Evaluating an Expectation-Driven Question-Under-Discussion Model of Discourse Interpretation

References

• Anderbois, S. (2011). Issues and alternatives. PhD Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
   Google Scholar
• Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver, D. I., & Clark, B. Z. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp. 213–251). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2003). On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 601–609.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. (1983). Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of syntax by the psychological syntax processor. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 320–358). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: Effects on pragmatic enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, Special Issue on Context in Communication: A Cognitive View, 6(1779), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fintel, K. von. (2004). A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In B. Partee & H. Kamp (Eds.), Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning (pp. 137–175). Oxford, UK: Elseiver.
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & Gompel, P. G. van (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 52–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1976). Factors underlying assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialog. In J. Seligman (Ed.), Language, logic and computation, volume 1. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 313–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, Joshua K., & Snedeker, Jesse (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1474–1508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J. K., O'Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30, 716–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition, lecture notes 21. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language (Special issue on Emerging Data Analysis), 59, 434–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2005). Coherence-driven constraints on the placement of accent. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 15. Los Angeles, CA, March 25–27, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2015). On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25. Stanford, CA, May 15–17, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., & Büring, D. (2007). Be bound or be disjoint!  In Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS–38). Ottawa, Canada, October 26–28, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 and Language, 54, 445–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, W., & von Stutterheim, C. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social contexts (pp. 39–76). North Holland, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Kuppevelt, J. van (1995). Discourse structure, topicality, and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, S. (1998). Questions under discussion and dialogue moves. In Proceedings of TWLT13/TWENDIAL’98: Formal semantics and pragmatics of dialogue. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; May 13–15, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., Greene, S., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 1040–1052.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, P., & Pullum, G. K. (2014). Exophoric VP Ellipsis. In P. Hofmeister & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag (pp. 5–32). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, P., & Hemforth, B. (2015). VP Ellipsis beyond syntactic identity: The case of nominalized antecedents. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. (1984). An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (p. 6989). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69. Originally published in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 49: Papers in Semantics, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, D. (2003). Linger: a flexible platform for language processing experiments, version 2.94. Retrieved from http://tedlab.mit.edu/∼dr/Linger/.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H. (2008). Coherence-driven effects in sentence and discourse processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 912–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. (2006). Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. Presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, July 26–29, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., Kehler, A., & Elman, J. (2007). Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse coherence. Presented at the Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN, August 1–4, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1979). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R., Crawley, R., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toosarvandani, M. (2014). Contrast and the structure of discourse. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 1–57.
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar