Co-referential Processing of Pronouns and Repeated Names in Italian
- 340 Downloads
In this study, we investigate whether co-referential processing across sentence boundaries is driven by universal properties of the general architecture of memory systems and whether cross-linguistic differences concerning the number of anaphoric forms available in a language’s referential inventory can impact the process of inter-sentential co-reference resolution. As a window into these questions, we test whether the repeated-name penalty (RNP) and the overt-pronoun penalty (OPP)—comprehension delays associated with repeated names and overt pronouns, respectively, in comparison to more reduced anaphoric forms in reference to salient antecedents—occur in Italian, examining the extent to which Italian resembles other null-subject languages, with focus on Spanish. Our self-paced reading experiment with factors Antecedent (Subject, Object) and Anaphor (Null Pronoun, Overt Pronoun, Repeated Name) found that Italian exhibits both an OPP and a (weaker) RNP, extending previous research that showed these effects in Spanish and strengthening the claim that co-reference resolution might be subject to universal principles.
KeywordsCoreferential processing Repeated names Repeated-name penalty Pronouns Overt-pronoun penalty Italian
This study was partially funded by NIH (Grant No. R21AG030445) and NSF (Grant No. BCS0822617).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Amit Almor has received research grants from NIH and NSF.
- Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns (Doctoral dissertation). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
- Filiaci, F., Sorace, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language and Cognitive Processes. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.801502.
- Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1982). Bridging inferences in the extended domain of reference. In A. Baddeley & J. Long (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 331–346). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
- Gelormini-Lezama, C. (2012). A review of the repeated name penalty: Implications for null subject languages. Revista LinguíStica / Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 8(2), 22–34.Google Scholar
- Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Association for Computational Linguistics, 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of the Conference (pp. 44–50). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 2(21), 203–225.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Nair, V. E., & Almor, A. (2008). The repeated name penalty in sentence by sentence but not word by word reading. Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar