Abstract
This paper investigates reference to clausally introduced entities and proposes an explanation for why these are more readily available to immediate subsequent reference with a demonstrative pronoun than with the personal pronoun,it. New evidence is provided supporting proposals that such entities are typically activated, but not brought into focus, upon their introduction into a discourse. The study also provides further insight into the role of information structure, lexical semantics, presuppositional contexts, and syntactic structure in bringing an entity into focus of attention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almor, A., 1999, “Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis,” Psychological Review 106, 748–763.
Arnold, J., 1998, “Reference form and discourse patterns,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Asher, N., 1993, Reference to Abstract Entities in Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bock, J.K. and Warren, R., 1985, “Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation,” Cognition 21, 47–67.
Borthen, K., Fretheim, T., and Gundel, J.K., 1997, “What brings a higher-order entity into focus of attention?,” pp. 88–93 in Operational Factors in Practical Robust Anaphora Resolution, R. Mitkov and B. Boguraev, eds., Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia.
Brennan, S.E., Friedman, M.W., and Pollard, C.J., 1987, “A centering approach to pronouns,” pp. 155–162 in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., and Gilliom, L.A., 1993, “Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse,” Cognitive Science 17, 311–347.
Grice, H.P., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” pp. 41–58 in Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts, P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, eds.
Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., and Weinstein, S., 1983, “Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse,” pp. 44–50 in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.
Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., and Weinstein, S., 1995, “Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation,” Computational Linguistics 21, 203–225.
Gundel, J.K., 1980, “Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: A case of topic-prominence,” pp. 139–146 in Proceedings from the Parasession on Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society.
Gundel, J.K., 1988, “Universals of topic-comment structure,” pp. 209–239 in Studies in Syntactic Typology, M. Hammond et al., eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J.K., 1999, “On different kinds of focus,” pp. 293–305 in Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds., Cambridge University Press.
Gundel, J.K. and Mulkern, A., 1998, “Quantity implicatures in reference understanding,” Pragmatics and Cognition 6 21–45.
Gundel, J.K., Borthen, K., and Fretheim, T., 1999, “The role of context in pronominal reference to higher order entitites in English and Norwegian,” pp. 475–478 in Modeling and Using Context. Proceedings from the Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT' 99, P. Bouquet et al., eds., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1688, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R., 1993, “Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse,” Language 69, 274–307.
Hegarty, M., 2001, “Reference to abstract entities within clausal complements,” pp. 121–132 in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, L.J. Conathan et al., eds.
Hegarty, M., forthcoming, “Semantic types of abstract entities,” Lingua.
Hegarty, M., Gundel, J.K., and Borthen, K., 2002, “Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents,” Theoretical Linguistics 27, 1–24.
Hudson D'Zmura, S. and Tanenhaus, M.K., 1998, “Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns. The role of the center of attention as the default assignment,” pp. 199–226 in Centering Theory in Discourse, M.A. Walker, A.K. Joshi and E.F. Prince, eds., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kamio, A. and Thomas, M., 1999, “Some referential properties of English it and that,” in Function and Structure, A. Kamio and K.-I. Takami, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lambrecht, K., 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C., 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1986/1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition, London: Blackwell.
Vallduví, E., 1990, “The informational component,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Webber, B.L., 1988, “Discourse deixis and discourse processing,” Technical Report, University of Pennsylvania.
Webber, B.L., 1991, “Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis,” Language and Cognitive Processes 6, 107–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gundel, J.K., Hegarty, M. & Borthen, K. Cognitive Status, Information Structure, and Pronominal Reference to Clausally Introduced Entities. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 281–299 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024102420659
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024102420659