Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora

By A. Garnham. 2001

227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Introduction. Mental Models: Their Nature and Construction. Mental Models and Language Processing. Lingusitic Approaches to Anaphora. Psycholinguistic Approaches to Anaphora: Methodological Issues. Psycholinguistic Approaches to Anaphora: Empirical Studies. Deep and Surface Anaphors. Anaphoric Islands. Implicit Causality. Stereotypes. A Mental Models Theory of Understanding Anaphora. References.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a53ccb2c67b880fa83cb89d061eeaba25b9f2161

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution (2013, background): “An interesting possibility is that this is related to the phenomenon that in addition to an implicit causality bias, interpersonal verbs often exhibit an implicit consequentiality bias (Au, 1986; Commandeur, 2010; Crinean & Garnham, 2006; Garnham, 2001; Stewart, Pickering, & Sanford, 1998).”
What Have We Been Missing? The Role of General World Knowledge in Discourse Processing (2005, background): “Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading.”
Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension (2007, background): “…and (2) the accessibility of possible referents, such that the pronoun is linked with the most accessible entity that matches the lexical features (Arnold, 1998; Garnham, 2001; Givo´n, 1983; Gundel, Hedberg, & Zacharski, 1993; Sanford & Garrod, 1981; Stevenson, Crawley, & Kleinman, 1994).”
Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements (2008, methodology): “According to this theory, the discourse model consists of symbolic conceptual representations (Garnham, 2001) therefore it cannot employ the probabilistic representation of stereotypical gender.”
Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution (2008, background): “Many thanks also to all those in Finland who made these experiments possible.”
On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension : Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking (2006, methodology): “Furthermore, using the same pronoun across conditions allowed us to examine the claim (Garnham, 2001; Oakhill, Garnham, Reynolds, & Wilshire, 1998) that implicit causality effects observed in language comprehension would be artifacts of ‘low-level’ (e.”
Influences of grammatical and stereotypical gender during reading: eye movements in pronominal and noun phrase anaphor resolution (2014, background): “Garnham (2001) argues that most of the constraints on interpretation of anaphoric expressions must come from the context, since many anaphors do not have enough semantic content of their own (see also Duffy & Keir, 2004).”
The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations (2007, background): “Prominence is controlled by several factors that guide coreference and contribute to matching a coreferring expression with an antecedent (see Garnham, 2001 for a review).”
A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis (2008, background): “…(Frazier & Clifton, 2001; 2005), a pointer mechanism is equally compatible with alternative views that ellipses are a type of discourse anaphora (see Garnham, 2001) or that they can be interpreted by establishing coherence relations based on semantics and discourse properties alone (Kehler, 2002).”