Abstract
Linguists draw a distinction between two types of interrogatives: discourse linked (d-linked) phrases such as which man, which implies the existence of a set of contextually determined entities (men) from which the speaker is asking for a choice, and non–d-linked interrogatives such as who, which carry no such implication. Two questionnaires and an on-line reading study showed that readers prefer a d-linked phrase more than a non–d-linked phrase as the antecedent for a pronoun, suggesting that d-linked phrases are immediately instantiated in a discourse representation that is checked during the process of pronoun interpretation. Comparable difficulty is not observed for non–d-linked interrogatives. A questionnaire and an on-line listening study also showed that readers and listeners were more willing to accept a grammatical “island violation” containing a pronoun when the pronoun's antecendent was a d-linked interrogative than when the antecedent was non–d-linked, suggesting that they check a discourse representation for the pronoun antecedent. All results suggest that d-linked phrases are immediately interpreted in a discourse representation, not just in a syntactic representation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Albrecht, J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Accessing singular antecedents in conjoined phrases. Memory and Cognition, 26(3), 599–610.
Avrutin, S., & Hickok, G. 1993. Operator/variable relations, referentiality and agrammatic comprehension. Poster presented at the 6th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Boland, J. E. (1997). Resolving syntactic category ambiguities in discourse context: Probabilistic and discourse constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 588–615.
Carminati, M. N. (2001). The processing of Italian null and overt subject pronouns. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Carreiras, M., & Gernsbacher, M. (1992). Comprehending conceptual anaphors in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 281–299.
Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 239–282.
Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 222–246.
Cloitre, M., & Bever, T. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 293–322.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Dickey, M. W. (1996). Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. In: M. W. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.), Linguistics in the laboratory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 19, (157–192). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Enç , M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 499–520.
Frazier, L., Henstra, J., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1996). Finding candidate antecedents: Phrase or conceptual entities. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 19, 193–238.
Frazier, L., & McNamara, P. 1995. Favor referential representations. Brain and Language, 49, 224–240.
Frazier, L., Plunkett, B., & Clifton, C. (1996). Reconstruction and scope. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 19, 239–260.
Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., Ehrlich, M.-F., & Carreiras, M. (1995). Representations and processes in the interpretation of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and French. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 41–62.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Ledoux, K., & Yang, C. L. (1999). Processing of reference and structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 353–380.
Hickok, G., & Avrutin, S. (1995). Representation, referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language, 50, 10–26.
Koh, S., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2002). Resolution of the antecedent of a plural pronoun: Ontological categories and predicate symmetry. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 830–844.
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-Situ: Movement and unselective binding. In: E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definitess (98–129). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Radó , J. (1998). Discourse-linking and topicality: Parsing wh-questions in English and Hungarian. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ, March 1988.
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics, an analysis of sentence topies. Philosophica, 22, 53–94.
Sag, I., & Hankamer, G. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 325–345.
Shapiro, L. P., Oster, E., Garcia, R., Massey, A., and Thompson, C. (1999). On-line comprehension of wh-questions in discourse. Poster presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, 1999.
Stowe, L. (1988). Thematic structures and sentence comprehension. In: G. N. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (319–358). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frazier, L., Clifton, C. Processing “d-Linked” Phrases. J Psycholinguist Res 31, 633–659 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021269122049
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021269122049