In:Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference
Edited by Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten and Mareile Knees
[Studies in Language Companion Series 86] 2007
► pp. 21–36
Indirect pronominal anaphora in English and French
Marginal rarity, or unmarked norm? Some psycholinguistic evidence
Francis Cornish | Studies of the Anglophone World Department,University of Toulouse-Le Mirail, France, and CNRS, ERSS UMR 5610
Published online: 15 May 2007
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.86.05cor
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.86.05cor
While for certain linguists (e.g. Erkü & Gundel, 1987) and psycholinguists (e.g. Sanford et al., 1983), using unaccented third person pronouns to refer to implicit referents is impossible or highly marked, for other linguists (e.g. Yule, 1982) and psycholinguists (e.g. Greene et al., 1994), this is not only acceptable but common in normal conversational discourse. If we draw a principled distinction between two main types of implicit referent (central or nuclear referents, and peripheral ones), then both sides in the debate may be correct. The results of two reading experiments in both English and French conducted to test this distinction showed indeed that object pronominal reference to implicit referents only caused slower reading times compared to explicit referents for peripheral referents.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
