scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Antecedent (grammar)

About: Antecedent (grammar) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1392 publications have been published within this topic receiving 41824 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Arch G. Woodside1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe how to go about interpreting causal maps and provide an introduction to the literature of causal mapping, which helps make implicit, automatic, thinking explicit and provides clues for the marketing strategist of actions necessary to changing long-term negative implicit associations that potential visitors retrieve regarding tourism destinations.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe how to go about interpreting causal maps and provides an introduction to the literature of causal mapping.Design/methodology/approach – The paper includes two international causal maps showing the favorable antecedent conditions of Germans towards visiting Britain and the negative antecedent conditions of Brits towards visiting Germany. The paper provides training exercise questions with a solution in interpreting causal maps.Findings – The training helps make implicit, automatic, thinking explicit and provides clues for the marketing strategist of actions necessary to changing long‐term negative implicit associations that potential visitors retrieve regarding tourism destinations.Research limitations/implications – This report does not include the results of applying the exercise in executive training programs. Does completing the exercise help improve decision making?Practical implications – Executives need to experience specific training exercises to i...

6 citations

01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The conception of a salient antecedent as a “referent that is prominently represented in the mental models that the speakers and listeners construct in the course of a discourse” seems to be generally accepted, but defining the factors that make a referent more prominent or salient than others has proved to be the locus of a great deal of disagreement among researchers.
Abstract: A general principle of human communication is that we tend to make our communicative interchanges as informative as necessary but not more informative than necessary (Grice, 1975; Levinson, 1987, 1991), This principle has major consequences for communication: As discourse unfolds, when we need to refer back to a previously-mentioned entity, we use shorter and less specific forms of reference (e.g. pronouns). Resolving the dependencies established between referring expressions and the entities they represent (their antecedents) is crucial for a successful communication. Theories of reference that have been put forward to account for reference resolution (e.g. Ariel’s 1990 Accessibility Theory, Grosz et al.’s 1995 Centering Theory, among others) have been predominantly concerned with the cognitive status of the antecedent in the interlocutors’ current mental model in terms of availability (i.e. the probability of retrieving an antecedent for a pronoun) and accessibility (i.e. how fast this is done), and they all seem to agree upon the fact that the more reduced a referring expression is, the more salient or prominent its referent needs to be in the minds of the discourse participants. In other words, the more salient the antecedent, the more accessible it is in the interlocutors’ minds and, consequently, the more likely it will be subsequently referred back to by a pronoun by the speaker, and the faster it will interpreted by the hearer as an antecedent of a given pronoun. The conception of a salient antecedent as a “referent that is prominently represented in the mental models that the speakers and listeners construct in the course of a discourse” (Kaiser & Trueswell, 2011), or that is in the current focus of attention (Gundel et al., 1993) seems to be generally accepted. Crucially, however, defining the factors that make a referent more prominent or salient than others has proved to be the locus of a great deal of disagreement among researchers (see Frazier, 2012 for a recent overview). Factors like the order of mention (first mention > other positions, e.g. Carreiras et al., 1995; Gernsbacher, 1997; Gernsbacher & Hargreaves, 1988), the grammatical function (subject > object > other functions, e.g. Crawley et al., 1990; Gordon et al., 1999; Grober et al., 1978) and the discourse status (topic > focus, e.g. Arnold, 1999) of the antecedent are recurrent candidates. Unfortunately, in many of these studies, these factors have not been adequately teased apart. In order to overcome this potential shortcoming, subsequent studies tried to disentangle these factors by manipulating the discourse status of antecedents in the experimental sentences with the ultimate goal of understanding what lies at the core of salience (e.g. Arnold, 1999; Colonna et al., 2010, 2012a; Cowles, 2003; Cowles et al., 2007). However, these studies have yielded mixed results (see section 2.3) and, consequently, further research is still in order.

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The nomological network of the technology acceptance model is expanded through the addition of affective and task-preparation variables as antecedents to traditional predictors of technology acceptance: output quality, result demonstrability, and ease of use.
Abstract: The nomological network of the technology acceptance model is expanded through the addition of affective and task-preparation variables as antecedents to traditional predictors of technology acceptance:output quality, result demonstrability, and ease of use. An empirical study involving a visual/simulation information system, set in the domain of retail merchandise planning, finds that negative affectivity NA is a consistent and strong negative antecedent to perceptions of output quality, result demonstrability, and ease of use. In contrast, positive affectivity PA is a significant and positive antecedent to ease of use, but not necessarily a significant antecedent to either output quality or result demonstrability. A new construct developed from the job characteristics literature-perceived task preparation-measured the subject's perceptions of the pre-system usage training, which included task design and modeling instruction, scenarios of activities within the prospective information system, discussions and review of the system documentation, and highly structured, pre-task system use activities. Perceived task preparation was found to be a significant and strong positive indicator of computer self-efficacy.

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is proposed that anaphora is governed not by DPs and their properties; it is governed by predicates (i.e., in the unary case, objects of type ) and theirperties.
Abstract: Approaches to anaphora generally seek to explain the potential for a DP to covary with a pronoun in terms of a combination of factors, such as (i) the inherent semantics of the antecedent DP (i.e., whether it is indefinite, quantificational, referential), (ii) its scope properties, and (iii) its structural position. A case in point is Reinhart’s classic condition on bound anaphora, paraphrasable as A DP can antecede a pronoun pro only if the DP c-commands pro at S-structure, supplemented with some extra machinery to allow indefinites to covary with pronouns beyond their c-command domains. In the present paper, I explore a different take. I propose that anaphora is governed not by DPs and their properties; it is governed by predicates (i.e., in the unary case, objects of type ) and their properties. To use a metaphor from dynamic semantics: discourse referents can only be ‘activated’ by predicates, never by DPs (Dynamic Predication Principle). This conceptually simple assumption is shown to have far-reaching consequences. For one, it yields a new take on weak crossover, arguably worthy of consideration. Moreover, it leads to a further general “restatement of the anaphora question”, in Reinhart’s (Linguist Philos 6: 47–88, 1983) words.

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
28 Dec 2018
TL;DR: In this article, three studies were carried out to examine how place attachment and collective action tendency are related and what role self-expansion and social interactions play in this relationship, and they found that inhabitants who declared more frequent social interactions in one's neighborhood, expressed stronger place discovered, and this attachment is related to collective action tendencies.
Abstract: Three studies were carried out to examine how place attachment and collective action tendency are related and what role self-expansion and social interactions play in this relationship. In the first study (N = 156) we found that a more active form of attachment – place discovered – is a significant predictor of tendency to engage in collective action in favor of one’s neighborhood. In the second study (N = 197), we focused on frequency of social interactions in one’s neighborhood as the antecedent of place attachment and collective action tendencies. We found that inhabitants who declared more frequent social interactions in one’s neighborhood, expressed stronger place discovered, and this attachment is related to collective action tendencies. In the third study (N = 153), we tested if self-expansion mediates this relationship. We found that stronger place discovered was related to the feeling of self-expansion that resulted from contact with neighbors. Moreover, self-expansion was related to the tendency to engage in collective action.

6 citations


Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20222
202159
202052
201957
201863
201762