The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1700-1715

  Fukumura, Kumiko ^a   van Gompel, Roger P G ^a   Pickering, Martin J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Language production; Pronoun; Reference; Saliency; Visual context

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; SEX DIFFERENCE; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEX FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956700460     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210903490969     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748-765.
2. Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., &Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 35A, 427-440.
3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
4. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137-162.
5. 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.
6. Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521-536.
7. Beun, R. J., & Cremers, A. H. M. (1998). Object reference in a shared domain of conversation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6, 121-152.
8. Bock, J. K., Irwin, D. E., Davidson, D. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Minding the clock. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 653-685.
9. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-167.
10. Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482-1493.
11. Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W., & Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns, In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 155-162). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
12. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592-609.
13. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic Press.
14. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
15. Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (Vol. 3, pp. 127-201). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263-284.
18. Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 487-493.
19. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.
20. 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, 52-66.
21. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón(Ed.), Topiccontinuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language stud (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544-569.
23. Gordon, P. C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231.
24. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
25. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.
26. Grice,H. P. (1975).Logic and conversation. In P.Cole & J.L.Morgan(Eds.), Syntaxandsemantics:Vol.3.Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
27. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, J. K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274-279.
28. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995).Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203-225.
29. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
30. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2005). Pronouns without NP antecedents: How do we know when a pronoun is referential? In A. Branco, T. McEnery, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational modeling (pp. 351-364). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
32. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitivescienceof language,inference,andconsciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Nadig, A.S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidenceofperspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13, 329-336.
34. Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought-aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77,257-273.
35. 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, 785-794.
36. Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 3-23.
37. Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519-548.
38. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
39. Tomlin, R. (1997). Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 162-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Vonk, W., Hustinx, L., & Simons, W. H. G. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 301-333.
41. Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.