Cover not available
Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 365–388

Referential properties of definites and salience spreading

We provide a survey of different aspects of definiteness by means of comprehension data collected via event-related brain potential recordings. We present a processing account including differences between definites and indefinites, as well as the contribution of lexical feature specifications, uniqueness, degrees of accessibility and enrichment. We then present new data associated with salience spreading from referential expressions to their supersets. Two core mechanisms emerge in all these studies that reflect the computation of accessibility information on the one hand and updating of discourse structure on the other hand. With the availability of these two processes, the nature and processing consequences of weak definites may be narrowed down and validated in future research.

Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.15sch
References
Abbott, B
2004 Definiteness and indefiniteness. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A
2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Schulpen, M
2011 Understanding the meaning enrichment of weak definites. In Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI student session .
Aguilar-Guevara A. & M. Schulpen
2014 Modified weak definites. In Weak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 237–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & J. Zwarts
2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Almor, A
1999 Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review 106(4): 748–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.E. & Holcomb, P.J
2005 An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy. Brain and Language 94(2): 200–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ašić T. & F. Corblin
2014 Telic definites and their prepositions: French and Serbian. In Weak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N
1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 50]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baggio, G., Choma, T., van Lambalgen, M. & Hagoort, P
2010 Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(9): 2131–2240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. & Ward, G
1994 Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 93–102.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P
2006 Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain & Language 98(2): 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport 18(17): 1851–1854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Two types of definites: Evidence for presupposition cost. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, A. Grøn (ed.), 66–80. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Carlson, G
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G. & Sussman, R
2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G., Sussman, R., Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M
2006 Weak definite noun phrases. In Proceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis, A.R. Eal & Y. Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H
1975 Bridging. In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, B. Nash-Webber & R. Schank (eds), 188–193. New Haven CT: Yale University Mathematical Society Sciences Board.Google Scholar
Consten, M., Knees, M. & Schwarz-Friesel, M
2007 The function of complex anaphors in texts. In Anaphors in Text [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (eds), 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. & Van Petten, C
2002 Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition 30(6): 958–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D
1967 The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburg PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
De Villiers, P.A
1974 Imagery and theme in recall of connected discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology 103(2): 263–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R
2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25: 122–133.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Sanford, A
1977 Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16(1): 77–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.A. & Robertson, R.R.W
2002 The definite article the as a cue to map thematic information. In Thematics: Interdisciplinary Studies [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research], W. van Peer & M.M. Louwerse (eds), 119–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K. & Weinstein, S
1995 Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2): 203–225.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, D
1980 Über Verschmelzungen von Präposition und bestimmten Artikel. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47(2): 160–183.Google Scholar
Haviland, S.E. & Clark, H.H
1974 What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(5): 512–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A
1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Atlantic Highland NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I
1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Hirotani, M. & Schumacher, P.B
2011 Context and topic marking affect distinct processes during discourse comprehension in Japanese. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24(3): 276–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hung, Y.-C. & Schumacher, P.B
2012 Topicality matters: Position-specific demands on Chinese discourse processing. Neuroscience Letters 511(2): 59–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huynh, H. & Feldt, L.S
1970 Conditions under which mean square ratios repeated measurements designs have exact F distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Assocation 65(332): 1582–1589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasper, H.H
1958 The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 10(2): 371–375.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A.C. & Barkley, C.M
2007 Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research 1146: 199–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, J.W. & Kutas, M
1995 Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 376–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G
1991 Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Klein, N
2011 Convention and Cognition: Weak Definite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D
2011 Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 62: 621–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., van Petten, C. & Kluender, R
2006 Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 659–724. New York NY: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D
1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. In Semantics from Different Points of View, R. Bauerle, U. Egli & A. von Stechow (eds), 172–187. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S
1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, C
2003 Die logische Form von Kopulasätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R
1986 Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 12(1): 82–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G
1995 Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12: 109–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B
2006 The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn, M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds), 537–577. New York NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T
1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1): 53–94.Google Scholar
Rips, L.J., Shoben, E.J. & Smith, E.E
1973 Semantic distance and verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rugg, M.D
1985 The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 22(6): 642–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholten, J. & Aguilar-Guevara, A
2010 Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definites. Linguistics in the Netherlands 27: 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P.B. & Baumann, S
2010 Pitch accent type affects the N400 during referential processing. Neuroreport 21(9): 618–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P.B., Consten, M. & Knees, M
2010 Constraints on ontology changing complexation processes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(6): 840–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P.B. & Hung, Y.C
(2012) Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language 67(2): 295–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P.B
2009 Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: Evidence from ERPs. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5847: 91–106.Google Scholar
2011  The hepatitis called...: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. In Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 175], J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (eds), 199–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F
2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. In Weak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, P.B
2013 When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Towards a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streb, J., Rösler, F. & Hennighausen, E
1999 Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language 70(2): 273–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M. & Hagoort, P
1999 Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 41(2): 147–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S
2011 Weak Definites and Generics. BA thesis, Universität Osnabrück.
von Heusinger, K
1997 Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2006 Salience and anaphoric definite noun phrases. Acta Lingvistica Hafniensia 38: 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, M., Kiefer, M., Winkler, S., Maier, S., Hill, H., Roesch-Ely, D. & Spitzer, M
1999 Electrophysiological correlates of direct versus indirect semantic priming in normal volunteers. Cognitive Brain Research 8(3): 289–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J
2014 Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. In Weak Referentiality, A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 265–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar