| 1 |
Processing Speaker-Specific Information in Two Stages During the Interpretation of Referential Precedents
|
|
|
|
In: Front Psychol (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
How Do Addressees Exploit Conventionalizations? From a Negative Reference to an ad hoc Implicature
|
|
|
|
In: ISSN: 1664-1078 ; Frontiers in Psychology ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02368983 ; Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers, 2019, 10 (7), pp.1177-1204. ⟨10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01461⟩ (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
How Do Addressees Exploit Conventionalizations? From a Negative Reference to an ad hoc Implicature
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between linguistic processing and common ground
|
|
|
|
In: ISSN: 2054-5703 ; Royal Society Open Science ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01878723 ; Royal Society Open Science, The Royal Society, 2017, 4 (2), ⟨10.1098/rsos.160827⟩ (2017)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
Data from: The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between linguistic processing and common ground ...
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Interlocutors converge on names to refer to entities. For example, a speaker might refer to a novel looking object as the jellyfish and, once identified, the listener will too. The hypothesized mechanism behind such referential precedents is a subject of debate. The common ground view claims that listeners register the object as well as the identity of the speaker who coined the label. The linguistic view claims that, once established, precedents are treated by listeners like any other linguistic unit, i.e. without needing to keep track of the speaker. To test predictions from each account, we used visual-world eyetracking, which allows observations in real time, during a standard referential communication task. Participants had to select objects based on instructions from two speakers. In the critical condition, listeners sought an object with a negative reference such as not the jellyfish. We aimed to determine the extent to which listeners rely on the linguistic input, common ground or both. We found that ... : DataScriptsCompressed folder with subfolders with raw data, R scripts and results from cluster randomization analysis. Also a README.pdf file. ...
|
|
Keyword:
Common Ground; Dialogue; Language; Negation; Reference
|
|
URL: http://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ct810
https://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ct810
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 6 |
The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between linguistic processing and common ground
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between linguistic processing and common ground
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: a review and meta-analysis
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
Show me the pragmatic contribution: a developmental investigation of contrastive inference
|
|
|
|
In: ISSN: 0305-0009 ; EISSN: 1469-7602 ; Journal of Child Language ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01102587 ; Journal of Child Language, Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2014, 41, pp.Issue : 5 Pages : 985-1014. ⟨10.1017/S0305000913000263⟩ (2014)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
A perspective-free interpretation of negation
|
|
|
|
In: Xprag 2011 ; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00931261 ; Xprag 2011, Jun 2011, Barcelona, Spain (2011)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
