References
- Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
- Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.
- Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
- Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 3(2), 137–162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02
- Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 187–203. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x
- Arnold, J. E. (2017). Corpus analysis of transfer verbs. Unpublished analysis, UNC Chapel Hill.
- Arnold, J. E., Hudson Kam, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 914–930. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914
- Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M., & Kim, L. K. (2013). Information structure: Linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 4, 403–413. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1234
- Arnold, J. E., & Lao, S. C. (2008). Put in last position something previously unmentioned: Word order effects on referential expectancy and reference comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701536805
- Arnold, J. E., Strangmann, I., Hwang, H., & Zerkle, S. (2018). Reference frequency: What do speakers tend to talk about? Technical Report #2. UNC Language Processing Lab, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.
- Au, T. K. F. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90024-0
- Bott, O. & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages, 219–251. Cham: Springer.
- Bower, G., & Morrow, D. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247(4938), 44–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2403694
- 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).
- Brocher, A., Chiriacescu, S. I., & von Heusinger, K. (2018). Effects of information status and uniqueness status on referent management in discourse comprehension and planning. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 346–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1254990
- Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14(3), 237–273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90006-9
- Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 601–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80022-4
- Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25–56). Academic Press Inc.
- Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. 2004. Fisher English Training Speech Part 1 Transcripts LDC2004T19 Web Download. Linguistic Data Consortium.
- Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. 2005. Fisher English Training Part 2, Transcripts LDC2005T19 Web Download. Linguistic Data Consortium.
- Corrigan, R. (1992). The relationship between causal attributions and judgments of the typicality of events described by sentences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00978.x
- Coulson, S., Federmeier, K. D., Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (2005). Right hemisphere sensitivity to word and sentence level context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.129
- Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. (2011). The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 381–403. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.001
- Crinean, M., & Garnham, A. (2006). Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 636–648. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500199763
- Delogu, F., Jachmann, T., Staudte, M., Vespignani, F., & Molinaro, N. (2020). Discourse expectations are sensitive to the question under discussion: Evidence from ERPs. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1575140
- Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(3), 879–896. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000604
- Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453–485. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485
- Desmet, T., & Gibson, E. (2003). Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00025-1
- Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748008401161
- Falkauskas, K., & Kuperman, V. (2015). When experience meets language statistics: Individual variability in processing English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1607–1627. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000132
- Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2001). Meaning and modality: Influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 202–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.202
- Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633
- Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expression: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
- Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cruttenden, H. (1992). The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3–4), 231–255. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969208409386
- Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 517–543. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0028
- Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(3), 459–464.
- Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1974). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90010-9
- Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing.
- Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. https://aclanthology.org/J95-2003
- Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 804–824. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.796396
- Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 716–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524
- Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1474–1508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.689305
- Hendriks, P. (2016). Cognitive modeling of individual variation in reference production and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00506
- Holler, A., & Suckow, K. (2016). How clausal linking affects noun phrase salience in pronoun resolution. In A. Holler, & K. Suckow (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on anaphora resolution (pp. 61–85). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110464108-005
- Järvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R. P., & Hyönä, J. (2017). The interplay of implicit causality, structural heuristics, and anaphor type in ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 525–550. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9451-1
- Johnson, E., & Arnold, J. E. (2021). Individual differences in print exposure predict use of implicit causality in pronoun comprehension and referential prediction. Frontiers, 12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672109
- Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/414498
- Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1
- Kaiser, E. (2019). Order of mention in causal sequences: Talking about cause and effect in narratives and warning signs. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 599–618. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1522913
- Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications.
- Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018
- Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2013). A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(1–2), 1–37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001
- Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2017). Evaluating an expectation-driven question-under-discussion model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169069
- Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2019). Prominence and coherence in a Bayesian theory of pronoun interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 154, 63–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.006
- Kochari, A. R., & Flecken, M. (2019). Lexical prediction in language comprehension: A replication study of grammatical gender effects in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1524500
- Koornneef, A., Dotlačil, J., van den Broek, P., & Sanders, T. (2016). The influence of linguistic and cognitive factors on the time course of verb-based implicit causality. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 455–481. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1055282
- Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169–1206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
- Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
- Kowalski, A., & Huang, Y. T. (2017). Predicting and priming thematic roles: Flexible use of verbal and nonverbal cues during relative clause comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(9), 1341–1351. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000389
- Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
- Langlois, V., & Arnold, J. E. (2020, March). Prediction explains effects of both semantic and social cues on pronoun interpretation [Poster presentation]. CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, virtual.
- Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
- Long, D. L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 545–570. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2695
- Lowder, M. W., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Prediction in the processing of repair disfluencies: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1400–1416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000256
- MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
- MacDonald, M. C., & Thornton, R. (2009). When language comprehension reflects production constraints: Resolving ambiguities with the help of past experience. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1177–1186. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.8.1177
- Magliano, J. P., Baggett, W. B., Johnson, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1993). The time course of generating casual antecedent and causal consequence inferences. Discourse Processes, 16(1–2), 35–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544828
- Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes? Cognition, 99(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.004
- Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The linguistic description of minimal social scenarios affects the extent of causal inference making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 918–932. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.016
- Mak, W. M., Tribushinina, E., & Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse: An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 557–576. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.841075
- McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 543–566. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1025
- McKoon, G., Greene, S. B., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1040–1052. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1040
- Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 469–488. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143162
- Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
- Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 780–788. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601119876
- Prince, E. (1981). Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–256). Academic Press.
- Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–326). Benjamins.
- Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000002
- Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.
- Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 912–927. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.854918
- Ryskin, R., Ng, S., Mimnaugh, K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2020). Talker-specific predictions during language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 797–812. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1630654
- Saffran, J. R. (2002). Constraints on statistical language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 172–196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2839
- Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01243
- SAS proprietary software. (2016). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
- Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
- Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2017). Causality and causal reasoning in natural language. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 619–644). Oxford University Press.
- Stevenson, R., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., & McDonald, S. (2000). Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(3), 225–262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386048
- Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), 519–548. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402130
- Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2691
- Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2–3), 211–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386853
- Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. (2009). Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In Proceedings of the workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference.
- Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.
- van den Hoven, E., & Ferstl, E. (2018). Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions. Language and Cognition, 10(1–34), 561–594. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.17
- van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/415483
- van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2013). How WM load influences linguistic processing in adults: A computational model of pronoun interpretation in discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 564–580. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12029
- Viebahn, M. C., Ernestus, M., & McQueen, J. M. (2015). Syntactic predictability in the recognition of carefully and casually produced speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1684–1702. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039326<Q58/
- Weatherford, K., & Arnold, J. E. (2021). Semantic predictability of implicit causality can affect referential form choice. Cognition, 214, 104759. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104759
- Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
- Ye, Y., Weatherford, K., & Arnold, J. E. (2021, March). Implicit causality can affect pronoun use in fragment completion tasks. Brief Talk, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Pennsylvania, virtual.
- Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2019, March). Similar properties guide both topicality & referential predictability judgments. Poster session presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Boulder, CO.