Models and empirical data for the production of referring expressions

References

• Abbott, B. (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495–527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   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, 521–536. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, A. (2004). Overspecification in instructive texts ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Bard, E., Hill, R., Foster, M., & Arai, M. (2014). Tuning accessibility of referring expressions in situated dialogue. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• Belke, E. (2006). Visual determinants of preferred adjective order. Visual Cognition, 14, 261–294. doi:10.1080/13506280500260484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden, M. (2008). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science (vol. 1 & 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137–167. doi:10.1080/01690969508407091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S., & Clark, H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 1482–1493.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P., Demiral, S. B., & Ferreira, F. (2011). Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension: An ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 77, 304–314. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P., & Ferreira, F. (2014). Do speakers articulate over-described modifiers differently from modifiers that are required by context?: Implications for models of reference production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
   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
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, M., Giuliani, M., & Isard, A. (2014). Task-based evaluation of adaptive referring expressions in human-robot dialogue. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, M., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998. doi:10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frege, G. (1892). Über sinn und bedeutung [On sense and reference]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, C, 100, 25–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., Hyönä, J., & Scholfield, M. (2013). Gender affects semantic competition: The effect of gender in a non-gender marking language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 1012–1021. doi:10.1037/a0031215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   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. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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).
   Google Scholar
• Garoufi, K., & Koller, A. (2014). Generation of effective referring expressions in situated context. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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).
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216–231. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. (vol. III, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, P., & Walker, M. (2005). Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 157–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Krahmer, E., & van Deemter, K. (2012). Computational generation of referring expressions: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 38, 173–218. doi:10.3758/BF03195480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahmer, E., van Erk, S., & Verleg, A. (2003). Graph-based generation of referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 29, 53–72. doi:10.1162/089120102317341765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2011). Computational modeling in cognition. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, D. R. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77, 257–273. doi:10.1037/h0029436
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paraboni, I., & van Deemter, K. (2013). Reference and the facilitation of search in spatial domains. Language and Cognitive Processes, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27(1), 89–110. doi:10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226.
   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, 309–363. doi:10.1162/089120100750105966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2013). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language and Cognitive Processes, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493. doi:10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenschein, S. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on listeners: When more is less. Child Development, 53, 717–729. doi:10.2307/1129385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenschein, S. (1984). Why young listeners do not benefit from differentiating verbal redundancy. Child Development, 55, 929–935. doi:10.2307/1130144
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viethen, J., & Dale, R. (2007). Evaluation in natural language generation: Lessons from referring expression generation. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 48, 141–160.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Viethen, J., Dale, R., & Guhe, M. (2014). Referring in dialogue: Alignment or construction? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   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, 1–15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154
   PubMed 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, 1323–1349. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.682072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar