How sensitive is pronoun processing to expectancies based on real-world knowledge and language usage? The current study links research on the integration of gender stereotypes and number-mismatch to explore this question. It focuses on the use of them to refer to antecedents of different levels of gender-expectancy (low–cyclist, high–mechanic, known–spokeswoman). In a rating task, them is considered increasingly unnatural with greater gender-expectancy. However, participants might not be able to differentiate high-expectancy and gender-known antecedents online because they initially search for plural antecedents (e.g., Sanford & Filik), and they make all-or-nothing gender inferences. An eye-tracking study reveals early differences in the processing of them with antecedents of high gender-expectancy compared with gender-known antecedents. This suggests that participants have rapid access to the expected gender of the antecedent and the level of that expectancy.
BaranowskiM. (2002). Current usage of the epicene pronoun in written English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(3), 378–397.
4.
BodineA. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they”, sex-indefinite “he”, and “he or she”. Language in Society, 4(2), 129–146.
5.
CarreirasM., GarnhamA., OakhillJ., & CainK. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(3), 639–663.
6.
CarreirasM., & GernsbacherM. A. (1992). Comprehending conceptual anaphors in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3–4), 281–299.
7.
DohertyA. (2013). The use of gender and number cues in L2 pronoun processing(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
8.
DuffyS. A., & KeirJ. A. (2004). Violating stereotypes: Eye movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 551–559.
9.
EsaulovaY., RealiC., & von StockhausenL. (2013). Influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender during reading: Eye movements in pronominal and noun phrase anaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 1–23.
10.
FilikR., SanfordA. J., & LeutholdH. (2008). Processing pronouns without antecedents: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(7), 1315–1326.
11.
FoertschJ., & GernsbacherM. A. (1997). In search of gender neutrality: Is singular they a cognitively efficient substitute for generic he?Psychological Science, 8(2), 106–111.
12.
GarnhamA. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
13.
GarnhamA., OakhillJ., & ReynoldsD. (2002). Are inferences from stereotyped role names to characters’ gender made elaboratively?. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 439–446.
14.
KaschakM. P., & GlenbergA. M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 133(3), 450–467.
KennisonS. M., & TrofeJ. L. (2003). Comprehending pronouns: A role for word-specific gender stereotype information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(3), 355–378.
17.
KreinerH., SturtP., & GarrodS. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 239–261.
18.
MacKayD. G. (1980). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular they. Language in Society, 9, 349–367.
19.
McRaeK., Spivey-KnowltonM. J., & TanenhausM. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 283–312.
20.
MeyersM. W. (1990). Current generic pronoun usage: An empirical study. American Speech, 65, 228–237.
21.
MoxeyL. M., FilikR., & PatersonK. B. (2009). On line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 843–875.
22.
MoxeyL. M., SanfordA. J., SturtP., & MorrowL. I. (2004). Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 346–364.
ReynoldsD. J., GarnhamA., & OakhillJ. (2006). Evidence of immediate activation of gender information from a social role name. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(5), 886–903.
26.
RigalleauF., CaplanD., & BaudiffierV. (2004). New arguments in favour of an automatic gender pronominal process. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(5), 893–933.
27.
SanfordA. J. (1985). Aspects of pronoun interpretation: Evaluation of search formulations of inference. In RickheitG. & StrohnerH. (Eds.), Inferences in text processing (pp. 183–204). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
28.
SanfordA. J., & FilikR. (2007). “They” as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye tracking reveals a processing cost. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 171–178.
29.
SanfordA. J., FilikR., EmmottC., & MorrowL. (2008). They're digging up the road again: The processing cost of Institutional They. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 372–380.
30.
SauerlandU., AnderssenJ., & YatsushiroK. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In KepserS. & ReisM. (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical & computational perspectives (pp. 413–434). The Hague: Mouton de Groutyer.
31.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA., PesciarelliF., & CacciariC. (2012). The electrophysiological underpinnings of processing gender stereotypes in language. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e48712.
32.
SturtP. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.
33.
TrueswellJ. C., TanenhausM. K., & GarnseyS. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing- use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318.
34.
van GompelR. P. G., PickeringM. J., & TraxlerM. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225–258.
