Is anaphoric reference cooperative?

References

• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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/S15326950DP3102_02
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Bennetto, L., & Diehl, J. J. (2009). Reference production in young speakers with and without autism: Effects of discourse status and processing constraints. Cognition, 110, 131–146. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.016
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expressions: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C. F., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 1–22. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
   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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, G. W. (1981). Interruption in conversational interaction, and its relation to the sex and status of interactants. Linguistics, 19, 15–35. doi: 10.1515/ling.1981.19.1-2.15
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 102, 137–167. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407091
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90015-6
   Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592–609. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.008
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chantraine, Y., & Hupet, M. (1994). Efficiency of the addreessee's contribution to the establishment of references: Comparing monologs to dialogs. Cahiers de Psychologie, 13, 777–796.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J-N. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Brown, P. M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptations in language production: Limiting the role of the ‘Model of the Listener’. In D. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp. 105–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296–340. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologs and dialogs. Discourse Processes, 27, 35–53. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545049
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1472–1504. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.506444
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (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
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., Van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual context during the production of referrring expressions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1700–1715. doi: 10.1080/17470210903490969
   Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2006). Given-new attenuation effects in spoken discourse: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 47th Annual Meeting (p. 15), Dallas, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7
   Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduc-tion. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   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. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
   Google Scholar
• Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Science, 28, 105–115. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2801_5
   Google Scholar
• Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (PhD dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: Shared knowledge affetcs referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 44, 290–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589–606. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96, 127–142. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
   Google Scholar
• Hupet, M., & Chantraine, Y. (1992). Changes in repeated references: Collaborations or repetition effects? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 485–496.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.47
   Google Scholar
• Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to the lexicon: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00211
   Google Scholar
• Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 46–50. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613
   Google Scholar
• Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 550–557. doi: 10.3758/BF03196312
   Google Scholar
• Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects in the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 201–213. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7
   Google Scholar
• Murfitt, T., & McAllister, J. (2001). The effect of production variables in monolog and dialog on comprehension by novel listeners. Language and Speech, 44, 325–350. doi: 10.1177/00238309010440030201
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–225.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 473–592. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402130
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634. doi: 10.1126/science.7777863
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Wege, M. M. (2009). Lexical entrainment and lexical differentiation in reference phrase choice. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 448–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.12.003
   Google Scholar
• Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2013). 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
   Google Scholar
• Wardlow-Lane, L., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Speaker-external vs speaker-internal forces on utterance form. Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1466–1481.
   Google Scholar
• Wardlow-Lane, L., Groisman, M., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Don't talk about pink elephants! Speaker's control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17, 273–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x
   Google Scholar
• Webber, B. L. (1980). Syntax beyond the sentence: Anaphora. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 141–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wolter, L., Skovbroten Gorman, K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). Scalar reference, contrast and discourse: Separating effects of linguistic discourse from availability of the referent. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 299–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.010
   Google Scholar