The Effect of Thematic Roles on Pronoun Use and Frequency of Reference Continuation

By Jennifer E. Arnold. 2001

246 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16cf34d4b4d22a76e1b79cf73d8d4edaef63393e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Sarah Brown-Schmidt
2. Hannah Rohde
3. John C. Trueswell
4. Andrew Kehler
5. Kumiko Fukumura
6. Roger P. G. van Gompel
7. Jennifer E. Arnold
8. A. Schafer

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Hannah Rohde
2. Andrew Kehler
3. Jeffrey L. Elman
4. Kumiko Fukumura
5. Roger P. G. van Gompel
6. Laura Kertz
7. Jennifer E. Arnold
8. A. Schafer

Citations in the corpus

• The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation (2003, background): “Arnold, 2001 ). This approach predicts that effects of common ground will vary with the strength and saliency of information about common ground as well as its task-specific relevance.”
• Coherence and Coreference Revisited (2007, methodology): “13 Our use of judges follows Arnold (2001). Stevenson et al. (1994) had participants circle their”
• Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form (2017, methodology): “Following much previous L1 work in this tradition, we adopt the story continuation paradigm (e.g., Arnold, 2001; Ferstl, Garnham, & Manouilidou, 2011; Stevenson et al., 1994), in which participants provide written continuations to discourse fragments similar to those in (1) and (2).”
• The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression (2011, background): “In addition, in line with previous studies (e.g., Arnold, 2001; Fukumura & Van Gompel, 2010; Stevenson et al., 1994), we predicted that structural properties should affect the choice of referring expression, with more pronouns when participants referred to NP1 than NP2.”
• On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension : Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking (2006, background): “At the same time, we sympathize with an account in which the highlighting of particular discourse entities is inextricably intertwined with—and perhaps in some sense even equivalent to—expectations about what or whom will be talked about next (e.g., Arnold, 2001).”
• Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension (2007, background): “Similarly, comprehenders tend to find pronouns easier to understand when they refer to first-mentioned, rather than later-mentioned entities (Gordon, Grosz, & Gilliom, 1993; McDonald & MacWhinney, 1995, etc.).”
• Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production (2014, methodology): “(Arnold, 2001 also found correspondingly strong biases in a similar experiment.)”
• Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, background): “For example, verbs of transfer create a focus on the goal entity more than the source entity, for example Lucas gave a ball to Valentina . . ., leading it to be pronominalised more in subsequent utterances (Arnold, 1998, 2001; see also Stevenson, Crawley, & Kleinman, 1994).”