Justified Sloppiness In Anaphoric Reference

  • Massimo Poesio
  • Uwe Reyle
  • Rosemary Stevenson
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)


Orange Juice Semantic Interpretation Minimal Pair Corpus Analysis Garden Path 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alshawi, H. and R. Crouch: 1992, ‘Monotonic Semantic Interpretation’. In: Proc. 30th. ACL. University of Delaware, pp. 32–39.Google Scholar
  2. Bard, E. G., D. Robertson, and A. Sorace: 1996, ‘Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability’. Language 72(1), 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe: 1995, ‘Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension’. Journal of Semantics 12(1), 15–68. Special Issue on Lexical Semantics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frazier, L. and K. Rayner: 1990, ‘Taking on Semantic Commitments: Processing Multiple Meanings vs. Multiple Senses’. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garrod, S. C., D. Freudenthal, and E. Boyle: 1994, ‘The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse’. Journal of Memory and Language 32, 1–30.Google Scholar
  6. Garrod, S. C. and A. J. Sanford: 1985, ‘On the real-time character of interpretation during reading’. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gernsbacher, M. A. and D. Hargreaves: 1988, ‘Accessing Sentence Participants: The Advantage of First Mention’. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A.: 1970, A Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grosz, B. J., A. K. Joshi, and S. Weinstein: 1995, ‘Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse’. Computational Linguistics 21(2), 202–225. (The paper originally appeared as an unpublished manuscript in 1986).Google Scholar
  10. Hobbs, J. R.: 1985, ‘Granularity’. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Angeles, California, pp. 432– 435.Google Scholar
  11. Lakoff, G. P.: 1970, ‘A note on vagueness and ambiguity’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3), 357–359.Google Scholar
  12. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice- Theoretical Approach’. In: R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.): Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 302–323.Google Scholar
  13. Muskens, R.: 1995, ‘Order-independence and underspecification’. In DYANA- 2 Deliverable R2.2.C, Ellipsis, Underspecification, and Events in Dynamic Semantics.Google Scholar
  14. Pinkal, M.: 1995, ‘Radical Underspecification’. In: P. Dekker, J. Groenendijk, and M. Stokhof (eds.): Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  15. Poesio, M.: 1991, ‘Relational Semantics and Scope Ambiguity’. In: J. Barwise, J. M. Gawron, G. Plotkin, and S. Tutiya (eds.): Situation Semantics and its Applications, vol.2. Stanford, CA: CSLI, Chap. 20, pp. 469–497.Google Scholar
  16. Poesio, M.: 1994, ‘Discourse Interpretation and the Scope of Operators’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Poesio, M.: 1996, ‘Semantic Ambiguity and Perceived Ambiguity’. In: K. van Deemter and S. Peters (eds.): Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI, Chap. 8, pp. 159–201.Google Scholar
  18. Poesio, M.: 1999, ‘Utterance Processing and Semantic Underspecification’. HCRC/RP 103, University of Edinburgh, HCRC.Google Scholar
  19. Poesio, M.: to appear, Incrementality and Underspecification in Semantic Interpretation, Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI. To appear.Google Scholar
  20. Poesio, M. and R. Stevenson: To appear, Salience: Theoretical Models and Empirical Evidence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Poesio, M. and R. Vieira: 1998, ‘A Corpus-Based Investigation of Definite Description Use’. Computational Linguistics 24(2), 183–216. Also available as Research Paper CCS-RP-71, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  22. Pollack, M. E.: 1986, ‘Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering’. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  23. Reyle, U.: 1993, ‘Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, Representation and Deduction’. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reyle, U.: 1996, ‘Co-indexing Labeled DRSs to Represent and Reason with Ambiguities’. In: K. van Deemter and S. Peters (eds.): Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI, Chap. 10, pp. 239–268.Google Scholar
  25. Sanford, A. J. and P. Sturt: 2002, ‘Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence’. Trends in Cognitive Science 6, 382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schuster, E.: 1988, ‘Pronominal reference to events and actions: Evidence from naturally-occurring data’. LINC LAB 100, University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  27. Sidner, C. L.: 1979, ‘Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse’. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Stevenson, R. J., R. A. Crawley, and D. Kleinman: 1994, ‘Thematic Roles, Focus, and the Representation of Events’. Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sturt, P. and M. Crocker: 1996, ‘Monotonic Syntactic Processing: A crosslinguistic study of attachment and reanalysis’. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(5), 449–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swinney, D. A.: 1979, ‘Lexical Access During Sentence Comprehension: (Re)consideration of Context Effects’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 545–567.Google Scholar
  31. Tanenhaus, M. K., M. Spivey-Knowlton, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy: 1995, ‘Integration of Visual and Linguistic Information in Spoken Language Comprehension’. Science 268, 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Deemter, K. and S. Peters (eds.): 1996, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  33. van Eijck, J. and J. Jaspars: 1996, ‘Underspecification and Reasoning’. In Building the Framework, Deliverable D15 of the FRACAS project. Available at URL∼ fracas/.Google Scholar
  34. Webber, B. L.: 1991, ‘Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2), 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zwicky, A. and J. Sadock: 1975, ‘Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them’. In: J. Kimball (ed.): Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Poesio
  • Uwe Reyle
  • Rosemary Stevenson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations