Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 813–827 | Cite as

Aspects of pronominal resolution as markers of reading comprehension: the role of antecedent variability

  • Carsten Elbro
  • Jane Oakhill
  • Hakima Megherbi
  • Alix Seigneuric
Article

Abstract

This study explored pronominal resolution as a measure of reading comprehension beyond single sentences. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the ability to specify the referents of pronouns like this and these that have variable antecedents would be a good probe of the quality of the reader’s mental model. This idea was tested in a study of 123 French eight-year-olds. After controlling for word decoding, vocabulary and syntactic knowledge, various aspects of pronominal comprehension were found to contribute independent variance to reading comprehension: (1) pronominal knowledge as measured in a pronoun selection task, (2) referent specification of pronouns that refer to protagonists. In addition, (3) referent specification of pronouns (French y and en) with variable antecedents added further independent variance. The results support the idea that the ability to specify referents accounts for unique variance in reading comprehension and may tap the quality of the reader’s mental model of preceding text.

Keywords

Reading comprehension Pronoun resolution Referent specification Antecedent variability Children 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Program of Visiting Professor of the University Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité (Carsten Elbro and Jane Oakhill) and by the French National Agency (ANR-DEVCOMP 10-blan-1907-01). The tests of reading comprehension and written word identification were developed as a part of the larger project supported by the ANR grant. We thank the coordinator of the project, Prof. Maryse Bianco, for the collaboration on the construction of the comprehension test. We also thank Prof. Pascale Colé and Prof. Liliane Sprenger-Charolles for allowing us to use their test of written word identification, for their French version of the TROG test of syntax, and for their selection of the items for the French version of the PPVT test. We are grateful to Aurélie Nardy, Amandine Herbelin, Anais Joly, Sarah-Lee Salas, Océane Marchand, Morgane Pouget for their assistance with data collection. We are truly indebted to the participants and their teachers for their voluntary and solid efforts and to the inspectors, directors of the circumscriptions of Rueil Malmaison, of the 11ème arrondissement of Paris and of Nantes for their cooperation.

References

  1. Almor, A. (2000). Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor processing. In M. Pickering, C. Clifton, & M. Crocker (Eds.), Architechtures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 341–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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, 527–565. doi: 10.1080/01690960600845950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 73, B13–B26. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, D. V. M. (1983). Test for reception of grammar. Manchester: Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
  5. Chien, Y. C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence of the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language acquisition, 1, 225–295. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornish, F. (2009). Inter-sentential anaphora and coherence relations in discourse: A perfect match. Language Sciences, 31, 572–592. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley, R. A., Stevenson, R. J., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 245–264. doi: 10.1007/BF01077259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (1990). Eye movements and anaphor resolution: Effects of antecedent typicality and distance. Language and Speech, 33, 103–119. doi: 10.1177/002383099003300201.Google Scholar
  9. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, D. M. (1993). Echelle de vocabulaire en images peabody. (French adaptation of peabody picture vocabulary test-revised). Toronto: Psycan.Google Scholar
  11. Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526–544. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Cloze tests of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 16–28. doi: 10.1177/0734282912451971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grevisse, M. (1993). Le Bon Usage—Grammaire française. Édition refondue par André Goosse (13th ed.). Louvain-la-Neuve: DeBoeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
  14. Hartshorne, J. K., Nappa, R., & Snedeker, J. (2015). Development of the first-mention bias. Journal of Child Language, 42, 423–446. doi: 10.1017/S0305000914000075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: Person, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hickmann, M., Schimke, S., & Colonna, S. (2015). From early to late mastery of reference. Multifunctionality and linguistic diversity. In L. Serratrice & S. E. M. Allen (Eds.), The acquisition of reference (pp. 181–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. doi: 10.1007/BF00401799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Joseph, H. S. S. L., Bremner, G., Liversedge, S. P., & Nation, K. (2015). Working memory, reading ability and the effects of distance and typicality on anaphor resolution in children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 622–639. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1005095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lecocq, P. (1996). Epreuve de Compréhension Syntaxico-Sémantique (Test of syntactic-semantic comprehension). Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  22. Megherbi, H., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2005). Language impairment in less skilled comprehenders: The on-line processing of anaphoric pronouns in a listening situation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 715–753. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-8131-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Megherbi, H. & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2009). The on-line interpretation of pronouns and repeated names in seven-year-old children. Current Psychology Letters: Behavior, Brain and Cognition, 25(2), 2–11. http://cpl.revues.org/4895.
  24. Neale, M. D. (1997). Neale analysis of reading ability: Second revised (British ed.). London: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  25. Oakhill, J. V., Berenhaus, M. S., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s reading comprehension and reading comprehension difficulites. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 344–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. E. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? L’Année Psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 647–662. doi: 10.4074/S0003503314004035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1986). Pronoun resolution in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 29, 25–37. doi: 10.1177/002383098602900104.Google Scholar
  29. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1989). What, when, and how? Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3–4), SI235–SI262. doi: 10.1080/01690968908406369.Google Scholar
  31. Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., et al. (2010). York assessment of reading for comprehension: Passage reading secondary. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  32. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapmann, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466. doi: 10.1177/0022219411432685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang, C. L., Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Hue, C. W. (2003). Constraining the comprehension of pronominal expressions in Chinese. Cognition, 86, 283–315. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00182-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.University of SussexBrightonUK
  3. 3.EA4403 – UTRPPUniversité Paris 13 - SPCVilletaneuseFrance

Personalised recommendations