Toward a Computational Psycholinguistics of Reference Production

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 166-183

  van Deemter, Kees ^a   Gatt, Albert ^b,d   van Gompel, Roger P G ^c   Krahmer, Emiel ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^d TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Computational models; Non determinism in language production; Overspecification; Psycholinguistic experiments; Referring expressions

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MOTIVATION; SPEECH;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GOALS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH;

EID: 84859770461     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01187.x     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Allen, J., & Perrault, C. R. (1980). Analyzing intention in utterances. Artificial Intelligence, 15, 143-178.
2. Almor, A. (2000). Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor processing. In M. Pickering, C. Clifton, & M. Crocker (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 341-354).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Appelt, D. (1985). Planning English referring expressions. Artificial Intelligence, 26, 1-33.
4. Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spoorten (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29-87). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
5. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 137-162.
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(4), 521-536.
7. Arts, A. (2004). Overspecification in instructive texts. Unpublished PhD thesis, Tilburg University.
8. Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L., & Jansen, C. (2011). Overspecification in written instruction. Linguistics, 49(3), 555-574.
9. Bard, E., & Aylett, M. (2004). Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying worldsituated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173-191). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
10. Belz, A. (2007). Automatic generation of weather forecast texts using comprehensive probabilistic generation space models. Natural Language Engineering, 14(4), 431-455.
11. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-167.
12. Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(6), 1482-1493.
13. Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274-291.
14. Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 171-190.
15. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. (2006). Watching the eyes talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 592-609.
16. Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
17. Buschmeier, H., Bergmann, K., & Kopp, S. (2010). Modelling and evaluation of lexical and syntactic alignment with a priming-based microplanner. In E. Krahmer & M. Theune (Eds.), Empiricial methods in natural language generation (pp. 85-104). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
18. Callaway, C., & Lester, J. (2002). Pronominalization in generated discourse and dialogue. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'02) (pp. 88-95). Philadelphia.
19. Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. (1983). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287-299). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
20. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
21. Cohen, P., & Levesque, H. (1991). Confirmations and joint actions. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91) (pp. 951-975). Sydney, Australia.
22. Dale, R. (1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'89) (pp. 68-75). Vancouver, BC, Canada.
23. Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational interpretations of the gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18, 233-263.
24. Dale, R., & Viethen, J. (2010). Attribute-centric referring expression generation. In E. Krahmer & M. Theune (Eds.), Empirical methods in natural language generation (pp. 163-179). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
25. de Ruiter, J., Bangerter, A., & Dings, P. (2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
26. Engelhardt, P., Demiral, S. B., & Ferreira, F. (2011). Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension: An erp study. Brain and Cognition, 77(2), 304-314.
27. Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 554-573.
28. Fabbrizio, G. di, Stent, A., & Bangalore, S. (2008). Trainable speaker-based referring expression generation. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CONLL'08). Manchester, England.
29. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96(3), 263-284.
30. Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1700-1715.
31. 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.
32. Garrod, S., 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.
33. Gatt, A., & Belz, A. (2010). Introducing shared task evaluation to NLG: The TUNA shared task evaluation challenges. In E. Krahmer & M. Theune (Eds.), Empirical methods in natural language generation (pp. 264-293). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
34. Gatt, A., Gompel, R. van, Krahmer, E., & Deemter, K. van. (2011). Non-deterministic attribute selection in reference production. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the gap between empirical, computational and psycholinguistic approaches to reference (pre-cogsci'11). Retrieved January 2012, from
35. Gibbs, R., & Van Orden, G. (2012). Pragmatic choice in conversation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 1.
36. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650-669.
37. Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
38. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17(3), 311-347.
39. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1999). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.
40. Gordon, P. C., Kendrick, R., Ledoux, K., & Yang, C. L. (1999). Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 353-379.
41. Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Alignment in interactive reference production: Content planning, modifier ordering and referential overspecification. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
42. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. III) (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
43. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203-225.
44. Guhe, M. (2012). Utility-based generation of referring expressions. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
45. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2012). Underspecification of cognitive status in reference production: Some empirical predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
46. Gupta, S., & Stent, A. (2005). Automatic evaluation of referring expression generation using corpora. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Using Copora in Natural Language Generation (UCNLG'05) (pp. 1-6). Brighton, England.
47. Heeman, P. A., & Hirst, G. (1995). Collaborating on referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 21(3), 351-382.
48. Heller, D., Skovbroten, K., & Tanenhaus, M. (2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
49. Holden, J., & Van Orden, G. (2009). Dispersion of response times reveals cognitive dynamics. Psychological Review, 2, 318-342.
50. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
51. Jordan, P. (2002). Contextual influences on attribute selection for repeated descriptions. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp. 295-328). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
52. Jordan, P., & Walker, M. (2005). Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 157-194.
53. Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25-41.
54. Khan, I., van Deemter, K., & Ritchie, G. (2012). Managing ambiguity in reference generation: The role of surface structure. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
55. Koolen, R., Gatt, A., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2011). Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3231-3250.
56. Krahmer, E., & Theune, M. (2002). Efficient context-sensitive generation of descriptions in context. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Givenness and newness in language processing (pp. 223-264). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
57. Krahmer, E., & van Deemter, K. (2011). Computational generation of referring expressions: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 38(1), 173-218.
58. Kroch, A. (2000). Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 699-729). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
59. Kronfeld, A. (1990). Reference and computation: An essay in applied philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
61. Matthews, D., Butcher, J., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Two- and four-year-olds learn to adapt referring expressions to context: Effects of distracters and feedback on referential communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, DOI:
62. Matthews, D. E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely identify referents for others: A training study. Child Development, 78, 1744-1759.
63. McCoy, K., & Strube, M. (1999). Generating anaphoric expressions: Pronoun or definite description? In Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop on Discourse and Reference Structure (pp. 63-71). College Park: University of Maryland.
64. Mellish, C., Scott, D., Cahill, L., Paiva, D., Evans, R., & Reape, M. (2006). A reference architecture for natural language generation systems. Natural Language Engineering, 12, 1-34.
65. Oberlander, J. (1998). Do the right thing but expect the unexpected. Computational Linguistics, 24(3), 501-507.
66. Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77, 257-273.
67. Paraboni, I., van Deemter, K., & Masthoff, J. (2007). Generating referring expressions: Making referents easy to identity. Computational Linguistics, 33, 229-254.
68. Passonneau, R. (1996). Using centering to relax Gricean informational constraints on discourse anaphoric noun phrases. Language and Speech, 39, 229-264.
69. Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27, 98-110.
70. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226.
71. Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Eugenio, B. D., & Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics, 30, 309-363.
72. Purver, M., & Kempson, R. (2004). Context-based incremental generation for dialogue. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'04) (pp. 151-160). Brockenhurst, England.
73. Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75. Sedivy, J. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
76. Siddharthan, A., & Copestake, A. (2004). Generating referring expressions in open domains. In Proceedings of the 42th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2004) (pp. 407-414). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
77. Simon, H. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138.
78. Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of actions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519-548.
79. Stoia, L., Shockley, D. M., Byron, D. K., & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2006). Noun phrase generation for situated dialogs. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG'06) (pp. 81-88). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
80. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81. van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., van der Sluis, I., & Power, R. (in press). Generation of referring expressions: Assessing the incremental algorithm. Cognitive Science.
82. van der Sluis, I., & Krahmer, E. (2007). Generating multimodal referring expressions. Discourse Processes, 44(3), 145-174.
83. Viethen, J., & Dale, R. (2007). Evaluation in natural language generation: Lessons from referring expression generation. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 48(1), 141-160.
84. Wardlow Lane, L., Groisman, M., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Don't talk about pink elephants! Speakers' control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17, 273-277.
85. Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press.
86. Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The effect of information overlap on communication effectiveness. Cognitive Science, 31, 1-13.