis (Almor, 1999; Almor & Eimas, 2008) and JANUS (Garnham & Cowles, 2008).
References
Almor, A. (1999). Noun-Phrase Anaphora and Focus: The Informational Load Hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748-765.10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748Search in Google Scholar
Almor, A., & Eimas, P. D. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 201-225. doi: 10.1080/0169096070133093610.1080/01690960701330936Search in Google Scholar
Almor, A., Nair, V. A., Boiteau, T. W., & Vendemia, J. M. C. (2017). The N400 in processing repeated name and pronoun anaphors in sentences and discourse. Brain and Language, 173(1), 52-66.10.1016/j.bandl.2017.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M. & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 269-298.10.1080/01690960244000018Search in Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., & Garnham, A. (2005). Antecedent focus and conceptual distance effects in category noun-phrase anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(6), 725-750. doi: 10.1080/0169096040002462410.1080/01690960400024624Search in Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Garnham, A., & Simner, J. (2010). Conceptual similarity effects on working memory in sentence contexts: Testing a theory of anaphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(6), 1218-1232.10.1080/17470210903359198Search in Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W., Kluender, R., Kutas, M. & Polinsky, M. (2007). Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain & Language, 102, 228-242.10.1016/j.bandl.2007.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009Search in Google Scholar
Delorme, A., Sejnowski, T., & Makeig, S. (2007). Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis. Neuroimage, 34, 1443-1449.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (1990). Eye movements and anaphor resolution: Effects of antecedent typicality and distance. Language and Speech, 33,103–119.10.1177/002383099003300201Search in Google Scholar
Garnham, A., & Cowles, H. W. (2008). Looking both ways: The JANUS model of noun phrase anaphor processing. In J.K. Gundel & N. Hedberg (Eds.), Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 246-272). New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 77-90.10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80009-1Search in Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526-544.10.1006/jmla.1999.2694Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Seminar Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hillyard, S. A. (1985). Electrophysiology of human selective attention. Trends in Neurosciences, 8, 400-40510.1016/0166-2236(85)90142-0Search in Google Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence for ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196-214.10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196Search in Google Scholar
King, J. W. and Kutas, M. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376-395.10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376Search in Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123Search in Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 659-724). New York: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Mangun, G. R. & Hillyard, S. A. (1991). Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1057-1074.10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.1057Search in Google Scholar
Myers, J. L., Cook, A. E., Kambe, G., Mason, R. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2000). Semantic and episodic effects on bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 29, 179-199.10.1207/S15326950dp2903_1Search in Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Raney, G. E. (1993). Monitoring changes in cognitive load during reading: An event-related brain potential and reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 51-69.Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Kambe, G., & Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A,1061–1080.10.1080/713755934Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. B., Backhaus, J., & Dangl, M. (2015). Backward- and forward-looking potential of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1746. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0174610.3389/fpsyg.2015.01746Search in Google Scholar
Swaab, T., Camblin, C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological Evidence for Reversed Lexical Repetition Effects in Language Processing. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 16, 715-26.10.1162/089892904970744Search in Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235-248.10.1111/1469-8986.00025Search in Google Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Liversedge, S. P., & Pearson, J. (2004). Antecedent typicality effects in the processing of noun phrase anaphors. In: M. Carreiras, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (pp. 119-137). Hove: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vonk, W., Hustinx, L. G. M. M., & Simons, W. H. G. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 310-333.10.1080/01690969208409389Search in Google Scholar
Xu, X. (2015). The influence of information status on pronoun resolution in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in psychology 6: 873. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00873.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00873Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Lea A. Hald et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
