Definiteness and givenness affect pronoun resolution: Evidence from eye fixations
University of Cologne,
Germany
Universität
zu Köln
Klaus von Heusinger, Sofiana Chiriacescu, Andreas Brocher, & Tim Graf
Definiteness marking and discourse linking have been neglected in theories of anaphora resolution
Discourse referents can be introduced into a discourse in different ways, formally and conceptually; general
The more reduced an anaphoric expression is, the more salient / accessible its antecedent needs to be; Several factors affect the resolution of a pronoun referent (e.g., syntactic and semantic prominence, coherence relations, etc.);
Previous work has not accounted for indefinite NPs and has analysed definite NPs in terms of:
Ø  Reference: Meaning of a definite NP (vs. indefinite NPs) described as familiarity / uniqueness (see Abbott, 2004 for an overview); Ø  Accessibility / salience (Prince, 1981; Gundel et al., 1993; Ariel, 2001); Ø  Memory load and processing cost (Clark & Haviland, 1977; Sanford et al., 1981);
•  Givenness: a tripartite distinction of information: given vs. (discourse) linked vs. new / unlinked. •  In this paper, we test whether the type of referring expression (definite vs. indefinite NP) and the information status of a
referent in terms of givenness (i.e. discourse linked vs. non-linked, new referent) affect pronoun resolution. Familiarity should boost the
3-sentences discourses introducing two referents
availability of a referent
•  1st sentence: sets the scene (script introduced); •  definiteness marking
•  2nd sentence: introduces two referents; presupposes familiarity and
•  3rd sentence: introduces an ambiguous pronoun
Sample experimental item
uniqueness; Definiteness X Discourse Linking = 4 conditions:
•  indefiniteness marking
The
gym
class
was
crowded
as
usual.
d
efinite,
linked
t
he
committed
trainer
asserts the existence of a
Michael observed_________.
definite, unlinked
the American at the stereo
referent; (e.g.,
the American vs. an
When the door was closed, he put
indefinite, linked
a committed attendant
American at the stereo); his towel on the mattress…
i
ndefinite,
unlinked
a
n
American
at
the
stereo
•  discourse linking (givenness)
•  association strengths with contexts equal between linked (trainer vs. attendant, ps > .7)
contributes to familiarity with: and unequal between linked and unlinked referents (trainer/attendant vs. American, Ø  a referent through world
ps < .0001);
knowledge for definite NPs;
•  subject referents (e.g., Michael) were introduced before stimulus presentation;
Ø  a concept for indefinite NPs •  auditive presentation of discourses with visual presentation of the two referents;
•  24 participants, 24 items + 48 fillers, 4 lists
• 
• 
• 
• 
Visual World Paradigm
Do definiteness marking and discourse
linking shift participant’s gazes from the
subject to the object?
“…Michael observed the committed trainer. When… he…”
•  linear mixed-effects models for proportion of looks to the object over the
subject;
•  separate analyses for four time frames post ambiguous pronoun onset (0-1200
ms, 0-400 ms, 400-800 ms, 800-1200 ms)
Definiteness marking matters
•  for 0-1200 ms, more looks to the object than the subject when the object was
definite marked, p < .05, (the trainer/American vs. an attendant/American);
•  for 0-400 ms, more looks to the object than the subject when the object was
definite marked, p < .01, with an additional benefit for definite
referents that were linked, p < .05, (the trainer)
Conclusions
We found that:
(i)  definiteness marking is a reliable
predictor of how likely it is that a
pronoun is interpreted as co-referring
with a preceding NP;
(ii)  Givenness in terms of discourse linking
shows an early effect on pronoun
resolution, but only for definite NPs
In
sum, our results provide novel evidence
that
various
semantic-pragmatic
dimensions,
such as givenness and definiteness, interact
differently for definite and indefinite NPs.
Our findings provide support for a multiplefactor model of accessibility or salience
(Arnold, 1999; Kaiser, 2003; Chiriacescu &
von Heusinger, 2010). Selected References: Ÿ Abbott, B. 2004. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. In L. Horn & L. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford, Malden/MA: Blackwell. Ÿ Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility Theory: an overview. In T.J.M.
Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ÿ Arnold, J. 1999. Marking Salience: The similarity of topic and focus. Manuscript, Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Ÿ Chiriacescu, Sofiana & von Heusinger, Klaus 2010. Discourse Prominence and Pe-Marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics 2(2), 298-332. Ÿ Clark, H. & S. Haviland. 1977. Comprehension and the Given-New contrast. In R.
Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehesion, 1-40. Norwood: Ablex. Ÿ Gundel, J., N. Hedland, R. Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69: 274-307. Ÿ Prince, E. 1981.
Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223-256. New York: Academic Press. Ÿ Kaiser, E. 2003. The quest for a referent: A crosslinguistic look at reference resolution. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania. Ÿ Sanford, A.J. & S.C. Garrod. 1981. Understanding Written Language: Explorations of Comprehension Beyond the Sentence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank our student assistants Stephanie Eßer and Ramona Wallner for their help with data collection and annotation.