Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.864
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.744

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.555
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.105

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 39, Issue 1-2 (Sep 2013)

Issues

A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation

Andrew Kehler
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0108, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108, U.S.A.
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Hannah Rohde
  • Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, United Kingdom
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-11-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001

Abstract

Two classic theories of pronoun interpretation have each sought to specify the relationship between pronoun use and discourse coherence, but make seemingly irreconcilable claims. According to Hobbs (1979, 1990), pronoun interpretation is not governed by an independent mechanism, but instead comes about as a by-product of utilizing world knowledge during the inferential establishment of discourse coherence relations. Factors pertaining to the grammatical form and information structure of utterances do not come into play. According to Centering Theory (Grosz, Joshi & Weinstein 1995; inter alia), on the other hand, pronoun interpretation is predominantly determined by information structural relationships within and between utterances (e.g., topic transitions) and the grammatical roles occupied by potential referents. Factors pertaining to world knowledge and the establishment of informational coherence relations do not come into play.

In this paper, we describe a series of psycholinguistic experiments that ultimately suggest a reconciliation of these diverse approaches. These experiments reveal a definitive role for coherence relationships of the Hobbsian sort, demonstrating that pronoun interpretation is affected by (i) probabilistic expectations that comprehenders have about what coherence relationships will ensue, and (ii) their expectations about what entities will be mentioned next which, crucially, are conditioned on those coherence relationships. However, these experiments also reveal a role played by the topichood status of potential referents. These data are reconciled by a probabilistic model that combines the comprehender's prior coherence-driven expectations about what entities will be referred to next and Centering-driven likelihoods that govern the speaker's choice of referential form. The approach therefore situates pronoun interpretation within a larger body of work in psycholinguistics, according to which language interpretation results when top-down predictions about the ensuing message meet bottomup linguistic evidence.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: pronoun interpretation; discourse coherence

About the article

Published Online: 2013-11-01

Published in Print: 2013-09-12


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001.

Export Citation

©[2013] by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Supplementary Article Materials

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Sandra A. Zerkle, Elise C. Rosa, and Jennifer E. Arnold
Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 2017, Volume 8, Number 1, Page 17
[2]
Amit Almor, Veena A. Nair, Timothy W. Boiteau, and Jennifer M.C. Vendemia
Brain and Language, 2017, Volume 173, Page 52
[3]
Sarah Brown-Schmidt and Joseph C. Toscano
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2017, Page 1
[4]
Simone Falk
TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 2014, Number 30
[6]
Andreas Brocher, Sofiana Iulia Chiriacescu, and Klaus von Heusinger
Discourse Processes, 2016, Page 1
[7]
Elise C. Rosa and Jennifer E. Arnold
Journal of Memory and Language, 2017, Volume 94, Page 43
[8]
Jennifer E. Arnold
Topics in Cognitive Science, 2016, Volume 8, Number 4, Page 737
[9]
Eduardo Correa Soares
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, Volume 231, Page 135
[10]
Wei Cheng and Amit Almor
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2017, Volume 46, Number 1, Page 157
[11]
WEI CHENG and AMIT ALMOR
Applied Psycholinguistics, 2017, Volume 38, Number 01, Page 1
[12]
Andrew Simpson, Zoe Wu, and Yan Li
Lingua Sinica, 2016, Volume 2, Number 1
[13]
Daphna Heller, Christopher Parisien, and Suzanne Stevenson
Cognition, 2016, Volume 149, Page 104
[14]
Petra B. Schumacher, Jana Backhaus, and Manuel Dangl
Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, Volume 6
[15]
Sarah Schimke and Saveria Colonna
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2016, Volume 38, Number 01, Page 131
[16]
Hossein Karimi and Fernanda Ferreira
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2016, Volume 23, Number 2, Page 507
[17]
[18]
Jennifer E. Arnold
Discourse Processes, 2015, Volume 52, Number 2, Page 77
[19]
Hannah Rohde and William S. Horton
Cognition, 2014, Volume 133, Number 3, Page 667
[20]
Mante S. Nieuwland
Journal of Memory and Language, 2014, Volume 76, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in