Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 281–299 | Cite as

Cognitive Status, Information Structure, and Pronominal Reference to Clausally Introduced Entities

  • Jeanette K. Gundel
  • Michael Hegarty
  • Kaja Borthen


This paper investigates reference to clausally introduced entities and proposes an explanation for why these are more readily available to immediate subsequent reference with a demonstrative pronoun than with the personal pronoun,it. New evidence is provided supporting proposals that such entities are typically activated, but not brought into focus, upon their introduction into a discourse. The study also provides further insight into the role of information structure, lexical semantics, presuppositional contexts, and syntactic structure in bringing an entity into focus of attention.

focus givenness hierarchy presupposition reference topic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almor, A., 1999, “Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis,” Psychological Review 106, 748–763.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, J., 1998, “Reference form and discourse patterns,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N., 1993, Reference to Abstract Entities in Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bock, J.K. and Warren, R., 1985, “Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation,” Cognition 21, 47–67.Google Scholar
  5. Borthen, K., Fretheim, T., and Gundel, J.K., 1997, “What brings a higher-order entity into focus of attention?,” pp. 88–93 in Operational Factors in Practical Robust Anaphora Resolution, R. Mitkov and B. Boguraev, eds., Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia.Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, S.E., Friedman, M.W., and Pollard, C.J., 1987, “A centering approach to pronouns,” pp. 155–162 in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., and Gilliom, L.A., 1993, “Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse,” Cognitive Science 17, 311–347.Google Scholar
  8. Grice, H.P., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” pp. 41–58 in Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts, P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, eds.Google Scholar
  9. Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., and Weinstein, S., 1983, “Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse,” pp. 44–50 in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., and Weinstein, S., 1995, “Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation,” Computational Linguistics 21, 203–225.Google Scholar
  11. Gundel, J.K., 1980, “Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: A case of topic-prominence,” pp. 139–146 in Proceedings from the Parasession on Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  12. Gundel, J.K., 1988, “Universals of topic-comment structure,” pp. 209–239 in Studies in Syntactic Typology, M. Hammond et al., eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Gundel, J.K., 1999, “On different kinds of focus,” pp. 293–305 in Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, eds., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gundel, J.K. and Mulkern, A., 1998, “Quantity implicatures in reference understanding,” Pragmatics and Cognition 6 21–45.Google Scholar
  15. Gundel, J.K., Borthen, K., and Fretheim, T., 1999, “The role of context in pronominal reference to higher order entitites in English and Norwegian,” pp. 475–478 in Modeling and Using Context. Proceedings from the Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT' 99, P. Bouquet et al., eds., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1688, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R., 1993, “Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse,” Language 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
  17. Hegarty, M., 2001, “Reference to abstract entities within clausal complements,” pp. 121–132 in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, L.J. Conathan et al., eds.Google Scholar
  18. Hegarty, M., forthcoming, “Semantic types of abstract entities,” Lingua.Google Scholar
  19. Hegarty, M., Gundel, J.K., and Borthen, K., 2002, “Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents,” Theoretical Linguistics 27, 1–24.Google Scholar
  20. Hudson D'Zmura, S. and Tanenhaus, M.K., 1998, “Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns. The role of the center of attention as the default assignment,” pp. 199–226 in Centering Theory in Discourse, M.A. Walker, A.K. Joshi and E.F. Prince, eds., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kamio, A. and Thomas, M., 1999, “Some referential properties of English it and that,” in Function and Structure, A. Kamio and K.-I. Takami, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Lambrecht, K., 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, S.C., 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1986/1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition, London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Vallduví, E., 1990, “The informational component,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  27. Webber, B.L., 1988, “Discourse deixis and discourse processing,” Technical Report, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  28. Webber, B.L., 1991, “Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis,” Language and Cognitive Processes 6, 107–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanette K. Gundel
    • 1
  • Michael Hegarty
    • 2
  • Kaja Borthen
    • 3
  1. 1.LinguisticsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of EnglishLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeU.S.A.
  3. 3.Department of Linguistics, NTNUTrondheimNorway.

Personalised recommendations