The Contribution of Lexical and Situational Knowledge to Resolving Discourse Roles: Bonding and Resolution

By Simon Garrod, Melissa Mhairi Terras. 2000

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f67831e07f6c4a7a361f645da1a20eb6b07a64b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis (2008, methodology): “Following the logic of Garrod and colleagues (Sanford et al., 1983; Garrod & Sanford, 1990; Garrod & Terras, 2000), this suggests that prominence affects late stages of integration, not the initial stage where the antecedent is bound to the pronoun.”
Influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender during reading: eye movements in pronominal and noun phrase anaphor resolution (2014, methodology): “Our findings can be interpreted within the framework of two-stage models of reference resolution (Cook & Myers, 2004; Garrod & Sanford, 1995; Garrod & Terras, 2000), which claim that the first stage of resolution (linkage/bonding) is influenced by lexical information only, whereas the second stage…”
The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations (2007, methodology): “In pronoun and other types of anaphoric resolution, Garrod and colleagues have used such a difference as a basis for proposing a two-stage model (Garrod & Sanford, 1990; Garrod & Terras, 2000; Sanford, Garrod, Lucas, & Henderson, 1983).”
The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search (2009, unknown): “…& Rayner, 1997; Cook & Myers, 2004; Duffy & Keir, 2004; Duffy & Rayner, 1990; K. Ehrlich & Rayner, 1983; Garrod, O’Brien, Morris, & Rayner, 1990; Garrod & Terras, 2000; O’Brien, Raney, Albrecht, & Rayner, 1997; O’Brien, Shank, Myers, & Rayner, 1988; Rayner, Chace, Slattery, & Ashby, 2006a;…”
What Have We Been Missing? The Role of General World Knowledge in Discourse Processing (2005, methodology): “Eye tracking methodology, such as that used by Garrod and Terras (2000) and Cook and Myers (2004), is one possibility for investigating this issue because it allows for a more fine-grained analysis of online reading processes (see Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989).”
Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes (2007, background): “Other studies (Cook and Myers, 2004; Garrod and Terras, 2000) have found that a target word is read more quickly when it fills a thematic role that is left open in the preceding discourse; for example, if the preceding sentence makes reference to driving, the word car would be read particularly quic”
Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds : An eye-movement investigation (2008, background): “Please cite this article in press as: Ferguson, H. J., & Sanford, A. J., Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An ..., Journal of Memory and Language (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007 & Myers, 2004; Garrod & Sanford, 1999; Garrod & Terras, 2000; Sanford & Garrod, 2005).”
The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution (2003, background): “…by the lexical facilitation of pen in relation to chalk as the dominant implicit instrument of write, regardless of whether the contextual situation involved writing on a blackboard or writing a letter (see Garrod & Terras, 2000, for full details of the experimental design, including controls).”
Eye Movements as Reflections of Comprehension Processes in Reading (2006, background): “Although there are a few studies (see, e.g., Cook & Myers, 2004; Garrod, O’Brien, Morris, & Rayner, 1990; Garrod & Terras, 2000; O’Brien, Raney, Albrecht, & Rayner, 1997; O’Brien, Shank, Myers, & Rayner, 1988) in which eye movements were monitored to assess immediate comprehension in discourse…”
Syntactic and cognitive issues in investigating gendered coreference (2019, methodology): “…with which it corefers relies fundamentally on a general cognitive mechanism for classifying and checking congruency of gender rather than relying on a mechanism specific to linguistic processing, in line with the ‘mental model’ framework (e.g., Garnham & Oakhill 1990; Garrod & Terras 2000).”