Abstract
It is generally assumed that interpreting a co-referential or a syntactically-bound pronoun requires retrieving a representation of its antecedent from memory. Donkey pronouns (e.g., Geach 1962) are pronouns that co-vary in interpretation with non-c-commanding indefinite QPs in apparent violation of structural constraints on QP-pronoun relations (Reinhart 1976). Recent research (Moulton & Han 2018) has hypothesized that the real-time processing of donkey pronouns may not involve retrieval of the co-varying indefinite QP as an antecedent, because non-c-commanding QPs are assumed to be inaccessible to retrieval. We tested this hypothesis with a self-paced reading study that compared the processing of standard co-referential pronouns and donkey pronouns in Norwegian. Contrary to the hypothesis, our results indicate that donkey pronouns retrieve a feature-matching antecedent from memory in a manner analogous to how co-referential pronouns retrieve a referential antecedent. Our findings imply that retrieval of a feature-matching antecedent is a necessary step in the processing of all pronouns, irrespective of their ultimate interpretation. Moreover, retrieval does not uniformly ignore non-referential NPs that fail to c-command a pronoun. We briefly discuss the implications of these findings for psycholinguistic models of anaphora resolution and formal theories of donkey pronouns.
Highlights
Pronouns can be interpreted in various ways
Despite the rather tight correlation between c-command and co-variation via syntactic binding, there are exceptional cases where pronouns appear to co-vary with non-c-commanding phrases. In this short paper we focus on one case of exceptional co-variation: so-called donkey pronouns (Geach 1962; Evans 1980; Heim 1982; 1990; Neale 1990; Elbourne 2001; 2005, a.o.)
The gender-mismatch effect was even larger in the post-pronoun region (t = 6.34, average raw Reaction times (RTs) difference = 85 ms)
Summary
Pronouns can be interpreted in various ways. Co-referential pronouns point to entities in a discourse model: it in (1) refers to the unique object that its antecedent NP the medal denotes.(1) The medal was given to the skier after the host shined it.Syntactically bound pronouns do not refer to entities, but co-vary in interpretation with the value of their antecedent. Pronouns can be interpreted in various ways. Co-referential pronouns point to entities in a discourse model: it in (1) refers to the unique object that its antecedent NP the medal denotes. Bound pronouns do not refer to entities, but co-vary in interpretation with the value of their antecedent. In (2) the quantificational phrase (QP) every medal is said to bind the pronoun it. The pronoun does not pick out a unique medal, as it does in (1), but rather stands in for each medal in the relevant set denoted by the QP. In (3a) the QP every/no medal fails to bind the pronoun it from within the relative clause (RC), but co-reference between the pronoun and a referential NP in the same position is acceptable (3b)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
