Effects of Reference Form on Frequency of Mentionand Rate of Pronominalization

  • Sofiana Iulia Chiriacescu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7099)


Comprehension studies find that a referent, which is expected to be picked up more often in the subsequent discourse, is also more prone to be realized by means of a more reduced type of referring expression (typically a pronoun), compared to a referent that is less expected to be re-mentioned [1,2]. This paper evaluates this assumption and shows that it does not always hold. Specifically, I take a closer look at the effects of choice of indefinite referential form in English and German on likelihood of subsequent mention and likelihood of subsequent pronominalization. The results of two experimental studies suggest that these two factors, which pertain to the upcoming discourse, should be separated, as they point into different directions. While the type of referring expression used to introduce a referent impacts its frequency of subsequent mention, the rate of pronominalization seems to be dependent on other characteristics of the referent.


German English reference pronominalization topic psycholinguistics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ariel, M.: Referring and Accessibility. J. Linguistics 24, 65–87 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, J.: Reference form and discourse patterns. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Dissertation Abstracts International 59, 2950 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold, J., Griffin, Z.: The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expressions: Everyone counts. J. Memory and Language 56, 521–536 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiriacescu, S.: The presentative function of German so’n. In: Saramandu, N., Nevaci, M., Radu, C.I. (eds.) Lucrarile celui de-al Treilea Simpozion International de Lingvistica, pp. 345–356. Bucharest UP, Bucharest (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiriacescu, S.: The discourse structuring potential of indefinite noun phrases. Special markers in Romanian, German and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiriacescu, S., von Heusinger, K.: Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian. The International Review of Pragmatics 2(2), 298–332 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gernsbacher, M., Shroyer, S.: The cataphoric use of the indefinite ‘this’ in spoken narratives. J. Memory and Cognition 17, 536–540 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Givón, T.: Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In: Givón, T. (ed.) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, pp. 109–136. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haspelmath, M.: Indefinite pronouns: Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaiser, E.: Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. The International Review of Pragmatics 2(2), 266–297 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., Elman, J.: Coherence and Coreference Revised. J. Semantics 25, 1–44 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lyons, C.: Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maclaran, R.: The Semantics and Pragmatics of the English Demonstratives. PhD dissertation, Cornell University (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prince, E.: Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, pp. 223–256. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Von Heusinger, K.: Specificity, referentiality and discourse prominence: German indefinite demonstratives. In: Ingo, R. (ed.) Sinn & Bedeutung, vol. 15, pp. 9–30. Universaar – Saarland Unversity Press, Saarbrucken (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright, S., Givón, T.: The pragmatics of indefinite reference: quantified text-based studies. J. Studies in Language 11, 1–33 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofiana Iulia Chiriacescu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of LinguisticsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations