_1687064951 20230618050911000 Rovedar Daryoushbabazadeh@gmail.com Rovedar Journal of Contemporary Language Research J. Contemp. Lang. Res. 2980-8065 12 25 2022 1 2 Masoud Motamedynia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7878-3741 Aliakbar Khomeijani Farahani Introduction: Processing ambiguous pronouns by L1 speakers of English has been the subject of a great bulk of research. Only a few studies, however, have investigated the ambiguity resolution of pronouns by people for whom English is a second or foreign language. In this study, the researchers employed a picture selection task to explore how adult Iranian EFL learners treated ambiguous pronouns. Methodology: The materials were 20 experimental items in four different conditions (i.e., manipulation of neither noun phrases [NP1] nor NP2, NP1 manipulation, both NPs manipulation and NP2 manipulation) plus 30 filler items. The principal purpose of this study was to investigate whether the manipulation of NPs by attaching extra content/semantic information to them had any impact on their accessibility and how the participants associated ambiguous pronouns with NPs when attempting to choose an antecedent. Results: The results confirmed the idea that increasing the length of an NP is an important mechanism employed by EFL learners in the process of ambiguity resolution of pronouns. The results also indicated that the NP length mechanism was a better predictor of accessibility in comparison with other mechanisms, such as the primacy effect, the subject rule, and the grammatical role. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated that when an NP carries extra-linguistic information compared to other NPs, it might have a better chance of being selected as the referent of an ambiguous pronoun. 12 25 2022 50 59 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 10.58803/jclr.v1i2.7 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/view/7 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/download/7/11 https://jclr.rovedar.com/index.php/JCLR/article/download/7/11 Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1), 13-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00073-1 Carreiras, M., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Villa, V. (1995). The advantage of first-mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 124-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214418 Chambers, C., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 593-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2575 Crawley, R., Stevenson, R., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 245-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077259 Doherty, M. (2001). Cleft-like sentences. Linguistics, 39, 607-638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.025 Fisher, R. P., & Craik, F. I. M. (1980). The effects of elaboration on recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 8, 400-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211136 Frederiksen, J. (1981). Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning pronominal referents. Discourse Processes, 4, 323-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538109544525 Frey, W. (2004). The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache & Pragmatik, 52. 1-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.235 Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32(2), 99-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90001-2 Gernbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 699-717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2 Gernsbacher, M.A., Hargreaves, D.J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6), 735-755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90006-5 Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code, and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Greene, S. B., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 266–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.18.2.266 Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or gricean maxims? In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01015048/document Hofmeister, P. (2011). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 376-405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642 Jarvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R., Hyona, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16(4), 260-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 709-748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701771220 Karimi, H., Fukumura, K., Ferreira, F. & Pickering, M.J. (2014). The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions. Memory and Cognition, 42(6), 993-1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7 Marks, W. (1987). Retrieval constraints on associative elaborations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 301-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.301 McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440 Oxford Quick Placement Test (n.d.). Oxford University Press and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, k., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005890 Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(3), 272-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80064-2 Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139085 Stevenson, R., Nelson, A.W.R., & Stenning, K. (1995). The role of parallelism in strategies of pronoun comprehension. Language and Speech, 38(4), 393–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800404 Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2001). “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, 81(2), 45–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00121-4