Models and empirical data for the production of referring expressions

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 899-911

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Computational modelling; Language production; Referring expressions

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPUTER MODEL; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 84922218754     PISSN: 23273798     EISSN: 23273801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.933242     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Abbott, B. (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, J., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036
3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
4. Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. (pp. 29-88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137-162. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP310202
6. Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495-527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
7. Arnold, J., Bennetto, L., & Diehl, J. (2009). Reference production in young speakers with and without autism: Effects of discourse status and processing constraints. Cognition, 110(2), 131-146. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.016
8. Arnold, J., & Griffin, Z. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521-536. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
9. Arts, A. (2004). Overspecification in instructive texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
10. Bard, E., Hill, R., Foster, M., & Arai, M. (2014). Tuning accessibility of referring expressions in situated dialogue. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
11. Belke, E. (2006). Visual determinants of preferred adjective order. Visual Cognition, 14, 261-294. doi:10.1080/13506280500260484
12. Belke, E., & Meyer, A. S. (2002). Tracking the time course of multidimensional stimulus discrimination: Analyses of viewing patterns and processing times during “same”-“different“ decisions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 237-266. doi:10.1080/09541440143000050
13. Belz, A., Kow, E., Viethen, J., & Gatt, A. (2010). Generating referring expressions in context: The GREC shared task evaluation challenges. In E. Krahmer & M. Theune (Eds.), Empirical methods in natural language generation (vol. 5980, pp. 294-327). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
14. Bock, J., & Warren, R. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47-67. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X
15. Boden, M. (2008). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science (vol.1 & 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-167. doi:10.1080/01690969508407091
17. Brennan, S., & Clark, H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 1482-1493
18. Brennan, S., Friedman, M., & Pollard, C. (1995). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (acl’95) (pp. 155-162). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D., & Tanenhaus, M. (2005). Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 292-313. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.003
20. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-53). New York, NY: Academic Press.
21. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
23. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. 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). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
25. Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational interpretation of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 19, 233-263. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1902_3
26. Davies, C., & Katsos, N. (2013). Are speakers and listeners ‘only moderately Gricean’? an empirical response to Engelhardt et al. (2006). Journal of Pragmatics, 49(1), 78-106. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.004
27. Deutsch, W., & Pechmann, T. (1982). Social interaction and the development of definite descriptions. Cognition, 11, 159-184. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90024-5
28. Di Fabbrizio, G., Stent, A. J., & Bangalore, S. (2008). Trainable speaker-based referring expression generation. In Proceedings of the 12th conference on computational natural language learning (conll’08) (pp. 151-158). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
29. Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409-436. doi:10.1007/BF02143160
30. Engelhardt, P., Bailey, K., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 554-573. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009
31. Engelhardt, P., Demiral, S. B., & Ferreira, F. (2011). Overspecified referring expressions impair comprehension: An ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 77, 304-314. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.004
32. Engelhardt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2014). Do speakers articulate overdescribed modifiers differently from modifiers that are required by context?: Implications for models of reference production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
33. Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 487-493. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90309-8
34. Ford, W., & Olson, D. (1975). The elaboration of the noun phrase in children’s description of objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 371-382. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(75)90068-5
35. Foster, M., Giuliani, M., & Isard, A. (2014). Task-based evaluation of adaptive referring expressions in human-robot dialogue. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
36. Frank, M., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998. doi:10.1126/science.1218633
37. Frege, G. (1892). Über sinn und bedeutung [On sense and reference]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, C, 100, 25-50
38. Fukumura, K., Hyönä, J., & Scholfield, M. (2013). Gender affects semantic competition: The effect of gender in a nongender marking language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 1012-1021. doi:10.1037/a0031215
39. Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1472-1504. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.506444
40. Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science, 36, 1289-1311. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
41. Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. (2014). Effects of order of mention and grammatical role on anaphor resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, under revision.
42. Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. (2011). How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 331-344. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.001
43. Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R., & Pickering, M. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1700-1715. doi:10.1080/17470210903490969
44. Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 52-66. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
45. Gardent, C. (2002). Generating minimal definite descriptions. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (acl’02). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
46. Gargett, A., Garoufi, K., Koller, A., & Striegnitz, K. (2010). The give-2 corpus of giving instructions in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on language resources and evaluation (lrec’10). Valletta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
47. Garoufi, K., & Koller, A. (2014). Generation of effective referring expressions in situated context. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
48. 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 and Heidelberg: Springer.
49. Gatt, A., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2011). Attribute preference and priming in reference production: Experimental evidence and computational modeling. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci’11, pp. 2627-2632).
50. Gatt, A., Portet, F., Reiter, E., Hunter, J., Mahamood, S., Moncur, W., & Sripada, S. (2009). From data to text in the neonatal intensive care unit: Using NLG technology for decision support and information management. AI Communications, 22, 153-186
51. Gatt, A., van Gompel, R., Krahmer, E., & van Deemter, K. (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). http://pre2011.uvt.nl
52. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53. Goldberg, E., Driedger, N., & Kittredge, R. I. (1994). Using natural language processing to produce weather forecasts. IEEE Expert, 9(2), 45-53. doi:10.1109/64.294135
54. Gordon, P., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1010
55. Gordon, P., Grosz, B., & Gilliom, L. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1
56. Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Alignment in interactive reference production: Content planning, modifier ordering and referential overspecification. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 269-289. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01186.x
57. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. (vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
58. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 44-50). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
59. Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203-225
60. Guhe, M. (2012). Utility-based generation of referring expressions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 306-329. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01185.x
61. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307. doi:10.2307/416535
62. Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2012). Underspecification of cognitive status in reference production: Some empirical predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 249-268. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01184.x
63. Horton, W., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91-117. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
64. Jaeger, T. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive psychology, 61(1), 23-62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
65. Jordan, P. (2002). Contextual influences on attribute selection for repeated descriptions. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in natural language generation and understanding. (pp. 295-328). Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications.
66. Jordan, P., & Walker, M. (2005). Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 157-194
67. Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625-1666. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.523082
68. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113-147. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.002
69. Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 709-748. doi:10.1080/01690960701771220
70. Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63-99
71. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1-44. doi:10.1093/jos/ffm018
72. Keysar, B., Barr, D., Balin, J., & Baruner, J. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32-38. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00211
73. Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25-41. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7
74. Koolen, R., Gatt, A., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2011). Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3231-3250. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.008
75. Koolen, R., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2013). The effect of scene variation on the redundant use of color in definite reference. Cognitive Science, 37, 395-411. doi:10.1111/cogs.12019
76. Krahmer, E., & Theune, M. (2002). Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
77. Krahmer, E., & van Deemter, K. (2012). Computational generation of referring expressions: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 38, 173-218. doi:10.3758/BF03195480
78. Krahmer, E., van Erk, S., & Verleg, A. (2003). Graph-based generation of referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 29, 53-72. doi:10.1162/089120102317341765
79. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2011). Computational modeling in cognition. London: Sage.
81. Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. (pp. 457-489). New York, NY: Academic Press.
82. Louwerse, M., Benesh, N., Hoque, M., Jeuniaux, P., Lewis, G., Wu, J., & Zirnstein, M. (2007). Multimodal communication in face-to-face computer-mediated conversations. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (cogsci’07) (pp. 1235-1240). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
83. 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, 4, 184-210. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01181.x
84. McClelland, J. L. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 11-38. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01003.x
85. Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-308). New York, NY: Academic Press.
86. Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77, 257-273. doi:10.1037/h0029436
87. Paraboni, I., & van Deemter, K. (2013). Reference and the facilitation of search in spatial domains. Language and Cognitive Processes, this volume.
88. Paraboni, I., van Deemter, K., & Masthoff, J. (2007). Generating referring expressions: Making referents easy to identify. Computational Linguistics, 32, 229-254. doi:10.1162/coli.2007.33.2.229
89. Passonneau, R. J. (1997). Interaction of discourse structure with explicitness of anaphoric noun phrases. In M. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. Prince (Eds.), Centering in discourse. (pp. 327-358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
90. Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27(1), 89-110. doi:10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.89
91. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226
92. Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Di Eugenio, B., & Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics, 30, 309-363. doi:10.1162/089120100750105966
93. Portet, F., Reiter, E., Gatt, A., Hunter, J., Sripada, S., Freer, Y., & Sykes, C. (2009). Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data. Artificial Intelligence, 173, 789-816. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2008.12.002
94. Reiter, E. (1990). The computational complexity of avoiding conversational implicatures. In Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (acl’90) (pp. 97-104). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
95. Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
96. Reiter, E., Sripada, S., Hunter, J., Yu, J., & Davy, I. (2005). Choosing words in computer-generated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence, 167, 137-169. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2005.06.006
97. Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2013). Grammatical and informationstructural influences on pronoun production. Language and Cognitive Processes, this volume. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479-493. doi:10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
98. Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 3-23. doi:10.1023/A:1021928914454
99. Sonnenschein, S. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on listeners: When more is less. Child Development, 53, 717-729. doi:10.2307/1129385
100. Sonnenschein, S. (1984). Why young listeners do not benefit from differentiating verbal redundancy. Child Development, 55, 929-935. doi:10.2307/1130144
101. Stevenson, R., Crawley, R., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519-548. doi:10.1080/01690969408402130
102. Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
103. van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., van der Sluis, I., & Power, R. (2012). Generation of referring expressions: Assessing the incremental algorithm. Cognitive Science, 36, 799-836. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01205.x
104. van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., van Gompel, R., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Toward a computational psycholinguistics of reference production. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 166-183. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01187.x
105. Viethen, J., & Dale, R. (2007). Evaluation in natural language generation: Lessons from referring expression generation. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 48, 141-160
106. Viethen, J., Dale, R., & Guhe, M. (2011). Serial dependency: Is it a characteristic of human referring expression generation? In Proceedings of the workshop on production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference (PRE-CogSci’11). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. http://pre2011.uvt.nl
107. Viethen, J., Dale, R., & Guhe, M. (2014). Referring in dialogue: Alignment or construction? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
108. Viethen, J., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2012). The impact of colour difference and colour codability on reference production. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci’12). (pp. 1084-1089). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
109. Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2013a). When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The interplay between lexical and perceptual animacy in referential choices. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154
110. Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2013b). Who is where referred to how, and why?: The influence of visual saliency on referent accessibility in spoken language production. Language and cognitive processes, 28, 1323-1349. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.682072
111. Wardlow Lane, L., Groisman, M., & Ferreira, V. (2006). Don’t talk about pink elephants!: Speakers’ control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17, 273-277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x