The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions

The length of a noun phrase has been shown to influence choices such as syntactic role assignment (e.g., whether the noun phrase is realized as the subject or the object). But does length also affect the choice between different forms of referring expressions? Three experiments investigated the effect of antecedent length on the choice between pronouns (e.g., he) and repeated nouns (e.g., the actor) using a sentence-continuation paradigm. Experiments 1 and 2 found an effect of antecedent length on written continuations: Participants used more pronouns (relative to repeated nouns) when the antecedent was longer than when it was shorter. Experiment 3 used a spoken continuation task and replicated the effect of antecedent length on the choice of referring expressions. Taken together, the results suggest that longer antecedents increase the likelihood of pronominal reference. The results support theories arguing that length enhances the accessibility of the associated entity through richer semantic encoding.

[1]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[2]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[3]  Carl Pollard,et al.  A Centering Approach to Pronouns , 1987, ACL.

[4]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[5]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Approaches to studying world-situated language use : bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions , 2005 .

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

[7]  M. Pickering,et al.  Planning causes and consequences in discourse , 2005 .

[8]  Michael Hammond,et al.  Studies in Syntactic Typology , 1988 .

[9]  T. Givon Topic Continuity in Discourse , 1983 .

[10]  Kumiko Fukumura,et al.  The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression , 2011 .

[11]  Edith A. Moravcsik,et al.  Universals of human language , 1978 .

[12]  Philip Hofmeister,et al.  Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension , 2011, Language and cognitive processes.

[13]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Coherence and Coreference Revisited , 2007, J. Semant..

[14]  Martin J Pickering,et al.  The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  A. Almor,et al.  Noun-phrase anaphors and focus: the informational load hypothesis. , 1999, Psychological review.

[16]  G. Zipf,et al.  Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. , 1949 .

[17]  F. Keil Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological Perspective , 2014 .

[18]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

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

[20]  G. Peeters,et al.  Implicit causality in verbs: The role of cognitive programs , 2011 .

[21]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes , 2008 .

[22]  Mira Ariel,et al.  Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction , 1996 .

[23]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Coherence of Discourse , 1994 .

[24]  S. Brennan Centering Attention in Discourse. , 1995 .

[25]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[26]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Reference and Referent Accessibility , 1996 .

[27]  P. O'Seaghdha,et al.  Phrasal Ordering Constraints in Sentence Production: Phrase Length and Verb Disposition in Heavy-NP Shift , 1998 .

[28]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse , 1995, CL.

[30]  Mira Ariel Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[31]  J. Oberlander,et al.  Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations , 2000 .

[32]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction , 2013 .

[33]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  C. Clifton,et al.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[35]  J. Hyönä,et al.  Gender affects semantic competition: the effect of gender in a non-gender-marking language. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[37]  J. K. Bock,et al.  Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation , 1985, Cognition.

[38]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions to Sentence Formulation , 1982 .

[39]  T. Givón Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction , 1983 .

[40]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[42]  T. Givon The pragmatics of word order , 1988 .

[43]  Franklin Chang,et al.  Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English , 2009 .

[44]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[45]  M. Halliday NOTES ON TRANSITIVITY AND THEME IN ENGLISH. PART 2 , 1967 .

[46]  R. Freedle Discourse production and comprehension , 1978 .

[47]  T. Givon Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics , 1989 .

[48]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[49]  William Marks Retrieval constraints on associative elaborations. , 1987 .

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

[51]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression? , 2011 .

[52]  C. Fletcher Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing , 1984 .

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

[54]  Robert L. Goldstone Returning to a New Home , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[55]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering , 2015 .

[56]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[57]  Charles E. Caton,et al.  Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological Perspective , 1982 .

[58]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  Choosing anaphoric expressions : do people take into account likelihood of reference? , 2010 .

[59]  F. Chang Symbolically speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production , 2002 .

[60]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of elaboration on recognition memory , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[61]  Maryellen C MacDonald,et al.  It’s not Just the “Heavy NP”: Relative Phrase Length Modulates the Production of Heavy-NP Shift , 2011, Journal of psycholinguistic research.