Interaction Involvement and the use of Referential and Formal Anaphora in Conversation

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.