Knowledge likely held by others affects speakers’ choices of referential expressions at different stages of discourse

References

• Achim, A. M., Fossard, M., Couture, S., & Achim, A. (2015). Adjustment of speaker’s referential expressions to an addressee’s likely knowledge and link with theory of mind abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:823.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achim, A. M., Guitton, M. J., Jackson, P. L., Boutin, A., & Monetta, L. (2013). On what ground do we mentalize? Characteristics of current tasks and sources of information that can contribute to mentalizing judgments. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 117–126. doi:10.1037/a0029137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achim, A. M., Ouellet, R., Lavoie, M. A., Vallieres, C., Jackson, P. L., & Roy, M. A. (2013). Impact of social anxiety on social cognition and functioning in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophrenia Research, 145(1–3), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2013.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achim, A. M., Ouellet, R., Roy, M. A., & Jackson, P. L. (2012). Mentalizing in first-episode psychosis. Psychiatry Research, 196(2–3), 207–213. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.10.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apperly, I. A., Carroll, D. J., Samson, D., Humphreys, G. W., Qureshi, A., & Moffitt, G. (2010). Why are there limits on theory of mind use? Evidence from adults’ ability to follow instructions from an ignorant speaker. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(6), 1201–1217. doi:10.1080/17470210903281582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routhledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1996). Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim, & J. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 13–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 187–203. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00193.x
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 521–536. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 301–345). Burlington, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Champagne-Lavau, M., Fossard, M., Martel, G., Chapdelaine, C., Blouin, G., Rodriguez, J.-P., & Stip, E. (2009). Do patients with schizophrenia attribute mental states in a referential communication task? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 14(3), 217–239. doi:10.1080/03640210709336989
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Weber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–258. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90189-5
   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
• Colle, L., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & van der Lely, H. K. (2008). Narrative discourse in adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(1), 28–40. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0357-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon press.
   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. doi: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. doi:10.1080/17470210903490969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 378–391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorman, K. S., Gegg-Harrison, W., Marsh, C. R., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). What’s learned together stays together: Speakers’ choice of referring expression reflects shared experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 843–853. doi:10.1037/a0029467
   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(2), 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 predications. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 249–268. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01184.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: Shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290–305. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, P., Koster, C., & Hoeks, C. J. (2014). Referential choice across the lifespan: Why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 391–407. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.766356
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37. doi:10.1007/s11516-009-0029-7
   Web of Science ®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(1), 32–38. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutsen, D., & Le Bigot, L. (2012). Managing dialogue: How information availability affects collaborative reference production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 326–341. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, R. M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(2), 81–98. doi:10.1177/0261927X8700600201
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlen, A. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2013). Language in dialogue: When confederates might be hazardous to your data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Reviews, 20, 54–72. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0341-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuijper, S. J. M., Hartman, C. A., & Hendriks, P. (2015). Who is he? Children with ASD and ADHD take the listener into account in their production of ambiguous pronouns. Plos One, 10(7), 1–18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman-Nrolund, S. E., Noordizij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Volman, I. A. C., de Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 45–54. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Lely, H. K. J. (1997). Narrative discourse in grammatical specific language impaired children: A modular language deficit? Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 221–256. doi: 10.1017/S0305000996002966
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(9), 1323–1349. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.682072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2015). How cognitive load influences speakers’ choice of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 39, 1396–1418. doi:10.1111/cogs.12205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardlow Lane, L., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1466–1481. doi:10.1037/a0013353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardlow Lane, L., Groisman, M., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Don’t talk about pink elephants! speakers’ control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17(4), 273–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The effect of information overlap on communication effectiveness. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 169–181. doi:10.1080/03640210709336989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar