Choosing anaphoric expressions : do people take into account likelihood of reference?

By Kumiko Fukumura, Roger P. G. van Gompel. 2010

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f60ad628c073a7beee5de8fa7c7f06b13ea09bbe

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

1. Kumiko Fukumura
2. Roger P. G. van Gompel
3. A. Schafer
4. Hannah Rohde
5. Theres Grüter

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Kumiko Fukumura
2. Roger P. G. van Gompel
3. A. Schafer
4. Hannah Rohde
5. Theres Grüter
6. J. Paradis

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Kumiko Fukumura
2. Roger P. G. van Gompel
3. Hannah Rohde
4. Theres Grüter

Citations in the corpus

• Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form (2017, background): “…the previous clause, they favor pronominal forms, whereas non-subject referents are re-mentioned preferentially with more explicit referring expressions like names (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1994; Arnold, 2001; Miltsakaki, 2007; Kehler et al., 2008; Fukumura & van Gompel, 2010; Rohde & Kehler, 2014).”
• The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression (2011, methodology): “…the sentential subject in the antecedent sentence than inanimates (Clark & Begun, 1971; Itagaki & Prideaux, 1985; Pearson et al., 2001) and pronouns are more frequent for subject antecedents than other antecedents (Arnold, 2001; Fletcher, 1984; Fukumura & Van Gompel, 2010; Stevenson et al., 1994).”