Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence

Discourse Processes

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 157-175

  Poesio, Massimo ^a   Sturt, Patrick ^b   Artstein, Ron ^a   Filik, Ruth ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748523848     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_4     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Albrecht, J. E., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Accessing singular antecedents in conjoined phrases. Memory & Cognition, 26, 599-610.
2. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13-B26.
3. Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32-68.
4. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407.
5. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-68.
6. Corbett, A., & Chang, F. (1983). Pronoun disambiguating: Accessing potential antecedents. Memory & Cognition, 11, 283-294.
7. Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., & Morris, R. K. (1989, September). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15, 791-801.
8. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
9. Filik, R., Sanford, A., & Sturt, P. (2005). Anaphoric reference to structured entities. Manuscript in preparation
10. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.
12. Garrod, S. C., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39-68.
13. Gross, D., Allen, J., & Traum, D. (1993). The TRAINS 91 dialogues (TRAINS Tech. Note No. 92-1). Computer Science Department, University of Rochester, New York.
14. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 202-225.
15. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
16. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 302-323). Berlin: de Gruyter.
17. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226-228.
19. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 20, 92-103.
20. Moxey, L. M., Sanford, A. J., Sturt, P., & Morrow, L. I. (2004). Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 346-364.
21. Müller, C., & Strube, M. (2003). Multi-level annotation in MMAX. In Proceedings of the 4th SIGDIAL (pp. 198-207). Sapporo, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.
22. Pearson, J., Stevenson, R., & Poesio, M. (2001). The effects of animacy, thematic role, and surface position on the focusing of entities in discourse. In M. Poesio (Ed.), Proceedings of the first workshop on cognitively plausible models of semantic processing (SEMPRO). Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh, Human Communication Research Centre.
23. Pinkal, M. (1995). Logic and lexicon. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
24. Poesio, M. (1999). Utterance processing and semantic underspecification (Rep. HCRC/RP No. 103). Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh, Human Communication Research Centre.
25. Poesio, M. (2004). The MATE/GNOME scheme for anaphoric annotation, revisited. In M. Strube & C. Sidner (Eds.), Proceedings of SIGDIAL (pp. 89-96). Boston: Association for Computational Linguistics.
26. Poesio, M., & Artstein, R. (2005). Annotating (anaphoric) ambiguity. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics conference. Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham, Center for Corpus Research.
27. Poesio, M., Bruneseaux, F., & Romary, L. (1999). The MATE meta-scheme for coreference in dialogues in multiple languages. In M. Walker (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL workshop on standards and tools for discourse tagging (pp. 65-74). College Park: University of Maryland.
28. Poesio, M., Reyle, U., & Stevenson, R. (2001). Justified sloppiness in anaphoric reference. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning 3.
29. Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295-325). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 382-386.
31. Sidner, C. L. (1979). Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
32. Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374). New York: Academic.
33. Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus, and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519-548.
34. Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542-562.
35. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 545-567.
36. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.