Coherence-driven resolution of referential ambiguity: A computational model

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1307-1322

  Frank, Stefan L ^a,b,d   Koppen, Mathieu ^b   Noordman, Leo G M ^a,b   Vonk, Wietske ^b,c  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; EMPIRICISM; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LINGUISTICS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; READING;

EID: 35748976555     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193603     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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.
2. CARAMAZZA, A., GROBER, E., GARVEY, C., & YATES, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 601-609.
3. FRANK, S. L. (2006). Methods for implementing world knowledge in the DSS model (Tech. Rep.). Nijmegen: NICI.
4. FRANK, S. L., & HASELAGER, W. F. G. (2006). Robust semantic systematicity and distributed representations in a connectionist model of sentence comprehension. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 226-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. FRANK, S. L., KOPPEN, M., NOORDMAN, L. G. M., & VONK, W. (2003). Modeling knowledge-based inferences in story comprehension. Cognitive Science, 27, 875-910.
6. FRANK, S. L., KOPPEN, M., NOORDMAN, L. G. M., & VONK, W. (in press). World knowledge in computational models of discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes.
7. GARNHAM, A., OAKHILL, J., & CRUTTENDEN, H. (1992). The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 7, 231-255.
8. GARNHAM, A., TRAXLER, M., OAKHILL, J., & GERNSBACHER, M. A. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 517-543.
9. GARROD, S. C., & SANFORD, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675-698). San Diego: Academic Press.
10. GARVEY, C., CARAMAZZA, A., & YATES, J. (1974). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227-243.
11. GERNSBACHER, M. A., & HARGREAVES, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 699-717.
12. GORDON, P. C., GROSZ, B. J., & GILLIOM, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
13. GORDON, P. C., & HENDRICK, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.
14. GORDON, P. C., & SCEARCE, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory & Cognition, 23, 313-323.
15. GREENE, S. B., MCKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 266-283.
16. HIRST, W., & BRILL, G. A. (1980). Contextual aspects of pronoun assignment. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 168-175.
17. HOBBS, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
18. JÄRVIKIVI, J., VAN GOMPEL, R. P. G., HYÖNÄ, J., & BERTRAM, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260-264.
19. KAHN, H. J., & TILL, R. E. (1991). Pronoun reference and aging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 459-475.
20. KAMP, H., & REYLE, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic, and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. KAWAMOTO, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 474-516.
22. KEHLER, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
23. KINTSCH, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
24. KOHONEN, T. (1995). Self-organizing maps. Berlin: Springer.
25. KOORNNEEF, A. W., & VAN BERKUM, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 445-465.
26. LEONARD, C. L., WATERS, G. S., & CAPLAN, D. (1997a). The influence of contextual information on the resolution of ambiguous pronouns by younger and older adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 293-317.
27. LEONARD, C. L., WATERS, G. S., & CAPLAN, D. (1997b). The use of contextual information by right brain-damaged individuals in the resolution of ambiguous pronouns. Brain & Language, 57, 309-342.
28. LONG, D. L., & DE LEY, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 545-570.
29. MCDONALD, J. L., & MACWHINNEY, B. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 543-566.
30. MCRAE, K., SPIVEY-KNOWLTON, M. J., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 283-312.
31. MIIKKULAINEN, R. (1993). Subsymbolic natural language processing: An integrated model of scripts, lexicon, and memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. OAKHILL, J., GARNHAM, A., & VONK, W. (1989). The on-line construction of discourse models. Language & Cognitive Processes, 4, SI263-SI286.
33. RODD, J. M., GASKELL, M. G., & MARSLEN- WILSON, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
34. STEWART, A. J., & GOSSELIN, F. (2000). A simple categorisation model of anaphor resolution. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 930-935). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. STEWART, A. J., PICKERING, M. J., & SANFORD, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 423-443.
36. ST. JOHN, M. F. (1992). The story Gestalt: A model of knowledge-intensive processes in text comprehension. Cognitive Science, 16, 271-306.
37. TABOR, W., JULIANO, C., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 211-271.
38. TABOR, W., & TANENHAUS, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491-515.
39. VAN GOMPEL, R. P. G., PICKERING, M. J., & TRAXLER, M. J. (2001). Re-analysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 225-258.
40. VONK, W. (1985). The immediacy of inferences in the understanding of pronouns. In G. Rickheit & H. Strohner (Eds.), Inferences in text processing (pp. 205-218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.