Discourse Cues to Ambiguity Resolution: Evidence From "Do It" Comprehension

In sentences such as Sam borrowed a jigsaw puzzle, and he did it while everyone else was out, the Ado it@ expression can take its meaning from the entire preceding verb phrase (= borrowed the jigsaw puzzle) or from just the noun phrase (= did the jigsaw puzzle). We examine how the choice of verbal or nominal interpretation is influenced by changes in discourse structure, and in doing so, illustrate those processes that guide discourse comprehension more generally. With 3 manipulations, we show how Ado it@ interpretation is influenced by the nature of the following subordinating conjunct (while vs. because), the preceding coordinating connective (full stop vs. and), and the presence or absence of a pronominal agent. With these results, we argue that readers take cues from the amount of overlapping discourse structure in an antecedent and anaphor clause, and from a consideration of how events in a discourse can be causally related.

[1]  P. Broek.  Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. , 1994 .

[2]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora , 2001 .

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

[4]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  WHEN VERB PHRASES GO MISSING , 1996 .

[5]  P. Broek.  The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. , 1990 .

[6]  S A Duffy,et al.  Role of expectations in sentence integration. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  K. Ehrlich,et al.  Comprehension of Pronouns , 1980 .

[9]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[10]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure , 2003 .

[12]  C. Chambers,et al.  Structural Parallelism and Discourse Coherence: A Test of Centering Theory , 1998 .

[13]  Chad J. Marsolek,et al.  The role of causal discourse structure in narrative writing , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[14]  H. H. Clark,et al.  What's new? Acquiring New information as a process in comprehension , 1974 .

[15]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Processing causals and diagnostics in discourse , 1997 .

[17]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[18]  M. Pickering,et al.  Influence of Connectives on Language Comprehension: Eye tracking Evidence for Incremental Interpretation , 1997 .

[19]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[21]  A. Sanford,et al.  Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse , 1997 .

[22]  Keith K. Millis,et al.  Causal connectives increase inference generation , 1995 .

[23]  A. Sheldon.  The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English , 1973 .

[24]  Julia Simner.  Engaging long and short term memory during anaphor comprehension. , 2001 .

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