Semantic Properties of Pronouns Modulate Pronoun Use: Evidence from Cantonese

References

• Arnold, J. E. (1999). Marking salience: The similarity of topic and focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 187–203.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eye tracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D. M., & Sarkar, D. (2007). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R-package version 0.99875–6.
   Google Scholar
• Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 1106–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles tostructural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 102, 137–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W., & Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings from the 25th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 155–162). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computer Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Breslow, N. E., & Clayton, D. G. (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 9–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Begun, J. S. (1971). The semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14, 34–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DebRoy, S., & Bates, D. M. (2004). Linear mixed models and penalized least squares. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., Wen, Y., Zeng, X., & Ji, Y. (2014). Exploring the cause of English pronoun gender errors by Chinese learners of English: Evidence from the self-paced reading paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 733–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 453–469). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Francik, E. P. (1985). Referential choice and focus of attention in narratives (discourse anaphora, topic continuity, language production). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1363.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, M. L., Martin, R. C., & Biegler, K. (2004). Semantic relatedness effects in conjoined noun phrase production: Implications for the role of short-term memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 245–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K. (2015). Interface of linguistic and visual information during audience design. Cognitive science, 39(6), 1419–1433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., Hyönä, J., & Scholfield, M. (2013). Gender affects semantic competition: The effect of gender in a non-gender-marking language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1012–1021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and cognitive processes, 26, 1472–1504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 52–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P. G., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 331–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1700–1715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, S. P., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1304–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
   Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharaski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language, 69, 274–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, X., & Kaiser, E. (2009, November). Consequences of variable accessibility for anaphor resolution in Chinese. Presented at the 7th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, Chennai, India.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E. (2015). Accessibility effects on production vary cross-linguistically: Evidence from English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 190–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliff, E. J. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 866–887.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E., & Kim, S. (2012, September). Effects of L1 gender marking on pronoun use in a second language. Presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association, Poznań, Poland.
   Google Scholar
• Kameyama, M. (1996). Indefeasible semantics and defeasible pragmatics. In M. Kanazawa, C. Piñón, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction, and context (pp. 111–138). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61–85.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Resolution of the antecedent of a plural pronoun: Ontological categories and predicate symmetry. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 830–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlhausler, P. (2001). Personal pronouns. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 741–746). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Neely, C. B., & LeCompte, D. C. (1999). The importance of semantic similarity to the irrelevant speech effect. Memory & Cognition, 27, 37–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M. (1997). The production of different word orders: A psycholinguistic and developmental approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, S. S., & Suci, G. J. (1980). Event perception by children in the early stages of language production. Child Development, 51, 89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29(8), 912–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
   Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 3–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 473–592.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, M., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 318–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap, F. H., & Chor, W. O.-W. (2014). Epistemic, evidential and attitudinal markers in clause-medial position in Cantonese. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modes of modality (pp. 219–260). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar