Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 December 2020

(p. 496) (p. 497) References

(p. 496) (p. 497) References

Abbott, Barbara (1976). A Study of Referential Opacity: PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (1993). ‘A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences’, Journal of Pragmatics 19: 39–55.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (1995). ‘Some remarks on specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 341–6.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (1996). ‘Doing without a partitive constraint’, in Jacob Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Partitive and Related Constructions, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 25–56.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (1999). ‘Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions’, in Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX, Ithaca: Cornell University, 1–15.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2000). ‘Presuppositions as nonassertions’, Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–37.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2002). ‘Donkey demonstratives’, Natural Language Semantics 10(4): 285–98.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2003). ‘A reply to Szabó’s “Descriptions and uniqueness”’, Philosophical Studies 103: 221–9.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2004). ‘Definiteness and indefiniteness’, in Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell, 122–49.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2008a). ‘Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions in English’, in Jeanette K. Gundel and Nancy Hedberg (eds), Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–72.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2008b). ‘Presuppositions and common ground’, Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 523–38.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2010). Reference. Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2011). ‘Reference: foundational issues’, in Claudia Maienborn, Paul Portner, and Klaus von Heusinger (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49–74.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2014). ‘Speaker’s reference: Smith’s murderer’, in Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Ede Zimmermann (eds), Companion to Semantics, Wiley.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2016). ‘An information packaging approach to presuppositions and conventional implicatures’, Topoi 35: 9–21.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara and Laurence R. Horn (2011). ‘Nonfamiliarity and indefinite descriptions’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA, https://www.msu.edu/~abbottb/Nonfam&Indef.pdf.Find this resource:

Abney, Steven P. (1987). ‘The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect’, PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Abraham, W. (2007). ‘Discourse binding: DP and pronouns in German, Dutch, and English’, in Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss, and Elisabeth Stark (eds), Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 21–47.Find this resource:

(p. 498) Abusch, D. (1994). ‘The scope of indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135.Find this resource:

Acton, Eric and Potts, Christopher (2014). ‘That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 18: 3–31.Find this resource:

Adams, F. and Stecker, R. (1994). ‘Vacuous singular terms’, Mind and Language 9(4): 387–401.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith (2003). ‘Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–48.Find this resource:

Allen, S. E. M. (2000). ‘A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut’, Linguistics 38(3): 483–521.Find this resource:

Allen, S. E. M. (2006). ‘Formalism and functionalism working together? Exploring roles for complementary contributions in the domain of child null arguments’, in R. Slabakova, S. A. Montrul, and P. Prévost (eds), Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 233–55.Find this resource:

Allen, S. E. M., Hughes, M., and Skarabela, B. (2015). ‘The role of cognitive accessibility in children’s referential choice’, in L. Serratrice and S. E. M. Allen (eds), The Acquisition of Reference, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–53.Find this resource:

Allen, S. E. M., Skarabela, B., and Hughes, M. (2008). ‘Using corpora to examine effects in syntax’, in H. Behrens (ed.), Corpora in Language Acquisition Research. History, Methods, Perspectives, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 99–137.Find this resource:

Almog, Joseph (1991). ‘The Subject-predicate class II’, Noûs 25(5): 621–38.Find this resource:

Almog, Joseph and Leonardi, Paolo (2012). Having in Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Almor, Amit (1999). ‘Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: the informational load hypothesis’, Psychological Review 106(4): 748–65.Find this resource:

Almor, Amit, Kempler, Daniel, MacDonald, Maryellen C., Andersen, Elaine S., and Tyler, Lorraine K. (1999). ‘Why do Alzheimer patients have difficulty with pronouns? Working memory, semantics, and reference in comprehension and production in Alzheimer’s disease’, Brain and Language 67(3): 202–27. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2055.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria (2001). Quantification under Conceptual Covers. PhD dissertation, ILLC, Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernandes-Solera, S., Frazier, L., and Clifton, C. (2002). ‘Null vs. overt pronouns and the Topic-Focus articulation in Spanish’, Rivista di Linguistica 14(2): 1–19.Find this resource:

Anand, Pranav (2006). De De Se. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Anand, Pranav, Chung. S., and Wagers, M. (2001). ‘Widening the net: challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age’, response to NSF SBE 2020: Future Research in the Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences. Online: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/sbe_2020/.Find this resource:

Anand, Pranav and Andrew Nevins (2004). ‘Shifty operators in changing contexts’, in K. Watanabe and R. B. Young (eds) Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Find this resource:

Anderson, Anne H., Garrod, Simon C., and Sanford, Anthony J. (1983). ‘The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 35(3): 427–40. doi: 10.1080/14640748308402480.Find this resource:

Anderson, J. C. (2013). ‘Misreading like a lawyer: cognitive bias in statutory interpretation’, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2293145, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2293145.Find this resource:

Anderson, Anne, Miles Bader, Ellen Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Jim Miller, Catherine Sotillo, and Henry Thompson (1991). ‘The HCRC map task corpus’, Language and Speech 34: 351–66.Find this resource:

Anderson, J. and Holcomb, P (2005). ‘An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy’, Brain and Language 43: 1–17.Find this resource:

(p. 499) Appelt, D. (1985). ‘Planning English referring expressions’, Artificial Intelligence 26: 1–33.Find this resource:

Appelt, D. and Kronfeld, A. (1987). ‘A computational model of referring’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 640–7.Find this resource:

Areces, C., Koller, A., and Striegnitz, K. (2008). ‘Referring expressions as formulas of Description Logic’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), 42–9, Salt Fork, Ohio.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1988). ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1990). Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1998). ‘The Linguistic Status of the Here and Now’, Cognitive Linguistics 9, 189–238.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (2001). ‘Accessibility theory: an overview’, in T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren (eds), Text Representation, Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 29–87.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (1998). Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. [Retrieved from www.unc.edu/~jarnold/papers/diss/fulldissertation.doc].Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (1999). Marking Salience: The Similarity of Topic and Focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (2001). ‘The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation’, Discourse Processes 31(2): 137–62. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (2008). ‘Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes’, Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4): 495–527. doi: 10.1080/01690960801920099.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer 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.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. and Griffin, Z. (2007). ‘The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: everyone competes’, Journal of Memory and Language 56: 521–36.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S, and Trueswell, J. C. (2000). ‘The immediate use of gender information: eyetracking evidence of the time-course of pronoun resolution’ Cognition 76: B13–B26.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E., Brown-Schmidt, S., and Trueswell, J. C. (2007). ‘Children’s use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension’, Language and Cognitive Processes 22(4): 527–65.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. and Tanenhaus, Michael K. (2011). ‘Disfluency effects in comprehension: how new information can become accessible’, in Edward A. Gibson and Neal J. Pearlmutter (eds), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 197–218. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015127.001.0001.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E., Bennetto, Loisa, and Diehl, Joshua J. (2009). ‘Reference production in young speakers with and without autism: effects of discourse status and processing constraints’, Cognition 110(2): 131–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.016.Find this resource:

Arnold, Lynnette (2012). ‘Dialogic embodied action: using gesture to organize sequence and participation in instructional interaction’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 269–96.Find this resource:

Arts, Anja, Maes, Alfons, Noordman, Leo, and Jansen, Carel (2011). ‘Overspecification in written instruction’, Linguistics 49: 555–74. doi: 10.1515/LING.2011.017.Find this resource:

Arundale, Robert (2008). ‘Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction’, Intercultural Pragmatics 5: 229–58.Find this resource:

(p. 500) Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, D., and Busquets J. (2001). ‘Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity’, Journal of Semantics 18(1): 1–25.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex (2013). ‘Strategic conversation’, Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–62.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay D. and Stephen C. Levinson (1981). ‘It-clefts, informativeness’, in Peter Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Aylett, Matthew and Turk, Alice (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. doi: 10.1177/00238309040470010201.Find this resource:

Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. (2003). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1981a). ‘What’s in a name’, Australasion Journal of Philosophy 59: 371–86.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1981b). ‘Referential/attributive’, Synthese 49: 219–44.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1985/1986). ‘Failed reference and feigned reference: much ado about nothing’, Grazer Philosophische Studien 25: 359–74.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1992). ‘Intentions and demonstrations’, Analysis 52(3): 140–6.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1994). ‘Conversational impliciture’, Mind & Language 9(2): 124–62.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2002). ‘Giorgione was so-called because of his name’, Philosophical Perspectives 16: 73–103.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2004). ‘Descriptions: points of reference’, in Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout (eds), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 189–229.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (2013). ‘Replies to my critics’, Croatian Journal of Philosophy 38: 217–49.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert (1982). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Find this resource:

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Baget, J.-F. and Mugnier, M.-L. (2002). ‘Extensions of simple conceptual graphs: the complexity of rules and constraints’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16: 425–65.Find this resource:

Baggio, G., van Lambalgen, M., and Hagoort, P. (2008). ‘Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study’, Journal of Memory and Language 59: 36–53.Find this resource:

Baker, C. Leory (1966). unpublished. Definiteness and indefiniteness in English. MA thesis. Chicago, IL: University of Illionois.Find this resource:

Bakhtin, M. (1982). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Find this resource:

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Find this resource:

Bamberg, M. (1986). ‘A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships’, Linguistics 24: 227–84.Find this resource:

Banfield, A. (1973). ‘Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech’, Foundations of Language 10(1): 1–39.Find this resource:

Bangalore, S., Rambow, O., and Whittaker, S. (2000). ‘Evaluation metrics for generation’, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), 1–8, Mitzpe Ramon.Find this resource:

(p. 501) Barclay, M. (2010). Reference Object Choice in Spatial Language: Machine and Human Models. University of Exeter: Exeter.Find this resource:

Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Matthew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth, and Newlands, Alison (2000). ‘Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue’, Journal of Memory and Language 42(1): 1–22. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667.Find this resource:

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1971). Pragmatics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (1998). ‘Partitives, double genitives, and anti-uniqueness’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 679–717.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (2000). ‘Definite possessives and discourse novelty’, Theoretical Linguistics 26: 211–27.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris (2002). ‘Possessive weak definites’, in Ji-Yung Kim, Yury A. Lander, and Barbara H. Partee (eds), Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax. University of Massachusetts Working Papers in Linguistics 29. Amherst: Massachusetts: GLSA. 89–113.Find this resource:

Barkley, C., Kluender, R., and Kutas, M. (2015). ‘Referential processing in the human brain: an event-related potential (ERP) study’, Brain Research 1629: 143–59.Find this resource:

Barkley, C., Kluender, R., and Kutas, M. (in preparation). Elicitation of early negativity in sentence processing contexts depends on attentional efficiency.Find this resource:

Barlew, Jefferson (2015). ‘The deictic motion verb come, discourse centers, and the representation of mental states’, in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 2014.Find this resource:

Barwise, Jon and Cooper, R. (1981). ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.Find this resource:

Bassano, D., Maillochon, I., and Mottet, S. (2008). ‘Noun grammaticalization and determiner use in French children’s speech: A gradual development with prosodic and lexical influences’, Journal of Child Language 35: 403–38.Find this resource:

Bäuerle, R. (1983). ‘Pragmatischsemantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation’, in M. Faust, R. Harweg, W. Lehfeldt, and G. Wienold (eds), Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik, Tübingen: Narr, 121–31.Find this resource:

Beaumont, Ronald C. (1985). She Shashishalhem, the Sechelt Language: Language, Stories and Sayings of the Sechelt Indian People of British Columbia. Penticton, British Columbia: Theytus Books.Find this resource:

Beaver, D. (1997). ‘Presupposition’, in van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A. (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language, pages, North Holland, 939–1009.Find this resource:

Belz, Anja (2009). ‘That’s nice…what can you do with it? (last words)’, Computational Linguistics 35: 111–18.Find this resource:

Belz, Anja and A. Gatt (2008). ‘Intrinsic vs. extrinsic evaluation measures for referring expression generation’, in Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (acl). Columbus, OH.Find this resource:

Belz, Anja, E. Kow, J. Viethen, and A. Gatt (2008). ‘The GREC challenge 2008: overview and evaluation results’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), 183–91.Find this resource:

Belz, Anja, Eric Kow, Jette Viethen, and A. Gatt (2010). ‘Generating referring expressions in context: The GREC task evaluation challenges’, in Emiel Krahmer and Mariët Theune (eds), Empirical Methods in NLG, NLAI 5790 Methods in Natural Language, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 294–327. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15573-4_15.Find this resource:

Bennett-Kastor, T. (1983). ‘Noun phrases and coherence in child narratives’, Journal of Child Language 10: 135–49.Find this resource:

(p. 502) Benoit, P. J. (1982). ‘Formal coherence production in children’s discourse’, First Language 3, Part 3 9: 161–79.Find this resource:

Benthem, J. F. A. K. v. (1977). ‘Tense logic and standard logic’, Logique et Analyse 80: 395–437.Find this resource:

Berman, R. A. and Nir-Sagiv, B. (2004). ‘Linguistic indicators of inter-genre differentiation in later language development’, Journal of Child Language 31(2): 339–80.Find this resource:

Besson, M. and Macar, F. (1987). ‘An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts’, Psychophysiology 24: 14–25.Find this resource:

Beun, Robbert-Jan and Cremers, Anita H. M. (1998). ‘Object reference in a shared domain of conversation’, Pragmatics & Cognition 6(½): 121–52.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Andrea (ed.) (2015). On Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., and Myers, J. L. (2000). ‘Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing’, Discourse Processes 30: 285–304.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (1991). ‘Discourse entities and the referential/attributive distinction’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Wiley-Blackwell.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty and Gregory Ward (1994). ‘Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English’, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 93–102.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty and Gregory Ward (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bittner, D. (2007). ‘Early functions of definite determiners and DPs in German First Language Acquisition’, in E. Stark, E. Leiss, and W. Abraham (eds), Nominal Determination: Typology, Contrast, Constraints, and Historical Emergence (Vol. 89), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–40.Find this resource:

Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Auer, S., Becker, C., Cyganiak, R., and Hellmann, S. (2009). ‘Dbpedia - a crystallization point for the web of data’, Web Semantics: Science, Services, and Agents on the World Wide Web 7(3): 154–65.Find this resource:

Bloom, P. (1990). ‘Subjectless sentences in child language’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 491–504.Find this resource:

Bock, J. Kathryn and Irwin, David E. (1980). ‘Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19(4): 467–84. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90321-7.Find this resource:

Bock, J. Kathryn and Warren, Richard K. (1985). ‘Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation’, Cognition 21(1): 47–67. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X.Find this resource:

Bock, J. Kathryn, Irwin, David E., and Davidson, Douglas J. (2004). ‘Putting first things first’, in John M. Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira (eds), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action. Eye Movements and the Visual World, New York/Hove: Psychology Press, 249–78.Find this resource:

Boër, S. E. and Lycan, W. G. (1986). Knowing Who. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.Find this resource:

Bohnet, B. and Dale, R. (2005). ‘Viewing referring expression generation as search’, in Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 1004–9, Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Bolden, Galina (2003). ‘Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences’, Gesture 3: 187–212.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1980). Syntactic Diffusion and the Indefinite Article. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1986). Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Find this resource:

Borthen, Kaja (2003). Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Find this resource:

(p. 503) Borthen, Kaja (2007). ‘The distribution and interpretation of Norwegian “bare superlatives”’, Working papers Isk 4. Department of Languages and Communication Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 91–100.Find this resource:

Bosch, Peter (1983). Agreement and Anaphora: A Study of the Role of Pronouns in Syntax and Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Bosch, Peter and Umbach, C. (2007). ‘Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns’, in Dagmar Bittner and Natalia Gargarina (eds), Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft: Berlin, Germany, 39–51.Find this resource:

Bosch, Peter, Rozario, T., and Zhao, Y. (2003). ‘Demonstrative pronouns and personal pronouns. German der vs. er.’, Proceedings of the EACL2003. Budapest. Workshop on The Computational Treatment of Anaphora, Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.Find this resource:

Bouma, G. and Hopp, H. (2007). ‘Coreference preferences for personal pronouns in German’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48: 53–74.Find this resource:

Bowdle, Brian F. and Gregory Ward (1995). ‘Generic demonstratives’, Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 32–43.Find this resource:

Bozickovic, Vojislav (2001). ‘The Semantic insignificance of referential intentions’, Grazer Philosophische Studien 62: 125–35.Find this resource:

Brachman, R. J. and Schmolze, J. G. (1985). ‘An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system’, Cognitive Science 9(2): 171–216.Find this resource:

Branigan, Holly P. and Feleki, Eleonora (1999). ‘Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek speech production’, in M. Hahn and S. C. Stoness (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 96–101.Find this resource:

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., and Tanaka, Mikihiro (2008). ‘Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production’, Lingua 118(2): 172–89. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003.Find this resource:

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., and McLean, J. F. (2010). ‘Linguistic alignment between people and computers’, Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2355–68.Find this resource:

Bratman, Michael (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Bratman, Michael (1990). ‘What is intention?’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 15–31.Find this resource:

Bratman, Michael (1999). ‘I Intend that we J’, in M. Bratman, Faces of Intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142–61.Find this resource:

Braun, David (1993). ‘Empty names’, Noûs 27: 449–69.Find this resource:

Braun, David (1995). ‘Katz on Names Without Bearers’, Philosophical Review 104: 553–75.Find this resource:

Braun, David (2005). ‘Empty names, fictional names, mythical names’, Noûs 39(4): 596–631.Find this resource:

Braun, David (2012). ‘Indexicals’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Stanford, California. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/indexicals/>.Find this resource:

Breheny, R. (2003). ‘A lexical account of implicit (bound) contextual dependence’, in R. B. Young and Y. Zhou (eds), Proceedings of SALT XIII, CLC Publications: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 55–72.Find this resource:

Brennan, Susan E. (1995). ‘Centering attention in discourse’, Language and Cognitive Processes 10(2): 137–67. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407091.Find this resource:

Brennan, Susan E. and Clark, H. H. (1996). ‘Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 22(6): 1482–93.Find this resource:

(p. 504) Brennan, Susan E., Friedman, M. A., and Pollard, C. J. (1987). ‘A centering approach to pronouns’, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 155–62.Find this resource:

Brogaard, B. (2007). ‘Descriptions: predicates or quantifiers?’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85: 117–36.Find this resource:

Brogaard, B. (Forthcoming). ‘An Empirically Informed Cognitive Theory of Propositions’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.Find this resource:

Bromberger, Sylvain and Halle, Morris (1997). ‘The Contents of phonological signs: a comparison between their use in derivational theories and in optimality theories’, in I. Roca (ed.), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93–123.Find this resource:

Brown, Gillian (1995). Speakers, Listeners, and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Brown-Schmidt, Sarah and Tanenhaus, Michael K. (2006). ‘Watching the eyes when talking about size: an investigation of message formulation and utterance planning’, Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 592–609. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.008.Find this resource:

Brown-Schmidt, Sarah and Tanenhaus, Michael K. (2008). Real-Time Investigation of Referential Domains in Unscripted Conversation: A Targeted Language Game Approach, Cognitive Science, Vol. 32, Elsevier: New York, New York. doi: 10.1080/03640210802066816.Find this resource:

Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Byron, D. K, and Tanenhaus, M. (2005). ‘Beyond salience: interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns’, Journal of Memory and Language 53: 292–313.Find this resource:

Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Christine Gunlogson, and Michael Tanenhaus (2008). ‘Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation’, Cognition 107: 1122–34.Find this resource:

Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s Talk; Learning to use Language. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Find this resource:

Bruner, J. S. (1984). ‘Contexts & formats’, in M. Moscato and G. Piérault-Le Bonniec (eds), Le langage. Construction et Actualisation, Rouen: Université de Rouen, 69–79.Find this resource:

Brunetti, Lisa (2009). ‘On the semantic and contextual factors that determine topic selection in Italian and Spanish’, The Linguistic Review 26(2–3): 261–89. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2009.010.Find this resource:

Burge, T. 1973. ‘Reference and proper names’, Journal of Philosophy 70: 425–39.Find this resource:

Büring, D. (2004). ‘Crossover situations’, Natural Language Semantics 12(1): 23–62.Find this resource:

Büring, D. (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Find this resource:

Burkhardt, P. (2006). ‘Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: evidence from event-related brain potentials’, Brain and Language 98: 159–68.Find this resource:

Burton-Roberts, N. (1989). The Limits to Debate. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Buschmeier, H., Bergmann, K., and Kopp, S. (2009). ‘An alignment-capable microplanner for natural language generation’, in Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 82–9.Find this resource:

Cable, S. (2011). ‘A new argument for lexical decomposition: transparent readings of verbs’, Linguistic Inquiry 42(1): 131–8. URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/linguistic inquiry/v042/42.1.cable.html.Find this resource:

Callahan, S. M. (2008). ‘Processing anaphoric constructions: insights from electrophysiological studies’, Journal of Neurolinguistics 21: 231–66.Find this resource:

Callaway, Charles B. and Lester, James C. (2002). ‘Pronominalization in generated discourse and dialogue’, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 88–95. doi: 10.3115/1073083.1073100.Find this resource:

(p. 505) Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. V. M., and Tomasello, M. (2003). ‘A construction based analysis of child directed speech’, Cognitive Science 27: 843–73.Find this resource:

Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P., and Tomasello, M. (2000). ‘Factors affecting young children’s use of pronouns as referring expressions’, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43: 1337–49.Find this resource:

Campbell, John (2002). Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Candlish, Stewart and Wrisley, George (2014). ‘Private language’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2014 edition, The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Stanford California. Accessed at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/private-language/Find this resource:

Caplan, B. (2004). ‘Creatures of fiction, myth, and imagination’, American Philosophical Quarterly 41: 331–7.Find this resource:

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., and Waters, G. (1998). ‘Effect of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 541–52.Find this resource:

Capuano, Antonio (2012). ‘From having in mind to direct reference’, in W. P. Kabasenche, M. O’Rourke, and M. H. Slater (eds), Reference and Referring, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 189–208.Find this resource:

Carenini, G. and D. Moore (2001). ‘An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness.’ In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle WA, 1307–14.Find this resource:

Carlson, Greg N. (1980). Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing.Find this resource:

Carminati, M. N. (2002). The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (1991). ‘Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics’, in S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader, New York: Oxford University Press, 33–51.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: the Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. London, Blackwell.Find this resource:

Cartwright, R. (1960). ‘Negative existentials’, Journal of Philosophy 57: 629–39.Find this resource:

Castañeda, H. (1967). ‘Indicators and quali-indicators’, American Philosophical Quarterly 4: 85–100.Find this resource:

Chafe, W. (1976). ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 25–56.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1987). ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow,’ in Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding Discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–51.Find this resource:

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Chai, J., Hong, P., and Zhou, M. X. (2004). ‘A probabilistic approach to 35 reference resolution in multimodal user interfaces’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 70–7.Find this resource:

Chai, J., Prasov, Z., and Qu, S. (2006). ‘Cognitive principles in robust multimodal interpretation’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 27: 55–83.Find this resource:

Chai, J., She, L., Fang, R., Ottarson, S., Littley, C., Liu, C., et al. (2014). ‘Collaborative effort towards common ground in situated human–robot dialogue’, in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 33–40).Find this resource:

(p. 506) Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M., and Magnuson, J. (2004). ‘Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(3): 687.Find this resource:

Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K, Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., and Carlson, G. N. (2002). ‘Circumscribing referential domains in real-time sentence comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 47: 30–49.Find this resource:

Chantree, F., Kilgarriff, A., de Roeck, A., and Willis, A. (2005). ‘Disambiguating coordinations using word distribution information’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (ranlp). Borovets, Bulgaria.Find this resource:

Charolles, M. (2002). La Référence et Les Expressions Référentielles En Français. Paris: Ophrys.Find this resource:

Chastain, Charles (1975). ‘Reference and context’, in Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 7: Language Mind and Knowledge, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 194–269.Find this resource:

Chenu, F., Jisa, H., and Mazur-Palandre, A. (2012). ‘Développement de la connectivité syntaxique à travers deux types de textes à l’oral et à l’écrit’, Paper presented at the SHS Web of Conferences : Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF 2012.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (1990). ‘Anaphora and attitudes de se’, in R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and van Emde Boas, (eds), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris, 1–32.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2001). ‘A puzzle about indefinites’, in C. Checchetto and G. Chierchia (eds), Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora, and Aspect. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 51–89.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2005). ‘Definites, ocality, and intentional identity’, in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 143–77.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro and Mats Rooth (1984). ‘Configurational notions in Discourse Representation Theory’, in Charles Jones and Peter Sells (eds) Proceedings of NELS 14, Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Find this resource:

Chiriacescu, Sofiana Iulia (2011). ‘Effects of reference form on frequency of mention and rate of pronominalization’, in I. Hendricks, S. L. Davi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov (eds), Anaphora Processing and Applications, 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC, Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 132–43.Find this resource:

Chiriacescu, Sofiana (2014). The discourse structuring potential of indefinite noun phrases. Special markers in Romanian, German, and English. PhD dissertation. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Find this resource:

Chiriacescu, Sofiana and Klaus von Heusinger (2010). ‘Discourse prominence and pe-marking in Romanian’, International Review of Pragmatics 2(2): 298–332.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–216.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Binding and Government. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Find this resource:

Christianson, Kiel and Ferreira, Fernanda (2005). ‘Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa)’, Cognition 98(2): 105–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006.Find this resource:

Christophersen, Paul (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Find this resource:

Chung, I., Propp, O., Walter, M. R., and Howard, T. M. (2015). ‘On the performance of hierarchical distributed correspondence graphs for efficient symbol grounding of robot (p. 507) instructions’, in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 5247–52).Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra and Ladusaw, William (2004). Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Clancy, P. (1997). ‘Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition’, in H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol. 6), Standford: CSLI, 639–57.Find this resource:

Clancy, P. (2004). ‘The discourse basis of constructions: some evidence from Korean acquisition’, Paper presented at the 32nd Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Standford.Find this resource:

Clapp, L. (2009). ‘The problem of negative existentials does not exist: a case for dynamic semantics’, Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1422–34.Find this resource:

Clark, Andy (2014). Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, E. V. (2014). ‘Pragmatics in acquisition’, Journal of Child Language 41: 105–16. doi: 10.1017/S0305000914000117.Find this resource:

Clark, E. V. and Bernicot, J. (2008). ‘Repetition as ratification: how parents and children place information in common ground’, Journal of Child Language 35(2): 349–71.Find this resource:

Clark, E. V. and Sengul, C. (1978). ‘Strategies in the acquisition of deixis’, Journal of Child Language 5(3): 457–75.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. (1975). ‘Bridging’, in R.C. Schank and B.L. Nash-Webber (eds) Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York. Reprinted in P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wasow (eds) (1977)Thinking. Cambridge University Press, 411–420.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. (2005). ‘Coordinating with each other in a material world’, Discourse Studies 7: 507–25.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Bangerter, A. (2004). ‘Changing ideas about reference’, in I. A. Noveck and D. Sperber (eds), Experimental Pragmatics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 25–49.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Haviland, S. E. (1977). ‘Comprehension and the given-new contract’, in R. O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension, Erlbaum, 1–40.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Henetz, Tania (2014). ‘Working together’, in T. Holtgraves (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 85–97.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. (1981). ‘Definite reference and mutual knowledge’, in A. K. Joshi et al. (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press, 10–63.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Murphy, G. (1983). ‘Audience design in meaning and reference’, in J. F. L. Ny and W. Kintsch (eds), Language and Comprehension, North Holland, 287–99.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H., and Sengul, C. J. (1979). ‘In search of referents for nouns and pronouns’, Memory & Cognition 7: 1, 35–41. doi: 10.3758/BF03196932.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986). ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition 22(1): 1–39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1990). ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 463–93.Find this resource:

Clark, H. H., Schreuder, Robert, and Buttrick, Samuel (1983). ‘Common ground at the understanding of demonstrative reference’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 245–58. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90189-5.Find this resource:

Clarke, A., Elsner, M., and Rohde, H. (2013). ‘Where’s wally: the influence of visual salience on referring expression generation’, Frontiers in Psychology 4(329).Find this resource:

(p. 508) Coco, Moreno I. and Keller, Frank (2009). ‘The impact of visual information on reference assignment in sentence production’, in Niels A. Taatgen and Hedderik van Rijn (eds), 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 274–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01246.x.Find this resource:

Coco, Moreno I. and Keller, Frank (2010). ‘Sentence production in naturalistic scenes with referential ambiguity’, in S. Ohlsson and R. Catrambone (eds), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, The Cognitive Science Society, Inc., Austin, Texas, 1070–5.Find this resource:

Coene, M. (2006). ‘On the acquisition of the indefinite article: a cross-linguistic study of French, Italian, Romanian, and Spanish child speech’, in S. Vogeleer (ed.), Bare Plurals, Indefinites, and Weak–Strong Distinction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–46.Find this resource:

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1985). ‘Speech acts and rationality’, in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguists (acl), 49–60, Chicago, Illinois.Find this resource:

Çokal, D., Sturt, P., and Ferreira, F. (2016). ‘Processing of it and this in written narrative discourse’, Discourse Processes, Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1236231.Find this resource:

Colonna, S., Schimke, S., and Hemforth, B. (2010). ‘Le rôle de la structure informationnelle dans l’interprétation d’une anaphore pronominale inter-phrastique en français’, in F. Neveu, Muni Toke V., Durand J., Klingler T., Mondada L., and Prévost S. (eds), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Paris, France, 1489–99.Find this resource:

Comrie, B. (1997). ‘Pragmatic binding: demonstratives as anaphors’ [in Dutch], in M. L. Juge and J. L. Moxley (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 50–61.Find this resource:

Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Coulson, S., King, J., and Kutas, M. (1998a). ‘Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations’, Language and Cognitive Processes 13(1): 21–58.Find this resource:

Coulson, S., King, J., and Kutas, M. (1998b). ‘ERPs and domain specificity: beating a straw horse’, Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 653–72.Find this resource:

Cowan, N. (1998). Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework. Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cowart, W. and Cairns, H. (1987). ‘Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints’, Memory & Cognition 15: 318–31.Find this resource:

Cowles, H. W. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production. PhD dissertation, UCSD, San Diego, CA.Find this resource:

Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., and Kluender, R. (2007). ‘Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, constrastive focus, and pronouns’, Topoi 26: 3–18.Find this resource:

Crawley, R. J. and Stevenson, R. J. (1990). ‘Reference in single sentences and in texts’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19(3): 191–210.Find this resource:

Cresswell, M. J. (1973). Logics and Languages. London: Methuen.Find this resource:

Cresswell, M. J. (1990). Entities and Indices. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Find this resource:

Cresti, Diana (1995). ‘Extraction and reconstruction’, Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122.Find this resource:

Croitoru, M. and van Deemter, K. (2007). ‘A conceptual graph approach to the generation of referring expressions’ in Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2456–61, Hyderabad, India.Find this resource:

Culy, C. (1994). ‘Aspects of logophoric marking’, Linguistics 32: 1055–94.Find this resource:

(p. 509) Cumming, Samuel (2008). ‘Variabilism’, Philosophical Review 117(4): 525–54.Find this resource:

Cumming, Samuel (2013). ‘Names’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Find this resource:

Dahl, Deborah A. (1984). ‘Recognizing specific attributes’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.Find this resource:

Dahl, Deborah A. (1986). ‘Focusing and reference resolution in Pundit’, paper presented at AAAI-86, Philadelphia.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen and Fraurud, Kari (1996). ‘Animacy in grammar and discourse’, in Thorstein Fretheim and Jeanette Gundel (eds), Reference and Referent Accessibility, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 46–64.Find this resource:

Dale, R. (1989). ‘Cooking up referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 68–75.Find this resource:

Dale, R. (1992). Generating Referring Expressions: Constructing Descriptions in a Domain of Objects and Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Find this resource:

Dale, R. and Haddock, N. (1991). ‘Generating referring expressions involving relations’, in Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguists (EACL), 161–6, Berlin.Find this resource:

Dale, R. and Reiter, E. (1995). ‘Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions’, Cognitive Science 19(2): 233–63.Find this resource:

Dale, R. and Viethen, J. (2010). ‘Attribute-centric referring expression generation’, in E. Krahmer and M. Theune (eds), Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 163–79.Find this resource:

Davey, A. (1974). The Formalisation of Discourse Production. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.Find this resource:

Davidson, D. (1967). ‘Truth and meaning’, Synthese 17: 304–23.Find this resource:

De Cat, C. (2004a). ‘Early “pragmatic” competence and the null subject phenomenon’, in R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, and P. Sleeman (eds), Romance Language and Linguistic Theory 2002. Selected Papers from Going Romance 2002, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–32.Find this resource:

De Cat, C. (2004b). ‘A fresh look at how young children encode new referents’, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42: 111–27.Find this resource:

De Cat, C. (2013). ‘Egocentric definiteness errors and perspective evaluation in preschool children’, Journal of Pragmatics, 56: 58–69.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen (1995). ‘On the characterization of the weak–strong distinction’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee (eds), Quantifcation in Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 421–50.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen (2003). ‘On the interpretation of stressed pronouns’, in M. Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Sinn und Bedeutung conference, Germany: Universität Konstanz, 159–72.Find this resource:

de la Fuente, I. and Hemforth, B. (2013). ‘Effects of clefting and left-dislocation on subject and object pronoun resolution in Spanish’, in J. Cabrelli Amaro et al. (eds), Selected Proceedings for the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 27–45.Find this resource:

de Weck, G. (1991). La cohésion dans les textes d’enfants. Etude du développement des processus anaphoriques. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Find this resource:

de Weck, G. and Jullien, S. (2013). ‘How do French-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment first mention a referent in storytelling? Between reference and grammar’, Journal of Pragmatics, 56: 70–87.Find this resource:

(p. 510) de Weck, G., Heurdier, Hassan, J., Klein, J., and Nashawati, S. (submitted). ‘Activities, contexts, and the construction of reference’, in A. Salazar Orvig, G. de Weck, R. Hassan, and A. Rialland (eds), The Acquisition of Referring Expressions: a Dialogic Approach.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose (2013). ‘Nez Perze embedded indexicals’, in Proceedings of SULA7. Amherst: GLSA.Find this resource:

Dechaine, Rose-Marie and Mireille Tremblay (2011). ‘Deriving nominal reference’, paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), Department of Linguistics, University of California, Fresno, California. http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/linguistics/wecolproceedings.htmlFind this resource:

Deichsel, Annika (2013). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Indefinite Demonstrative Dieser in German. PhD dissertation. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Find this resource:

Deichsel, Annika and von Heusinger, Klaus (2011). ‘The cataphoric potential of indefinites in German’, in I. Hendrickx, S. Lalitha Devi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov (eds), Anaphora and Reference Resolution. 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2011 Faro, Portugal, 6–7 October 2011, Revised Selected Papers. Heidelberg: Springer, 144–56.Find this resource:

Dekker, Paul (2002). ‘Meaning and use of indefinite expressions’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 11: 141–94.Find this resource:

Dekker, Paul (2004). ‘The pragmatic dimension of indefinites’, Research on Language and Computation 2: 365–99.Find this resource:

Demuth, K. and McCullough, E. (2009). ‘The prosodic (re)organization of children’s early English articles’, Journal of Child Language 36: 173–200.Find this resource:

Denis, A. (2010). ‘Generating referring expressions with reference domain theory’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG). Trim, Ireland.Find this resource:

DeVault, D., Rich, C., and Sidner, C. L. (2004). ‘Natural language generation and discourse context: Computing distractor sets from the focus stack’, in Proceedings of the 17th International Meeting of the Orida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (AIRS). Miami Beach.Find this resource:

Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P. W., Thomason, R. H., and Moore, J. D. (2000). ‘The agreement process: an empirical investigation of human–human computer-mediated collaborative dialogs’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53: 1017–76.Find this resource:

Dice, L. R. (1945). ‘Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species’, Ecology, 26, 297–302.Find this resource:

Dickson, W. Patrick (1982). ‘Two decades of referential communication research: a review and meta-analysis’, in C. Brainerd and M. Pressley (eds), Verbal Processes in Children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1–33.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Diessel, Holger (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Diessel, Holger (2012). ‘Deixis and demonstratives’, in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 3 (HSK 33.3), Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 2407–31 [Chapter 90].Find this resource:

Dikker, S. and Pylkkänen, L. (2011). ‘Before the N400: effects of lexico-semantic violations in visual cortex’, Brain and Language 118(1–2): 23–8.Find this resource:

Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T., and Pylkkänen, L. (2010). ‘Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality’, Psychological Science 21(5): 629–34.Find this resource:

Doddington, G. (2002). ‘Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram co-occurrence statistics’, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human Language Technology Research (HLT), 138–45.Find this resource:

(p. 511) Donchin, E. and Coles, M. (1988). ‘Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(3): 357–74.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith (1966). ‘Reference and definite descriptions’, Philosophical Review 76: 281–304.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith S. (1968). ‘Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again’, The Philosophical Review 77(2): 203–15.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith S. (1970). ‘Proper names and identifying descriptions’, Synthese 21: 335–58.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith (1974). ‘Speaking of nothing’, Philosophical Review 83: 3–31.Find this resource:

Donnellan, Keith S. (1979). ‘Speaker reference, descriptions, and anaphora’, in P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, Jr., and H. K. Wettstein (eds), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 28–44.Find this resource:

Doran, Ryan and Gregory Ward (2015). ‘Proximal demonstratives in predicate NPs’, Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 61–70.Find this resource:

Doran, Ryan, and Gregory Ward (in preparation). Bridging demonstratives.Find this resource:

Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Dressler, W. U., Kilani-Schoch, M., and Klampfer, S. (2003). ‘How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production’, in W. Bisang, H. H. Hock, and W. Winter (eds), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs: Vol. 151, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 391–425.Find this resource:

Dretske, Fred (1991). Explaining Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (1980). ‘Beyond definiteness: the trace of identity in discourse’, in Wallace L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 203–74.Find this resource:

Duan, Manjuan, Elsner, Micha, and de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine (2013). ‘Visual and linguistic predictors for the definiteness of referring expressions’, Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial).Find this resource:

Dutilh Novaes, C. (2003). ‘A medieval reformulation of the de dicto/de re distinction’, in Libor Behounek (ed.), Logica Yearbook, College Publications: London, 111–24. URL: http://sta_.science.uva.nl/dutilh/articles/A%20Medieval%20Reformulation%20of%20the%20de%20Dicto%.Find this resource:

Duvallet, F., Walter, M. R., Howard, T., Hemachandra, S., Oh, J., Teller, S., et al. (2014). ‘Inferring maps and behaviors from natural language instructions’, in Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, 373–88).Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (2002). The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). ‘Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6): 409–36.Find this resource:

Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert, and Stefan Hinterwimmer (2013). ‘The interpretation of the German specificity markers bestimmt and gewiss’, in C. Ebert and S. Hinterwimmer (eds), Different Kinds of Specificity across Languages (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 92). Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer, 31–74.Find this resource:

Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Endriss, and Stefan Hinterwimmer (2009). ‘Embedding topic-comment structures results in intermediate scope readings’, in A. Schardl, M. Walkow, and M. Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of North Eastern Society of Linguistics (=NELS) 38. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 246–58.Find this resource:

Ebert, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan (eds) (2012). Different Kinds of Specificity across Languages. Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:

Egli, Urs and von Heusinger, Klaus (1995). ‘The epsilon operator and e-type pronouns’, in U. Egli, P. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow, and G. Wienold (eds), Lexical Knowledge (p. 512) in the Organization of Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 121–41.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2005). Situations and Individuals. MIT Press.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2008). ‘Demonstratives as individual concepts’, Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–66.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul D. (2013). Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Ellert, M. (2013). ‘Information structure affects the resolution of the subject pronouns er and der in spoken German discourse’, Discours 12: doi: 10.4000/discours.8756.Find this resource:

Emslie, H. C. and Stevenson, R. J. (1981). ‘Pre-school children’s use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring expressions’, Journal of Child Language 8: 313–28.Find this resource:

Enç, Mürvet (1986). ‘Toward a referential analysis of temporal expressions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–26.Find this resource:

Enç, Mürvet (1991). ‘The semantics of specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Find this resource:

Endriss, Cornelia (2009). Quantificational Topics. A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:

Enfield, N. J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Engelhardt, Paul E., Bailey, Karl G. D., and Ferreira, Fernanda (2006). ‘Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity?’, Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 554–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009.Find this resource:

Engonopoulos, N., Villalba, M., Titov, I., and Koller, A. (2013). ‘Predicting the resolution of referring expressions from user behavior’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Short Papers, Seattle.Find this resource:

Enqi, Morvet. (1991). ‘The semantics of specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry (22): 1–25.Find this resource:

Epley, Nicholas, Carey Morewedge, and Boaz Keysar (2004). ‘Perspective taking in children and adults: equivalent egocentrism but differential correction’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40: 760–68.Find this resource:

Erkü, Feride and Gundel, Jeanette K. (1987). ‘The pragmatics of indirect anaphors’, in Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli, M. (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 533–45.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1977). ‘Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I)’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1980). ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–62.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1982). Varieties of Reference. [published posthumously, edited by John McDowell] Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1973/1985). ‘The causal theory of names’, in Collected Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–24.Find this resource:

Everett, A. (2003). ‘Empty names and ‘gappy’ propositions’, Philosophical Studies 11(6): 1–36.Find this resource:

Everett, A. (2007). ‘Pretense, existence, and fictional objects’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 56–80.Find this resource:

Fang, R., Doering, M., and Chai, J. Y. (2014). ‘Collaborative models for referring expression generation in situated dialogue’, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI14), Quebec City.Find this resource:

Fang, R., Liu, C., and Chai, J. (2012). ‘Integrating word acquisition and referential grounding towards physical world interaction’, in Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 109–16.Find this resource:

(p. 513) Fano, R. (1961). Transmission of Information: A Statistical Theory of Communications. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka (1981). ‘Quantifier scope and syntactic islands’, in R. Hendrick, C. Masek, and M. F. Miller (eds), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society (=CLS) 17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 59–66.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka (1994). ‘Specificity and scope’, in L. Nash, and G. Tsoulas (eds), Actes du Premier Colloque Langues & Grammaire 1. Paris: Université Paris-8, 119–37.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka (2002). ‘Specificity distinction’, Journal of Semantics 19: 213–43.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka and von Heusinger, Klaus (2003). Stability of Reference and Object Marking in Romanian. Ms. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Find this resource:

Fasola, J. and Matarić, M. J. (2013). ‘Using semantic fields to model dynamic spatial relations in a robot architecture for natural language instruction of service robots’, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 143–50.Find this resource:

Fasola, J. and Matarić, M. J. (2014). ‘Interpreting instruction sequences in spatial language discourse with pragmatics towards natural human–robot interaction’, in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2720–7.Find this resource:

Fedele, E. (2016). Discourse Level Processing and Pronoun Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California.Find this resource:

Fedele, E. and Kaiser, E. (2014). ‘Looking back and looking forward: anaphora and cataphora in Italian’, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 20: 81–90.Find this resource:

Felser, C., Clahsen, H., and Münte, T. (2003). ‘Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: an ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German’, Brain and Language 87(3): 345–54.Find this resource:

Ferreira, F. (1994). ‘Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy’, Journal of Memory and Language 33(6): 715–36.Find this resource:

Ferreira, F. (2002). ‘The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences’, Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Find this resource:

Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., and Ferraro, V. (2002). ‘Good-enough representations in language comprehension’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 11–15.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Victor S. and Yoshita, Hiromi (2003). ‘Given-new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(6): 669–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1026146332132.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Victor S., Slevc, L. Robert, and Rogers, Erin S. (2005). ‘How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?’, Cognition 96(3): 263–84. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002.Find this resource:

Ferstl, E. C., Garnham, A., and Manouilidou, C. (2011). ‘Implicit causality bias in English: a corpus of 300 verbs’, Behavior Research Methods 43(1): 124–35.Find this resource:

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., and Friederici, A. D. (2002). ‘Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs: the processing of German wh-questions’, Journal of Memory and Language 47(2): 250–72.Find this resource:

Filiaci, F. (2010). ‘Null and overt subject biases in Spanish and Italian: a cross-linguistic comparison’, in C. Borgonovo et al. (eds), Selected Proceedings for the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 171–82.Find this resource:

Filiaci, F., Sorace, A., and Carreiras, M. (2013). ‘Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: a cross-linguistic comparison’, Language and Cognitive Processes 29(7): 825–43.Find this resource:

Fillmore, C. J. (1967). On the Syntax of Preverbs, Glossa Vol 1, 91–125. New York: Glossa Society.Find this resource:

(p. 514) Fillmore, Charles J. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). ‘Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis’, in R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein, Speech, Place, and Action, Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 31–59.Find this resource:

Fine, K. (1982). ‘The problem of non-existents. I. Internalism’, Topoi 1: 97–140.Find this resource:

FitzGerald, N., Artzi, Y., and Zettlemoyer, L. (2013). ‘Learning distributions over logical forms for referring expression generation’, in Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1914–25, Seattle, Washington.Find this resource:

Flores d’Arcais, Giovanni B. (1975). ‘Some perceptual determinants of sentence construction’, in G. B. Flores d’Arcais (ed.), Studies in Perception: Festschrift for Fabio Metelli, Milan, Italy: Martello-Guinti, 344–73.Find this resource:

Fludernik, M. (1993). The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Fodor, J. (1970). The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet (1976). The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. PhD dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Linguistic Club.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet Dean and Sag, Ivan A. (1982). ‘Referential and quantificational indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–98.Find this resource:

Fodor, Jerry (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Foraker, Stephani and McElree, Brian (2007). ‘The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: active versus passive representations’, Journal of Memory and Language 56: 357–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004.Find this resource:

Ford, W. and Olson, D. (1975). ‘The elaboration of the noun phrase in children’s object descriptions’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 19: 371–82.Find this resource:

Fossard, Marion, Garnham, Alan, and Cowles, H. Wind (2012). ‘Between anaphora and deixis…the resolution of the demonstrative noun phrase “that N”’, Language and Cognitive Processes 27(9): 1385–404.Find this resource:

Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Fox, Barbara (1987). ‘Interactional reconstruction in real-time language processing’, Cognitive Science 11: 365–87.Find this resource:

François, F. (1984). ‘Problèmes et esquisse méthodologique’, in F. François, C. Hudelot, and E. Sabeau-Jouannet, Conduites Linguistiques chez le Jeune Enfant, Paris: PUF, 13–116.Find this resource:

Frank, M. and Goodman, N. (2012). ‘Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games’, Science 336(6084): 998.Find this resource:

Franke, M. and Degen, J. (2016). ‘Reasoning in reference games: individual vs. population-level probabilistic modeling’, PLoS ONE 11(5): 1–25.Find this resource:

Fraurud, Kari (1990). ‘Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse’, Journal of Semantics 7: 395–433.Find this resource:

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildeten Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Nebert.Find this resource:

Frege, G. (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. [Translated as ‘On Sense and Reference’ in Geach and Black (1952: 56–8)].Find this resource:

Frege, G. (1980). The Foundations of Arithmetic. [Translated by J. L. Austin] Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 515) Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., and Gobet, F. (2007). ‘Understanding the developmental dynamics of subject omission: The role of processing limitations in learning’, Journal of Child Language 34(1): 83.Find this resource:

Friederici, A. D. (2002). ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2): 78–84.Find this resource:

Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., and Hahne, A. (1993). ‘Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations’, Cognitive Brain Research 1(3): 183–92.Find this resource:

Fukumura, K., Hyönä, J., and 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(4): 1012–21.Find this resource:

Fukumura, Kumiko and van Gompel, Roger P. G. (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.Find this resource:

Fukumura, Kumiko and van Gompel, Roger P. G. (2011). ‘The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10): 1472–504. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.506444.Find this resource:

Fukumura, K. and 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.Find this resource:

Fukumura, Kumiko, Hyönä, Jukka, and Scholfield, Merete (2013). ‘Gender affects semantic competition: the effect of gender in a non-gender-marking language’, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition 39: 4, 1012–1021. doi: 10.1037/a0031215.Find this resource:

Fukumura, Kumiko, van Gompel, Roger P. G., and Pickering, Martin J. (2010). ‘The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006) 63(9): 1700–15. doi: 10.1080/17470210903490969.Find this resource:

Fukumura, Kumiko, van Gompel, Roger P. G., Harley, Trevor, and Pickering, Martin J. (2011). ‘How does similarity-based interference affect the choice of referring expression?’, Journal of Memory and Language 65(3): 331–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.001.Find this resource:

Fuller, Judith and Gundel, Jeanette K. (1987). ‘Topic prominence in inter-language’, Language Learning 37: 1–17.Find this resource:

Galati, Alexia and Brennan, Susan E. (2010). ‘Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee?’, Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 35–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002.Find this resource:

Gardent, C. (2002). ‘Generating minimal definite descriptions’, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 96–103, Philadelphia.Find this resource:

Gardent, C. and Striegnitz, K. (2007). ‘Generating bridging definite descriptions’, in H. Bunt and R. Muskens (eds), Computing Meaning [Volume 3], Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Publishers, 369–96.Find this resource:

Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman.Find this resource:

Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Find this resource:

Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., and Cruttenden, H. (1992). ‘The role of implicit causality and gender cue on the interpretation of pronouns’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 231–255.Find this resource:

(p. 516) Garoufi, K. and Koller, A. (2011). ‘Combining symbolic and corpus-based approaches for the generation of successful referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 13th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG). Nancy, France.Find this resource:

Garoufi, K. and Koller, A. (2014). ‘Generation of effective referring expressions in situated context’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(8): 986–1001.Find this resource:

Garoufi, K., Staudte, M., Koller, A., and Crocker, M. (2015). ‘Exploiting listener gaze to improve situated communication in dynamic virtual environments’, Cognitive Science 40(7): 1671–703.Find this resource:

Garrod, S. C. and Sanford, A. J. (1982). ‘The mental representation of discourse in focussed memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases’, Journal of Semantics 1: 21–41.Find this resource:

Garrod, S. and Sanford, A. J. (1988). ‘Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure’, Journal of Pragmatics 12: 357–72.Find this resource:

Garrod, S. and Terras, M. (2000). ‘The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: bonding and resolution’, Journal of Memory and Language 42: 526–44.Find this resource:

Garvey, C. and Caramazza, A. (1974). ‘Implicit causality in verbs’, Linguistic Inquiry 5(3): 459–64.Find this resource:

Gatt, A. (2007). Generating Coherent References to Multiple Entities. University of Aberdeen: Unpublished PhD thesis.Find this resource:

Gatt, A. and Belz, A. (2010). ‘Introducing shared task evaluation to NLG: The TUNA shared task evaluation challenges’, in E. Krahmer and M. Theune (eds), Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 264–93.Find this resource:

Gatt, A. and Krahmer, E. (2017). ‘Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation’, in press.Find this resource:

Gatt, A. and van Deemter, K. (2007). ‘Lexical choice and conceptual perspective in the generation of plural referring expressions’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16: 423–43.Find this resource:

Gatt, A., Belz, A., and Kow, E. (2008). ‘The TUNA challenge 2008: Overview and evaluation results’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG). Salt Fork, Ohio.Find this resource:

Gatt, A., Belz, A., and Kow, E. (2009). ‘The TUNA-REG challenge 2009: Overview and evaluation results’, in Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 174–82, Athens, Greece.Find this resource:

Gatt, A., Krahmer, E., and Goudbeek, M. (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), 2627–32, Boston, Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Gatt, A., van der Sluis, I., and van Deemter, K. (2007). ‘Evaluating algorithms for the generation of referring expressions using a balanced corpus’, in Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 49–56, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds) (1952). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Find this resource:

Geach, Peter (1962). Reference and Generality. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Find this resource:

(p. 517) Geach, P. T. (1967). ‘Intentional identity’, Journal of Philosophy 64: 627–32.Find this resource:

Gelormini-Lezama, C. and A. Almor (2011). ‘Repeated ames, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3): 437–54.Find this resource:

Geng, L. and Hamilton, H. (2006). ‘Interestingness measures for data mining: a survey’, ACM Computing Surveys 38(3): 1–32.Find this resource:

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). ‘Mechanisms that improve referential access’, Cognition 32: 99–156.Find this resource:

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Hargreaves, David J. (1988). ‘Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention’, Journal of Memory and Language 27(6): 699–717.Find this resource:

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Shroyer, Suzanne (1989). ‘The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives’, Memory & Cognition 17(5): 536–40.Find this resource:

Gibson, E. (1998). ‘Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies’, Cognition 68(1): 1–76.Find this resource:

Gibson, E. (2000). ‘Dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity’, in A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, and W. O’Neil (eds), Image, Language, Brain. Boston: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Gillon, Carrie (2006). The Semantics of Determiners: Domain Restriction in Skwxwu7mesh. PhD Dissertation. University of British Columbia.Find this resource:

Girbau, Dolors (2001). ‘Children’s referential communication failure: the ambiguity and abbreviation of message’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20: 81–9.Find this resource:

Girouard, P. C., Ricard, M., and Gouin Decarie, T. (1997). ‘The acquisition of personal pronouns in French-speaking and English-speaking children’, Journal of Child Language 24: 311–26.Find this resource:

Giuliani, M., Foster, M. E., Isard, A., Matheson, C., Oberlander, J., and Knoll, A. (2010). ‘Situated reference in a hybrid human–robot interaction system’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), 67–76.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1976). ‘Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, London: Academic Press, 149–88.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (ed.) (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1988). ‘The pragmatics of word order: predictability, importance, and attention’, in M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik, and J. R. Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology (Vol. 17), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1995). ‘Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind’, in M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds), Coherence in Spontaneous Text, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–115.Find this resource:

Glanzberg, Michael (2007). ‘Context, content and relativism’, Philosophical Studies 136: 1–29.Find this resource:

Gleason, J. B., Phillips, B. C., Ely, R., and Zaretsky, E. (2009). ‘Alligators all around: The acquisition of animal terms in English and Russian’, in J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura, and S. Ozcaliskan (eds), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, New York: Psychology Press, 17–26.Find this resource:

Gleitman, Lila R., January, David, Nappa, Rebecca, and Trueswell, John C. (2007). ‘On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation’, Journal of Memory and Language 57(4): 544–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007.Find this resource:

Glucksberg, Samuel, Robert Krauss, and Robert Weisberg (1966). ‘Referential communication in nursery school children: method and some preliminary findings’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 3: 333–42.Find this resource:

(p. 518) Goldberg, E., Driedger, N., and Kittredge, R. (1994). ‘Using natural language processing to produce weather forecasts’, IEEE Expert 9(2): 45–53.Find this resource:

Goldin-Meadow, Susan (1999). ‘The role of gesture in communication and thinking’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 419–29.Find this resource:

Goodwin, Charles (2007). ‘Environmentally coupled gestures’, in S. Duncan, J. Cassell, and E. Levy, (eds), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimensions of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 195–212.Find this resource:

Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M. (2001). ‘Memory interference during language processing’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1411–23.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C., Grosz, Barbara J., and Gilliom, Laura A. (1993). ‘Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse’, Cognitive Science 17: 311–47. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1.Find this resource:

Görgülü, Emrah (2009). ‘On definiteness and specificity in Turkish’, in Shibagaki, R. and R. Vermeulen (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Find this resource:

Gorniak, P. and Roy, D. (2004). ‘Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21: 429–70.Find this resource:

Goudbeek, M. and Krahmer, E. (2010). ‘Preferences versus adaptation during referring expression generation’, in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 55–9, Uppsala, Sweden.Find this resource:

Graff, D. (2001). ‘Descriptions as predicates’, Philosophical Studies 102: 1–42.Find this resource:

Graff, Gordon (1988). ‘Better bubbles’, Popular Science, 232(2), 68.Find this resource:

Grafton, Sue (2010). U is for Undertow: A Kinsey Millhone Mystery. New York: Berkley.Find this resource:

Gratch, J., Rickel, J., André, E., Badler, N., Cassell, J., and Petajan, E. (2002). ‘Creating interactive virtual humans: some assembly required’, IEEE Intelligent Systems 17: 54–63.Find this resource:

Green, Georgia M. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Greene, S. B., McKoon, G., and Ratcliff, R. (1992). ‘Pronoun resolution and discourse models’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 266–83. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.266.Find this resource:

Greene, Steven B., Gerrig, Richard J., McKoon, Gail, and Ratcliff, Roger (1994). ‘Unheralded pronouns and management by common ground’, Journal of Memory and Language 33(4): 511–26. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1024.Find this resource:

Greenfield, P. M. (1979). ‘Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances’, in E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 159–66.Find this resource:

Greenfield, P. M. and Smith, J. H. (1976). The Structure of Communication in Early Language Development. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Grice, H. Paul (1957). ‘Meaning’, The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–88.Find this resource:

Grice, H. P. (1967). ‘Logic and Conversation, William James Lectures, Harvard’, Published in Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman (eds), 1976, The Logic of Grammar. Reprinted in Grice (1989), Dickenson Publishing Company.Find this resource:

Grice, H. Paul (1969). ‘Utterer’s meaning and intention’, The Philosophical Review 78(2): 147–77.Find this resource:

Grice, H. P. (1970). ‘Logic and conversation’, Syntax and semantics 3: 41–58.Find this resource:

Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), Speech acts, New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Find this resource:

(p. 519) Grice, H. Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Griffin, Zenzi M. and Bock, J. Kathryn (2000). ‘What the eyes say about speaking’, Psychological Science 11(4): 274–9. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00255.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof (1990). ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kálman and L. Pólos (eds), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Budapest: Adakémiai Kiadó, 3–48.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof (1993). ‘Dynamic interpretation’, in The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, London: Pergamon Press.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J. (1977). ‘The representation and use of focus in a system for understanding dialogs’, Proceedings of Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’77), 67–76.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J. (1981). ‘Focusing and description in natural language dialogues’, in Joshi, A., Webber, B. L., and Sag, I. A. (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: London, 84–105.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner (1986). ‘Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12(3): 175–204.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner (1990). ‘Plans for discourse’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 417–44.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein (1983). ‘Providing definite noun phrases in discourse’, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 21: 44–50.Find this resource:

Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., and Weinstein, S. (1995). ‘Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse’, Computational Linguistics 21: 203–25.Find this resource:

Guasti, M. T. (2002). The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Guasti, M. T., Gavarró, A., de Lange, J., and Caprin, C. (2008). ‘Article omission across child languages’, Language Acquisition 15(2): 89–119.Find this resource:

Guerriero, A. M. S., Oshima-Takane, Y., and Kuriyama, Y. (2006). ‘The development of referential choice in English and Japanese: a discourse-pragmatic perspective’, Journal of Child Language 33(4): 823–57.Find this resource:

Guhe, M. and Bard, E. G. (2008). ‘Adapting referring expressions to the task environment’, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (COGSCI), 2404–9, Austin, TX.Find this resource:

Guindon, Raymonde (1985). ‘Anaphora resolution: Short-term memory and focusing’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 23: 218–27.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1978). ‘Stress, pronominalization, and the given–new distinction’, University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 10(2): 1–13.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985). ‘Shared knowledge and topicality’, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1988). ‘Universals of topic-comment structure’, in M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik, and J. R. Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology (Vol. 17), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209–39.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette (1999). ‘Topic, focus, and the grammar–pragmatics interface’, in J. Alexander, N. Han, and M. Minnick (eds), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6). Philadelphia, PA: Penn Libraries.Find this resource:

(p. 520) Gundel, Jeanette K. (2009). ‘Children’s use of referring expressions: what can it tell us about Theory of Mind?’, Cognitive Critique 1: 73–100.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (2010). ‘Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy perspective’, International Review of Pragmatics 2(2): 148–68.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (2011). ‘Child language, Theory of Mind, and the role of procedural markers in identifying referents of nominal expressions’, in Escandell-Vidal, V., M. Leonetti and A. Aherm (eds), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing, 205–34.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Fretheim, T. (2004). ‘Topic and focus’, in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), Oxford: Blackwell, 175–96.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Johnson, K. (2013). ‘Children’s use of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse: implications for theory of mind development’, Journal of Pragmatics 56: 43–57.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1988). ‘On the Generation and Interpretation of Demonstrative Expressions.’, paper presented at the Proceedings of the XIIth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1993). ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’, Language 69: 274–307.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Ntelitheos, D., and Kowalsky, M. (2007). ‘Children’s use of referring expressions: some implications for theory of mind’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Bassene, M., Gordon, B., Humnick, L., and Khalfaoui, A. (2009). ‘Testing predictions of the Givenness Hierarchy framework: a crosslinguistic investigation’, Journal of Pragmatics 42(7): 1770–85.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (2011). ‘Underspecification of Cognitive Status in Reference Production: The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface’, Pre-Cog Sci 2011 Workshop, Bridging the Gap between Computational, Empirical, and Theoretical Approaches to Reference. Boston, Massachusetts, 20 July 2011.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (2012). ‘Underpecification of cognitive status in reference production: some empirical predictions’, Topics in Cognitive Science 4(2): 249–68 [Issue on the Production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches].Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (2001). ‘Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: why accommodation is unnecessary’, English Language and Linguistics 5: 273–95.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Nancy Hedberg (2016). ‘Reference and cognitive status: scalar inference and typology’, in M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest and Robert D. Van Valin (eds), Information Structure in Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–53.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (2005). ‘Pronouns without NP antecedents: How do we know when a pronoun is referential?’, in A. Branco, T. McEnery, and R. Mitkov (eds), Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Modelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 351–64.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, Ron Zacharski, Ann Mulkern, Tonya Custis, Bonnie Swierzbin, Amel Khalfoui, Linda Humnick, Bryan Gordon, Mamadou Bassene, and Shana Watters (2006). Coding Protocol for Statuses on the Givenness Hierarchy. http://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/Coding_for_Cognitive_Status.pdf.Find this resource:

(p. 521) Gundel, Jeanette K, Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1989). ‘Givenness, implicatures, and demonstrative expressions in English discourse’, Chicago Linguistic Society 25/2.89–103.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K, Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1990). ‘Givenness, implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 16.442–53.Find this resource:

Gupta, S. and Stent, A. (2005). ‘Automatic evaluation of referring expression generation using corpora’, in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Using Copora in Natural Language Generation (UCNLG), 1–6, Brighton, UK.Find this resource:

Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, Band 1 [General Dutch grammar, Vol. 1]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Find this resource:

Hagege, C. (1974). ‘Les pronoms logophoriques’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310.Find this resource:

Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Isihara, M., and Imanaka, K. (2007). ‘A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(2): 175–93.Find this resource:

Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., and Willems, R. M. (2009). ‘Semantic unification’, in M. S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences, Boston, MA: MIT Press. 4th ed, 819–36.Find this resource:

Hagoort, P., Brown, C., and Groothusen, J. (1993). ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 439–83.Find this resource:

Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., and Petersson, K. M. (2004). ‘Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension’, Science 304: 438–41.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva (1987). ‘Focussing—a meeting point of linguistics and artificial intelligence’, in Ph. Jorrand and V. Sgurev (eds), Artificial Intelligence II: Methodology, systems, applications, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 311–21.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva (1993). Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns - Theoretical and Computational Linguistics, Vol. 2. Prague: Charles University.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English II’, Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.Find this resource:

Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Find this resource:

Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., and Frauenfelder, U. H. (1996). ‘On the acquisition of subjects and object clitics in French’, in H. Clahsen (ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 309–34.Find this resource:

Hamzelou, Jessica (2015). ‘Brains wired up to work together’, New Scientist, 227: 8–9.Find this resource:

Han, C. (2013). ‘On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58(2): 319–47.Find this resource:

Hankamer, J. and Sag, T. (1976). ‘Deep and surface anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–426.Find this resource:

Hanks, Peter (2015). Propositional Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hanna, Joy E. and Susan E. Brennan (2007). ‘Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation’, Journal of Memory and Language 57: 596–615.Find this resource:

Hanna, J. E. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). ‘Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: evidence from eye movements’, Cognitive Science 28: 105–15.Find this resource:

Hanna, Joy, Michael Tanenhaus, and John Trueswell (2003). ‘The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation’, Journal of Memory and Language 49: 43–61.Find this resource:

(p. 522) Harnad, S. (1990). ‘The symbol grounding problem’, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1–3): 335–46.Find this resource:

Harris, A. (1998). Electrophysiological Indices of Syntactic Processing Difficulty. PhD Thesis: MIT.Find this resource:

Hartshorne, J. K. and Snedeker, J. (2013). ‘Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: the advantages of finer-grained semantics’, Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10): 1474–1508.Find this resource:

Hartshorne, Joshua K., Rebecca Nappa, and Jesse Snedeker (2014). ‘Development of the first-mention bias’, Journal of Child Language 42: 423–46.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Haugh, Michael (2012). ‘On understandings of intention: a response to Wedgewood’, Intercultural Pragmatics 9: 161–94.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Atlantic Highland, NJ: Humanities Press.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1984). ‘A note on referent identifiability and copresence’, Journal of Pragmatics 8: 649–60.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. (1991). ‘On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction’, Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–42.Find this resource:

Hawthorne, John and Manley, David (2012). The Reference Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy Ann (1990). Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. University of Minnesota dissertation.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy Ann, Emrah Görgülü, and Morgan Mameni (2009). ‘On definiteness and specificity in Turkish and Persian’, Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cdla-acl/actes2009/actes2009.html.Find this resource:

Heeman, P. A. and Hirst, G. (1995). ‘Collaborating on referring expressions’, Computational Linguistics 21(3): 351–82.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1983). ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’, in Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 164–89.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1990). ‘E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–77.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1991). ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds), Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung, Bd. 6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 487–535.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1992). ‘Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs’, Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (2011). ‘Definiteness and indefiniteness’, in K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, and P. Portner (eds), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 996–1025.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Heine, A., Tamm, S., Hofmann, M., Hutzler, F., and Jacobs, A. M. (2006). ‘Does the frequency of the antecedent noun affect the resolution of pronominal anaphors? An ERP study’, Neuroscience Letters 400: 7–12.Find this resource:

Heller, Daphna and Lynsey Wolter (2008). ‘That is Rosa: identificational sentences as intensional predication’, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12: 226–40.Find this resource:

(p. 523) Heller, Daphna, Skovbroten, K., and Tanenhaus, M. (2012). ‘To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form’, Topics in Cognitive Science 4(2): 166–83.Find this resource:

Heller, Daphna, Daniel Grodner, and Michael Tanenhaus (2008). ‘The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference’, Cognition 108: 831–36.Find this resource:

Helm, Irene R. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Find this resource:

Henderson, John M. and Ferreira, Fernanda (eds) (2004). The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action. Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York/Hove: Psychology Press.Find this resource:

Hendrickx, I., Daelemans, W., Luyckx, K., Morante, R., and Asch, V. V. (2008). ‘CNTS: Memory-based learning of generating repeated references’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), 194–5.Find this resource:

Hendriks, P., Koster C., and Hoeks, J. (2014). ‘Referential choice across the lifespan: why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns’, Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 29(4): 391–407.Find this resource:

Henschel, R., Cheng, H., and Poesio, M. (2000). ‘Pronominalisation revisited’, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 306–12, Saarbrücken, Germany.Find this resource:

Heurdier, J., da Silva, C., Le Mené, M., and Salazar Orvig, A. (2012). ‘Premiers usages de «c’est»: formes et valeurs sémantico-discursives’, paper presented at the AFLS 2012 Conference: “Le français à travers le temps: acquisition, changement, variation”, Newcastle.Find this resource:

Heycock, Caroline and Anthony Kroch (1997). ‘Inversion and equation in copular sentences’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Volume 10. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 71–87.Find this resource:

Hickmann, M. (1987). ‘The pragmatics of reference in child language: some issues in developmental theory’, in M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, Orlando: Academic Press, 165–84.Find this resource:

Hickmann, M. (1991). ‘The development of discourse cohesion: some functional and cross-linguistic issues’, in G. Piérault-Le Bonniec and M. Dolitsky (eds), Language Bases…Discourse Bases, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hickmann, M. (2002). Children’s Discourse: Person, Time, and Space Across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H. T., Roland, F. O., and Liang, J. (1996). ‘The marking of new information in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of Child Language 23(3): 591–619.Find this resource:

Hickmann, M., Schimke, S., and Colonna, S. (2015). ‘From early to late mastery of reference: multifunctionality and linguistic diversity’, in L. Serratrice and S. E. M. Allen (eds), The Acquisition of Reference, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–211.Find this resource:

Higginbotham, James (1987). ‘Indefinites and predication’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 43–70.Find this resource:

Higgins, Roger F. (1979). The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Hinds, John (1973). ‘Anaphoric demonstratives in Japanese’, Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 2: 1–14.Find this resource:

Hinterwimmer, S. and Bosch, P. (2016). ‘Demonstrative pronouns and perspective’ [with Peter Bosch], in Patel, P. and P. Patel-Grosz (eds), The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation, De Gruyter (Studies in Generative Grammar): Berlin/New York, 189–220.Find this resource:

Hintikka, Jaakko (1986). ‘The semantics of a certain’, Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 331–36.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature, Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania dissertation.Find this resource:

(p. 524) Hobbs, J. (1979). ‘Coherence and coreference’, Cognitive Science 3: 67–90.Find this resource:

Hobbs, J. (1990). Literature and Cognition [Lecture notes 21]. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Hoetjes, Marieke, Koolen, Ruud, Goudbeek, Martijn, Krahmer, Emiel, and Swerts, Marc (2015). ‘Reduction in gesture during the production of repeated references’, Journal of Memory and Language 79–80: 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.004.Find this resource:

Hofmeister, P. (2011). ‘Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 376–405.Find this resource:

Hopcroft, J. (1971). ‘An n log(n) algorithm for minimizing states in a finite automaton’, in Z. Kohave (ed.), Theory of Machines and Computations, Academic Press.Find this resource:

Horacek, H. (1996). ‘A new algorithm for generating referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 577–81, Budapest, Hungary.Find this resource:

Horacek, H. (1997). ‘An algorithm for generating referential descriptions with exible interfaces’, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 206–13, Madrid.Find this resource:

Horacek, H. (2004). ‘On referring to sets of objects naturally’, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), 70–9, Brockenhurst, UK.Find this resource:

Horacek, H. (2005). ‘Generating referential descriptions under conditions of uncertainty’, in Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 58–67, Aberdeen, UK.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1984). ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature in context’, in Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1985). ‘Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity’, Language, 61, 121–174.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. (2007). ‘Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung’, in Istvan Kecskes and Laurence R. Horn (eds), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 39–69.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. and Barbara Abbott (2010). ‘<the, a>: (In)definiteness and implicature’, to appear in Joseph Keim Campbell, William Kabasenche, and Michael O’Rourke (eds), Reference and Referring, Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, vol. 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Horn, Laurence R. and Barbara Abbott (2012). ‘<the, a>: (In)definiteness and implicature’, in William P. Kabasenche, Michael O’Rourke, and Matthew H. Slater (eds), Reference and Referring (Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, vol. 10), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 325–55.Find this resource:

Hornby, P. A. (1974). ‘Surface structure and presupposition’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13: 530–8.Find this resource:

Horton, W. and Keysar, B. (1996). ‘When do speakers take into account common ground?’, Cognition 59: 91–117.Find this resource:

Hovy, E. H. (1990). ‘Parsimonious and profligate approaches to the question of discourse structure relations’, Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Language Generation. Pittsburgh, PA.Find this resource:

Huang, C.-C. (2011). ‘Referential choice in Mandarin child language: A discourse-pragmatic perspective’, Journal of Pragmatics 43(7): 2057–80.Find this resource:

(p. 525) Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hughes, M. E. and Allen, S. E. (2013). ‘The effect of individual discourse-pragmatic features on referential choice in child English’, Journal of Pragmatics 56: 15–30.Find this resource:

Hunt, L. III, Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U., and Fiorentino, R. (2013). ‘Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: evidence from picture-sentence verification’, Neurosci Lett. 8(534): 246–51.Find this resource:

Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Hyams, N. M. (1986). Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. D. Reidel Publishing Company Dordrecht.Find this resource:

Ionin, Tania (2006). ‘This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems’, Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.Find this resource:

Ionin, Tania, Ora Matushansky, and E. G. Ruys (2006). ‘Parts of speech: toward a unified semantics for partitives’, in Chris Davis, Amy Rose Deal, and Youri Zabbal (eds), Proceedings of NELS 36, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts GLSA, 357–70.Find this resource:

Ioup, G. (1975). ‘Some universals for quantifier scope’, Syntax and Semantics 4: 37–58.Find this resource:

Isard, Stephen (1975). ‘Changing the context’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 287–96.Find this resource:

Itti, L. and Koch, C. (2000). ‘A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts in visual attention’, Vision Research 40: 1489–506.Find this resource:

Jaccard, P. (1901). ‘Étude comparative de la distribution orale dans une portion des alpes et des jura’, Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 37: 547–79.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Jaeger, T. Florian (2010). ‘Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density’, Cognitive Psychology 61(1): 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002.Find this resource:

Jaeger, F. and Norcliffe, E. (2009). ‘The cross-linguistic study of sentence production’, Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 866–87.Find this resource:

Jakubowicz, C. and Rigaut, C. (1997). ‘L’acquisition des clitiques nominatifs en français’, in A. Zribi-Hertz (ed.), Les Pronoms. Morphologie, Syntaxe, et Typologie, Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 57–99.Find this resource:

Janarthanam, S. and Lemon, O. (2009). ‘Learning lexical alignment policies for generating referring expressions for spoken dialogue systems’, in Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 74–81, Athens, Greece.Find this resource:

Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang (eds) (1982). Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics. New York: Wiley.Find this resource:

Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P. G., Bertram, R., and Hyönä, J. (2005). ‘Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first-mention and subject preference accounts’, Psychological Science 16: 260–4.Find this resource:

Jennings, N. R. (2000). ‘On agent-based software engineering’, Artificial Intelligence 117(2): 277–96.Find this resource:

Jisa, H. (2000). ‘Increasing cohesion in narratives: a developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French’, Linguistics 38(3): 591–620.Find this resource:

(p. 526) Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness, Cognitive Science Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Jordan, P. W. (2000). Intentional Inuences on Object Redescriptions in Dialogue: Evidence from an Empirical Study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.Find this resource:

Jordan, P. W. (2002). ‘Contextual inuences on attribute selection for repeated descriptions’, in K. van Deemter and R. Kibble (eds), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Jordan, P. W. and Walker, M. (2005). ‘Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24: 157–94.Find this resource:

Joshi, Aravind K. (1982). ‘Mutual beliefs in question–answer systems’, in N. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, New York: Academic Press, 181–97.Find this resource:

Joshi, Aravind K., Bonnie L. Webber; and Ivan A. Sag (eds) (1981). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Just, M., and Carpenter, P. (1992). ‘A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory’, Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Find this resource:

Just, M., Carpenter, P., Keller, T., Eddy, W., and Thulborn, K. (1996). ‘Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension’, Science 274: 114–16.Find this resource:

Kaan, E., Harris, T., Gibson, E., and Holcomb, P. (2000). ‘The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty’, Language and Cognitive Processes 15(2): 159–201.Find this resource:

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Find this resource:

Kail, M. and Hickmann, M. (1992). ‘French children’s ability to introduce referents in narratives as a function of mutual knowledge’, First Language 12(34): 73–94.Find this resource:

Kail, M. I. and Lopez, I. S. Y. (1997). ‘Referent introductions in Spanish narratives as a function of contextual constraints: a crosslinguistic perspective’, First Language 17(51): 103–30.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2003). The Quest for a Referent: A Crosslinguistic Look at Reference Resolution. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2009). ‘Effects of anaphoric dependencies and semantic representations on pronoun interpretation’, in S. L. Devi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov (eds), Anaphora Processing and Applications (Selected papers from the 7th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium), Heidelberg: Springer, 121–30.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2010a). ‘Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions’, International Review of Pragmatics 2(2): 266–97.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2010b). ‘Effects of contrast on referential form: investigating the distinction between strong and weak pronouns’, Discourse Processes 47(6): 480–509. doi: 10.1080/01638530903347643.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2011a). ‘Focusing on pronouns: consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10): 1625–66.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2011b). ‘Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: the interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10): 1587–624.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2011c). ‘On the relation between coherence relations and anaphoric demonstratives in German’, in Ingo Reich et al. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15, Saarland University Press: Saarbrücken, Germany, 337–51.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2012). ‘Taking action: a cross-modal investigation of discourse-level representations’, Frontiers in Psychology 3: 156.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi (2015). ‘Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: experimental investigations’, in Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney, and Carol Rose Little (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25 (SALT 25), Stanford University, 346–72.Find this resource:

(p. 527) Kaiser, E. (2018). Pronoun use in Finnish reported speech and free indirect discourse: Effects of logophoricity. In Pritty Patel-Grosz, Patrick Grosz and Sarah Zobel (eds), Pronouns in Embedded Contexts, 75–104. Springer Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi and Do, M. (2011). ‘Taking a look beneath the surface: effects of processing depth on pronoun interpretation’, in Iris Hendrickx, Antonio Branco, Sobha Lalitha Devi, and Ruslan Mitkov (eds), Proceedings of the 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC), Edicoes Colibri: Lisbon, Portugal, 66–79.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi and Trueswell, John C. (2004). ‘The referential properties of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives: is salience enough?’, in Cécile Meier and Matthias Weisgerber (eds), Proceedings of the Conference ‘Sub8 - Sinn und Bedeutung’, Arbeitspapier Nr. 117, 137–49.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi and Trueswell, J. (2008). ‘Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution’, Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 709–48.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi, Runner, J., Sussman, R., and Tanenhaus, M. (2009). ‘Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution or pronouns and reflexives’, Cognition 112: 55–80.Find this resource:

Kaiser, Elsi, Li, David Cheng-huan, and Holsinger, Edward (2011). ‘Exploring the lexical and acoustic consequences of referential predictability’, in I. Hendricks, A. Branco, S. L. Devi, and R. Mitkov (eds), Anaphora Processing and Applications, 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC, 171–83.Find this resource:

Kameyama, Megumi (1986). Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Find this resource:

Kameyama, Megumi (1999). ‘Stressed and unstressed pronouns: complementary preferences’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 306–21.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (1971). ‘To the memory of Arthur Prior formal properties of now’, Theoria 37(3): 227–73. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00071.x/abstract.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (1981). ‘A theory of truth and semantic representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Proceedings of the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center, 277–322. [Reprinted in: J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Truth, Interpretation and Information, Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Dordrecht: Foris, 1984, 1–41; and reprinted in: K. von Heusinger, and A. ter Meulen (eds), The Dynamics of Meaning and Interpretation. Selected Papers of Hans Kamp. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 329–69].Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (1990). ‘Prolegomena to a structural theory of belief and other attitudes’, in C. A. Anderson and J. Owens (eds), Propositional Attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 27–90. [Reprinted in: K. von Heusinger and A. ter Meulen (eds), The Dynamics of Meaning and Interpretation. Selected Papers of Hans Kamp. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 513–83].Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (2014). ‘Dividing the province of indefinite noun phrase uses into three parts’, unpublished manuscript. Universität Stuttgart/University of Texas at Austin.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans (2015). ‘Using proper names as intermediaries between labelled entity representations’, Erkenntnis 80: 263–312.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans and Bende-Farkas, Agnes (2006). Specific Indefinites: Anchors and Functional Readings. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans and Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Kamp, Hans, van Genabith, J., and Reyle, U. (2011). ‘Discourse Representation Theory’, Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume 15: 125–394.Find this resource:

(p. 528) Kantola, Leila and van Gompel, Roger P. G. (2011). ‘Does the addressee matter when choosing referring expressions?’, in Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Roger P. G. van Gompel, and Emiel Krahmer (eds), Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the Gap Between Computational, Empirical and Theoretical Approaches to Reference.Find this resource:

Kaplan, David (1977). ‘Demonstratives’, draft #2. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA Philosophy Department. [Revised and published as ‘Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals,’ in Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein (eds) Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, 1989, 481–563].Find this resource:

Kaplan, David (1978). ‘Dthat’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, 221–43.Find this resource:

Kaplan, David (1989a). ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds), Themes from Kaplan, New York: Oxford University Press, 481–563.Find this resource:

Kaplan, David (1989b). ‘Afterthoughts’, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds), Themes from Kaplan, New York: Oxford University Press, 565–614.Find this resource:

Karimi, Hossein and Ferreira, F. (2016). ‘Informativity renders a referent more accessible: evidence from eyetracking’, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(2): 507.Find this resource:

Karimi, Hossein, Fukumura, Kumiko, Ferreira, Fernanda, and Pickering, Martin J. (2014). ‘The effect of noun phrase length on the form of referring expressions’, Memory and Cognition 42(6): 993–1009. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0400-7.Find this resource:

Karimi, Hossein, Swaab, T., and Ferreira, F. (2017). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for memory retrieval during sentence comprehension’, Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language, Baltimore, MD.Find this resource:

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1979). A Functional Approach to Child Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1981). ‘The grammatical marking of thematic structure in the development of language production’, in W. Deutsch (ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language, London: Academic Press, 121–48.Find this resource:

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1985). ‘Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective’, Language and Cognitive Processes 1(1): 61–85.Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri (1968). ‘What do Referential Indices Refer to?’, paper prepared for the Linguistics Colloquium, University of California, Los Angeles, 26 April 1968.Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri (1969). ‘Discourse referents’, in International Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING 70, Stockholm: Research Group For Quantitative Linguistics, 1–37. [Reprinted in: James D. McCawley (ed.) (1976). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, New York: Academic Press, 363–85].Find this resource:

Karttunen, Lauri (1976). ‘Discourse referents’, in James D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, Academic Press, New York, 363–85.Find this resource:

Katz, J. (1990). ‘Has the description theory of names been refuted?’ in Boolos, G. (ed.), Meaning and Method: Essays in Honor of Hilary Putnam, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Katz, J. (1994). ‘Names without bearers’, Philosophical Review 103: 1–39.Find this resource:

Kazanina, N. and Phillips, C. (2010). ‘Differentials effects on constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 371–400.Find this resource:

(p. 529) Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C. (2007). ‘The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora’, Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409.Find this resource:

Kazemzadeh, S., Ordonez, V., Matten, M., and Berg, T. L. (2014). ‘Referit game: referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes’, in Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2014), Doha, Qatar.Find this resource:

Keenan, Edward L. (1971). ‘Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem’, Papers in Linguistics 4/2.Find this resource:

Keenan, Edward L. and Jonathan Stavi (1986). ‘A semantic characterization of natural language determiners’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 253–326.Find this resource:

Keenan, Edward O. (1977). ‘Making it last: repetition in children’s discourse’, in S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds), Child Discourse, New York: Academic Press, 125–38.Find this resource:

Keenan, Edward O. and Klein, E. (1975). ‘Coherency in children’s discourse’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4(4): 365–80.Find this resource:

Kehler, A. (2000). ‘Cognitive status and form of reference in multimodal human–computer interaction’, in Proceedings of the 14th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 685–90.Find this resource:

Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Kehler, A. and Rohde, H. (2013). ‘A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation’, Theoretical Linguistics 39: 1–37.Find this resource:

Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., and Elman, J. (2008). ‘Coherence and coreference revisited’, Journal of Semantics (Special Issue on Processing Meaning) 25: 1–44.Find this resource:

Kelleher, J. and Kruijff, G.-J. (2006). ‘Incremental generation of spatial referring expressions in situated dialog’, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING) and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 1041–8, Sydney, Australia. doi: 10.3115/1220175.1220306.Find this resource:

Kelleher, J., Costello, F., and van Genabith, J. (2005). ‘Dynamically structuring, updating and interrelating representations of visual and linguistics discourse context’, Artificial Intelligence 167: 62–102.Find this resource:

Kempen, Gerard and Harbusch, Karin (2004). ‘A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment’, in T. Pechmann and C. Habel (eds), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Kempen, Gerard and Hoenkamp, E. (1987). ‘An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation’, Cognitive Science 11: 201–58. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80006-X.Find this resource:

Kennington, C. and Schlangen, D. (2017). ‘A simple generative model of incremental reference resolution for situated dialogue’, Computer Speech & Language 41: 43–67.Find this resource:

Kennison, S., Fernandez, E., and Bowers, J.M. (2009). ‘Processing differences for anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns: Implications for theories of discourse processing’, Discourse Processes, 46, 25–45.Find this resource:

Kerdiles, G. (2001). Saying it with Pictures: A Logical Landscape of Conceptual Graphs. ILLC, Amsterdam: Unpublished PhD thesis.Find this resource:

Kertz, L., Kehler, A., and Elman, J. (2006). ‘Grammatical and coherence-based factors in pronoun interpretation’, in Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1605–10.Find this resource:

(p. 530) Keshet, Ezra (2008a). Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of the De re/De dicto Distinction. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Keshet, Ezra (2008b). ‘Infinitival complements and tense’, Proceedings of SuB12, University of Oslo, Norway, 303–17.Find this resource:

Keshet, Ezra (2008c). ‘Only the strong: restricting situation variables’, in T. Friedman and S. Ito (eds), Proceedings of SALT XVIII, Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, 483–95.Find this resource:

Keshet, Ezra (2010). ‘Situation economy’, Natural Language Semantics 18(4): 385–434. URL: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u66q72001m383175/Find this resource:

Keshet, Ezra (2011). ‘Split intensionality: a new scope theory of de re and de dicto’, Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). URL: http://www.springerlink.com/content/d584131779263716/Find this resource:

Keysar, Boaz (2008). ‘Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication’, in I. Kecskes and J. Mey (eds), Intention, Common Ground, and the Egocentric Speaker–Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 277–96.Find this resource:

Keysar, Boaz, Dale Barr, Jennifer Balin, and Jessica Brauner (2000). ‘Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension’, Psychological Science 11: 32–8.Find this resource:

Keysar, Boaz, S. Lin, and D. J. Barr (2003). ‘Limits on theory of mind use in adults’, Cognition 89: 25–41.Find this resource:

Khan, I. H., Ritchie, G., and van Deemter, K. (2006). ‘The clarity–brevity trade-off in generating referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), 89–91, Sydney, Australia.Find this resource:

Khan, I. H., van Deemter, K., and Ritchie, G. (2008). ‘Generation of referring expressions: managing structural ambiguities’, in Proceedings of the 22th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Manchester, UK.Find this resource:

Khayrallah, H., Trott, S., and Feldman, J. (2015). ‘Natural language for human–robot interaction’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-Robot Teaming at the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.Find this resource:

Kibble, Rodger (1999). ‘Cb or not Cb? Centering theory applied to NLG’, Proceedings of the ACL workshop on the Relation of Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference, 72–81.Find this resource:

Kibble, Rodger and Power, R. (2004). ‘Optimizing referential coherence in text generation’, Computational Linguistics 30: 401–16.Find this resource:

Kibrik, A. (1996). ‘Anaphora in Russian narrative discourse: a cognitive calculative account’, in B. Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255–304.Find this resource:

Kibrik, A. (2011). Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Kilani-Schoch, M. and Dressler, W. U. (2000). ‘Are fillers as precursors of morphemes relevant for morphological theory? A case story from the acquisition of French’, in W. U. Dressler, O. E. Pfeiffer, M. A. Pöchtrager, and J. R. Rennison (eds), Morphological Analysis in Comparison, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 89–111.Find this resource:

Kilgarriff, A. (2003). ‘Thesauruses for natural language processing’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering (NLPK), 5–13.Find this resource:

Kim, Y.-J. (2000). ‘Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: a cross-linguistic comparison’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 325–51.Find this resource:

King, J. W. and Kutas, M. (1995). ‘Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(3): 376–95.Find this resource:

(p. 531) King, Jeffrey C. (1988). ‘Are indefinite descriptions ambiguous?’, Philosophcal Studies 53: 417–40.Find this resource:

King, Jeffrey C. (2001). Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

King, Jeffrey C. (2013). ‘Supplementives, the coordination account, and conflicting intentions’, Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophy of Language 27: 288–311.Find this resource:

King, Jeffrey C. (2014a). ‘The Metasemantics of contextual sensitivity’, in A. Burgess and B. Sherman (eds) New Essays on Metasemantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–118.Find this resource:

King, Jeffrey C. (2014b). Speaker Intentions in Context. Noûs 48(2): 219–237.Find this resource:

Kintsch, Walter and van Dijk, Teun A. (1978). ‘Toward a model of text comprehension and production’, Psychological Review 85(5): 363–94. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.Find this resource:

Kita, Sotaro (2009). ‘Cross-cultural variation of speech-accompanying gesture’, Language and Cognitive Processes 24: 145–67.Find this resource:

Kitagawa, Chisato (1979). ‘A note on sono and ano’ in George Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (eds), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 232–43.Find this resource:

Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993). ‘Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5(2): 196–214.Find this resource:

Klyne, G., and Carroll, J. J. (2006). Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax.Find this resource:

Kneale, W. (1966). ‘Modality de dicto and de re’, in P. S. Ernest Nagel and A. Tarski (eds), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. Volume 44 of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Proceeding of the 1960 International Congress, Elsevier, 622–33. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049237X09706263.Find this resource:

Koller, A. and Stone, M. (2007). ‘Sentence generation as a planning problem’, in Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference Proceedings (ACL), 337–43, Prague.Find this resource:

Koller, A., Striegnitz, K., Byron, D., Cassell, J., Dale, R., Moore, J., and Oberlander, J. (2010). ‘The first challenge on generating instructions in virtual environments’, in Krahmer, E. and Theune, M. (eds), Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation, volume 5790, LNAI, Springer.Find this resource:

Koolen, Ruud, Gatt, A., Goudbeek, M., and Krahmer, E. (2009). ‘Need I say more? On factors causing referential overspecification’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging Computational and Psycholinguistic Approaches (PRE-COGSCI’09).Find this resource:

Koolen, Ruud, Gatt, Albert, Goudbeek, Martijn, and Krahmer, Emiel (2011). ‘Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions’, Journal of Pragmatics 43(13): 3231–50. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.008.Find this resource:

Koolen, Ruud, Goudbeek, Martijn, and Krahmer, Emiel (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.Find this resource:

Koolen, Ruud, Krahmer, Emiel, and Swerts, Marc (2015). ‘How distractor objects trigger referential overspecification: testing the effects of visual clutter and distractor distance’, Cognitive Science 40(7).Find this resource:

(p. 532) Koornneef, A. W. and Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). ‘On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking’, Journal of Memory and Language 54(4): 445–65. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003.Find this resource:

Kopp, S., Bergmann, K., and Wachsmuth, I. (2008). ‘Multimodal communication from multimodal thinking. towards an integrated model of speech and gesture production’, Semantic Computing 2: 115–36.Find this resource:

Korta, Kepa and Perry, John (2011). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Krahmer, Emiel (2010). ‘What computational linguists can learn from psychologists (and vice versa)’, Computational Linguistics 36: 285–94.Find this resource:

Krahmer, Emiel and Theune, Mariët (2002). ‘Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions’, in Kees van Deemter and Rodger Kibble (eds), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 223–64.Find this resource:

Krahmer, Emiel and van Deemter, K. (2012). ‘Computational generation of referring expressions: a survey’, Computational Linguistics 38(1): 173–218.Find this resource:

Krahmer, Emiel, Theune, M., Viethen, J., and Hendrickx, I. (2008). ‘Graph: the costs of redundancy in referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), 227–9, Salt Fork, Ohio.Find this resource:

Krahmer, Emiel, van Erk, S., and Verleg, A. (2003). ‘Graph-based generation of referring expressions’, Computational Linguistics 29(1): 53–72.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (1986). ‘Conditionals’, Chicago Linguistics Society 22(2): 1–15.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (1989). ‘An investigation of the lumps of thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 607–53.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (1998). ‘Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?’, in S. D. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 163–96.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (2003). A note on choice functions in context. Unpublished Ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (2004). ‘Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages’, talk given at Palazzo Feltrinelli in Gargnano 11 June 2004.Find this resource:

Kratzer, Angelika (2007). ‘Situations in natural language semantics’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, CSLI: Stanford.Find this resource:

Krauss, Robert, Yihsiu Chen, and Purnima Chawla (1996). ‘Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: what do conversational hand gestures tell us?’, in M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 389–450.Find this resource:

Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Greg Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link (1995). ‘Introduction’, in G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–124.Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul (1963). ‘Semantical analysis of modal logic I’, Zeitschrift fr Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9, 67–96.Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul A. (1972). ‘Naming and necessity’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Languages, Reidel: Dordrecht. [Revised and enlarged revision published in 1980 by Blackwell, Oxford].Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul (1977). ‘Speaker reference and semantic reference’, in French, Uehling, and Wettstein (eds), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 6–27.Find this resource:

(p. 533) Kripke, Saul (1979). ‘A puzzle about belief’, in A. Margalit (ed.) Meaning and Use, Reidel: Dordrecht, 239–83.Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul (1982). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Kripke, Saul (2013). Reference and Existence. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Kronfeld, Amichai (1981). The Referential/Attributive Distinction and the Conceptual/Descriptive Approach to the Problem of Reference. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Find this resource:

Kronfeld, Amichai (1986). ‘Donnellan’s distinction and a computational model of reference’, Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, 186–91.Find this resource:

Kronfeld, Amichai (1990). Reference and Computation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Kruijff, G.-J. M., Lison, P., Benjamin, T., Jacobsson, H., and Hawes, N. (2007). ‘Incremental, multi-level processing for comprehending situated dialogue in human–robot interaction’, in Symposium on Language and Robots.Find this resource:

Kumar, V. (1992). ‘Algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems: a survey’, Artificial Intelligence Magazine 1: 32–44.Find this resource:

Kuno, Susumu (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Find this resource:

Kuno, Susumu (1989). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. MA: MIT dissertation.Find this resource:

Kusumoto, K. (2005). ‘On the quantification over times in natural language’, Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 317–57.Find this resource:

Kutas, M. and Federmeier, K. D. (2011). ‘Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP)’, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62(14): 1–27.Find this resource:

Kutas, M. and S. Hillyard (1980). ‘Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity’, Science 207: 203–5.Find this resource:

Kutas, M. and Hillyard, S. (1983). ‘Event-related brain potentials to syntactic errors and semantic anomalies’, Memory and Cognition 11(5): 539–50.Find this resource:

Kutas, M. and S. Hillyard (1984). ‘Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association’, Nature 307: 161–3.Find this resource:

Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Barkley, C., and Amsel, B. (2015). ‘Language’, in Cacioppo, J., Tassinary, L., and Berntson, G. (eds), Handbook of Psychophysiology (4th edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Kutlák, R. (2014). Generation of Referring Expressions for an Unknown Audience. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Find this resource:

Kwon, N. and Sturt, P. (2013). ‘Null pronominal (pro)-resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language’, Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3): 377–87.Find this resource:

Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., and Polinsky, M. (2013). ‘Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: evidence from ERP data’, Language 89(3): 537–85.Find this resource:

(p. 534) Ladusaw, William A. (1982). ‘Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 1: 231–42.Find this resource:

Laitinen, L. (2005). ‘Hän, the third speech act pronoun in Finnish’, in Ritva Laury (ed.), Minimal Reference. The Use of Pronouns in Finnish and Estonian, Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 75–106.Find this resource:

Lakoff, Robin (1974). ‘Remarks on this and that’, in M. LeGaly, R. Fox, and A. Bruck (eds), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 345–56.Find this resource:

Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Lambrecht, Knud (1986). Topic, Focus, and the Grammar of Spoken French. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Find this resource:

Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.Find this resource:

Lane, L. W., Groisman, M., and Ferreira, V. S. (2006). ‘Don’t talk about pink elephants! speakers’ control over leaking private information during language production’, Psychological Science 17(4): 273–7.Find this resource:

Leaper, C. and Gleason, J. B. (1996). ‘The relationship of play activity and gender to parent and child sex-typed communication’, International Journal of Behavioral Development 19(4): 689–703.Find this resource:

Lee-Goldman, Russell (2011). Context in Constructions. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Find this resource:

Lemaignan, S., Ros, R., Alami, R., and Beetz, M. (2011). ‘What are you talking about? Grounding dialogue in a perspective-aware robotic architecture’, in Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 107–12.Find this resource:

Lenat, D. (1995). ‘CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure’, Communication of the ACM 38: 33–8.Find this resource:

Lester, J., Voerman, J., Towns, S., and Callaway, C. (1999). ‘Deictic believability: coordinating gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents’, Applied Artificial Intelligence 13: 383–414.Find this resource:

Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Find this resource:

Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). ‘Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals’, Soviet Physics Doklady 10: 707–10.Find this resource:

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). ‘Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction binding and control phenomena’, Journal of Linguistics 23: 379–434.Find this resource:

Levinson, Stephen C. (2004). ‘Deixis’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Lewis, David (1970). ‘General semantics’, Synthese 22: 18–67. [Reprinted in Davidson and Harman (eds) Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel].Find this resource:

Lewis, David (1975). ‘Adverbs of quantification’, in E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 3–15. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470758335.ch7/summaryFind this resource:

Lewis, David (1979a). ‘Scorekeeping in a language game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.Find this resource:

Lewis, David (1979b). ‘Attitudes de dicto and de se’, The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43.Find this resource:

(p. 535) Lewis, Karen S. (2013). ‘Speaker’s reference and anaphoric pronouns’, Philosophical Perspectives 27: 404–37.Find this resource:

Lewis, R. and Vasishth, S. (2005). ‘An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval’, Cognitive Science 29: 375–419.Find this resource:

Lewis, R., Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. (2006). ‘Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10): 447–54.Find this resource:

Lezama, C. and Almor, A. (2011). ‘Repeated names, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3): 437–454.Find this resource:

Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:

Lieberman, H., Liu, H., Singh, P., and Barry, B. (2004). ‘Beating common sense into interactive applications’, AI Magazine Winter 2004: 63–76.Find this resource:

Lin, C.-Y. and Hovy, E. (2003). ‘Automatic evaluation of summaries using N-gram co-occurrence statistics’, in Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL), 71–78, Edmonton, Canada.Find this resource:

Lin, D. (1998). ‘An information-theoretic de_nition of similarity’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning (icml), 296–304, Madison, Wisconsin.Find this resource:

Linde, Charlotte (1979). ‘Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse’, in T. Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 337–54.Find this resource:

Lipman, B. (2009). ‘Why is language vague?’, in Working Papers, Department of Economics, Boston University.Find this resource:

Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., and Tomasello, M. (2006). ‘12- and 18-month-olds point to provide information for others’, Journal of Cognition and Development 7(2): 173–87.Find this resource:

Litman, Diane J. and Allen, James F. (1990). ‘Discourse processing and commonsense plans’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 365–88.Find this resource:

Liu, C., Fang, R., She, L., and Chai, J. (2013). ‘Modeling collaborative referring for situated referential grounding’, in Proceedings of the 2013 SIGDIAL Conference, 78–86.Find this resource:

Lloyd, Peter, Humbert Boada, and Maria Forns (1992). ‘New directions in referential communication research’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology 10: 385–403.Find this resource:

Löbner, Sebastian (1985). ‘Definites’, Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.Find this resource:

Löbner, Sebastian (2000). ‘Polarity in natural language: predication, quantification, and negation in particular and characterizing sentences’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 213–308.Find this resource:

Löbner, Sebastian (2003). Definite Associative Anaphora. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Ms.Find this resource:

Lønning, J. T. (1997). ‘Plurals and collectivity’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1009–54.Find this resource:

Love, J. and McKoon, G. (2011). ‘Rules of engagement: incomplete and complete pronoun resolution’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37: 874–87.Find this resource:

Ludlow, Peter (2003). ‘Referential semantics for I-languages?’, in L. M. Antony and N. Hornstein (eds), Chomsky and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell, 140–61.Find this resource:

Ludlow, Peter and Neale, Stephen (1991). ‘Indefinite descriptions: in defense of Russell’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14(2): 171–202.Find this resource:

Lyon, John (2013). Predication and Equation in Okanagan Salish: The Syntax and Semantics of Determiner Phrases. PhD dissertation. University of British Columbia.Find this resource:

(p. 536) Lyon, John (2015). ‘Okanagan determiner phrases and domain restriction’, International Journal of American Linguistics 81(2): 187–219.Find this resource:

Lyons, Christopher (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Lyons, John (1975). ‘Deixis as the source of reference’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics for Natural Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–83.Find this resource:

Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., and Stich, S. P. (2004). ‘Semantics, cross-cultural style’, Cognition 92: B1–B12.Find this resource:

MacKay, Alfred F. (1968). ‘Mr. Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty on referring’, The Philosophical Review 77(2): 197–202.Find this resource:

Maclaran, Rose (1980). ‘On the two asymmetric uses of English demonstratives’, Linguistics 18: 803–20.Find this resource:

Maclaran, Rose (1982). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the English Demonstratives. PhD dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University.Find this resource:

MacMahon, M., Stankiewicz, B., and Kuipers, B. (2006). ‘Walk the talk: connecting language, knowledge, and action in route instructions’, in Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial intelligence, 1475–82).Find this resource:

MacWhinney, Brian (1977). ‘Starting points’, Language 53(1): 152. doi: 10.2307/413059.Find this resource:

Maes, Alfons (1997). ‘Referent ontology and centering in discourse’, Journal of Semantics 14(3): 207–35. doi: 10.1093/jos/14.3.207.Find this resource:

Maes, Alfons, Arts, Anja, and Noordman, Leo (2004). ‘Reference management in instructive discourse’, Discourse Processes 37(2): 117–44.Find this resource:

Malouf, R. (2000). ‘The order of prenominal adjectives in natural language generation’, in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 85–92.Find this resource:

Malone, Thomas, et al. (1987). ‘Intelligent information sharing systems’, Communications of the ACM, 30(5): 391.Find this resource:

Manek, G. and Tellex, S. (2016). ‘Incrementally identifying objects from referring expressions using spatial object models’, in Proceedings of the 2016 RSS Workshop on Model Learning for Human–Robot Communication.Find this resource:

Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1988). ‘Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization’, Text 8: 243–81.Find this resource:

Maratsos, M. P. (1976). The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children: An Experimental Study of Semantic Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Marcos, H., Ryckebusch, C., and Rabain-Jamin, J. (2003). ‘Adult’s responses to young children’s communicative gestures: joint achievement of speech acts’, First Language 23(2): 213–37.Find this resource:

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation. San Francisco: W. H. Freedman and Company.Find this resource:

Marslen-Wilson, William, Elene Levy, and Lorraine K. Tyler (1982). ‘Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference’, in Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein (eds), Speech, place, and action. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 339–78.Find this resource:

Martin, Scott (2013). The Dynamics of Sense and Implicature. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.Find this resource:

Matthews, D., Butcher, J., Lieven, E., and 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(2): 184–210.Find this resource:

(p. 537) Matthews, D., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L., and Tomasello, M. (2006). ‘The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children’s use of referring expressions’, Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 403–22.Find this resource:

Matthewson, Lisa (1998). Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Find this resource:

Matuszek, C., Fitzgerald, N., Zettlemoyer, L., Bo, L., and Fox, D. (2012). ‘A joint model of language and perception for grounded attribute learning’, in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1671–8.Find this resource:

Matuszek, C., Herbst, E., Zettlemoyer, L., and Fox, D. (2012). ‘Learning to parse natural language commands to a robot control system’, in Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, 403–15.Find this resource:

May, R. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. PhD thesis, MIT.Find this resource:

Mayol, L. and Clark, R. (2010). ‘Pronouns in Catalan: games of partial information and the use of linguistic resources’, Journal of Pragmatics 42: 781–99.Find this resource:

Mazur-Palandre, A. and Jisa, H. (2012). ‘Introduire et développer l’information: une acquisition tardive?’, CogniTextes 7.Find this resource:

Mazza, Veronica, Turatto, Massimo, and Umiltà, Carlo (2005). ‘Foreground-background segmentation and attention: a change blindness study’, Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung 69(3): 201–10. doi: 10.1007/s00426-004-0174-9.Find this resource:

McCluskey, E. J. (1965). Introduction to the Theory of Switching Circuits. New York: McGraw-Hill.Find this resource:

McCoy, Kathleen F. and Strube, Michael (1999). ‘Generating anaphoric expressions: pronoun or definite description?’, in Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on The Relation of Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference, 63–71.Find this resource:

McDonald, Janet L., Bock, J. Kathryn, and Kelly, Michael H. (1993). ‘Word and world order: semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position’, Cognitive Psychology 25(2): 188–230. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1005.Find this resource:

McElree, B., Foraker, S., and Dyer, L. (2003). ‘Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 48(1): 67–91.Find this resource:

McGinn, Colin (1981). ‘The mechanism of reference’, Synthese 49(2): 157–86.Find this resource:

McHale, B. (1978). ‘Free indirect discourse: a survey of recent accounts’, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 3: 249–78.Find this resource:

McKinnon, R. and Osterhout, L. (1996). ‘Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: evidence from event-related brain potentials’, Language and Cognitive Processes 11(5): 495–523.Find this resource:

McNally, Louise (1998). ‘Existential sentences without existential quantification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21(4): 353–92.Find this resource:

Meinong. A. (1899). ‘Über Gegenstände höherer Ordnung und deren Verhältniss zur inneren Wahrnehmung’ in Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 21: 187–272. [Translated as ‘The Theory of Objects’, trans. Isaac Levi, D. B. Terrell, and Roderick Chisholm, in Roderick Chisholm. Atascadero (ed.), Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, CA: Ridgeview, 1981, 76–117].Find this resource:

Meinong, A. (ed.) (1904). Untersuchung zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie. Leibzig.Find this resource:

Mellish, C., Scott, D., Cahill, L., Paiva, D., Evans, R., and Reape, M. (2006). ‘A reference architecture for natural language generation systems’, Natural Language Engineering 12: 1–34.Find this resource:

(p. 538) Metzing, C. A. and Brennan, S. E. (2003). ‘When conceptual pacts are broken: partner effects on the comprehension of referring expressions, Journal of Memory and Language 49: 201–13.Find this resource:

Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., and Levelt, W. J. (1998). ‘Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production’, Cognition 66: B25–B33.Find this resource:

Meyer, F. (2013). Grounding Words to Objects: A Joint Model for Co-reference and Entity Resolution Using Markov Logic for Robot Instruction Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TUHH.Find this resource:

Mikkelsen, Line (2004). Specifying Who: On the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Find this resource:

Mill, J. S. (2002). A System of Logic. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.Find this resource:

Millikan, Ruth Garrett (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Millikan, Ruth (2004). Varieties of Meaning: The 2002 Jean Nicod Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Milsark, Gary (1974). Existential Sentences in English. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Milsark, Gary (1977). ‘Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Find this resource:

Mitchell, M. (2009). ‘Class-based ordering of prenominal modifiers’, in Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), 50–7, Athens, Greece.Find this resource:

Mitchell, M., Han, X., Dodge, J., Mensch, A., A., G., Berg, A., Daume, H., et al. (2012). ‘Midge: Generating image descriptions from computer vision detections’, in Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), 747–56, Stroudsburg, PA.Find this resource:

Mitchell, M., van Deemter, K., and Reiter, E. (2013). ‘Generating expressions that refer to visible objects’, in Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL).Find this resource:

Mitkov, R. (1999). Anaphora Resolution: The State of the Art. School of Languages and European Studies, University of Wolverhampton.Find this resource:

Moll, H., Richter, N., Carpenter, M., and Tomasello, M. (2008). ‘Fourteen-month-olds know what ‘we’ have shared in a special way’, Infancy 13(1): 90–101.Find this resource:

Montag, Jessica L. and MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2013). ‘Visual salience modulates structure choice in relative clause production’, Language and Speech 57(2): 163–80. doi: 10.1177/0023830913495656.Find this resource:

Montague, R. (1970a). ‘English as a formal language’, in B. Visentini et al. (eds), Linguaggi nella Societa et nella Technica, Milan: Edizioni di Communita, 188–221.Find this resource:

Montague, R. (1970b). ‘Universal grammar’, Theoria 36: 373–98.Find this resource:

Montague, R. (1973). ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’, in K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes (eds), Approaches to Natural Language (Synthese Library 49), Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–42.Find this resource:

Montague, R. (1974). ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary english’, in Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven.Find this resource:

Morales, A. (1997). ‘La hipótesis funcional y la aparición de sujeto no nominal: El español de Puerto Rico’, Hispania 80(1): 153–65.Find this resource:

Morgan, J. L. (1973). Presupposition and the Representation of Meaning: Prolegomena. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Find this resource:

Morgenstern, A. and Parisse, C. (2010). ‘The Paris Corpus’, French Language Studies 22(1): 7–12.Find this resource:

(p. 539) Morrow, Daniel G. (1985). ‘Prominent characters and events organize narrative understanding’, Journal of Memory and Language 24(3): 304–19.Find this resource:

Mount, Allyson (2008). ‘Intentions, gestures, and salience in ordinary and deferred demonstrative reference’, Mind & Language 23(2): 145–64.Find this resource:

Mozuraitis, M. & Heller, D. (2017). Discourse coherence and the interpretation of accented pronouns. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(2) 84–104.Find this resource:

Müller, H., King, J., and Kutas, M. (1997).’ Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses’, Cognitive Brain Research 5: 193–203.Find this resource:

Münte, T., Schlitz, S., and Kutas, M. (1998). ‘When temporal terms belie conceptual order’, Nature 395: 71–4.Find this resource:

Musan, R. (1995). On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Find this resource:

Muskens, Reinhart (1996). ‘Combining Montague semantics and Discourse Representation’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–86.Find this resource:

Myachykov, Andriy, Garrod, Simon C., and Scheepers, Christoph (2009). ‘Attention and syntax in sentence production: a critical review’, Discours 4. doi: 10.4000/discours.7594.Find this resource:

Nadig, A., Seth, S., and Sasson, M. (2015). ‘Global similarities and multifaceted differences in the production of partner-specific referential pacts by adults with autism spectrum disorders’, Frontiers in Psychology 6(1888): 1–14.Find this resource:

Nashawati, S. (2010). Le développement des expressions référentielles chez le jeune enfant: noms et pronoms dans des dialogues mère-enfant. (PhD), Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3, Paris.Find this resource:

Neale, Stephen (1990). Descriptions. MIT Press (Bradford Books), Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Neale, Stephen (2004). ‘This, that, and the other’, in M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–182.Find this resource:

Nelson, K. (2007). Young Minds in Social Worlds: Experience, Meaning, and Memory. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Nenkova, A. and McKeown, K. R. (2003). ‘References to named entities: A corpus study’, in Proceedings of the Human Language Technology (HLT) Conference, Companion Volume, 70–3.Find this resource:

Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., and Garrett, M. (1991). ‘Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event related brain potentials’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3(2): 151–65.Find this resource:

New, Joshua, Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (2007). ‘Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(42): 16598–603. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703913104.Find this resource:

Nieuwland, M. S. (2014). ‘“Who’s he?” Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns’, Journal of Memory and Language 76: 1–28.Find this resource:

Nieuwland, M. S. and Van Berkum, J. (2006). ‘Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution’, Brain Research 1118: 155–67.Find this resource:

Nieuwland, M. S. and Van Berkum, J. (2008a). ‘The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: evidence from ERPs’, Brain and Language 106: 119–31.Find this resource:

Nieuwland, M. S. and Van Berkum, J. (2008b). ‘The neurocognition of referential ambiguity in language comprehension’, Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4): 603–30. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00070.x.Find this resource:

(p. 540) Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., and Van Berkum, J. (2007). ‘Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with ERPs’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19: 228–36.Find this resource:

Nieuwland, M. S., Petersson, K.M., and Van Berkum, J. (2007). ‘On Sense and Reference: Examining the Functional Neuroanatomy of Referential Processing’, NeuroImage, 37, 993–1004.Find this resource:

Ninio, A. and Bruner, J. S. (1978). ‘The achievement and antecedents of labelling’, Journal of Child Language 5: 1–15.Find this resource:

Ninio, A. and Snow, C. (1996). Pragmatic Development. Boulder: Westview Press.Find this resource:

Nunberg, Geoffrey (1978). The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

O’Rourke, Michael (1994). Understanding Descriptions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Find this resource:

O’Rourke, Michael (2003). ‘The scope argument’, The Journal of Philosophy 100: 136–57.Find this resource:

Oberlander, J. (1998). ‘Do the right thing…but expect the unexpected’, Computational Linguistics 24: 501–7.Find this resource:

Ochs Keenan, E. and Shieffelin, B. (1976). ‘Topic as discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topics, New York: Academic Press, 335–84.Find this resource:

O’Donnell, M., Cheng, H., and Hitzeman, J. (1998). ‘Integrating referring and informing in NP planning’, in Proceedings of the Acl Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Nominals, 46–55, Montreal, Canada.Find this resource:

Olson, D. R. (1970). ‘Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics’, Psychological Review 77: 257–73.Find this resource:

Onea, Edgar (2016). Potential Questions at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Leiden: Brill.Find this resource:

Onea, Edgar and Geist, Ljudmilla (2011). ‘Indefinite determiners and referential anchoring’, International Review of Pragmatics 3(2): 194–227.Find this resource:

O’Neill, D. K. (1996). ‘Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making requests’, Child Development 67(2): 659–77.Find this resource:

O’Neill, D. K. (2005). ‘Talking about “new” information: the given/new distinction and children’s developing theory of mind’, in J. W. Astington and J. A. Baird (eds), Why Language Matters for Theory of Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–105.Find this resource:

Osgood, Charles E. (1971). ‘Where do sentences come from?’, in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, London: Cambridge University Press, 497–529.Find this resource:

Osterhout, L. (1999). ‘A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are a part of the family: counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998) in the P600-SPS-P300 debate’, Language and Cognitive Processes 14(1): 1–14.Find this resource:

Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P. (1992). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly’, Journal of Memory and Language 31(6): 785–806.Find this resource:

Osterhout, L. and Mobley, L. A. (1995). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree’, Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–73.Find this resource:

Overstreet, Maryann, and Yule, George (1997). ‘Locally Contingent Categorization’, Discourse Processes 23: 83–97.Find this resource:

Öztürk, Balkz (2005). Case, Referentiality, and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Pablos, L., Doetjes, J., Ruijgrok, B., and Cheng, L. (2015). ‘Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution’, Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–13.Find this resource:

(p. 541) Pajusalu, R. (1997). ‘Eesti pronoomeneid I. Ühiskeele see, too, tema/ta [Estonian pronouns I. See, too, tema/ta in common Estonian]’, Keel ja Kirjandus 1: 24–30; 2: 106–15.Find this resource:

Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.-J. (2002). ‘BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation’, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 311–18, Philadelphia, PA.Find this resource:

Paraboni, I. and van Deemter, K. (2014). ‘Reference and the facilitation of search in spatial domains’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(8).Find this resource:

Paraboni, I., van Deemter, K., and Masthoff, J. (2007). ‘Generating referring expressions: making referents easy to identify’, Computational Linguistics 33(2): 229–54.Find this resource:

Paradis, J. and Navarro, S. (2003). ‘Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: what is the role of the input?’, Journal of Child Language 30(2): 371–93.Find this resource:

Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara (1970). ‘Opacity, coreference, and pronouns’, Synthese 21: 359–85.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara H. (1972). ‘Opacity, coreference, and pronouns’, in Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel, 415–41.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara H. (1984). ‘Nominal and temporal anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243–86.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara H. (1986). ‘Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles’, in Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Dordrecht: Foris, 115–43.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara H. (1987). ‘Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles’, in J. A. G. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. J. B. Stokhof (eds), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Dordrecht: Foris, 115–43.Find this resource:

Partee, Barbara H. (2006). ‘A note on Mandarin possessives, demonstratives, and definiteness’, in Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurance R. Horn, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 263–80.Find this resource:

Passonneau, Rebecca J. (1996). ‘Using centering to relax Gricean informational constraints on discourse anaphoric noun phrases’, Language and Speech 39(2/3): 229–64.Find this resource:

Passonneau, Rebecca J. (2006). ‘Measuring agreement on set-valued items (MASI) for semantic and pragmatic annotation’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Genoa, Italy.Find this resource:

Pearson, Hazel (2013). The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of De Se Expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Find this resource:

Pearson, Hazel (2015). ‘The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe’, Natural Language Semantics 23: 77–118.Find this resource:

Pechmann, T. (1989). ‘Incremental speech production and referential over-specification’, Linguistics 27: 98–110.Find this resource:

Pekarek, S. (1999). ‘Linguistic forms and social interaction: why do we specify referents more than is necessary for their identification?’, in J. Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (Vol. 2), Reims: IPRA, 427–47.Find this resource:

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2001). ‘Referential processes as situated cognition: pronominal expressions and the social co-ordination of talk’, in T. Eniko Nemeth (ed.), Cognition in Language use. Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference (Vol. 1), Budapest: IPRA, 302–16.Find this resource:

(p. 542) Percus, O. (2000). ‘Constraints on some other variables in syntax’, Natural Language Semantics 8(3): 173–229.Find this resource:

Percus, Orin and Uli Sauerland (2003a). ‘On the LFs of attitude reports’, in Proceedings of the Conference “Sub7 - Sinn Und Bedeutung”, University of Konstanz, 228–42.Find this resource:

Percus, Orin and Uli Sauerland (2003b). ‘Pronoun movement in dream reports’, in NELS 33: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, MIT, Cambridge MA, 347–66.Find this resource:

Perera, R. and Nand, P. (2017). ‘Recent advances in natural language generation: a survey and classification of the empirical literature’, Computing and Informatics 36.Find this resource:

Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M., and Roberge, Y. (2008). ‘Null objects in child language: syntax and the lexicon’, Lingua 118: 370–98.Find this resource:

Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M., and Roberge, Y. (2011). ‘Topicalization and object omission in child language’, First Language 31(3): 280–99.Find this resource:

Perlman, A. (1969). ‘This as a third article in American English’, American Speech 44: 76–80.Find this resource:

Perner, J. (1999). ‘Theory of mind’, Developmental Psychology: Achievements and Prospects 205–30.Find this resource:

Perry, John (1977). Frege on Demonstratives. The Philosophical Review 86(4): 474–97.Find this resource:

Perry, John (1979). ‘The essential indexical,’ Noûs 13: 13–21.Find this resource:

Perry, John (1988). ‘Cognitive significance and new theories of reference,’ Noûs 22: 1–18.Find this resource:

Perry, John (1997). ‘Indexicals and demonstratives’, in R. Hale and C. Wright (eds), Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 586–612.Find this resource:

Perry, John (2001). Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford, CLSI.Find this resource:

Perry, John (2008). ‘Directing intentions’, in J. Almog and P. Leonardi (eds), The Philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 187–201.Find this resource:

Perry, John (2012). Reference and Reflexivity, 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Pesetsky, David (1987). ‘Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 98–129.Find this resource:

Peters, A. M. (2000). ‘Filler syllables: what is their status in emerging grammar?’, Journal of Child Language 28: 229–42.Find this resource:

Peters, Stanley and Dag Westerståhl (2006). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Find this resource:

Peterson, C. and Dodsworth, P. (1991). ‘A longitudinal analysis of young children’s cohesion and noun specification in narratives’, Journal of Child Language 18: 397–415.Find this resource:

Phillips, C., N. Gazanina, and A. Abada (2005). ‘ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies’, Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–28.Find this resource:

Pica, Teresa, Dom Berducci, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis, and Jeanne Newman (1990). ‘Language learning through interaction: what role does gender play?’, Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6: 53–83.Find this resource:

Pickering, M. and Garrod, S. (2004). ‘Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue’, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27: 169–90.Find this resource:

Pirvulescu, M. (2006). ‘Theoretical implications of object clitic omission in early French: spontaneous vs. elicited production’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 5: 221–6.Find this resource:

Piwek, Paul, Beun, Robbert-Jan, and Cremers, Anita H. M. (2008). ‘“Proximal” and “distal” in language and cognition: evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch’, Journal of Pragmatics 40(4): 694–718. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.001.Find this resource:

(p. 543) Poesio, Massimo and Renata Vieira (1998). ‘A corpus-based investigation of definite description use’, Computational Linguistics 24: 183–216.Find this resource:

Poesio, Massimo, Stevenson, Rosemary, Di Eugenio, Barbara, and Hitzeman, Janet (2004). ‘Centering: a parametric theory and its instantiations’, Computational Linguistics 30(3): 309–63. doi: 10.1162/0891201041850911.Find this resource:

Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X., and Zhou, X., (2013). ‘Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: an event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification’, Brain Research 15(1490): 134–52.Find this resource:

Pollack, Martha E. (1990). ‘Plans as complex mental attitudes’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 77–104.Find this resource:

Pollack, Martha E. (1991). ‘Overloading intentions for efficient practical reasoning’, Noûs 25: 513–36.Find this resource:

Popescu-Belis, A., Robba, I., and Sabah, G. (1998). ‘Reference resolution beyond coreference: a conceptual frame and its application’, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1046–52.Find this resource:

Portet, F., Reiter, E., Gatt, A., Hunter, J., Sripada, S., Freer, Y., and Sykes, C. (2009). ‘Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data’, Artificial Intelligence 173: 789–816.Find this resource:

Portner, Paul (2002). ‘Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin’, Journal of Semantics 19: 275–87.Find this resource:

Portner, Paul and Yabushita, Katsuhiko (2001). ‘Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics’, Journal of Semantics 18: 217–97.Find this resource:

Power, R. J. D. and Dal Martello, M. F. (1986). ‘The use of definite and indefinite articles by Italian preschool children’, Journal of Child Language 13: 145–54.Find this resource:

Prat-Sala, Mercè and Branigan, Holly P. (2000). ‘Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: a cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish’, Journal of Memory and Language 42(2): 168–82. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2668.Find this resource:

Pratt, Jay, Radulescu, Petre V., Guo, Ruo Mu, and Abrams, Richard A. (2010). ‘It’s alive! animate motion captures visual attention’, Psychological Science 21(11): 1724–30. doi: 10.1177/0956797610387440.Find this resource:

Prince, Ellen (1981a). ‘On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs’, in B. L. Webber, A. K. Joshi, and I. A. Sag (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231–50.Find this resource:

Prince, Ellen (1981b). ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 223–56.Find this resource:

Prince, Ellen (1985). ‘Fancy syntax and “shared knowledge”’, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 65–81.Find this resource:

Prince, Ellen (1992). ‘The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status’, in S. Thompson and W. Mann (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text, Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–325.Find this resource:

Prior, A. N. (1952). ‘Modality de dicto and modality de re’, Theoria 18(3): 174–80. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1952.tb00914.x/abstractFind this resource:

Prior, A. N. (1957). Time and Modality. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Find this resource:

Prud’Hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A., et al. (2008). ‘SPARQL Query Language for RDF’, W3C recommendation, 15.Find this resource:

Pylkkänen, L., Brennan, J., and Bemis, D. K. (2011). ‘Grounding the cognitive neuroscience of semantics in linguistic theory’, Language and Cognitive Processes 26(9): 1317–37.Find this resource:

(p. 544) Pyykkönen, P. and Järvikivi, J. (2010). ‘Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension’, Experimental Psychology 57(1): 5–16.Find this resource:

Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., and Järvikivi, J. (2010). ‘Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online language comprehension: a visual world study of pronoun resolution’, Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 115–29.Find this resource:

Qing, C. and Franke, M. (2015). ‘Variations on a bayesian theme: comparing Bayesian models of referential reasoning’, in H.-C. Schmitz and H. Zeevat (eds), Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics, Heidelberg: Springer, 201–20.Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1948). ‘On what there is’, Review of Metaphysics. [Reprinted in Quine (1953)].Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1950). Methods of Logic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1953). From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1956). ‘Quantifiers and propositional attitudes’, The Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177–87.Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MIT Press.Find this resource:

Quine, Willard van Orman (1969). ‘Propositional objects’, in Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1980). A Grammar of Contemporary English (Ninth Impression). Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex: Longman.Find this resource:

Raghunathan, B. (2013). The Complete Book of Data Anonymization: From Planning to Implementation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, and New York.Find this resource:

Read, R. C. and Corneil, D. G. (1977). ‘The graph isomorphism disease’, Journal of Graph Theory 1(1): 339–63.Find this resource:

Recanati, F. (1996). ‘Domains of discourse’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19(5): 445–75.Find this resource:

Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Recanati, F. (2005). ‘Descriptions and situations’, in M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds), Descriptions and Beyond, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 15–40.Find this resource:

Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Reimer, Marga (1991). ‘Do demonstrations have semantic significance?’, Analysis 51(4): 177–83.Find this resource:

Reimer, Marga (1992). ‘Three views of demonstrative reference’, Synthese 93: 373–402.Find this resource:

Reimer, Marga (2001). ‘The problem of empty names’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79(4): 491–506.Find this resource:

Reimer, Marga (2010). ‘Reference’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/reference/>.Find this resource:

Reinhart, Tanya (1982). ‘Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics’, Philosophica 27(1): 53–94.Find this resource:

Reinhart, Tanya (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Reinhart, Tanya (1997). ‘Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–97.Find this resource:

Reiter, E. (1990). ‘The computational complexity of avoiding conversational implicatures’, in Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 97–104.Find this resource:

Reiter, E. and Dale, R. (1992). ‘A fast algorithm for the generation of referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computational linguistics (coling), 232–8, Nantes, France.Find this resource:

(p. 545) Reiter, E. and Dale, R. (2000). Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Ren, Y., van Deemter, K., and Pan, J. (2010). ‘Charting the potential of Description Logic for the generation of referring expressions’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), 115–24.Find this resource:

Richard, M. (1998). ‘Commitment’, Philosophical Perspectives 12: 255–81.Find this resource:

Rivero, Marìa-Luisa (1975). ‘Referential properties of spanish noun phrases’, Language 51: 32–48.Find this resource:

Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). ‘Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the case of root infinitives’, Language Acquisition 3(4): 371–93.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (1989). ‘Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 683–721. [Reprinted in Javier Gutierrez-Rexach (ed.) Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, Routledge, 2003].Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (1995). ‘Domain selection in dynamic semantics’, in Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara H. Partee (eds), Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (1996/2012). ‘Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics’, in Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds) Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 49. [Reprinted in the 1998 version with a new Afterword in Semantics and Pragmatics, Volume 5, 2012].Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (1996b). ‘Anaphora in intensional contexts’, in Shalom Lappin (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Basil Blackwell, 1996.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2002). ‘Demonstratives as definites’, in K. van Deemter and R. Kibble (eds), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, Stanford: CSLI, 89–136.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2003). ‘Uniqueness in definite noun phrases’, Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2004). ‘Context in dynamic interpretation’, in L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Melden, MA: Blackwell, 197–220.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2005). ‘Pronouns as definites’, in M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2015a). ‘Accommodation in a language game’, in Berry Loewer and Jonathan Schaffer (eds), A Companion to David Lewis, Wiley-Blackwell, Hobeken, NJ.Find this resource:

Roberts, Craige (2015b). Indexicality: A De Se Semantics and Pragmatics. Unpublished Manuscript. The Ohio State University.Find this resource:

Roberts, Lawrence D. (1997). ‘How demonstrations connect with referential intentions’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75(2): 190–200.Find this resource:

Rochemont, Michael and Peter Culicover (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Rohde, H. (2008). Coherence-Driven Effects in Sentence Discourse Processing. PhD dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Find this resource:

Rohde, H., and Kehler, Andrew (2013). ‘Grammatical and Information-Structural Influences on Pronoun Production’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29: 8, 912–927. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.854918.Find this resource:

Rohde, H. and Kehler, A. (2014). ‘Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production’, Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 29: 912–27.Find this resource:

Rohde, H., Kehler, A., and Elman, J. L. (2006). ‘Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation’, in R. Sun (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 617–622.Find this resource:

(p. 546) Roll, M., Horne, M., and Lindgren, M. (2007). ‘Object shift and event-related brain potentials’. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20: 462–81.Find this resource:

Roman Kutlak and Kees van Deemter and Chris Mellish (2016). Production of referring expressions for an unknown audience: a computational model of communal common ground. Frontiers of Psychology, 31 Aug. 2016.Find this resource:

Romoli, J. and Sudo, Y. (2009). ‘De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection’, in A. Riester and T. Solstad (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, University of Stuttgart, 425–38.Find this resource:

Rooth, Mats E. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Rooth, Mats E. (1992). ‘A theory of focus interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Find this resource:

Rosa, Elise C., Finch, Kayla H., Bergeson, Molly, and Arnold, Jennifer E. (2013). ‘The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence’, Language and Cognitive Processes 30(1/2): 48–56. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.772213.Find this resource:

Rosch, E. (1978). ‘Principles of categorization’, in E. Rosch and B. L. Lloyd (eds), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27–48.Find this resource:

Rothschild, Daniel (2007). ‘Presuppositions and scope’, Journal of Philosophy 104: 71–106.Find this resource:

Roy, D. (2005). ‘Grounding words in perception and action: computational insights’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(8): 389–96.Find this resource:

Roy, D. and Pentland, A. (2002). ‘Learning words from sights and sounds: a computational model’, Cognitive Science 26: 113–46.Find this resource:

Roy, D., Hsiao, K.-Y., Mavridis, N., and Gorniak, P. (2003). ‘Ripley, Hand Me The Cup! Sensorimotor representations for grounding word meaning, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding.Find this resource:

Rozendaal, M. and Baker, A. (2008). ‘A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds’, Journal of Child Language 35: 773–807.Find this resource:

Rubio-Fernández, Paula (2008). ‘On the automaticity of egocentricity: a review of the egocentric anchoring and adjustment model of perspective taking’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 247–74.Find this resource:

Rugg, M. and Coles, M. (1995). ‘The ERP and cognitive psychology: conceptual issues’, in M. D. Rugg and M. G. H. Coles (eds), Electrophysiology of Mind: Event Related Brain Potentials and Cognition (Vol. 25), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–39.Find this resource:

Runner, J. (2013). ‘Syntactic structure, information structure, and lexical effects on null and overt subject comprehension in Spanish’, talk given at the 35th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), Workhop on “Information Structural Evidence in the Race for Salience,” March 2013, Potsdam, Germany.Find this resource:

Runner, J. and Ibarra, A. (2016). ‘Information structure effects on null and overt subject comprehension in Spanish’, in Anke, Holler and Katja Suckow (eds), Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution, De Gruyter, 87–112.Find this resource:

Russell, Bertrand (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Russell, Bertrand (1905). ‘On denoting’, Mind 14(56): 479–93.Find this resource:

Russell, Bertrand (1914). ‘The Relation of Sense Data to Physics’, Scientia, 16, 1–27.Find this resource:

Russell, Bertrand (1918). ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, in Russell, Bertrand (1956), 177–281.Find this resource:

(p. 547) Russell, Bertrand (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Find this resource:

Russell, Bertrand (1956). ‘Logic and Knowledge’, in R.C. Marsh (ed.), London: Allen & Unwin, 1956.Find this resource:

Ruys, Eduard (2006). ‘Unexpected wide scope phenomena’, in M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 5, Oxford: Blackwell, 175–228.Find this resource:

Sadrai, Mahmoud (2014). Cognitive Status and RA-marked Referents of Nominal Expressions in Persian Discourse. PhD Dissertation. University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Sæbø, Kjell Johan (2013). ‘Reports of specific indefinites’, Journal of Semantics 30: 267–314.Find this resource:

Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Sag T. and Hankamer J. (1984). ‘Toward a theory of anaphoric processing’, Linguistics & Philosophy 7: 325–345.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A. (2000). ‘La reprise aux sources de la construction discursive’, Langages 140: 68–91.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A. (2003). ‘L’inscription dialogique du jeune enfant: évolution, diversité, et hétérogénéité’ TRANEL 38–9: 7–24.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J., and Parès J. (2008). ‘Entre gramática y pragmática: adquisición de los determinantes en francés’, in Luis Miranda (ed.), Actas del V Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Lingüístico-Filológicas. Cátedra UNESCO para la Lectura y la Escritura en América Latina (Sede Perú): Lima, 55–87.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J., and Parès, J. (2010a). ‘Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: the use of third person pronouns before the age of 3’, Journal of Pragmatics 42(7): 1842–65.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J., and Parès, J. (2010b). ‘Dialogical factors in toddlers’ use of clitic pronouns’, First Language 30(3–4): 374–402.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A. and Morgenstern, A. (2015). ‘Acquisition and uses of pronouns in a dialogic perspective’, in L. Serratrice and S. E. M. Allen (eds), The Acquisition of Reference, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–80.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Da Silva, C., Fox, G., Heurdier, J., Le Mené, M., and Marcos, H. (2013). ‘First Uses of French Demonstrative “ça”, the Development of Deictic Reference’, Paper presented at the Child Language Seminar 2013, Manchester.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., de Weck, G., Hassan, R., and Rialland, A. (eds). (in preparation). The Acquisition of Referring Expressions: A Dialogic Approach.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Hasan, R., Leber-Marin, J., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., and Parès, J. (2006). ‘Peut-on parler d’anaphore chez le jeune enfant ?’, Langages 163: 10–24.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Caët, S., Corlateanu, C., da Silva, C., Hassan, R., Heurdier, J., Le Mené, M., Leber-Marin, J., and Morgenstern, A. (2013). ‘Definite and indefinite determiners in French-speaking toddlers: distributional features and pragmatic-discursive factors’, Journal of Pragmatics 56: 88–112.Find this resource:

Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Heurdier, J., and da Silva, C. (2018). ‘Referential features, speech genres, and activity types’, in M. Hickmann, H. Jisa, and E. Veneziano (eds), Sources of Variation in First Language Acquisition: Languages, Contexts, and Learners, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 219–42.Find this resource:

Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Salmon, N. (1998). ‘Nonexistence’, Noûs 32: 277–319.Find this resource:

(p. 548) Salmon, N. (2002). ‘Mythical objects’, in Campbell, J., O’Rourke, M., and Shier, D. (eds), Meaning and Truth: Investigations in Philosophical Semantics, New York, Seven Bridges Press, 105–23.Find this resource:

Salmon-Alt, Susanne and Romary, Laurent (2000). ‘Generating Referring Expressions in Multimodal Contexts’, International Natural Language Generation Conference.Find this resource:

Salomo, D., Graf, E., Lieven, E., and Tomasello, M. (2011). ‘The role of perceptual availability and discourse context in young children’s question answering’, Journal of Child Language 38(4): 918–31.Find this resource:

Salomo, D., Lieven, E., and Tomasello, M. (2010). ‘Young children’s sensitivity to new and given information when answering predicate-focus questions’, Applied Psycholinguistics 31(1): 101–15.Find this resource:

Sandford, John (2014). Silken Prey. New York: Berkley.Find this resource:

Sanford, A. J. and Sturt, P. (2002). ‘Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 382–6.Find this resource:

Scha, R. and Stallard, D. (1988). ‘Multi-level plurals and distributivity’, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 17–24, Buffalo, NY.Find this resource:

Schaeffer, J. and Matthewson, L. (2005). ‘Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 53–101.Find this resource:

Schafer, R. and de Villiers, J. (2000). ‘Imagining Articles: What “a” and “the” can tell us about the emergence of DP’, Paper presented at the BUCLD 24.Find this resource:

Scheutz, M., Eberhard, K., and Andronache, V. (2004). ‘A real-time robotic model of human reference resolution using visual constraints’, Connection Science Journal 91: 145–67.Find this resource:

Schlenker, Philippe (2003). ‘A plea for monsters’, Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120.Find this resource:

Schober, Michael (1995). ‘Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations?’, Discourse Processes 20, 219–47.Find this resource:

Schumacher, P. (2009). ‘Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: evidence from ERPs’, in S. Lalitha Devi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov (eds), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5847: Anaphora Processing and Applications, Heidelberg: Springer, 91–106.Find this resource:

Schumacher, P., Roberts, L., and Järvikivi, J. (2017). ‘Agentivity drives real-time pronoun resolution: evidence from German er and der’, Lingua 185: 25–41.Find this resource:

Schwarz, Bernhard (2001). ‘Two kinds of long distance indefinites’, in R. van Rooy and M. Stokhof (eds), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloqium, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 192–7.Find this resource:

Schwarz, F. (2009). Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.Find this resource:

Schwarz, F. (2012). ‘Situation pronouns in determiner phrases’, Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 431–75.Find this resource:

Schwarzschild, Roger (2002). ‘Singleton indefinites’, Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314.Find this resource:

Scott, Kate J. (2010). The Relevance of Referring Expressions: The Case of Diary Drop in English. PhD dissertation. University College London.Find this resource:

Searle, John R. (1958). ‘Proper names’, Mind 67: 166–73.Find this resource:

Searle, John (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Searle, John R. (1970). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Searle, John (1979a). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Searle, John (1979b). ‘Referential and attributive’. Monist 62: 190–208.Find this resource:

Searle, John R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 549) Searle, John R. (1990). ‘Collective intentions and actions’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.Find this resource:

Sedivy, Julie 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.Find this resource:

Serratrice, L. (2005). ‘The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian’, Applied Psycholinguistics 26: 437–62.Find this resource:

Serratrice, L. (2007). ‘Null and overt subjects at the syntax–discourse interface. Evidence from monolingual and bilingual acquisition’, in S. Baauw, J. van Kampen, and M. Pinto (eds), The Acquisition of Romance Languages. Selected papers from The Romance Turn II 2006, Utrecht: LOT, 181–200.Find this resource:

Serratrice, L. (2008). ‘The role of discourse and perceptual cues in the choice of referential expressions in English preschoolers, school-age children, and adults’, Language Learning and Development 4(4): 309–32.Find this resource:

Serratrice, L. (2013). ‘The role of number of referents and animacy in children’s use of pronouns’, Journal of Pragmatics 56: 31–42.Find this resource:

Sgall, Petr, Hajičová, Eva, and Benešová, Eva (1973). Topic, Focus, and Generative Semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Find this resource:

Sgall, Petr, Hajičová, Eva, and Panevová, Jarmila (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Sharvy, Richard (1980). ‘A more general theory of definite descriptions’, Philosophical Review 89: 607–24.Find this resource:

Shaw, J. and Hatzivass