9. Complex anaphors in discourse

Constraints on ontology changing complexation processes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

“…In case none of the prementioned referential structures persist this ontological check, an N400 effect occurs as the result of the failing resolution process. This indicates again that activation of ontological features and referential processing are closely connected, but the model outlined in Consten and Knees (2008) also proposes that the abstractness constraint affects anaphor resolution, which fits best with the integration view of the N400. Moreover, as indicated in the materials section, all complex anaphors were introduced by a demonstrative determiner, which provides additional support for the integration over the lexical preactivation view, since demonstrative determiners make the anaphoric reading more easily available, in fact they force an anaphoric or deictic reading.…”

“…The validity of the abstractness constraint is reflected in an enhanced negativity to event anaphors that pick up a previously introduced process (which is a more abstract category). In the theoretical model described by Consten and Knees (2008), it was proposed that the abstractness constraint as part of the reader's general knowledge base Á which contains lexical and conceptual knowledge Á comes into play in the phase of resolving the complex anaphor, i.e., when one of several prementioned referential structures is reactivated and identified as the most appropriate one within the ongoing mental text world (i.e., discourse representation). In case none of the prementioned referential structures persist this ontological check, an N400 effect occurs as the result of the failing resolution process.…”

“…All complex anaphors were selected on the basis of various conceptual criteria (as for instance discussed in Consten & Knees, 2008;Herweg, 1990;Maienborn, 2003). These criteria were guided by typical semantic notions traditionally associated with the different ontological types and included for instance durativity for processes (e.g., processes allow for a durative adverbial such as 'for three minutes'), permanence at any given time for states, and telicity for events (e.g., events may happen 'three times', but cannot take place 'for three minutes' Á unless for instance used in an iterative manner).…”

“…1 They condense a propositionally structured antecedent (in italics) to a nominal expression. Thereby, their complex referents are reified to 'things' (i.e., nominal objects) and become easily manageable in the following discourse (see Consten & Knees, 2008;Consten, Knees, & Schwarz-Friesel, 2007;Schwarz-Friesel, Consten, & Knees, 2004). Researchers have heterogeneously denoted anaphoric reference to complex objects as abstract object anaphora (Asher, 1993(Asher, , 2000, as well as extended reference and reference to fact (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), situational anaphora (Fraurud, 1992), or discourse deixis (Webber, 1991).…”

“…In the following, we use the ontological categories as indicated in Figure 1 (cf. Maienborn, 2003; for a detailed discussion see Consten & Knees, 2008).…”