Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 1-20

  Keysar, Boaz ^a   Barr, Dale J ^a   Balin, Jennifer A ^a   Paek, Timothy S ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Language; communication; perspective; interpretations; definite reference; process models.

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002195735     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2563     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Caramazza A., Grober E., Garvey C., Yates J. Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 16:1977;601-610.
2. Chafe, W. L. 1976, Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view, Subject and topic, New York, Academic Press.
3. Clark, H. H. 1992, Arenas of language use, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
4. Clark, H. H. Carlson, T. B. 1981, Context for comprehension, J. LongA. Baddeley, Attention and performance IX, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
5. Clark, H. H. Carlson, T. B. 1982, Speech acts and hearers beliefs, N. V. Smith, Mutual knowledge, London, Academic Press.
6. Clark, H. H. Marshall, C. R. 1981, Definite reference and mutual knowledge, A. K. JosheB. WebberI. A. Sag, Elements of discourse understanding, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
7. Clark H. H., Schreuder R., Buttrick S. Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22:1983;245-258.
8. Clark H. H., Schaefer E. F. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science. 13:1989;259-294.
9. Dell, G. S. Brown, P. M. 1991, Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the "model of the listener" D. NapoliJ. Kegl, Bridges between psychology and linguistics, New York, Academic Press.
10. Dell G. S., McKoon G., Ratcliff R. The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22:1983;121-132.
11. Donnellan K. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review. 75:1966;281-304.
12. Eberhard K. M., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., Sedivy J. C., Tanenhaus M. K. Eye movements as a window into real time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research. 24:1995;121-135.
13. Ehrlich K. Comprehension of pronouns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 32:1980;247-255.
14. Fussell S. R., Krauss R. M. The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 25:1989;203-219.
15. Gernsbacher M. A. Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition. 32:1989;99-156.
16. Gernsbacher, M. A. 1990, Language comprehension as structure building, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
17. Gernsbacher M. A., Faust M. E. The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17:1991;245-262.
18. Gerrig R. J., Littman M. L. Disambiguation by community membership. Memory and Cognition. 18:1990;331-338.
19. Gibbs R. W., Mueller R. A. G., Cox R. W. Common ground in asking and understanding questions. Language and Speech. 31:1988;321-335.
20. Glucksberg, S. Krauss, R. M. Higgins, E. T. 1975, The development of referential communication skills, F. E. Horowitz, Review of child development research, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
21. Glucksberg S., Kreuz R. J., Rho S. H. Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 12:1986;323-335.
22. Greene S. B., Gerrig R. J., McKoon G., Ratcliff R. Unheralded pronouns and management by common ground. Journal of Memory and Language. 33:1994;511-526.
23. Grice, H. P. 1975, Logic and conversation, P. ColeJ. Morgan, Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, New York, Academic Press.
24. Hogaboam T. W., Perfetti C. A. Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 14:1975;265-274.
25. Horton W. S., Keysar B. When do speakers take into account common ground. Cognition. 59:1996;91-117.
26. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1982, Mutual ignorance: Comments on Clark and Carlson's paper, N. V. Smith, Mutual knowledge, London, Academic Press.
27. Johnson-Laird P. N., Garnham A. Descriptions and discourse models. Linguistics and Philosophy. 3:1980;371-393.
28. Keysar B. Unconfounding common ground. Discourse Processes. 24:1997;253-270.
29. Keysar, B. Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve, S. R. FussellR. J. Kreuz, Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
30. Keysar B. The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology. 26:1994;165-208.
31. Keysar, B. Barr, D. J. Horton, W. S. The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach, Current Directions in Psychological Sciences.
32. Kintsch W., Mross E. F. Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;336-349.
33. Krauss, R. M. Fussell, S. R. 1996, Social psychological models of interpersonal communication, E. T. HigginsA. Kruglanski, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, New York, Guilford Press.
34. Krauss R. M., Fussell S. R. Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others' knowledge in reference. Social Cognition. 9:1991;2-24.
35. Krauss R. M., Glucksberg S. Social and nonsocial speech. Scientific American. 236:1977;100-105.
36. Krauss R. M., Weinheimer S. Changes in reference phases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science. 1:1964;113-114.
37. Lea, R. B. Mason, R. A. Albrecht, J. E. Birch, S. L. Myers, J. L. Who knows what about whom: What role does common ground play in accessing distant information, Journal of Memory and Language.
38. Malt B. C. The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;271-289.
39. McClelland J. L. On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review. 86:1979;287-330.
40. McKoon G., Gerrig R. J., Greene S. B. Pronoun resolution without pronouns: Some consequences of memory-based text processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 22:1996;919-932.
41. McKoon G., Ratcliff R. Inference during reading. Psychological Review. 99:1992;440-466.
42. McKoon G., Ward G., Ratcliff R. Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities. Journal of Memory and Language. 32:1993;56-75.
43. Mueller-Lust R. A., Gibbs R. W. Inferring the interpretation of attributive and referential definite descriptions. Discourse Processes. 14:1991;107-131.
44. Murphy G. L. Process of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language. 24:1985;290-303.
45. Onifer W., Swinney D. A. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition. 9:1981;225-236.
46. Ortony A., Anderson R. C. Definite descriptions and semantic memory. Cognitive Science. 1:1977;74-83.
47. Rinck M., Bower G. Anaphora resolution and the focus of attention in situation models. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1995;110-131.
48. Sadock, J. M. 1978, On testing for conversational implicature, P. Cole, Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, New York, Academic Press.
49. Simpson G. B. Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 20:1981;120-136.
50. Sperber, D. 1982, Comments on Clark and Carlson's paper, N. Smith, Mutual knowledge, 46, 51, London, Academic Press.
51. Sperber, D. Wilson, D. 1982, Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension, N. Smith, Mutual knowledge, London, Academic Press.
52. Sperber, D. Wilson, D. 1986, Relevance: Communication and cognition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
53. Sperber D., Wilson D. Precis of Relevance: Communication and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 10:1987;697-754.
54. Swinney D. A. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 18:1979;645-659.
55. Tabossi P., Colombo L., Job R. Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research. 49:1987;161-167.
56. Tanenhaus M. K., Lucas M. M. Context effects in lexical processing. Cognition. 25:1987;213-234.
57. Tanenhaus M. K., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., Eberhard K., Sedivy J. C. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science. 268:1995;1632-1634.
58. Wilkes-Gibbs D., Clark H. H. Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language. 31:1992;183-194.