This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alshawi, H. and R. Crouch: 1992, ‘Monotonic Semantic Interpretation’. In: Proc. 30th. ACL. University of Delaware, pp. 32–39.
Bard, E. G., D. Robertson, and A. Sorace: 1996, ‘Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability’. Language 72(1), 32–68.
Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe: 1995, ‘Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension’. Journal of Semantics 12(1), 15–68. Special Issue on Lexical Semantics.
Frazier, L. and K. Rayner: 1990, ‘Taking on Semantic Commitments: Processing Multiple Meanings vs. Multiple Senses’. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 181–200.
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.
Garrod, S. C. and A. J. Sanford: 1985, ‘On the real-time character of interpretation during reading’. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 43–61.
Gernsbacher, M. A. and D. Hargreaves: 1988, ‘Accessing Sentence Participants: The Advantage of First Mention’. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 699–717.
Goldman, A.: 1970, A Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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 (The paper originally appeared as an unpublished manuscript in 1986).
Hobbs, J. R.: 1985, ‘Granularity’. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Los Angeles, California, pp. 432– 435.
Lakoff, G. P.: 1970, ‘A note on vagueness and ambiguity’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3), 357–359.
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.
Muskens, R.: 1995, ‘Order-independence and underspecification’. In DYANA- 2 Deliverable R2.2.C, Ellipsis, Underspecification, and Events in Dynamic Semantics.
Pinkal, M.: 1995, ‘Radical Underspecification’. In: P. Dekker, J. Groenendijk, and M. Stokhof (eds.): Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium.
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.
Poesio, M.: 1994, ‘Discourse Interpretation and the Scope of Operators’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, Rochester, NY.
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.
Poesio, M.: 1999, ‘Utterance Processing and Semantic Underspecification’. HCRC/RP 103, University of Edinburgh, HCRC.
Poesio, M.: to appear, Incrementality and Underspecification in Semantic Interpretation, Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI. To appear.
Poesio, M. and R. Stevenson: To appear, Salience: Theoretical Models and Empirical Evidence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Pollack, M. E.: 1986, ‘Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering’. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.
Reyle, U.: 1993, ‘Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, Representation and Deduction’. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–179.
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.
Sanford, A. J. and P. Sturt: 2002, ‘Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence’. Trends in Cognitive Science 6, 382–386.
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.
Sidner, C. L.: 1979, ‘Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse’. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
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.
Sturt, P. and M. Crocker: 1996, ‘Monotonic Syntactic Processing: A crosslinguistic study of attachment and reanalysis’. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(5), 449–494.
Swinney, D. A.: 1979, ‘Lexical Access During Sentence Comprehension: (Re)consideration of Context Effects’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 545–567.
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.
van Deemter, K. and S. Peters (eds.): 1996, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
van Eijck, J. and J. Jaspars: 1996, ‘Underspecification and Reasoning’. In Building the Framework, Deliverable D15 of the FRACAS project. Available at URL http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/∼ fracas/.
Webber, B. L.: 1991, ‘Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2), 107–135.
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.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Poesio, M., Reyle, U., Stevenson, R. (2008). Justified Sloppiness In Anaphoric Reference. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 83. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5958-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5958-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5957-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5958-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)