Why do people produce pronouns? Pragmatic selection vs. rational models

References

• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical Universe? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Human cognitive processing series).
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns (Ph.D. dissertation). Stanford University.
   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. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language And Linguistics Compass, 4, 187–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2011). Pronouns. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, K. Pelphrey, & M. D. Powers (Eds.), Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders (Vol. 1–5, pp. 2408–2412). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2016). Explicit and emergent mechanisms of information status. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 737–760. doi: 10.1111/tops.12220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2017). Fluency effects in human language: The integration of automatic and intentional mechanisms of acoustic variation in speech. In R. M. Seyfarth & D. L. Cheney (Eds.), The social origins of language (pp. 62–78). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1515/9781400888146-003
   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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 527–565. doi: 10.1080/01690960600845950
   Web of Science ®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, 521–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Nozari, N. (2017). The effects of utterance planning and stimulation of left prefrontal cortex on the production of referential expressions. Cognition, 160, 127–144. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Strangmann, I., Hwang, H., & Zerkle, S. (2018). Reference frequency: What do speakers tend to talk about? Technical Report #2. UNC Language Processing Lab, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. Newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55. doi: 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Watson, D. G. (2015). Synthesizing meaning and processing approaches to prosody: Performance matters. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 88–102. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.840733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L., & Jansen, C. (2011b). Overspecification facilitates object identification. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 361–374. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L. G. M., & Jansen, C. (2011a). Overspecification in written instruction. Linguistics, 49, 555–574. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.017
   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, 31–56. doi: 10.1177/00238309040470010201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllable duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3048–3058. doi: 10.1121/1.2188331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Boland, J. E., & Shields, L. W. (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 14–36. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90026-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, A., Brenier, J., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®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, 1001–1024. doi: 10.1121/1.1534836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., & Cutting, J. C. (2004). Producing number agreement: How pronouns equal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 251–278. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1016/j.jml.2004.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 32, 229–259.
   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. E., Friedman, M. W., & Pollard, C. J. (1987, July 6-9). A centering approach to pronouns. Proceedings from the 25th Annual Meeting of the association for computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA.
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structures and the given/New distinction. In D. R. Ladd, & A. Cutler (Eds.), Prosody:Models and measurements (pp. 67–77). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York, NY: Academic Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. G., & Smyth, R. (1998). Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 593–608. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F. (2009). Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 374–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, F. (2015). The role of learning in theories of English and Japanese processing. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Handbook of Japanese psycholinguistics (pp. 353–386). Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201–242. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colle, L., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2008). Narrative discourse in adults with height-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 28–40. doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0357-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale, R., & Viethen, J. (2010). Attribute-centric referring expression generation. In E. Krahmer, & M. Theune (Eds.), Empirical methods in natural language Generation (pp. 163–179). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, C., & Katsos, N. (2010). Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations? Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 120, 1956–1972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G. D., & 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
• Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263–284. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, C., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signalling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francik, E. P. (1985). Referential choice and focus of attention in narratives (discourse anaphora, topic continuity, language production) (Ph.D. thesis). Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C. (2013). Throwing out the Bayesian baby with the optimal bathwater: Response to Endress. Cognition, 128, 417–423. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998. doi: 10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2014). Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 80–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K. (2015). Interface of linguistic and visual information during audience design. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 1419–1433. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1111/cogs.12207
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1037/a0031215
   PubMed 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, 1472–1504. doi: 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, 1289–1311. PMID 22671693 doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2015). Effects of order of mention and grammatical role on anaphor resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 501–525. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Dopeople take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P., Harley, T., & Pickering, M. J. (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. J. (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
• Gatt, A., Krahmer, E., van Deemter, K., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2014). Models and empirical data for the production of referring expressions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 899–911. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.933242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389–424. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
   Google Scholar
• Guan, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2019, March). Referential predictability and topicality diverge in implicit causality. Poster, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., 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
• Hahn, M., Degen, J., Goodman, N. D., Jurafsky, D., & Futrell, R. (2018). An information-theoretic explanation of adjective ordering preferences. Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
   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. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, P. (2016). Cognitive modeling of individual variation in reference production and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, P., Koster, C., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2014). Referential choice across the lifespan: Why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 391–407. 10.1080/01690965.2013.766356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holler, A., & Suckow, K. (2016). How clausal linking affects noun phrase salience in pronoun resolution. In A. Holler, & K. Suckow (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on anaphora Resolution (pp. 61–85). Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, C., Russell, J., & Robbins, T. W. (1994). Evidence for executive dysfunction in autism. Neuropsychologia, 32, 477–492. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(94)90092-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, R. R. (1989). An experimental comparison of the understanding and use of speaker-addressee personal pronouns in autistic children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 24, 169–179. doi: 10.3109/13682828909011954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph, R. M., McGrath, L. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2005). Executive dysfunction and its relation to language ability in verbal school-age children with autism. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27, 361–378. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2703_4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 311–325. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: Speaker experience vs. Common ground. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 103–119. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.848989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. (2010). Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 266–297. doi: 10.1163/187731010X528368
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. (2011). Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: The interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1587–1624. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.522915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E. (2013). Looking beyond personal pronouns and beyond English: Typological and computational complexity in reference resolution. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 109–122. doi: 10.1515/tl-2013-0007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E., Li, E., & Holsinger, E. (2011). Exploring the lexical and acoustic consequences of referential predictability. In I. Hendrickx, A. Branco, S. Lalitha Devi & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 7099, pp. 171–183). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (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
• Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes form a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61–85. doi: 10.1080/01690968508402071
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics Special Issue on Processing Meaning, 25, 1–44.
   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, 1–37. doi: 10.1515/tl-2013-0001
   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
• Kravtchenko, E., Modi, A., Demberg, V., Titov, I., & Pinkal, M. (2017, March). Does referent predictability affect rate of pronominalization? Talk presented at 30th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, MIT.
   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, e0132408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langlois, V., Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2018, October). Does planning explain predictability effects on word duration? Paper presented at experimental and theoretical approaches to prosody, UMass, Ameherst.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing Systems 19 (pp. 849–856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6, 172–187. doi: 10.1177/002383096300600306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126, 313–318. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medina-Fetterman, A., Vazquez, N., & Arnold, J. E. (Under revision). The effects of semantic role predictability on the production of overt pronouns in spanish. Ms., University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, A. S., & Bock, K. (1999). Representations and processes in the production of pronouns: Some perspectives from Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 281–301. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1006/jmla.1999.2649
   Web of Science ®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
• Orita, N., Vornov, E., Feldman, N., & Daumé, H. III (2015). Why discourse affects speakers’ choices of referring expressions. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Osgood, C. E. (1971). Where do sentences come from? In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 497–529). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J. R. (1961). Symbols, signals and noise: The nature and process of communication. New York, NY: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Pogue, A., Kurumada, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). Talker-specific generalization of pragmatic inferences based on under-or over-informative prenominal adjective use. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–18. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson, & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325). Philadelphia, PA, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 912–927. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.854918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2011). The role of attention in choice of referring expressions. Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2017). Predictability affects production: Thematic roles can affect reference form selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 43–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362–367. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, B. M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. (1999). Lexical access in the production of pronouns. Cognition, 69, 313–335. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00073-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 623–656. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x
   Google Scholar
• Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80064-2
   Google Scholar
• Siegman, A. W. (1979). Cognition and hesitation in speech. In A. W. Siegman, & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Of speech and time: Temporal speech patterns in interpersonal contexts (pp. 151–178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus, and there presentation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519–548. doi:10.1080/01690969408402130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. (2009). Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. Proceedings of the workshop on production of referring expressions: Bridging computational and psycholinguistic approaches [http://pre2009.uvt.nl] PRE-CogSci-09, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• van der Meulen, F., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Eye movements during the production of nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition, 29, 512–521. doi: 10.3758/BF03196402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rij, J. (2012). Pronoun processing: Computational, behavioral, and psychophysiological studies in children and adults (PhD thesis). University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2011). WM load influences the interpretation of referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics (pp. 67–75). Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2013). How WM load influences linguistic processing in adults: A computational model of pronoun interpretation in discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 564–580. doi: 10.1111/tops.12029
   PubMed 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. 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
• Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2015). How cognitive load influences speakers’ choice of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 39, 1396–1418. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1111/cogs.12205
   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, 273–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). Corrigendum to Tic tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 114, 462–463. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherford, K., & Arnold, J. E. (2019, March). Semantic predictability of implicit causes affects referential form choice. Poster, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Weatherford, K., & Arnold, J. E. (under review). Semantic predictability of implicit causes affects referential form choice. Ms., University of North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, E., & Arnold, J. E. (2019, March). Priming discourse structure guides pronoun comprehension. Poster, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2016). Discourse attention during utterance planning affects referential form choice. Linguistics Vanguard, 2. doi: 10.1515/lingvan-2016-0067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2019, March). Poster, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, University of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., & Arnold, J. E. (2019). Thematic role predictability affects the time course of utterance planning. Manuscript submitted for publication..
   Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2015, March). Do addressee gestures influence predictability of spoken reference form? Poster, CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Zerkle, S., Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2017). Thematic role predictability and planning affect word duration. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 17, 1–28. doi:10.5334/labphon.98.
   Google Scholar