Rules of engagement: incomplete and complete pronoun resolution.

Research on shallow processing suggests that readers sometimes encode only a superficial representation of a text and fail to make use of all available information. Greene, McKoon, and Ratcliff (1992) extended this work to pronouns, finding evidence that readers sometimes fail to automatically identify referents even when these are unambiguous. In this paper we revisit those findings. In 11 recognition probe, priming, and self-report experiments, we manipulated Greene et al.'s stories to discover under what circumstances a pronoun's referent is automatically understood. We lengthened the stories from 4 to 8 lines. This simple manipulation led to automatic and correct resolution, which we attribute to readers' increased engagement with the stories. We found evidence of resolution even when the additional text did not mention the pronoun's referent. In addition, our results suggest that the pronoun temporarily boosts the referent's accessibility, an advantage that disappears by the end of the next sentence. Finally, we present evidence from memory experiments that supports complete pronoun resolution for the longer but not the shorter stories.

[1]  Rick W. Busselle,et al.  Attention and Narrative Engagement: Divergences in Secondary Task Reaction Times and Self-Reports of Narrative Engagement , 2008 .

[2]  Rick W. Busselle,et al.  Fictionality and Perceived Realism in Experiencing Stories: A Model of Narrative Comprehension and Engagement , 2008 .

[3]  Ray Barker,et al.  What, when and how? , 2008 .

[4]  Evan Kidd,et al.  Shallow processing of ambiguous pronouns: Evidence for delay , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  J. Cumming,et al.  Where, When, and How , 2007, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[6]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  The Scope of Memory-Based Processing , 2005 .

[7]  David Caplan,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology New Arguments in Favour of an Automatic Gender Pronominal Process New Arguments in Favour of an Automatic Gender Pronominal Process , 2022 .

[8]  A. Sanford,et al.  Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[10]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The Effect of Thematic Roles on Pronoun Use and Frequency of Reference Continuation , 2001 .

[12]  Celia M. Klin,et al.  When Anaphor Resolution Fails , 2000 .

[13]  T. Brock,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology the Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives Text Quality Individual Differences and Situational Influences Transportation Scale Items Gender Differences Discriminant Validation: Need for Cognition Effect of Text Manipulation Beli , 2022 .

[14]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking , 2000, Cognition.

[15]  D. Caplan,et al.  Effects of Gender Marking in Pronominal Coindexation , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  格 山口.  A Good Man Is Hard to Find論 : 不条理の超克 , 1999 .

[17]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Sources of Situational Interest , 1995 .

[18]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Rosemary J. Stevenson,et al.  Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events , 1994 .

[20]  Ron Smyth,et al.  Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution , 1994 .

[21]  Inge Schreyer,et al.  Intrinsische Lernmotivation und Lernen. Ein Überblick zu Ergebnissen der Forschung. , 1994 .

[22]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrative Processes in Utterance Resolution , 1993 .

[23]  Alan Garnham,et al.  The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns , 1992 .

[24]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inference during reading. , 1992, Psychological review.

[25]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Pronoun resolution and discourse models. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Ulrich Schiefele,et al.  Interest, Learning, and Motivation , 1991 .

[27]  R J Stevenson,et al.  The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns , 1990, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[28]  S. Garrod,et al.  What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution , 1989 .

[29]  M. Gernsbacher.  Mechanisms that improve referential access , 1989, Cognition.

[30]  M. Just,et al.  The psychology of reading and language comprehension , 1986 .

[31]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[32]  D. Howard.  Aging and Episodic Priming: The Propositional Structure of Sentences. , 1985 .

[33]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory , 1984 .

[34]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse , 1983, ACL.

[35]  C. Sidner.  Focusing and discourse , 1983 .

[36]  B. Webber,et al.  Elements of Discourse Understanding , 1983 .

[37]  Michael Brady,et al.  Computational Models of Discourse , 1983 .

[38]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. , 1983 .

[39]  B. Murdock.  A Theory for the Storage and Retrieval of Item and Associative Information. , 1982 .

[40]  M. Mattson,et al.  From words to meaning: A semantic illusion , 1981 .

[41]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference , 1980 .

[42]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Priming in item recognition: The organization of propositions in memory for text , 1980 .

[43]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues , 1979 .

[44]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[45]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences , 1978 .

[46]  R. Hills,et al.  Fiction 100: An Anthology of Short Stories , 1976 .

[47]  Celia M. Klin,et al.  When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences , 2006 .

[48]  J. Elman,et al.  Event Structure and Discourse Coherence Biases in Pronoun Interpretation , 2006 .

[49]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2005 .

[50]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Context, Attention and Depth of Processing During Interpretation , 2002 .

[51]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Accessing the discourse representation during reading , 1998 .

[52]  Ulrich Schiefele,et al.  Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience , 1996 .

[53]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Information integration in perception and communication , 1996 .

[54]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. , 1996 .

[55]  P. Broek,et al.  The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. , 1995 .

[56]  R. Carver.  Where I'm calling from : the selected stories , 1995 .

[57]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Sources of coherence in reading , 1995 .

[58]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inferences about predictable events. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[59]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[60]  M. Brady,et al.  Focusing in the Comprehension of Definite Anaphora , 1983 .

[61]  M. Brady,et al.  So What Can We Talk About Now , 1983 .