Anaphora is an essential means of maintaining textual coherence, the phenomenon of replacing one word or phrase in the preceding part of a discourse with another. At least two crucial stages are involved in anaphor processing: bonding and resolution. The links between the anaphor and potential antecedents are established in the former stage, which would be evaluated and integrated into the latter stage. We reviewed relevant event-related potential (ERP) studies that examined the time course of anaphor processing and neural oscillation studies that explored energy changes in alpha, theta, and gamma frequency bands, which were associated with attention, working memory retrieval, and integration, respectively. The existing neuroimaging studies revealed the involvement of language processing networks and the Theory of Mind (ToM). Further research should explore the neural correlates and the effects of potential factors on anaphor processing, which could help gain a more comprehensive picture from multiple perspectives.
AlmorA.EimasP. D. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701330936
3.
AlmorA.NairV. A.BoiteauT. W.VendemiaJ. (2017). The N400 in processing repeated name and pronoun anaphors in sentences and discourse. Brain and Language, 173, 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.06.003
4.
AlmorA.SmithD. V.BonilhaL.FridrikssonJ.RordenC. (2007). What is in a name? Spatial brain circuits are used to track discourse references. Neuroreport, 18(12), 1215–1219. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32810f2e11
ArslanS.PalasisK.MeunierF. (2020). Electrophysiological differences in older and younger adults' anaphoric but not cataphoric pronoun processing in the absence of age-related behavioural slowdown. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 19234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75550-3
7.
BakkerI.TakashimaA.Van HellJ. G.JanzenG.McQueenJ. M. (2015). Changes in theta and beta oscillations as signatures of novel word consolidation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(7), 1286–1297. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00801
8.
Bakker-MarshallI.TakashimaA.SchoffelenJ. M.Van HellJ. G.JanzenG.McQueenJ. M. (2018). Theta-band oscillations in the middle temporal gyrus reflect novel word consolidation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(5), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01240
9.
BalabanN.FriedmannN.ArielM. (2016). The effect of theory of mind impairment on language: Referring after right-hemisphere damage. Aphasiology, 30(12), 1424–1460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2015.1137274
10.
BarberH.CarreirasM. (2005). Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929052880101
11.
BarkleyC.KluenderR.KutasM. (2015). Referential processing in the human brain: An Event-Related Potential (ERP) study. Brain Research, 1629, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.09.017
12.
BastiaansenM.HagoortP. (2015). Frequency-based segregation of syntactic and semantic unification during online sentence level language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11), 2095–2107. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00829
13.
BlohmS.SchlesewskyM.MenninghausW.ScharingerM. (2021). Text type attribution modulates pre-stimulus alpha power in sentence reading. Brain and Language, 214, 104894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104894
14.
BoiteauT. W.BowersE.NairV. A.AlmorA. (2014). The neural representation of plural discourse entities. Brain and Language, 137, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.003
15.
BonhageC. E.MeyerL.GruberT.FriedericiA. D.MuellerJ. L. (2017). Oscillatory EEG dynamics underlying automatic chunking during sentence processing. NeuroImage, 152, 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.018
16.
BotvinickM. M.CohenJ. D.CarterC. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003
BoudewynM. A.LongD. L.TraxlerM. J.LeshT. A.DaveS.MangunG. R.CarterC. S.SwaabT. Y. (2015). Sensitivity to referential ambiguity in discourse: The role of attention, working memory, and verbal ability. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(12), 2309–2323. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00837
19.
BrodbeckC.GwilliamsL.PylkkänenL. (2016). Language in context: MEG evidence for modality-general and -specific responses to reference resolution.eNeuro, 3(6), ENEURO.0145, 16.2016, ENEURO.0145-16.2016. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0145-16.2016
20.
BrodbeckC.PylkkänenL. (2017). Language in context: Characterizing the comprehension of referential expressions with MEG. NeuroImage, 147, 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.006
21.
BrouwerH.FitzH.HoeksJ. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
22.
BurkhardtP. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005
BuzsákiG.DraguhnA. (2004). Neuronal oscillations in cortical networks. Science (New York, N.Y.), 304(5679), 1926–1929. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1099745
25.
CallahanS. M. (2008). Processing anaphoric constructions: Insights from electrophysiological studies. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(3), 231–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.10.002
26.
CamblinC. C.LedouxK.BoudewynM.GordonP. C.SwaabT. Y. (2007). Processing new and repeated names: Effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
27.
CaseyB. J.FormanS. D.FranzenP.BerkowitzA.BraverT. S.NystromL. E.ThomasK. M.NollD. C. (2001). Sensitivity of prefrontal cortex to changes in target probability: A functional MRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 13(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.1022
28.
ChafeW. L. (1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In GivonT. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12, Discourse and syntax (pp. 159–181). American Press.
29.
ChenP. (1984). Discourse analysis of third person zero anaphora in Chinese. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
30.
ChenY. Y.CaplanJ. B. (2017). Rhythmic activity and individual variability in recognition memory: Theta oscillations correlate with performance whereas alpha oscillations correlate with ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(1), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01033
31.
CohenJ. D.BotvinickM.CarterC. S. (2000). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex: who's in control?Nature Neuroscience, 3(5), 421–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/74783
32.
ColonnaS.SchimkeS.de la FuenteI.KuckS.HemforthB. (2018). Effects of exposure and information structure in native and non-native pronoun resolution in French. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(s1), 20160093. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0093
33.
ContemoriC.AsiriO.Perea IrigoyenE. D. (2019). Anaphora resolution in L2 English: An analysis of discourse complexity and cross-linguistic interference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 971–998. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000111
CookA. E.MyersJ. L.O'BrienE. J. (2005). Processing an anaphor when there is No antecedent. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_4
36.
CooperN. R.CroftR. J.DomineyS. J.BurgessA. P.GruzelierJ. H. (2003). Paradox lost? Exploring the role of alpha oscillations during externally vs. internally directed attention and the implications for idling and inhibition hypotheses. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 47(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(02)00107-1
37.
CoopmansC. W.NieuwlandM. S. (2020). Dissociating activation and integration of discourse referents: Evidence from ERPs and oscillations. Cortex, 126, 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.12.028
DitmanT.GoffD.KuperbergG. R. (2011). Slow and steady: Sustained effects of lexico-semantic associations can mediate referential impairments in schizophrenia. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0020-7
41.
DitmanT.HolcombP. J.KuperbergG. R. (2007). The contributions of lexico-semantic and discourse information to the resolution of ambiguous categorical anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 793–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601057126
42.
DitmanT.HolcombP. J.KuperbergG. R. (2008). Time travel through language: Temporal shifts rapidly decrease information accessibility during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(4), 750–756. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.4.750
43.
DragoyO.StoweL. A.BosL. S.BastiaanseR. (2012). From time to time: Processing time reference violations in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.001
44.
DuffyS. A.KeirJ. A. (2004). Violating stereotypes: Eye movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 32(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195846
45.
DwivediV. D.PhillipsN. A.EinagelS.BaumS. R. (2010). The neural underpinnings of semantic ambiguity and anaphora. Brain Research, 1311, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.09.102
46.
EgusquizaN.NavarreteE.ZawiszewskiA. (2016). Antecedent frequency effects on anaphoric pronoun resolution: Evidence from Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9325-3
47.
EngelA. K.FriesP.SingerW. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2(10), 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1038/35094565
48.
FedermeierK. D. (2022). Connecting and considering: Electrophysiology provides insights into comprehension. Psychophysiology, 59(1), Article e13940. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13940
49.
FedorenkoE. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00335
50.
FedorenkoE.ScottT. L.BrunnerP.CoonW. G.PritchettB.SchalkG.KanwisherN. (2016). Neural correlate of the construction of sentence meaning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(41), E6256–E6262. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612132113
51.
FengW.YuH.ZhouX. (2021). Understanding particularized and generalized conversational implicatures: Is theory-of-mind necessary?Brain and Language, 212, 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104878
52.
FerreiraF.BaileyK. G. D.FerraroV. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
FerstlE. C.NeumannJ.BoglerC.von CramonD. Y. (2008). The extended language network: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 29(5), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20422
55.
FerstlE. C.RinckM.von CramonD. Y. (2005). Emotional and temporal aspects of situation model processing during text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(5), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053747658
56.
FerstlE. C.von CramonD. Y. (2001). The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: An event–related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00007-6
57.
FilikR.LeutholdH.MoxeyL. M.SanfordA. J. (2011). Anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3786–3794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.043
58.
FiorentinoR.CoveyL.GabrieleA. (2018). Individual differences in the processing of referential dependencies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 673, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2018.02.014
FriedericiA. D. (2004). Event-related brain potential studies in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 4(6), 466–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-004-0070-0
FukumuraK.Van GompelR. P. (2015). Effects of order of mention and grammatical role on anaphor resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 501–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000041
63.
FukumuraK.Van GompelR. P.PickeringM. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(9), 1700–1715. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903490969
64.
García-SierraA.Silva-PereyraJ.Alatorre-CruzG. C.WigN. (2021). An event-related brain potential (ERP) study of complex anaphora in Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 625314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.625314
65.
GarnhamA.TraxlerM.OakhillJ.GernsbacherM. A. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0028
66.
GarrodS.FreudenthalD.BoyleE. A. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1003
67.
GarrodS.TerrasM. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2694
68.
GarrodS. C.SanfordA. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In GernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675–698). Academic Press.
69.
Gelormini-LezamaC. (2018). Exploring the repeated name penalty and the overt pronoun penalty in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9529-4
70.
GernsbacherM. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
71.
GordonP. C.GroszB. J.GilliomL. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 311–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1
72.
GordonP. C.HendrickR. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 389–424. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1
73.
GordonP. C.ScearceK. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197233
74.
GreeneS. B.McKoonG.RatcliffR. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.18.2.266
75.
GroszB. J.WeinsteinS.JoshiA. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.
76.
HagoortP. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20(Suppl 1), S18–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013
HagoortP. (2016). MUC (memory, unification, control): A model on the neurobiology of language beyond single word processing. In HickokG.SmallS. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 339–347). Elsever. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00028-6
HammerA.GoebelR.SchwarzbachJ.MünteT. F.JansmaB. M. (2007). When sex meets syntactic gender on a neural basis during pronoun processing. Brain Research, 1146, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.110
82.
HammerA.JansmaB. M.LamersM.MünteT. F. (2005). Pronominal reference in sentences about persons or things: An electrophysiological approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053124947
83.
HammerA.JansmaB. M.LamersM.MünteT. F. (2008). Interplay of meaning, syntax and working memory during pronoun resolution investigated by ERPs. Brain Research, 1230, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.004
84.
HammerA.JansmaB. M.TempelmannC.MünteT. F. (2011). Neural mechanisms of anaphoric reference revealed by FMRI. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00032
85.
Harmon-VukićM.GuéraudS.LassondeK. A.O'BrienE. J. (2009). The activation and instantiation of instrumental inferences. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959661
HeineA.TammS.HofmannM.BöselR. M.JacobsA. M. (2006). Event-related theta activity reflects memory processes in pronoun resolution. Neuroreport, 17(18), 1835–1839. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328010a096
88.
HertrichI.DietrichS.BlumC.AckermannH. (2021). The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for speech and language processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 645209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.645209
HsiaoY.GaoY.MacDonaldM. C. (2014). Agent-patient similarity affects sentence structure in language production: Evidence from subject omissions in Mandarin. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01015
91.
HuangC. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(4), 531–574.
92.
HuangC.-T. J. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: Generalised control theory. In JaeggliO.SafirK. J. (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 185–214). Kluwer.
93.
JacobyN.FedorenkoE. (2020). Discourse-level comprehension engages medial frontal Theory of Mind brain regions even for expository texts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1525494
94.
JägerL. A.EngelmannF.VasishthS. (2015). Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00617
95.
JärvikiviJ.Van GompelR.HyönäJ. (2017). The interplay of implicit causality, structural heuristics, and anaphor type in ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 525–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9451-1
96.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (No. 6). Harvard University Press.
97.
KaanE.HarrisA.GibsonE.HolcombP. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084
98.
KarimiH.SwaabT. Y.FerreiraF. (2018). Electrophysiological evidence for an independent effect of memory retrieval on referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.003
99.
KimA.OsterhoutL. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
100.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163
101.
KintschW.WelschD.SchmalhoferF.ZimnyS. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90069-C
102.
KlimeschW. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.007
103.
KlinC. M.GuzmánA. E.WeingartnerK. M.RalanoA. S. (2006). When anaphor resolution fails: Partial encoding of anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.09.001
104.
KlinC. M.WeingartnerK. M.GuzmánA. E.LevineW. H. (2004). Readers' sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory and Cognition, 32(3), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195843
105.
KluenderR.KutasM. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196
106.
KrainA. L.WilsonA. M.ArbuckleR.CastellanosF. X.MilhamM. P. (2006). Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: A meta-analysis of decision-making. NeuroImage, 32(1), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.047
107.
KuijperS. J.HartmanC. A.HendriksP. (2015). Who is He? Children with ASD and ADHD take the listener into account in their production of ambiguous pronouns. PloS One, 10(7), Article e0132408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132408
108.
KuperbergG. R.DitmanT.Choi PerrachioneA. (2018). When proactivity fails: An electrophysiological study of establishing reference in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.09.007
109.
KutasM.FedermeierK. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
110.
KutasM.Van PettenC. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In GernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83–143). Academic Press.
111.
LadányiE.KasB.LukácsÁ. (2017). The role of cognitive control in anaphor resolution in children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(5), 1173–1199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000091
112.
LamN.SchoffelenJ. M.UddénJ.HulténA.HagoortP. (2016). Neural activity during sentence processing as reflected in theta, alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations. NeuroImage, 142, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.007
113.
LauroJ.SchwartzA. I. (2019). Cognate effects on anaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000601
LedouxK.GordonP. C.CamblinC. C.SwaabT. Y. (2007). Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration. Memory and Cognition, 35(4), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193316
116.
LevineW. H.GuzmánA. E.KlinC. M. (2000). When anaphor resolution fails. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 594–617. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2719
117.
LewisA. G.BastiaansenM. (2015). A predictive coding framework for rapid neural dynamics during sentence-level language comprehension. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 68, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.02.014
118.
LewisA. G.WangL.BastiaansenM. (2015). Fast oscillatory dynamics during language comprehension: Unification versus maintenance and prediction?Brain and Language, 148, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.003
119.
LiC. N.ThompsonS. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.
120.
LiX.ZhangY.XiaJ.SwaabT. Y. (2017). Internal mechanisms underlying anticipatory language processing: Evidence from event-related-potentials and neural oscillations. Neuropsychologia, 102, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.05.017
LinN.YangX.LiJ.WangS.HuaH.MaY.LiX. (2018). Neural correlates of three cognitive processes involved in theory of mind and discourse comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0568-6
123.
LoveJ.McKoonG. (2011). Rules of engagement: Incomplete and complete pronoun resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 874–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022932
124.
LozanoC. (2018). The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(2), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9541-8
125.
LucasM. M.TanenhausM. K.CarlsonG. N. (1990). Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference. Memory and Cognition, 18(6), 611–631. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197104
126.
MartinA. E.NieuwlandM. S.CarreirasM. (2012). Event-related brain potentials index cue-based retrieval interference during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1859–1869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.057
127.
MasonR. A.JustM. A. (2011). Differentiable cortical networks for inferences concerning people's intentions versus physical causality. Human Brain Mapping, 32(2), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21021
128.
MatchinW.SprouseJ.HickokG. (2014). A structural distance effect for backward anaphora in broca’s area: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 138, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.09.001
129.
MazaheriA.Coffey-CorinaS.MangunG. R.BekkerE. M.BerryA. S.CorbettB. A. (2010). Functional disconnection of frontal cortex and visual cortex in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 67(7), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.11.022
130.
McCrackinS. D.ItierR. J. (2021). I can see it in your eyes: Perceived gaze direction impacts ERP and behavioural measures of affective theory of mind. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 143, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.05.024
131.
McDonaldJ. L.MacWhinneyB. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(4), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1025
132.
McMillanC. T.ClarkR.GunawardenaD.RyantN.GrossmanM. (2012). fMRI evidence for strategic decision-making during resolution of pronoun reference. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.004
133.
MeyerL. (2018). The neural oscillations of speech processing and language comprehension: State of the art and emerging mechanisms. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 48(7), 2609–2621. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13748
134.
MeyerL.GrigutschM.SchmuckN.GastonP.FriedericiA. D. (2015). Frontal-posterior theta oscillations reflect memory retrieval during sentence comprehension. Cortex, 71, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.027
135.
MolenberghsP.JohnsonH.HenryJ. D.MattingleyJ. B. (2016). Understanding the minds of others: A neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.020
136.
MolinaroN.BarberH. A.CarreirasM. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47(8), 908–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
137.
NakhimovskyA. (1988). Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 29–43.
138.
NicolJ.SwinneyD. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069043
139.
NieuwlandM. S. (2014). “Who’s he?” Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.002
140.
NieuwlandM. S.CoopmansC. W.SommersR. P. (2019). Distinguishing old from new referents during discourse comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and oscillations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00398
141.
NieuwlandM. S.MartinA. E. (2017). Neural oscillations and a nascent corticohippocampal theory of reference. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(5), 896–910. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01091
142.
NieuwlandM. S.OttenM.Van BerkumJ. J. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.228
143.
NieuwlandM. S.PeterssonK. M.Van BerkumJ. J. (2007). On sense and reference: Examining the functional neuroanatomy of referential processing. NeuroImage, 37(3), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.048
144.
NieuwlandM. S.Van BerkumJ. J. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118(1), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.022
145.
NieuwlandM. S.Van BerkumJ. J. (2008a). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.05.001
146.
NieuwlandM. S.Van BerkumJ. J. (2008b). The neurocognition of referential ambiguity in language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00070.x
147.
O'BrienE. J.RaneyG. E.AlbrechtJ. E.RaynerK. (1997). Processes involved in the resolution of explicit anaphors. Discourse Processes, 23(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544979
148.
OsterhoutL.MobleyL. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 739–773. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
149.
PavlovY. G.KotchoubeyB. (2020). The electrophysiological underpinnings of variation in verbal working memory capacity. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 16090. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72940-5
150.
PerryC.WillisonA. T.WalkerM. K.NankivellM. C.LawrenceL. M.ThomasA. (2019). Working memory load affects early affective responses to concrete and abstract words differently: Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(2), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-00686-9
151.
PrystaukaY.LewisA. G. (2019). Thepower of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), Article e12347. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
152.
QiuL.SwaabT. Y.ChenH. C.WangS. (2012). The role of gender information in pronoun resolution: Evidence from Chinese. PloS One, 7(5), Article e36156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036156
153.
RakhlinN.KornilovS. A.ReichJ.GrigorenkoE. L. (2015). Interpretation of anaphoric dependencies in Russian-speaking children with and without developmental language disorder. Language Acquisition, 22(4), 355–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2015.1028629
154.
RealiC.EsaulovaY.von StockhausenL. (2015). Isolating stereotypical gender in a grammatical gender language: Evidence from eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(4), 977–1006. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000010
155.
RiddleJ.ScimecaJ. M.CellierD.DhananiS.D'EspositoM. (2020). Causal evidence for a role of theta and alpha oscillations in the control of working memory. Current Biology: CB, 30(9), 1748–1754.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.02.065
156.
RinckM.BowerG. H. (1995). Anaphora resolution and the focus of attention in situation models. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1006
157.
RommersJ.DicksonD. S.NortonJ.WlotkoE. W.FedermeierK. D. (2017). Alpha and theta band dynamics related to sentential constraint and word expectancy. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(5), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1183799
158.
SanfordA. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00195
SanfordA. J.GarrodS. C.GarrodS. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. John Wiley and Sons.
161.
SanfordA. J.SturtP. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
162.
SanfordA. J. S.SanfordA. J.MolleJ.EmmottC. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2
163.
SauermannA.GagarinaN. (2017). Grammatical role parallelism influences ambiguous pronoun resolution in German. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01205
164.
ScheibeC.UllspergerM.SommerW.HeekerenH. R. (2010). Effects of parametrical and trial-to-trial variation in prior probability processing revealed by simultaneous electroencephalogram/functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30(49), 16709–16717. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3949-09.2010
165.
SchmittB. M.LamersM.MünteT. F. (2002). Electrophysiological estimates of biological and syntactic gender violation during pronoun processing. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 14(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00136-2
166.
SchurzM.RaduaJ.AichhornM.RichlanF.PernerJ. (2014). Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009
167.
SikosL.TomlinsonS. B.HeinsC.GrodnerD. J. (2019). What do you know? ERP evidence for immediate use of common ground during online reference resolution. Cognition, 182, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.013
168.
Silva-PereyraJ.Gutierrez-SigutE.CarreirasM. (2012). An ERP study of coreference in Spanish: Semantic and grammatical gender cues. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1401–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01446.x
169.
SilversteinM. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In DixonR. M. W. (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Humanities Press.
170.
SmithC. M.FedermeierK. D. (2018). What does “it” mean, anyway? Examining the time course of semantic activation in reference resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1513540
171.
SnijdersT. M.VosseT.KempenG.Van BerkumJ. J. A.PeterssonK. M.HagoortP. (2009). Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study using word-category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 19(7), 1493–1503. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn187
172.
SperberD.WilsonD. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
173.
SteigerT. K.HerwegN. A.MenzM. M.BunzeckN. (2019). Working memory performance in the elderly relates to theta-alpha oscillations and is predicted by parahippocampal and striatal integrity. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 706. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36793-3
174.
StewartA. J.HollerJ.KiddE. (2007). Shallow processing of ambiguous pronouns: Evidence for delay. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(12), 1680–1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601160807
175.
StrebJ.HennighausenE.RöslerF. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(3), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jopr.0000027961.12577.d8
176.
StrebJ.RöslerF.HennighausenE. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language, 70(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2177
177.
SwaabT. Y.CamblinC. C.GordonP. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904970744
178.
TangY. (2009). Anaphora in English texts: Characteristics and translation. Master thesis. Shanghai International Studies University at Shanghai.
179.
ThompsonA. N.RadvanskyG. A. (2016). Event boundaries and anaphoric reference. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(3), 849–856. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0961-x
180.
Van BerkumJ. J.BrownC. M.HagoortP.ZwitserloodP. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00025
181.
Van BerkumJ. J.KoornneefA. W.OttenM.NieuwlandM. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
182.
Van BerkumBrownJ. J. C. M.HagoortP. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(2), 147–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2641
183.
Van de MeerendonkN.KolkH. H.VissersC. T.ChwillaD. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21170
184.
Van den BroekP.BekerK.OudegaM. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. In O'BrienE. J.CookA. E.LorchJr.R. F. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 94–121). Cambridge University Press.
185.
Van Den HovenE.FerstlE. C. (2018a). Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions. Language and Cognition, 10(4), 561–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.17
186.
Van Den HovenE.FerstlE. C. (2018b). The roles of implicit causality and discourse context in pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00053
187.
Van HertenM.KolkH. H. J.ChwillaD. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002
188.
Van OverwalleF.Van de SteenF.MariënP. (2019). Dynamic causal modeling of the effective connectivity between the cerebrum and cerebellum in social mentalizing across five studies. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(1), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-00659-y
189.
VarelaF.LachauxJ. P.RodriguezE.MartinerieJ. (2001). The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/35067550
WhitneyC.HuberW.KlannJ.WeisS.KrachS.KircherT. (2009). Neural correlates of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. NeuroImage, 47(1), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.037
192.
XuX. (2015). The influence of information status on pronoun resolution in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00873
193.
XuX.JiangX.ZhouX. (2013). Processing biological gender and number information during Chinese pronoun resolution: ERP evidence for functional differentiation. Brain and Cognition, 81(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.11.002
194.
XuX.ZhouX. (2016a). Topic shift impairs pronoun resolution during sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 53(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12573
195.
XuX.ZhouX. (2016b). “Who” should be focused? The influence of focus status on pronoun resolution. Psychophysiology, 53(11), 1679–1689. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12740
196.
YangC. L.GordonP. C.HendrickR.WuJ. T. (1999). Comprehension of referring expressions in Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(5–6), 715–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386248
197.
YangC. L.PerfettiC. A.LiuY. (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.10.005
198.
YangX.LiH.LinN.ZhangX.WangY.ZhangY.ZhangQ.ZuoX.YangY. (2019). Uncovering cortical activations of discourse comprehension and their overlaps with common large-scale neural networks. NeuroImage, 203, 116200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116200
199.
YuJ.ZhangY.BolandJ. E.CaiL. (2015). The interplay between referential processing and local syntactic/semantic processing: ERPs to written Chinese discourse. Brain Research, 1597, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.12.013
200.
ZacksJ. M.FerstlE. C. (2016). Discourse comprehension. In Neurobiology of language (pp. 661–673). Academic Press.
201.
ZelinskiE. M.MiuraS. A. (1990). Anaphor comprehension in younger and older adults. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.2190/A2DN-D7FF-GQ7X-NAUF
202.
ZhangQ.DingJ.ZhangZ.YangX.YangY. (2021). The effect of congruent emotional context in emotional word processing during discourse comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 59, 100989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2021.100989
203.
ZhangY.XieM.ChenY.XiongR.YueC.WuS.JiF.WangQ. (2022). Interactions of stimulus quality and semantic context on N400 in visual word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(2), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000564
204.
ZwaanR. A.LangstonM. C.GraesserA. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x
205.
ZwaanR. A.MaglianoJ. P.GraesserA. C. (1995b). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386
206.
ZwaanR. A.RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
