Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents

References

• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. (1999). Marking salience: The similarity of topic and focus (Unpublished manuscript). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 527–565. doi:10.1080/01690960600845950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S., Trueswell, J. C., & Fagano, M. (2005). Children's use of gender and order of mention during pronoun comprehension. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus, Approaches to studying world-situated language use (pp. 261–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   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 eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1), B13–B26. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 457–474. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbols systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30(3), 285–304. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp3003_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S. L., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(2), 232–267. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S. L., & Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 653–660. doi:10.3758/BF03211306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch, P., Katz, G., & Umbach, C. (2007). The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten, & M. Knees, Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp. 145–164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bouma, G., & Hopp, H. (2007). Coreference preferences for personal pronouns in German. In D. Bittner & N. Gagarina, Inter sentential pronominal reference in child and adult language (ZASPIL48) (pp. 53–75). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgmeine Sprachwissenschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, S., Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: A case study. Journal of Child Language, 35(2), 325–348. doi:10.1017/S0305000907008379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 539–570. doi:10.1515/COGL.2009.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1977). Reading comprehension as eyes see it. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 100–139).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Carreiras, M., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Villa, V. (1995). The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1), 124–129. doi:10.3758/BF03214418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, and topics and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children's (in)ability to recover from garden-paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children's processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Hemforth, B. (2012). Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution. Linguistics, 50(5), 991–1013. doi:10.1515/ling-2012-0031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Medam, T., & Hemforth, B. (2012). Different effects of focus in intra- and inter-sentential pronoun resolution in German and French. Poster presented at the25th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(3), 446–486. doi:10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26(1), 3–18. doi:10.1007/s11245-006-9004-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). German children's comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79(4), 1152–1167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01181.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drenhaus, H., Zimmermann, M., & Vasishth, S. (2011). Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(3), 320–337. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dufter, A. (2007). Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and romance. In A. Dufter & D. Jacob, Focus and background in romance languages (pp. 83–121). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ellert, M. (2010). Ambiguous pronoun resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch. MPI Series in Psycholinguistics (vol. 58). Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2009). Cleft sentences: Form, function, and translation. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 21(2), 167–191. doi:10.1017/S1470542709000257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foraker, S. (2004). The mechanisms involved in the prominence of referent representations during pronoun coreference (Doctoral dissertation). New York University, NY: UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
   Google Scholar
• Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 357–383. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, R. (1998). Structural complexity and the time course of grammatical development. Cognition, 66, 249–301. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00024-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735–755. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90006-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. doi:10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J. K., Nappa, R., & Snedeker, J. (2010). Ambiguous pronoun processing development: Probably not u-shaped. In N. Danis, K. Mesh, & H. Sung (Eds.),BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.272–282). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
   Google Scholar
• Hedberg, N. ( in press). Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In A. Haida, T. Veenstra, & K. Hartmann, The structure of clefts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2218–2223). Portland, USA: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530–538. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80005-8
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1061–1066). Austin, Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P. G., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16(4), 260–264. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalization and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.523082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Keijzer, M. (2007). Last in first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in Anglophone Canada (PhD Dissertation). Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, E. (Ed.) (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222–234. doi:10.1017/S0305000909990316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiss, K. É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Féry, G. Fanselow, & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies of information structure 6, working papers of the SFB632 (pp. 13–56). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
   Google Scholar
• Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3), 463–516. doi:10.1515/ling.2001.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language, 53, 152–168. doi:10.2307/413059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380. doi:10.3758/BF03206780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, D., Lieven, E. V., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. M. (2009). Pronoun co-referencing errors: Challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 599–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. J. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 543–566. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263–281. doi:10.3758/CABN.5.3.263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. InS. Thompson & W. Mann, Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57, 5–16. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2012). Children and situation models of multiple events. Developmental Psychology, 48, 521–529. doi:10.1037/a0025526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online language comprehension: A visual world study of pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 115–129. doi:10.1080/01690960902944014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauermann, A., Höhle, B., Chen, A., & Järvikivi, J. (2011). Intonational marking of focus in different word orders in German children. In M. Byram Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz, Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 313–322). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123–152. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M. (1976). Thematic structure and the integration of linguistic information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 549–558. doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90049-9
   Google Scholar
• Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 238–299. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H.-J., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who's “she”? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers’ comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory & Language, 52(1), 29–57. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children's interpretation of pronouns. Lingua, 117, 1959–1987. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and goodenough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888. doi:10.3758/BF03196716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N., & Logrip, M. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye-movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 73–86. doi:10.3758/BF03195944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weighall, A. R. (2008). The kindergarten-path effect revisited: Children's use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 75–95. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., Crain, S., & Zhan, L. K. (2012). Sometimes children are as good as adults: The pragmatic use of prosody in children's on-line sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 149–164. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer, H. D. & Engelkamp, J. (1981). The given-new structure of cleft sentences and their influence on picture viewing. Psychological Research, 43, 375–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2004). Updating situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 283–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar