Acta Psychologica Sinica

Abstract

Introduction  This paper explored the influence of three possible factors of anaphoric inference: the referential distance between an anaphor and its antecedent, the elaboration of the distractor, and the typicality of the distractor to the anaphor. O’Brien et al. (1997) used a rapid serial visual presentation paradigm at a rate of 250ms/word and found no facilitation when there was a substantial distance between the anaphor and its referent. Levine et al. (2000) found that it was the elaboration of the distractor which led to the failure of anaphoric inference, instead of the referential distance. However, they did not separate the elaboration and the typicality of the distractor. Based on the minimal hypothesis, semantic interference would influence the accessibility of the antecedent, i.e. the match between the cue and the target. Our hypothesis was that the typicality of the distractor was the main factor of anaphoric inference. By manipulating both the elaboration and the typicality of the distractor, two experiments were conducted to study their effects on anaphoric inference.

Method  A total of 164 university students participated in the study. An on-line window display technique was used. The reaction time for the probe words in different conditions was analyzed. Different experiments used 15, 12, 14 and 16 passages, respectively. A within-subject design was adopted. In Experiment 1, by using a line-by-line reading paradigm and recognition probe measures, the effect of the elaboration of the distractor on anaphoric inference was explored. In Experiment 2, using the same test measures as in Experiment 1 plus a 16-category typicality assessment method, the effect of the relative change of the typicality of the distractor and antecedent on anaphoric inference was explored.

Results  Results of Experiment 1 showed that the antecedents (e.g., “cake”) were accessed in shorter time when the anaphor (e.g., “dessert”) was read in the background with extensive elaboration of a same-category weak distractor (e.g., “bread”). The elaboration of the weak distractor did not hinder the accessibility of the antecedent, thus leading to the failure of the anaphoric resolution. It was also found that referential distance alone was not sufficient to eliminate anaphoric resolution. This supports the findings by Levine et al. (2000). Experiment 1 also showed that elaboration of the distractor was not a major factor influencing anaphoric resolution. Results of Experiment 2 showed that the anaphor was not resolved in the condition of a highly typical distractor. High-typicality of the distractor in the long-distance and short-distance condition was not significantly different in terms of their effect on anaphor resolution. The results also showed that high-typicality was the main factor influencing anaphoric inference.

Conclusion  The results of the two experiments suggest that the main factor influencing anaphoric inference is the typicality of the distractor, i.e. the semantic overlapping between the anaphor and its antecedent. Increasing the typicality of the same-category distractor will lead to failure of the anaphoric inference resolution. This finding cannot be explained by O’Brien’s (1998) resonance model. According to the resonance model, all the concepts in short-term memory serving as cues can be activated when the anaphor is read. One of the possible explanations for the findings of the present study is that anaphor needs not be resolved. For example, it can either be used anaphorically or it can be used to introduce a new concept. Another explanation comes from the minimalist hypothesis (Mckoon & Ratcliff, 1997), suggesting that readers do not draw anaphoric inference when the antecedent is not easily available; in other words, inference is not necessary for comprehension.

_{[Chinese Version | Index | Acta Psychologica Sinica | Other Journals | Subscription form | Enquiry ]}

Mail any comments and suggestions to hkier-journal@cuhk.edu.hk .