This study examined whether there are different cognitive burdens associated with the use of referential and formal anaphora in conversation, and whether these differences are systematically exploited by speakers seeking to converse coherently. It was assumed that speakers encountering difficulty in managing the pragmatics of conversation should rely more on the formal anaphoric devices of ellipsis and substitution and less on reference devices to create cohesive ties in their talk. The transcripts of 60 conversations among high-involved and low-involved speakers were coded and analyzed for the use of anaphora. Results indicated that the conversational partners of high-involved speakers used a significantly different pattern of reference and formal cohesive devices than did the conversational partners of low-involved speakers. in addition, this effect was especially pronounced for a low-involved conversational partner. Thus, a pattern of increased use of referential devices and decreased use of formal anaphora was shown to be sensitive to social situational factors that facilitate the pragmatic processing of conversation.
AUER, J.C.P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 627–648.
2.
BARTOLUCCI, G., and FINE, J. (1987). The frequency of cohesion weakness in psychiatric syndromes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 67–74.
3.
BROWN, G., and YULE, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BRUNNER, C.C. (1984). An investigation of interaction involvement and judgments of interpersonal communication competence (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1571A.
5.
CEGALA, D.J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communication competence. Communication Education, 30, 109–121.
6.
CEGALA, D.J. (1982). An examination of the concept of interaction involvement using phenomenological and empirical methods. In J.J. Pilotta (ed.), Interpersonal Communication: Essays in Phenomenology and Hermeneutics.Washington D.C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America.
7.
CEGALA, D.J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communication Monographs, 51, 320–338.
8.
CEGALA, D.J. (1987). A Study of Conversational Style: Verbal Immediacy and Interaction Involvement. Unpublished paper, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University.
9.
CEGALA, D.J., SAVAGE, G.T., BRUNNER, C.C., and CONRAD, A.B. (1982). An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monographs, 49, 229–248.
10.
CEGALA, D.J., WALL, V.D., and RIPPEY, G. (1987). An investigation of interaction involvement and the dimensions of SYMLOG: Perceived communication behaviors of persons in task-oriented groups. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 81–93.
11.
CLARK, H.H., and MARSHALL, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, and I.A. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DE BEAUGRANDE, R., and DRESSLER, W.U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics.New York: Longman.
13.
DE STEFANO, J. (1984). Learning to communicate in the classroom. In A. Pellegrini and T. Yawkey (eds.), Advances in Discourse Processes: Vol. 13. The Development of Oral and Written Language in Social Contexts (pp. 155–165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14.
FINE, J. (1978). Conversation, cohesive and thematic patterning in children's dialogues. Discourse Processes, 1, 247–266.
15.
FINE, J. (1985). Cohesion as an index of social-cognitive factors: Oral language of the reading disabled. Discourse Processes, 8, 91–112.
16.
HALLIDAY, M.A.K., and HASAN, R. (1976). Cohesion in English.London: Longman.
17.
HANKAMER, J., and SAG, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.
18.
HASAN, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language, and the Structure of Prose (pp. 181–219). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
19.
HIRST, G. (1981). Anaphora in Natural Language Understanding: A Survey.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20.
HUNT, K.W. (1964). Differences in Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels, the Structures to be Analyzed by Transformational Methods (Cooperative Research Project No. 1998). Tallahasee, FL: U.S. Office of Education.
21.
HUNT, K.W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels (National Council of Teachers of English Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
22.
KANTOR, R.N. (1977). The Management and Comprehension of Discourse Connection by Pronouns in English. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
23.
KENNY, D.A. (1988). The analysis of data from two-person relationships. In S. Duck (ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (pp. 57–77). London: Wiley.
24.
KRAEMER, H.C., and JACKLIN, C.N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217–224.
25.
MENDOZA, J.L., and GRAZIANO, W.G. (1982). The statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior: A multivariate approach. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 532–540.
26.
MOSENTHAL, J.M., and TIERNEY, R.J. (1984). Cohesion: Problems with talking about text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 240–244.
27.
MURPHY, G.L. (1984). Establishing and accessing referents in discourse. Memory and Cognition, 12, 489–497.
28.
MURPHY, G.L. (1985). Psychological explanations of deep and surface anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 785–813.
29.
O'DONNELL, R.C., GRIFFIN, W.J., and NORRIS, R.C. (1967). Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis (National Council of Teachers of English Report No. 8). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
30.
REDMON, K., EIFERT, C., and GORDON, D. (1983). Interaction Involvement and Interviewing Skill Unpublished paper, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
31.
ROCHESTER, S., and MARTIN, J. (1979). Crazy Talk: A Study of the Discourse of Schizophrenic Speakers.New York: Plenum.
32.
SACKS, H., and SCHEGLOFF, E.A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.
33.
SAG, I., and HANKAMER, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 325–345.
34.
TRACY, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: A cognitively grounded rules approach. In R.L. Street, Jr., and J.N. Cappella (eds.), Sequence and Pattern in Communicative Behaviour (pp. 30–49). London: Edward Arnold.
35.
VILLAUME, W.A., and CEGALA, D.J. (1988). Interaction involvement and discourse strategies: The patterned use of cohesive devices in conversation. Communication Monographs, 55, 22–40.
36.
VILLAUME, W.A., JACKSON, J., and SCHOUTEN, T.G. (1989). Issue-event extensions and interaction involvement: Text-based and meaning-based discourse strategies. Human Communication Research, 15, 407–427.
37.
WIDDOWSON, H.G. (1979). Rules and procedures in discourse analysis. In T. Myers (ed.), The Development of Conversation and Discourse (pp. 61–71). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
