Underspecification of Cognitive Status in Reference Production: Some Empirical Predictions

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 249-268

  Gundel, Jeanette K ^a   Hedberg, Nancy ^b   Zacharski, Ron ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessbility; Cognitive status; Givenness Hierarchy; Reference; Relevance; Salience; Underspecification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; SPEECH;

COGNITION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84859714649     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01184.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge, Croom Helm.
2. Arnold, J. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495-527.
3. Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 219-244). New York: Academic Press.
4. Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D. K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 292-313.
5. Chiriacescu, S., & von Heusinger, K. (2010). Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 298-332.
6. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1-40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
9. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 21, (pp. 44-50). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
10. Gundel, J. K. 1996. Relevance theory meets the Givenness Hierarchy: An account of inferrables. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 141-153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Gundel, J. K. (2010). Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 148-168.
12. Gundel, J. K., Bassene, M., Gordon, B., Humnick, L., & Khalfaoui, A. (2010). Testing predictions of the Givenness Hierarchy framework: A crosslinguistic investigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1770-1785.
13. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
14. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2001). Cognitive status and definite descriptions in English: Why accommodation is unnecessary. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 273-295.
15. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R., Mulkern, A., Custis, T., Swierzbin, B., & Watters, S. (2006). Coding protocol for statuses on the Givenness Hierarchy. Manuscript, University of Minnesota. Available at:
16. Gundel, J. K., & Mulkern, A. (1998). Quantity implicatures in reference understanding. Pragmatics and Cognition, 6, 21-45.
17. Hawkins, J. A. (1991). (In)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality predictors. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405-442.
18. Hedberg, N., Görgülü, E., & Mameni, M. (2009). On definiteness and specificity in Turkish and Persian. In F. Mailhot (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Retrieved January 2012, from
19. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (reprinted: New York & London: Garland Publishers, 1988).
20. Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California (reprinted: Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976).
21. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709-748.
22. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1-44.
23. Masharov, M. (2008). Reference resolution and discourse salience. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
24. Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157-175.
25. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-256). New York: Academic Press.
26. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.