Graduate studies at Western
Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):249-268 (2012)
|Abstract||Within the Givenness Hierarchy framework of Gundel, Hedberg, and Zacharski (1993), lexical items included in referring forms are assumed to conventionally encode two kinds of information: conceptual information about the speaker’s intended referent and procedural information about the assumed cognitive status of that referent in the mind of the addressee, the latter encoded by various determiners and pronouns. This article focuses on effects of underspecification of cognitive status, establishing that, although salience and accessibility play an important role in reference processing, the Givenness Hierarchy itself is not a hierarchy of degrees of salience/accessibility, contrary to what has often been assumed. We thus show that the framework is able to account for a number of experimental results in the literature without making additional assumptions about form-specific constraints associated with different referring forms|
|Keywords||Underspecification Reference Cognitive status Relevance Accessbility Givenness Hierarchy Salience|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeanette Gundel, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski (1993). Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69:274--307.
Jeanette K. Gundel & Nancy Ann Hedberg (eds.) (2008). Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Julio Santiago & Donald G. MacKay (1999). Constraining Production Theories: Principled Motivation, Consistency, Homunculi, Underspecification, Failed Predictions, and Contrary Data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):55-56.
Jeanette K. Gundel, Michael Hegarty & Kaja Borthen (2003). Cognitive Status, Information Structure, and Pronominal Reference to Clausally Introduced Entities. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (3):281-299.
Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Roger P. G. van Gompel & Emiel Krahmer (2012). Toward a Computational Psycholinguistics of Reference Production. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):166-183.
Lynsey Wolter (2010). Teaching & Learning Guide For: Demonstratives in Philosophy and Linguistics. Philosophy Compass 5 (1):108-111.
Kumiko Fukumura & Roger P. G. van Gompel (2012). Producing Pronouns and Definite Noun Phrases: Do Speakers Use the Addressee's Discourse Model? Cognitive Science 36 (7):1289-1311.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Andrea Scarantino (2011). Information Processing, Computation, and Cognition. Journal of Biological Physics 37 (1):1-38.
Géraldine Legendre & Paul Smolensky (2012). On the Asymmetrical Difficulty of Acquiring Person Reference in French: Production Versus Comprehension. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (1):7-30.
Pieranna Garavaso (2001). Why the New Theorist May Still Need to Explain Cognitive Significance but Not Mind Doing It. Philosophia 28 (1-4):455-465.
Daphna Heller, Kristen S. Gorman & Michael K. Tanenhaus (2012). To Name or to Describe: Shared Knowledge Affects Referential Form. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):290-305.
Athanasios Raftopoulos (2009). Reference, Perception, and Attention. Philosophical Studies 144 (3):339 - 360.
James Genone & Tania Lombrozo (2012). Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):1-26.
Kent Bach (2006). What Does It Take To Refer? In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2012-03-03
Total downloads18 ( #74,684 of 740,538 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,538 )
How can I increase my downloads?