Display options
Share it on

Lang Cogn Process. 2012 Jun 01;27(6):868-886. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.601623.

The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora.

Language and cognitive processes

Josée Poirier, Matthew Walenski, Lewis P Shapiro

Affiliations

  1. Joint Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University and University of California, San Diego, CA, USA ; Laboratoire de Neurosciences Fonctionnelles et Pathologies, CNRS FRE 3291, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.

PMID: 23741080 PMCID: PMC3670214 DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.601623

Abstract

Parallelism effects refer to the facilitated processing of a target structure when it follows a similar, parallel structure. In coordination, a parallelism-related conjunction triggers the expectation that a second conjunct with the same structure as the first conjunct should occur. It has been proposed that parallelism effects reflect the use of the first structure as a template that guides the processing of the second. In this study, we examined the role of parallelism in real-time anaphora resolution by charting activation patterns in coordinated constructions containing anaphora, Verb-Phrase Ellipsis (VPE) and Noun-Phrase Traces (NP-traces). Specifically, we hypothesised that an expectation of parallelism would incite the parser to assume a structure similar to the first conjunct in the second, anaphora-containing conjunct. The speculation of a similar structure would result in early postulation of covert anaphora. Experiment 1 confirms that following a parallelism-related conjunction, first-conjunct material is activated in the second conjunct. Experiment 2 reveals that an NP-trace in the second conjunct is posited immediately where licensed, which is earlier than previously reported in the literature. In light of our findings, we propose an intricate relation between structural expectations and anaphor resolution.

Keywords: Anaphora; Ellipsis; Parallelism; Unaccusative verbs

References

  1. Linguist Inq. 2008 Summer;39(3):355-377 - PubMed
  2. J Mem Lang. 2006 Aug;55(2):232-246 - PubMed
  3. Brain Lang. 2004 Jun;89(3):584-92 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Bull. 2008 May;134(3):427-59 - PubMed
  5. J Mem Lang. 2003 Jul 1;49(1):1-19 - PubMed
  6. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Dec;62(12):2338-71 - PubMed
  7. Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):51-68 - PubMed
  8. Cogn Psychol. 2007 May;54(3):218-50 - PubMed
  9. Biometrics. 1946 Dec;2(6):110-4 - PubMed
  10. J Psycholinguist Res. 1989 Jan;18(1):5-19 - PubMed
  11. Psychol Sci. 2007 Feb;18(2):135-43 - PubMed
  12. Brain Lang. 2003 Jul;86(1):9-22 - PubMed
  13. J Psycholinguist Res. 2010 Apr;39(2):101-18 - PubMed
  14. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):468-481 - PubMed
  15. J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):517-32 - PubMed
  16. Brain Lang. 1998 Feb 1;61(2):169-82 - PubMed
  17. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Mar;29(2):205-16 - PubMed
  18. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb;15(1):149-55 - PubMed
  19. Neuropsychologia. 2007 Jun 18;45(11):2447-60 - PubMed
  20. Mem Cognit. 1984 Sep;12(5):421-30 - PubMed
  21. J Psycholinguist Res. 2000 Jul;29(4):343-70 - PubMed
  22. J Psycholinguist Res. 1993 Mar;22(2):273-86 - PubMed
  23. J Psycholinguist Res. 2010 Oct;39(5):411-27 - PubMed
  24. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Sep;34(5):1098-110 - PubMed
  25. Brain Lang. 2008 Dec;107(3):203-19 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support