Abstract
The level of representation accessed when inferences are made during sentence comprehension was examined. The inferences investigated included antecedent assignment for both definite noun phrase anaphors and pronouns and also instrument inferences. In making these inferences, a listener must access the inferred element, whether an antecedent or an instrument, in either a linguistic form representation or a discourse model. The level of representation involved in these inferences was determined by exploiting differences in the lexical-decision and naming tasks, which were argued to exhibit differential sensitivity to representational levels. In three experiments, the priming of antecedent and instrument targets in the lexical decision task was compared with priming of the same targets in the naming task. Differences in the patterns of activation across the two tasks indicated that all three types of inferences required-accessing-elements in a discourse model. Three control experiments ruled out simple context or congruity checking as an explanation for our results. The following conclusions were also supported by these studies: (1) Antecedent assignment occurs immediately after processing an anaphor; (2) antecedent assignment involves inhibition for the inappropriate antecedent rather than facilitation for the appropriate antecedent; (3) although subjects do not make instrument inferences-when they hear isolated sentences containing verbs that strongly imply certain instruments, the inferences are made when sentences are preceded by a context that mentions the instrument.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., &Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 427–440.
Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, F. R. (1980). Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference.Memory & Cognition,8, 58–64.
Chumbley, J. I., &Balota, D. A. (1984). A word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision.Memory & Cognition,12, 590–606.
Cloitre, M., &Bever, T. G. (1989). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse.Language & Cognitive Processes,3, 293–322.
Corbett, A. T., &Chang, F. R. (1983). Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents.Memory & Cognition,11, 283–294.
Corbett, A. T., &Dosher, B. A. (1978). Instrument inferences in sentence encoding.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 479–491.
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 121–132.
Dosher, B. A., &Corbett, A. T. (1982). Instrument inferences and verb schemata.Memory & Cognition,10, 531–589.
Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 247–255.
Ehrlich, K., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Spatial descriptions and referential continuity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 296–306.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.),Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.),Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 370–392). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Fischler, I., &Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 1–20.
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In K. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.),New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the Structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.),Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garnham, A. (1986). Understanding anaphora. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 253–300). London: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1986). The comprehension of conceptual anaphora in discourse.Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access.Cognition,32, 99–156.
Hankamer, J., &Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphors.Linguistic Inquiry,7, 391–426.
Helm, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.),Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 164–190). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. K., Bransford, J. D., &Solomon, S. K. (1973). Memory for tacit implications of sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology,98, 203–205.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., &Stevenson, R. (1970). Memory for syntax.Nature,227, 412.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and Semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. U. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.),Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
Keefe, D. E., & Neely, J. H. (in press). Semantic priming in the pronunciation task: The role of prospective prime-generated expectancies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Kuno, S. (1987).Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference.Linguistic Analysis,2, 1–22.
Lesgold, A., Roth, S., &Curtis, M. (1979). Foregrounding effects in discourse comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 291–308.
Mckoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 668–682.
McKoon, G., &Ratcliff, R. (1981). The comprehension process and memory structures involved in instrumental inference.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 671–682.
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1976). Meaning, memory structure and mental processes.Science,192, 27–33.
Murphy, G. L. (1985). Processes of understanding anaphora.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 290–303.
Nicol, J., &Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 5–20.
Norris, D. (1987). Strategic control of sentence context effects in a naming task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 253–275.
O’Brien, E. J., Duffy, S. A., &Myers, J. L. (1986). Anaphoric inference during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 346–352.
Osterhout, L. E., & Swinney, D. A. (1989, April).The effects of context on elaborative inferencing during discourse processing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.
Pails, S. C., &Lindauer, B. K. (1976). The role of inference in children’s comprehension and memory for sentences.Cognitive Psychology,8, 217–227.
Potts, G. R., Keenan, J. M., &Golding, J. M. (1988). Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 399–415.
Reinhart, T. (1983).Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.),Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211–236). New York: Academic Press.
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 437–442.
Sag, I., &Hankamer, J. (1984). Toward a theory ofanaphoric processing.Linguistics & Philosophy,7, 325–345.
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.),Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 237–272). New York: Academic Press.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. New York: Academic Press.
Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Sanders, M., &Langer, P. (1984). Pre- and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition.Memory & Cognition,12, 315–328.
Singer, M. (1979). Processes of inference during sentence encoding.Memory & Cognition,7, 192–200.
Singer, M. (1980). The role of case-filling inferences in the coherence of brief passages.Discourse Processes,3, 185–201.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. (in press). Comprehending verb phrase anaphors.Language & Cognitive Processes.
Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., &Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context.Memory & Cognition,16, 283–298.
Walker, C. H., &Yekovich, F. R. (1987). Activation and use of scriptbased antecedents in anaphoric reference.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 673–691.
Wanner, E. (1974).On remembering, forgetting and understanding sentences: A study of the deep structure hypothesis. The Hague: Mouton.
Webber, B. L. (1979).A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland.
Webber, B. L. (1983). So what can we talk about now? In M. Brady & R. C. Berwick (Eds.),Computational models of discourse (pp. 331–371). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
West, R. F., &Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Source of inhibition in experiments on the effect of sentence context on word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 385–399.
West, R. F., &Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Robust effects of syntactic structure on visual word processing.Memory & Cognition.14, 104–112.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research presented here was supported by National Science Foundation Grants BNS-8217378 and BNS-8617738 to Michael Tanenhaus and Greg Carison and by a Wellesley College Faculty Award to Margery Lucas.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lucas, M.M., Tanenhaus, M.K. & Carlson, G.N. Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory & Cognition 18, 611–631 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197104
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197104