Graduate studies at Western
Topoi 26 (1):3-18 (2007)
|Abstract||This paper examines the role that linguistic and cognitive prominence play in the resolution of anaphor–antecedent relationships. In two experiments, we found that pronouns are immediately sensitive to the cognitive prominence of potential antecedents when other antecedent selection cues are uninformative. In experiment 1, results suggest that despite their theoretical dissimilarities, topic and contrastive focus both serve to enhance cognitive prominence. Results from experiment 2 suggest that the contrastive prosody appropriate for focus constructions may also play an important role in enhancing cognitive prominence. Thus different types of linguistic prominence (topic, contrastive focus) appear to have the common effect of increasing the cognitive prominence of the discourse referent. For pronouns with two possible antecedents, the cognitive prominence of an antecedent aids in anaphor resolution, immediately biasing selection towards the more prominent (and ultimately preferred) antecedent.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Morten Overgaard (2004). Confounding Factors in Contrastive Analysis. Synthese 141 (2):217-31.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621 - 657.
Tim van Gelder (1998). The Roles of Philosophy in Cognitive Science. Philosophical Psychology 11 (2):117-36.
Branden Fitelson (2012). Contrastive Bayesianism. In Martijn Blaauw (ed.), Contrastivism in Philosophy: New Perspectives. Routledge.
Daniel Büring (2003). On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (5):511 - 545.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,074 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?