Comprehension of marked pronouns in Spanish and English: Object anaphors cross-linguistically

REFERENCES

• Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistic Compass, 4, 187–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austen, J (n.d.). Pride and prejudice, Retrieved March 30, 2011, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-h.htm (Original work published 1813)
   Google Scholar
• Baauw, S., Ruigendijk, E., Cuetos, F., & Avrutin, S. (2011). The interpretation of stressed and non-stressed pronouns in Spanish language breakdown. Aphasiology, 25(3), 386–408. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2010.493295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackwell, S. E. (2001). Testing the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora: The influence of consistency constraints on interpretations of coreference in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6), 901–941. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80034-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 489–506. doi: 10.1007/BF02143163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callahan, S. M., Shapiro, L. P., & Love, T. (2010). Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 101–118. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9128-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50(1) 111–133.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. G., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 593–608. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawley, R. A., Stevenson, R. J., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(4), 245–264. doi: 10.1007/BF01077259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de-La-Mota, C., Martín Butragueño, P., & Prieto, P. (2010). Mexican Spanish intonation. In P. Prieto & P. Roseano (Ed.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language, (pp. 319–350). Munich: Lincom Europa.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrova, D. V., Redeker, G., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2009). Did you say BLUE banana? The prosody of contrast and abnormality in Bulgarian and Dutch. In M. Uther, R. Moore & S. Cox (Ed.), Proceedings of Interspeech 2009, (pp. 999–1002). Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 421–430. doi: 10.3758/BF03198303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grober, E. H., Beardsley, W., & Caramazza, A. (1978). Parallel function strategy in pronoun assignment. Cognition, 6(2), 117–133. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(78)90018-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschberg, J., & Ward, G. (1991). Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 101–122. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.101
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 27(02), 301–335. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700012706
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. (2000). Discourse anaphora: Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(2), 151–176. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00041-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P., 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
• Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1 doi: 10.1093/jos/ffm018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Ed.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, (pp. 329–340). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27(01), 107 doi: 10.1017/S0022226700012433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Poesio, M., Ponzetto, S. P., & Versley, Y. (2010). Computational models of anaphora resolution: A survey. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, , Unpublished manuscript
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(3), 197–229. doi: 10.1007/BF02139085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavano, E., & Kaiser, E. (2008, March). Effects of stress and coherence on pronoun interpretation. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–520. doi: 10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venditti, J. J., Stone, M., Nanda, P., & Tepper, P. (2001). Toward an account of accented pronoun interpretation in discourse context: Evidence from eye-tracking. , (Tech. Rep. No. RuCCSTR-68). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science
   Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2011). The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 813–820. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Tanenhaus, M., & Gunlogson, C. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(7), 1232–1244. doi: 10.1080/03640210802138755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar