1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Weak Referentiality
  4. Chapter

Referential properties of definites and salience spreading

image of Referential properties of definites and salience spreading

We provide a survey of different aspects of definiteness by means of comprehension data collected via event-related brain potential recordings. We present a processing account including differences between definites and indefinites, as well as the contribution of lexical feature specifications, uniqueness, degrees of accessibility and enrichment. We then present new data associated with salience spreading from referential expressions to their supersets. Two core mechanisms emerge in all these studies that reflect the computation of accessibility information on the one hand and updating of discourse structure on the other hand. With the availability of these two processes, the nature and processing consequences of weak definites may be narrowed down and validated in future research.

References

  1. Abbott, B
    2004 Definiteness and indefiniteness. InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Schulpen, M
    2011 Understanding the meaning enrichment of weak definites. In Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI student session .
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguilar-Guevara A. & M. Schulpen
    2014 Modified weak definites. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 237–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.10agu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.10agu [Google Scholar]
  5. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & J. Zwarts
    2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. InSemantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Almor, A
    1999 Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review106(4): 748–765. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.106.4.748
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, J.E. & Holcomb, P.J
    2005 An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy. Brain and Language94(2): 200–216. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ašić T. & F. Corblin
    2014 Telic definites and their prepositions: French and Serbian. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.08asi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.08asi [Google Scholar]
  9. Asher, N
    1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 50]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1715‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baggio, G. , Choma, T. , van Lambalgen, M. & Hagoort, P
    2010 Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience22(9): 2131–2240. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21303
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21303 [Google Scholar]
  11. Birner, B. & Ward, G
    1994 Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society20: 93–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Burkhardt, P
    2006 Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain & Language98(2): 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport18(17): 1851–1854. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 Two types of definites: Evidence for presupposition cost. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, A. Grøn (ed.), 66–80. Oslo: ILOS.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Carlson, G
    1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carlson, G. & Sussman, R
    2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.71
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.71 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carlson, G. , Sussman, R. , Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M
    2006 Weak definite noun phrases. InProceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis , A.R. Eal & Y. Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, H.H
    1975 Bridging. InTheoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, B. Nash-Webber & R. Schank (eds), 188–193. New Haven CT: Yale University Mathematical Society Sciences Board.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Consten, M. , Knees, M. & Schwarz-Friesel, M
    2007 The function of complex anaphors in texts. InAnaphors in Text [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], M. Schwarz-Friesel , M. Consten & M. Knees (eds), 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.86.09con
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.86.09con [Google Scholar]
  20. Coulson, S. & Van Petten, C
    2002 Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition30(6): 958–968. doi: 10.3758/BF03195780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780 [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson, D
    1967 The logical form of action sentences. InThe Logic of Decision and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburg PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Villiers, P.A
    1974 Imagery and theme in recall of connected discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology103(2): 263–268. doi: 10.1037/h0037608
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037608 [Google Scholar]
  23. Epstein, R
    2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Berkeley Linguistics Society25: 122–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrod, S. & Sanford, A
    1977 Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior16(1): 77–90. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(77)80009‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80009-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gernsbacher, M.A. & Robertson, R.R.W
    2002 The definite article the as a cue to map thematic information. InThematics: Interdisciplinary Studies [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research], W. van Peer & M.M. Louwerse (eds), 119–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.3.11ger
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.3.11ger [Google Scholar]
  26. Grosz, B.J. , Joshi, A.K. & Weinstein, S
    1995 Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics21(2): 203–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gundel, J.K. , Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hartmann, D
    1980 Über Verschmelzungen von Präposition und bestimmten Artikel. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik47(2): 160–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haviland, S.E. & Clark, H.H
    1974 What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13(5): 512–521. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80003‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, J.A
    1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Atlantic Highland NJ: Humanities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Heim, I
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hirotani, M. & Schumacher, P.B
    2011 Context and topic marking affect distinct processes during discourse comprehension in Japanese. Journal of Neurolinguistics24(3): 276–292. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hung, Y.-C. & Schumacher, P.B
    2012 Topicality matters: Position-specific demands on Chinese discourse processing. Neuroscience Letters511(2): 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huynh, H. & Feldt, L.S
    1970 Conditions under which mean square ratios repeated measurements designs have exact F distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Assocation65(332): 1582–1589. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jasper, H.H
    1958 The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology10(2): 371–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaan, E. , Dallas, A.C. & Barkley, C.M
    2007 Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research1146: 199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060 [Google Scholar]
  37. King, J.W. & Kutas, M
    1995 Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience7: 376–395. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  38. Keppel, G
    1991 Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Klein, N
    2011 Convention and Cognition: Weak Definite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D
    2011 Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology62: 621–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kutas, M. , van Petten, C. & Kluender, R
    2006 Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. InHandbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 659–724. New York NY: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑012369374‑7/50018‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lewis, D
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. InSemantics from Different Points of View, R. Bauerle , U. Egli & A. von Stechow (eds), 172–187. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑67458‑7_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  43. Löbner, S
    1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics4: 279–326. doi: 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  44. Maienborn, C
    2003 Die logische Form von Kopulasätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi: 10.1524/9783050082271
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050082271 [Google Scholar]
  45. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R
    1986 Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition12(1): 82–91. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.12.1.82
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.82 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nunberg, G
    1995 Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics12: 109–133. doi: 10.1093/jos/12.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B
    2006 The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. InHandbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 537–577. New York NY: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Reinhart, T
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27(1): 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rips, L.J. , Shoben, E.J. & Smith, E.E
    1973 Semantic distance and verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(73)80056‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rugg, M.D
    1985 The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology22(6): 642–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1985.tb01661.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01661.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Scholten, J. & Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2010 Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definites. Linguistics in the Netherlands27: 115–128. doi: 10.1075/avt.27.10sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.27.10sch [Google Scholar]
  52. Schumacher, P.B. & Baumann, S
    2010 Pitch accent type affects the N400 during referential processing. Neuroreport21(9): 618–622. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328339874a
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328339874a [Google Scholar]
  53. Schumacher, P.B. , Consten, M. & Knees, M
    2010 Constraints on ontology changing complexation processes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes25(6): 840–865. doi: 10.1080/01690960903491767
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903491767 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schumacher, P.B. & Hung, Y.C
    (2012) Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language67(2): 295–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schumacher, P.B
    2009 Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: Evidence from ERPs. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence5847: 91–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2011  The hepatitis called...: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. InExperimental Pragmatics/Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 175], J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds), 199–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.175.10sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.175.10sch [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwarz, F
    2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.09sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.09sch [Google Scholar]
  59. Schumacher, P.B
    2013 When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Towards a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology4: 677. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677 [Google Scholar]
  60. Streb, J. , Rösler, F. & Hennighausen, E
    1999 Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language70(2): 273–286. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2177
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2177 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Berkum, J.J.A. , Brown, C.M. & Hagoort, P
    1999 Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language41(2): 147–182. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2641 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vogel, S
    2011 Weak Definites and Generics. BA thesis, Universität Osnabrück.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. von Heusinger, K
    1997 Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2006 Salience and anaphoric definite noun phrases. Acta Lingvistica Hafniensia38: 33–53. doi: 10.1080/03740463.2006.10412202
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2006.10412202 [Google Scholar]
  65. Weisbrod, M. , Kiefer, M. , Winkler, S. , Maier, S. , Hill, H. , Roesch-Ely, D. & Spitzer, M
    1999 Electrophysiological correlates of direct versus indirect semantic priming in normal volunteers. Cognitive Brain Research8(3): 289–298. doi: 10.1016/S0926‑6410(99)00032‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(99)00032-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Zwarts, J
    2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 265–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.11zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.11zwa [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abbott, B
    2004 Definiteness and indefiniteness. InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Schulpen, M
    2011 Understanding the meaning enrichment of weak definites. In Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI student session .
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguilar-Guevara A. & M. Schulpen
    2014 Modified weak definites. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 237–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.10agu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.10agu [Google Scholar]
  5. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & J. Zwarts
    2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. InSemantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Almor, A
    1999 Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review106(4): 748–765. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.106.4.748
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, J.E. & Holcomb, P.J
    2005 An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy. Brain and Language94(2): 200–216. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ašić T. & F. Corblin
    2014 Telic definites and their prepositions: French and Serbian. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.08asi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.08asi [Google Scholar]
  9. Asher, N
    1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 50]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1715‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baggio, G. , Choma, T. , van Lambalgen, M. & Hagoort, P
    2010 Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience22(9): 2131–2240. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21303
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21303 [Google Scholar]
  11. Birner, B. & Ward, G
    1994 Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society20: 93–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Burkhardt, P
    2006 Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain & Language98(2): 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport18(17): 1851–1854. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 Two types of definites: Evidence for presupposition cost. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, A. Grøn (ed.), 66–80. Oslo: ILOS.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Carlson, G
    1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carlson, G. & Sussman, R
    2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.71
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.71 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carlson, G. , Sussman, R. , Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M
    2006 Weak definite noun phrases. InProceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis , A.R. Eal & Y. Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, H.H
    1975 Bridging. InTheoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, B. Nash-Webber & R. Schank (eds), 188–193. New Haven CT: Yale University Mathematical Society Sciences Board.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Consten, M. , Knees, M. & Schwarz-Friesel, M
    2007 The function of complex anaphors in texts. InAnaphors in Text [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], M. Schwarz-Friesel , M. Consten & M. Knees (eds), 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.86.09con
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.86.09con [Google Scholar]
  20. Coulson, S. & Van Petten, C
    2002 Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition30(6): 958–968. doi: 10.3758/BF03195780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780 [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson, D
    1967 The logical form of action sentences. InThe Logic of Decision and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburg PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Villiers, P.A
    1974 Imagery and theme in recall of connected discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology103(2): 263–268. doi: 10.1037/h0037608
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037608 [Google Scholar]
  23. Epstein, R
    2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Berkeley Linguistics Society25: 122–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrod, S. & Sanford, A
    1977 Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior16(1): 77–90. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(77)80009‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80009-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gernsbacher, M.A. & Robertson, R.R.W
    2002 The definite article the as a cue to map thematic information. InThematics: Interdisciplinary Studies [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research], W. van Peer & M.M. Louwerse (eds), 119–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.3.11ger
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.3.11ger [Google Scholar]
  26. Grosz, B.J. , Joshi, A.K. & Weinstein, S
    1995 Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics21(2): 203–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gundel, J.K. , Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hartmann, D
    1980 Über Verschmelzungen von Präposition und bestimmten Artikel. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik47(2): 160–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haviland, S.E. & Clark, H.H
    1974 What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13(5): 512–521. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80003‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, J.A
    1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Atlantic Highland NJ: Humanities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Heim, I
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hirotani, M. & Schumacher, P.B
    2011 Context and topic marking affect distinct processes during discourse comprehension in Japanese. Journal of Neurolinguistics24(3): 276–292. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hung, Y.-C. & Schumacher, P.B
    2012 Topicality matters: Position-specific demands on Chinese discourse processing. Neuroscience Letters511(2): 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huynh, H. & Feldt, L.S
    1970 Conditions under which mean square ratios repeated measurements designs have exact F distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Assocation65(332): 1582–1589. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jasper, H.H
    1958 The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology10(2): 371–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaan, E. , Dallas, A.C. & Barkley, C.M
    2007 Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research1146: 199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060 [Google Scholar]
  37. King, J.W. & Kutas, M
    1995 Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience7: 376–395. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  38. Keppel, G
    1991 Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Klein, N
    2011 Convention and Cognition: Weak Definite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D
    2011 Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology62: 621–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kutas, M. , van Petten, C. & Kluender, R
    2006 Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. InHandbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 659–724. New York NY: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑012369374‑7/50018‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lewis, D
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. InSemantics from Different Points of View, R. Bauerle , U. Egli & A. von Stechow (eds), 172–187. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑67458‑7_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  43. Löbner, S
    1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics4: 279–326. doi: 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  44. Maienborn, C
    2003 Die logische Form von Kopulasätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi: 10.1524/9783050082271
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050082271 [Google Scholar]
  45. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R
    1986 Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition12(1): 82–91. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.12.1.82
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.82 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nunberg, G
    1995 Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics12: 109–133. doi: 10.1093/jos/12.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B
    2006 The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. InHandbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 537–577. New York NY: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Reinhart, T
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica27(1): 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rips, L.J. , Shoben, E.J. & Smith, E.E
    1973 Semantic distance and verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(73)80056‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rugg, M.D
    1985 The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology22(6): 642–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1985.tb01661.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01661.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Scholten, J. & Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2010 Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definites. Linguistics in the Netherlands27: 115–128. doi: 10.1075/avt.27.10sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.27.10sch [Google Scholar]
  52. Schumacher, P.B. & Baumann, S
    2010 Pitch accent type affects the N400 during referential processing. Neuroreport21(9): 618–622. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328339874a
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328339874a [Google Scholar]
  53. Schumacher, P.B. , Consten, M. & Knees, M
    2010 Constraints on ontology changing complexation processes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes25(6): 840–865. doi: 10.1080/01690960903491767
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903491767 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schumacher, P.B. & Hung, Y.C
    (2012) Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language67(2): 295–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schumacher, P.B
    2009 Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: Evidence from ERPs. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence5847: 91–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2011  The hepatitis called...: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. InExperimental Pragmatics/Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 175], J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds), 199–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.175.10sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.175.10sch [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwarz, F
    2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.09sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.09sch [Google Scholar]
  59. Schumacher, P.B
    2013 When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Towards a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology4: 677. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00677 [Google Scholar]
  60. Streb, J. , Rösler, F. & Hennighausen, E
    1999 Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language70(2): 273–286. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2177
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2177 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Berkum, J.J.A. , Brown, C.M. & Hagoort, P
    1999 Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language41(2): 147–182. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2641 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vogel, S
    2011 Weak Definites and Generics. BA thesis, Universität Osnabrück.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. von Heusinger, K
    1997 Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2006 Salience and anaphoric definite noun phrases. Acta Lingvistica Hafniensia38: 33–53. doi: 10.1080/03740463.2006.10412202
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2006.10412202 [Google Scholar]
  65. Weisbrod, M. , Kiefer, M. , Winkler, S. , Maier, S. , Hill, H. , Roesch-Ely, D. & Spitzer, M
    1999 Electrophysiological correlates of direct versus indirect semantic priming in normal volunteers. Cognitive Brain Research8(3): 289–298. doi: 10.1016/S0926‑6410(99)00032‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(99)00032-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Zwarts, J
    2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. InWeak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 265–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.11zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.11zwa [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269386-la.219.15sch
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269386-la.219.15sch
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269386
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error