@article {7394, title = {Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedding gapping}, year = {2022}, pages = {1-38}, chapter = {1}, abstract = {

Taking as a starting point the variation in introspective judgments on embedded gapping in English in the literature, the main goal of this paper is to test the \‘No Embedding Constraint\’ experimentally. Building on a first experimental study designed to measure the interaction between that-omission and factivity in English embedded complement clauses, we conducted two experiments testing the role of the complementizer in embedded gapping, paying special attention to the semantic nature of the matrix predicates (non-factives vs. semi-factives vs. true factives). Our results show, on the one hand, that the \‘No Embedding Constraint\’ makes too strong claims that are not backed up by our experimental findings, and, on the other hand, that embedded gapping is affected by both the presence/absence of that and by the semantic class of the matrix predicate in English. In particular, embedded gapping seems to be more acceptable under non-factive verbs, especially in the absence of a complementizer. Both constraints (that-omission and factivity) can be accounted for by a constructionist fragment-based analysis, where the gapped clause is a non-finite phrase that has to address the same QUD (Question-Under-Discussion) as its source. This explains, in turn, why embedded gapping under true factive predicates is considered significantly less acceptable. We show that the acceptable cases of embedded gapping involve true syntactic embedding (so, the matrix clause has no parenthetical use). We conclude that English has the same sensitivity to the semantic class of the matrix predicate as other languages, but that the requirements on the presence/absence of that are English specific.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000445}, author = {Gabriela B{\^\i}lb{\^\i}ie and Israel de la Fuente and Anne Abeill{\'e}} } @article {6060, title = {Adaptation in Pronoun Resolution: Evidence from Brazilian and European Portuguese}, journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

Previous research accounting for pronoun resolution as a problem of probabilistic inference has not explored the phenomenon of adaptation, whereby the processor constantly tracks and adapts, rationally, to changes in a statistical environment. We investigate whether Brazilian (BP) and European Portuguese (EP) speakers adapt to variations in the probability of occurrence of ambiguous overt and null pronouns, in two experiments assessing resolution towards subject and object referents. For each variety (BP, EP), participants were faced with either the same number of null and overt pronouns (equal distribution), or with an environment with fewer overt (than null) pronouns (unequal distribution). We find that the preference for interpreting overt pronouns as referring back to an object referent (object-biased interpretation) is higher when there are fewer overt pronouns (i.e., in the unequal, relative to the equal distribution condition). This is especially the case for BP, a variety with higher prior frequency and smaller object-biased interpretation of overt pronouns, suggesting that participants adapted incrementally and integrated prior statistical knowledge with the knowledge obtained in the experiment. We hypothesize that comprehenders adapted rationally, with the goal of maintaining, across variations in pronoun probability, the likelihood of subject and object referents. Our findings unify insights from research in pronoun resolution and in adaptation, and add to previous studies in both topics: They provide evidence for the influence of pronoun probability in pronoun resolution, and for an adaptation process whereby the language processor not only tracks statistical information, but uses it to make interpretational inferences.

}, doi = {http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037\%2Fxlm0000569}, author = {Eunice Fernandes and Paula Luegi and Eduardo Correa Soares and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @article {5851, title = {Effects of exposure and information structure in native and non-native pronoun resolution in French.}, journal = {Linguistic Vanguard}, year = {2018}, month = {2018-03-09}, abstract = {

The present study investigated pronoun resolution strategies in French native speakers and in German- speaking learners of French. French and German differ in antecedent preferences in ambiguous constructions such as The postman hit the pirate before he went home: while French shows a N2-preference, German shows a N1-preference. This difference is explained by effects of exposure to an unambiguous alternative construction referring to N1 that exists in French, but not in German (Hemforth et al. 2010, Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Steallan Ohlsson and Richard Catarambone (eds.), 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2218\–2223. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society). In question- naires, we tested French active and passive sentences to investigate (a) whether the L2-learners would apply the same strategy as natives in the active condition (i.e. N2-preference), and (b) whether the explicit topicalization of a referent as a consequence of passivization influences interpretation preferences in both groups (result- ing in more N1 choices). The results show that German learners prefer the N1 more often than the French natives in the active condition. Crucially, the number of N1 choices increased in both groups in the passive condition. These results suggest that L2-learners might have difficulties acquiring strategies based on the fre- quency and availability of alternative constructions in the L2, and provide further evidence for the importance of information-structure-based strategies in L1 and L2 pronoun resolution.

}, doi = { https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0093}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Israel de la Fuente and Sascha Kuck and Barbara Hemforth} } @article {6073, title = {First language influence on second language offline and online ambiguous pronoun resolution}, journal = {Language Learning}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

This study looks at L1 influence on L2 ambiguous pronoun resolution and investigates a) whether L1 influence takes place on the level of the pronominal form (form-dependent influence), and/or on the level of the construction in which the form appears \ (construction-dependent influence) and b) whether effects differ in online compared to offline data. In Experiment 1, we replicated previously observed construction-dependent cross-linguistic differences between French and German (Hemforth et al., 2010), and provided new data on Spanish. In Experiment 2, we assessed offline and online interpretation preferences of intermediate L1 French and L1 Spanish learners of German. Our results provide evidence of form-dependent L1 influence, in that learners transferred a generalized antecedent bias associated with overt pronouns. Moreover, our results extend previous findings (Roberts, Gullberg \& Indefrey, 2008) in showing that L1 influence on L2 pronoun resolution can occur during online processing.

}, doi = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12293}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @inbook {5850, title = {L1-Einfluss und generelle Lernereffekte bei der Aufl{\"o}sung ambiger Pronomen in einer L2.}, booktitle = {Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitspracherwerb.}, year = {2018}, pages = {221-246}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, organization = {de Gruyter}, edition = {Sarah Schimke, Holger Hopp}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {978-3-11-045635-6}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {5846, title = {Implicit causality: When more than one explanation is missing}, year = {2017}, month = {03/2017}, abstract = {

It has been shown that focus particles like \“only\” and \“even\” give way to a pattern of pronoun production and resolution similar to what has been observed with implicit causality verbs like \“criticize\” or \“annoy\” in (1) where so-called N1-biased verbs like \“annoyed\” systematically provoke explanations related to the subject (Peter) and N2-biased verbs like \“criticized\” continuations related to the object (Mary).

  1. Peter annoyed/criticized Mary because ..

Continuation studies with sentences like (2), using unbiased verbs show that an antecedent in the scope of \“only\” similarly systematically attracts continuations while an antecedent in the scope of \“even\” is systematically dispreferred.

  1. Only/Even Peter called Mary because \…

Following Bott and Solstad (2014), we argue that focus particles as well as IC verbs, when combined with discourse connectives like because, create expectations for an explanation

about the ensuing discourse that needs to be filled to avoid the accommodation of missing information. These explanations, which reflect the relationship between the focus entity in the

scope of the particle and the set of alternatives related to it, introduce a bias for one of the two potential antecedents. \“Only\” triggers a missing explanation of exclusivity: why does only Peter call and nobody else. \“Even\”, on the other hand, triggers an explanation of the unlikeliness of Peter calling, what it is about Mary that makes even him call.

An obvious and still open question is what happens when we combine biased verbs with focus particles thus provoking matching or mismatching expectations. We expected that matching biases (even N1 + N2-biased verb; only N1 + N1-biased verb) where the focus particle and the verb bias demand an explanation related to the same antecedent should provoke the strongest biases since a single explanation can easily be found to fill discourse needs (e.g. \“Only Peter fascinates Mary because he is just the best.\”, \“Even Peter criticized Mary because she really messed up this time.\”). In mismatching cases (even N1 + N1-biased verb; only N1 + N2-biased verb), only one of the missing explanations can easily be provided. In (3) we can either explain exclusivity (\… because he is never satisfied) or the N2-bias of the verb (\… because she had messed up.).

  1. Only Peter criticized Mary because \…

We ran a continuation study in French with 10 N1-biased verbs (4), 10 N2-biased verbs (5), and 10 verbs without bias (6), taken from a recently established corpus of implicit causality biases including 320 French verbs. We constructed preambles with two gender-different proper names with the subject in the scope of \“seul\” or \“m\ême\” (following a Latin Square Design). 84 native French speakers provided continuations to the preambles. All preambles ended with \“parce qu\’\”, strongly encouraging a pronoun continuation (only words with initial vowels can follow \“qu\’\”, \“il\”/he and \“elle\”/she thus become highly likely). In logistic regressions, both, focus particles as well as the IC-bias of the verb showed a significant effect (FP: z= 4.471, p\<.001; IC-bias: N1/N2: z= -8.932, p\<.001; N1/no-bias: z= -4.329, p\<.001). As expected, matching cases showed a very strong bias (Only+N1-bias = 79\% N1; Even+N2-bias: 81\% N2), while mismatching cases were more varied.

N1-bias

  1. Seul/M\ême Marie enchante Adrien parcqu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \  Only/Even Mary enchants Adrian because \…

N2-bias

\ \ \ \ \  (5) Seul/M\ême Pierre f\élicite Auriane parce qu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  Only/Even Peter congratulates Auriane because \…

No-bias

  1. Seul/M\ême\  Pierre interroge Marie parce qu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \ \  Only/Even\  Peter visits Marie because \…

}, url = {https://osf.io/xgbv2/}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Marie Benzerrak and Natalia Kalashnikova and Lala Naziyeva and Ching-chun Wang and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4722, title = {How to turn Brazilians into Europeans: Global and local exposure effects on co-reference in European (EP) and Brazilian (BP) Portuguese}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

Co-reference is affected by the availability of pronominal forms in the language, but the interaction of language-based (global) exposure and (local) exposure, e.g., during experiments, is still unclear. We addressed this issue in questionnaires with Overt and Null pronouns in Portuguese sentences like The photographer greeted the journalist when he/\Ø finished?, where he/\Ø referred to either ?photographer? (Subject) or ?journalist? (Object).\ 
While EP keeps a symmetrical distribution of Null and Overt forms, BP seems to be losing the Null forms. This would explain why EP shows the traditional ?division of labour? (Null retrieving Subject/ Overt retrieving Object) whereas BP shows no preference for Overt forms. If the processor is sensitive to pronouns? availability, skewing local exposure towards Null forms should elicit in BP the EP pattern. We created two Exposure conditions (50\%/50\%, 75\%/25\%) varying the relative amount of Null and Overt Pronouns. A significant interaction Pronoun:Exposure for BP confirmed our prediction: while Subject and Object were equally selected as the antecedent of the Overt pronoun in the 50/50 condition, choices for Subject and Object in the 75/25 condition were 30\% and 70\%, approaching the EP pattern. Our results indicate adaptation to the local statistical environment.

}, author = {Eunice Fernandes and Paula Luegi and Eduardo Correa Soares and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {4715, title = {Influence du contexte exp{\'e}rimental sur l{\textquoteright}interpr{\'e}tation des anaphores pronominales en fran{\c c}ais}, volume = {27}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, edition = {SHS Web of Conferences}, abstract = {

R\ésum\é

Cette \étude pr\ésente les r\ésultats de trois questionnaires r\éalis\és en fran\çais afin d\’observer les pr\éf\érences d\’interpr\étation de formes pronominales ambigu\ës. Plus pr\écis\ément, nous nous sommes int\éress\és \à l\’influence du contexte exp\érimental sur l\’interpr\étation de pronoms anaphoriques plus ou moins r\éduits. Dans un premier questionnaire, seules des constructions avec le pronom faible \« il \» \étaient pr\ésent\ées. Un deuxi\ème questionnaire comportait seulement la forme forte \« lui, il \». Enfin, dans un troisi\ème questionnaire les deux formes \étaient m\élang\ées afin d\’observer si la pr\ésence, dans un m\ême questionnaire, des deux formes (\« il \» et \« lui, il \») pouvait influencer leur interpr\étation. C\’est seulement lorsque les deux formes sont pr\ésent\ées dans un m\ême questionnaire que nous observons une division fonctionnelle entre la forme pronominale r\éduite \« il \» et la forme accentu\ée \« lui, il \». La pr\ésence de \« lui, il \» dans le m\ême questionnaire que le pronom \« il \», augmente les interpr\étations du pronom \« il \» en faveur du r\éf\érent saillant (premier mentionn\é, sujet et topique) et les interpr\étations de \« lui, il \» en faveur de l\’ant\éc\édent moins saillant. Ces r\ésultats r\év\èlent \à quel point les locuteurs sont rapidement capables d\’adapter leur pr\éf\érence d\’interpr\étation \à la pr\ésence de formes alternatives dans le contexte.

Abstract

This paper presents the results of three questionnaires in which we investigated interpretational preferences for ambiguous pronominal forms in French. In particular, we examined the influence of the experimental context on the interpretation of more or less reduced anaphoric pronominal forms. In the first questionnaire, only constructions with the clitic pronoun \“il\” were tested. In the second questionnaire, only constructions with the strong form \“lui, il\” were tested. Finally, in the third questionnaire, both forms were mixed in order to test whether the presence of the two forms (\“il\” and \“lui, il\”) in a single questionnaire influences their interpretation. A division of labour in the processing of the reduced form \“il\” and of the strong one \“lui, il\” was observed only in the third questionnaire, i.e. when both forms were presented together. The presence of the form \“lui, il\” in the same questionnaire as the pronoun \“il\” increased the interpretations of the pronoun \“il\” in favour of the more salient referent (i.e., first mentioned, subject and topic) and the interpretations of \“lui, il\” in favour of the less salient antecedent. These results reveal that comprehenders can and do adapt their interpretational preferences to the presence of alternative forms in the context.

}, doi = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162710004}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Coralie Vincent and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4723, title = {Relative Clause-attachment in European (EP) and Brazilian Portuguese (BP): Effects of verb type, tense and variety}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

Pseudo-relative (PR) clauses have been argued to underlie high attachment (HA) preferences in RC-attachment ambiguities. PRs are possible with perception verbs which create the anticipation of a perceivable event. They demand the relative clause and the matrix clause being in the same time frame. Availability of PRs varies across languages but also across speakers of a language or language varieties. For BP as well as for EP evidence for basic attachment preferences is mixed as is evidence for the availability of PRs. Our questionnaire studies in BP and EP asked for attachment preferences in sentences like ?Maria saw/sees the daughter of the teacher who ran the marathon.?\ 

We varied verb-type (perception vs. stative verbs like lived-with) and tense-match between the RC-verb and the matrix verb. If the PR-reading is driving high attachment preferences, only perception verb sentences with matching tenses should boost HA. We found significant effects of variety (more HA for EP), verb-type (more HA for perception verbs across tense-match conditions), and a marginal (.08) interaction verb-type*tense. Across varieties, most HA were found for perception verbs with matching tense compatible with the PR-hypothesis. However, even for mismatching tense, perception verbs attracted more HA, suggesting a semantic effect beyond PR-availability.

}, author = {Eunice Fernandes and Paula Luegi and Eduardo Correa Soares and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inbook {4700, title = {The role of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in pronoun resolution: A cross-linguistic overview}, booktitle = {Empirical perspectives on anaphor resolution}, number = {Linguistische Arbeiten 563}, year = {2016}, pages = {11-32}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, organization = {De Gruyter}, edition = {Anke Holler, Katja Suckow}, address = {Berlin/Boston}, abstract = {

Most psycholinguistic and computational linguistic work done in the field of ref- erence interpretation agrees today that the process of resolving a referring expression consists of several different stages (Kehler 2008 summarizes them with the SMASH algorithm: Search, Match, And Select using Heuristics). Different resoution strategies are assumed to hold for each of the stages. First, comprehenders collect all possible referents available within a given contextual frame. No selection or ranking of referents happens at this stage. Second, these candidates are filtered out through a series of \“hard\” morphosyntactic constraints, such as number, gender, person, binding constraints, etc. Finally, if more than one candidate remains possible as the antecedent of the referential expression after applying these hard constraints, the appropriate referent is selected based on some combination of \“soft\” constraints or heuristics (e.g. syntactic function, parallelism, thematic role, etc.). It is important to note, however, that while most psycholinguistic approaches to pronoun resolution have been primarily concerned with identifying these hard and soft constraints, little attention has been paid to providing a detailed and integrated explanation for the observed patterns, and for why different preferences seem to weigh differently in different contexts. Kehler (2008) is an exception to this rule. He explains the different weights of constraints by a combination of strategies based on preferences regarding the production of referential expressions and strategies based on discourse expectations.

The goals of this article are twofold: we will give an overview of some cross- linguistic work on pronoun resolution, summarizing results from a variety of off-line and on-line studies. Moreover, based on the observed results, we will suggest that pronoun resolution preferences in a particular language need to be explained by a combination of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors which, crucially, do not play out in the same manner within and across sentences (or better Dis- course Units [DU], as we will argue). We will focus on two factors: the effect of the availability of alternative constructions for a particular interpretation in a lan- guage and the question of whether the pronoun and its antecedent are in the same or in a separate DU. We will relate our results to a de notion of DU by Miltsakaki (2002) and show where this definition falls short of explaining the empirical results. Against these previous definitions of DU that equate this notion to either the sentence or the clause, in the last section of this article, we will provide evidence in favor of a more dynamic multifactorial definition of DU that systematizes and accounts for the preference patterns. We will argue that all the factors to be considered are valid across languages. However, their manifestation depends on the grammar of any particular language.\ 

}, issn = {978-3-11-045968-5}, doi = {10.1515/9783110464108-003}, url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110464108/9783110464108-003/9783110464108-003.xml}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah} } @conference {4724, title = {Salience-based vs. exposure-based strategies in L2 pronoun resolution in French}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

We investigated pronoun resolution strategies in French native speakers and in German L2-learners of French. French and German differ in antecedent preferences in ambiguous constructions such as ?The postman hit the pirate before he went home?: while French shows a N2-preference, which is explained by the availability of a construction that unambiguously refers to N1, German, which does not have this alternative, shows a N1-preference.\ 
In questionnaires, we tested French active and passive sentences to investigate (a) whether the L2-learners would apply the same strategy as natives in the active condition (i.e. N2-preference), and (b) whether the explicit topicalization of a referent as a consequence of passivization influences interpretation preferences in both groups (resulting in more N1 choices).\ 
The results show that German learners continue to apply the L1 strategy in the L2, preferring the N1 significantly more often than the French natives in the active condition (57\% vs. 23\%). Crucially, the number of N1 choices increased significantly in both groups in the passive condition (74\% vs. 62\%). These results support salience-based strategies in L1 and L2 pronoun resolution and suggest that L2-learners might have difficulty acquiring strategies based on the frequency and availability of alternative constructions in the L2.

}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Schimke, Sarah and Sascha Kuck and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @conference {5548, title = {The semantics of Implicit Causality: Missing explanations and more.}, year = {2016}, month = {10/2016}, url = {http://hpsl-linguistics.org/1203}, author = {Barbara Hemforth and Israel de la Fuente} } @conference {4725, title = {Topicality-based vs. exposure-based preferences in pronoun resolution in French: Evidence from questionnaires and eye-movements}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, abstract = {

It has been observed that in French sentences such as \&$\#$39;The facteur a appel\é le pirate avant qu\&$\#$39;il rentre \à la maison\&$\#$39; (\&$\#$39;The postman called the pirate before he went home\&$\#$39;), the N2 (the pirate) is strongly preferred as the antecedent of the ambiguous pronoun. This N2-preference in French has been explained by the fact that speakers take into account an alternative non-finite construction that is available in the language (\&$\#$39;avant de rentrer \à la maison\&$\#$39;, \&$\#$39;before going home\&$\#$39;) and that unambiguously refers to the N1.\ 
In a questionnaire and a Visual World eye-tracking experiment, we tested whether the explicit topicalization of the object by means of a passive construction (\&$\#$39;Le pirate a \ét\é appel\é par le facteur...\&$\#$39;) can change the N2-preference in favor of an N1-preference. Despite the fact that the non-finite construction is an unambiguous alternative for the active as well as the passive sentences, we observed a significant increase of N1-preferences in passive compared to active constructions in both the questionnaire (p\<.0001) and the Visual World experiment (p\<.01). These results suggest that pronoun interpretation preferences based on the frequency and availability of alternative constructions can be overridden when a referent is explicitly marked as the topic.

}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Schimke, Sarah and Coralie Vincent and Barbara Hemforth and Colonna, Saveria} } @conference {4548, title = {L2 ambiguous pronoun resolution: the impact of L1-based preferences, L2-proficiency and working memory capacity}, year = {2015}, month = {05/2015}, address = {Rutgers}, author = {Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @mastersthesis {5889, title = {La r{\'e}solution de pronoms en contexte : Le r{\^o}le de la syntaxe, la s{\'e}mantique, et la pragmatique dans l{\textquoteright}interpr{\'e}tation de pronoms}, volume = {Doctorat}, year = {2015}, school = {Universit{\'e} Paris Diderot}, author = {Israel de la Fuente} } @conference {4463, title = {Sentence structure matters: A new account of intra-sentential pronoun resolution}, year = {2015}, month = {03/2015}, address = {Los Angeles}, doi = { 10.13140/RG.2.1.2505.4245}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4441, title = {Reference as a side effect of discourse expectations: The case of focus-sensitive particles}, year = {2014}, address = {Columbus, Ohio, EU}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {4439, title = {The time course of semantic constraints in pronoun resolution}, year = {2014}, address = {Edinburgh, Ecosse}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4456, title = {Anti-focus effects in pronoun resolution?}, year = {2013}, month = {9/2013}, address = {Marseille}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.4154.1282}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4453, title = {Clause structure matters: The role of left-dislocation \& clefts in pronoun resolution}, year = {2013}, month = {03/2013}, address = {University of South Carolina}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.1245.9682}, author = {Barbara Hemforth and Israel de la Fuente and Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah} } @inproceedings {4452, title = { Effects of clefting and left-dislocation on Subject and Object Pronoun Resolution in Spanish}, year = {2013}, month = {10/2013}, publisher = {Cascadilla Proceedings Project}, address = {Florida}, abstract = {

The present study investigates the role of two syntactic constructions affecting the discourse status of antecedents (left-dislocation and clefting) in the intra-sentential resolution of ambiguous null subject and object clitic pronouns in Spanish. The results of two offline questionnaires show that pronoun interpretation changes significantly from a canonical construction as a result of the experimental manipulations of the discourse status of the antecedents. Crucially, however, the two syntactic constructions investigated do not have the same effect on participants\&$\#$39; preferences: while there was a general preference for left-dislocated antecedents, participants dispreferred clefted antecedents at least intra-sententially, a pattern that has also been attested for subject pronoun resolution in French and German (Colonna et al., 2012). The differences between left-dislocation and clefting have been argued to be a consequence of a preference for topic continuity. It is suggested that the semantic and syntactic structure of clefts may provide a better explanation for our observations. A third questionnaire investigated experimental context effects on the resolution of null and overt subject pronouns.

}, url = {http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/16/paper2923.pdf}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4457, title = {Expectations matter when resolving pronouns in explanations and temporal clauses: The differences between even and only}, year = {2013}, month = {09/2013}, address = {Marseille}, doi = {10.13140/RG.2.1.1794.8323}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {4455, title = {Only and Even: Focusing effects on pronoun resolution in temporal clauses and explanations}, year = {2013}, month = {06/2013}, doi = {10.13140/2.1.1433.1843}, url = {https://detec2013.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/delafuente_hemforth.pdf}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} }