Abstract
Despite the general assumption that anaphoric inferences are necessary inferences, Levine, Guzmán, and Klin (2000) concluded that the probability of resolving noun phrase anaphors depends both on the degree of accessibility in memory of the antecedent concepts and the extent to which resolution is necessary to create a coherent discourse representation. Four experiments are presented in which the factors that influence readers’ standard of coherence are investigated. We examine the hypothesis that readers are more likely to resolve anaphors that are perceived as salient; salience was manipulated both with a syntactic focusing structure (wh- clefts) and with the addition of prenominal adjectival modifiers. The results of a probe recognition time task provide support for the hypothesis that a variety of linguistic cues serve asmental processing instructions (Givón, 1992), which instruct readers as to how much attention to devote to processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albrecht, J. E., &Myers, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1459–1468.
Albrecht, J. E., &Myers, J. L. (1998). Accessing distant text information during reading: Effects of contextual cues.Discourse Processes,26, 87–107.
Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis.Psychological Review,106, 748–765.
Baker, L., &Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination.Memory & Cognition,15, 247–255.
Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80, 1–46.
Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., &Myers, J. L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing.Discourse Processes,30, 285–304.
Birch, S. L., &Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 232–267.
Birch, S. [L.], &Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading.Memory & Cognition,25, 653–660.
Bredart, S., &Docquier, M. (1989). The Moses illusion: A followup on the focalization effect.Current Psychology of Cognition,9, 357–362.
Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1977). Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 217–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carreiras, M., Carriedo, N., Alonso, M. A., &Fernández, A. (1997). The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading.Memory & Cognition,25, 438–446.
Corbett, A. (1984). Prenominal adjectives and the disambiguation of anaphoric nouns.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 683–695.
Cutler, A., &Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.Cognition,7, 49–59.
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.
Francis, W. N., &Kuĉera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gernsbacher, M. A., &Jescheniak, J. D. (1995). Cataphoric devices in spoken discourse.Cognitive Psychology,29, 24–58.
Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions.Linguistics,30, 5–55.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1992). How readers construct situation models for stories: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In A. F. Healy & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.),Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 2, pp. 261–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levine, W. H., Guzmán, A. E., &Klin, C. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 594–617.
Levinson, S. C. (1983).Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magliano, J. P., &Schleich, M. C. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models.Discourse Processes,29, 83–112.
McKoon, G., Ward, G., Ratcliff, R., &Sproat, R. (1993). Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 56–75.
Morris, R. K., &Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading.Memory & Cognition,26, 1313–1322.
Morrow, D. G. (1985). Prepositions and verb aspect in narrative understanding.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 390–404.
Myers, J. L., &O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading.Discourse Processes,26, 131–157.
Ni, W., Crain, S., &Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions in syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities.Language & Cognitive Processes,11, 283–334.
O’Brien, E. J., Raney, G. E., Albrecht, J. E., &Rayner, K. (1997). Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors.Discourse Processes,23, 1–24.
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting.Mind,14, 479–493.
Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., &Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation.Cognition,71, 109–147.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., &Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., &Whitten, S. N. (2000). The presence of an event in the narrated situation affects its availability to the comprehender.Memory & Cognition,28, 1022–1028.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R03 MH61839. Portions of this research were presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (November 2000, New Orleans).
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klin, C.M., Weingartner, K.M., Guzmán, A.E. et al. Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory & Cognition 32, 511–522 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195843
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195843