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 (66)
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