SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (3), 714735.
  • Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106 (4), 748765.
  • Appelt, D.E. (1985a). Planning English referring expressions. Artificial Intelligence, 26, 133.
  • Appelt, D.E. (1985b). Some pragmatic issues in the planning of definite and indefinite noun phrases. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (pp. 198203). Chicago: ACL.
  • Appelt, D.E., & Kronfeld, A. (1987). A computational model of referring. In Proceedings of the 10thInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 640647.
  • Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
  • Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: an overview. In J. S. T. Sanders & W. Spooren (Ed.), Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 2987). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31 (2), 137162.
  • Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journey of Memory and Language, 56(4), 521536.
  • Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47 (1), 3156.
  • Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3048.
  • Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. (2005). Referential form, duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bard, E. G., Lowe, A., & Altmann, G. (1989). The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations. In J. Tubach & J. Mariani (Eds.), Proceedings of EUROSPEECH ‘89 (vol. 2, pp. 573576). Paris: European Speech Communication Association.
  • Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2006) Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 901938). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113 (2), 10011024.
  • Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945984). San Diego, CA: Academic.
  • Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (2), 137167.
  • Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22 (6), 14821493.
  • Brown, P., & Dell, G. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19 (4), 441472.
  • Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 2556). New York: Academic Press.
  • Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Context for comprehension. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (pp. 137). New York: Academic Press.
  • Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 1063). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. L. Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287299). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Dale, R. (1992). Generating referring expressions: Building descriptions in a domain of objects and processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational interpretation of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18, 233263.
  • Dell, G. S., & Brown, P. M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the “model of the listener.” In D. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics (pp. 105129). New York: Academic Press.
  • Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40 (4), 296340.
  • Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96 (3), 263284.
  • Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23 (4), 487493.
  • Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 35 (1), 116124.
  • Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 5266.
  • Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effects of animacy in the choice of referring expressions. Language and Cognitive Processes. 26(10), 14721504 doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.506444.
  • Fukumura, K., Van Gompel, R. P. G., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 331344.
  • Fukumura, K., Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (9), 17001715.
  • Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 3551.
  • Gerrig, R. J. (1986). Process models and pragmatics. In N. E. Sharkey (Ed.), Advances in cognitive science (pp. 2342). Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.
  • Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coreference as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30, 555.
  • Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 311347.
  • Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistics Society, 35, 151166.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. III: Speech acts (pp. 4158). New York: Academic Press.
  • Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21 (2), 203225.
  • Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69 (2), 274307.
  • Heeman, P.A., & Hirst, G. (1995). Collaborating on referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 21 (3), 351382.
  • Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (4), 589606.
  • Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005a). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40 (1), 135.
  • Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005b). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96 (2), 127142.
  • Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59 (1), 91117.
  • Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116 (1), 2637.
  • Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 2362.
  • Jucks, R., Becker, B. M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: Is experts’ word use adapted to the addressee? Discourse Processes, 45 (6), 497518.
  • Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89 (1), 2541.
  • Koller, A., & Stone, M. (2007). Sentence generation as a planning problem. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (pp. 337343). Prague: ACL
  • Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50 (2), 194231.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schlökopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) (Vol. 19, pp. 849856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (3), 550557.
  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Levy, E., & Tyler, L. K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action (pp. 339379). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children’s use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27 (03), 403422.
  • Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13 (4), 329336.
    Direct Link:
  • O’Donnell, M., Cheng, H., & Hitzeman, J. (1998). Integrating referring and informing in NP planning. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Nominals (pp. 4655). Montreal: ACL.
  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27 (2), 169226.
  • Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (3), 785794.
  • Prince, E. F. (1985). Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (1), 6581.
  • Rossnagel, C. (2000). Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (3), 429445.
  • Rossnagel, C. S. (2004). Lost in thought: Cognitive load and the processing of addressees’ feedback in verbal communication. Experimental Psychology, 51 (3), 191200.
  • Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29 (2), 169182.
  • Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (1), 103130.
  • Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 (4), 519548.
  • Van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Toward a computational psycholinguistics of reference production. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 166183.
  • Van der Wege, M. M. (2009). Lexical entrainment and lexical differentiation in reference phrase choice. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (4), 448463.
  • Wardlow Lane, L. W., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34(6), 14661481.
  • Wilkes-Gibbs, D., & Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31 (2), 183194.
  • Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.