Informativity, topicality, and speech cost: comparing models of speakers’ choices of referring expressions

References

• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University, Stanford.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. (2016). Explicit and emergent mechanisms of information status. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(4), 737–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J., & Griffin, Z. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J., & Zerkle, S. (2019). Why do people produce pronouns? Pragmatic selection vs. rational models. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1152–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1636103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3048–3058. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2188331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. (2005). Referential form, duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173–191). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2006). Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed. pp. 901–938). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50024-9
   Google Scholar
• Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, E., & Goodman, N. (2018). Extremely costly intensifiers are stronger than quite costly ones. Cognition, 178, 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergsma, S., & Lin, D. (2006). Bootstrapping path-based pronoun resolution. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 33–40). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Blei, D. M., & Frazier, P. I. (2011). Distance dependent chinese restaurant processes. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(74), 2461–2488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, D. E. (1973). In defence of empirical psychology. Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Callaway, C. B., & Lester, J. C. (2002). Pronominalization in generated discourse and dialogue. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 88–95).
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/412014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view in subject and topic. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on Transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational Interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the Generation of Referring Expressions. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 233–263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Brown, P. M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the “model of the listener”. In D. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics (pp. 105–129). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(4), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90309-8
   Google Scholar
• Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 933–938).
   Google Scholar
• Frank, M., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998–998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1472–1504. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.506444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science, 36(7), 1289–1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 1700–1715. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903490969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3), 459–464. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177835
   Google Scholar
• Gatt, A., Krahmer, E., van Deemter, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2014). Models and empirical data for the production of referring expressions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.933242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrig, R. J., Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (2000). What can we conclude from speakers behaving badly? Discourse Processes, 29(2), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2902_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Vol. 3). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. II). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, N., & Frank, M. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, C., Degen, J., Hawkins, R., & Goodman, N. (2016). Animal, dog, or dalmatian? Level of abstraction in nominal referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2261–2266).
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., Weinstein, S., & Joshi, A. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J95-2003/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haghighi, A., & Klein, D. (2010). Coreference resolution in a modular, entity-centered model. In Human language technologies: The 2010 annual conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 385–393). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1857999.1858060
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, P. (2016). Cognitive modeling of individual variation in reference production and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, F. T. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jager, G. (2007). Game dynamics connects semantics and pragmatics. In A-V. Pietarinen (Ed.), Game theory and linguistic meaning (pp. 89–102). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2013). A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(1–2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kibble, R., & Power, R. (2004). Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. Computational Linguistics, 30(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201042544893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahmer, E., & Van Deemter, K. (2012). Computational generation of referring expressions: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 38(1), 173–218. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(3), 269–320.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Proceedings of the 20th conference on neural information processing systems (nips).
   Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monroe, W., Hawkins, R., Goodman, N., & Potts, C. (2017). Colors in context: A pragmatic neural model for grounded language understanding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00064
   Google Scholar
• Orita, N., Vornov, E., Feldman, N., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2014). Quantifying the role of discourse topicality in speakers’ choices of referring expressions. In Association for computational linguistics, workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-2008
   Google Scholar
• Pate, J. K., & Goldwater, S. (2015). Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language, 78, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Di Eugenio, B., & Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics, 30(3), 309–363. https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201041850911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-233). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Recasens, M., Marquez, L., Sapena, E., Martí, M. A., & Taulé, M. (2011). SemEval-2010 task 1 OntoNotes English: Coreference resolution in multiple languages. LDC2011T01. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. https://doi.org/10.35111/bmpd-n944
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–94.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, E., Dale, R., & Feng, Z. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 912–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.854918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, E., & Arnold, J. (2017). Predictability affects production: Thematic roles can affect reference form selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27(4), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), 519–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. (2009). Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In Proceedings of the workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference.
   Google Scholar
• Van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., van Gompel, R. P., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Toward a computational psycholinguistics of reference production. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01187.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Son, R. J., & Van Santen, J. P. (2005). Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication, 47(1), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(9), 1323–1349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.682072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherford, K., & Arnold, J. (2020). Semantic predictability of implicit causes affects referential form choice [ Poster presentation]. Cuny conference on human sentence processing, Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. (2016). Discourse attention during utterance planning affects referential form choice. Linguistics Vanguard, 2(s1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0067
   Google Scholar