In this paper we report on an investigation into the principles underlying the choice of a particular referential expression to refer to an object located in a domain to which both participants in the dialogue have visual as well as physical access. Our approach is based on the assumption that participants try to use as little effort as possible when referring to objects. This assumption is operational-ized in two factors, namely the focus of attention and a particular choice of features to be included in a referential expression. We claim that both factors help in reducing the effort needed to, on the one hand, refer to an object and, on the other hand, to identify it. As a result of the focus of attention the number of potential target objects (i.e., the object the speaker intends to refer to) is reduced. The choice of a specific type of feature determines the number of objects that have to be identified in order to be able to understand the referential expression. An empirical study was conducted in which pairs of participants cooperatively carried out a simple block-building task, and the results provided empirical evidence that supported the aforementioned claims. Especially the focus of attention turned out to play an important role in reducing the total effort. Additionally, focus acted as a strong coherence-establishing device in the studied domain.
Cited by (42)
Cited by 42 other publications
Iñigo-Mora, Isabel
2025. El uso de las expresiones referenciales en niños con Síndrome de Asperger. Oralia: Análisis del Discurso Oral 28:1 ► pp. 81 ff.
Zheng, Xiaobei & Chao Sun
2025. Differentiation and integration: The addressee perspective-taking strategy in three-party conversation. Acta Psychologica 255 ► pp. 104908 ff.
Cheung, Rachael W., Calum Hartley & Padraic Monaghan
2024. Better early than late: the temporal dynamics of pointing cues during cross-situational word learning. Language and Cognition 16:4 ► pp. 1960 ff.
Yung, Frances, Jana Jungbluth & Vera Demberg
2021. Limits to the Rational Production of Discourse Connectives. Frontiers in Psychology 12
Baltaretu, Adriana, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes
2019. Producing Referring Expressions in Identification Tasks and Route Directions: What’s the Difference?. Discourse Processes 56:2 ► pp. 136 ff.
Koolen, Ruud
2019. On Visually-Grounded Reference Production: Testing the Effects of Perceptual Grouping and 2D/3D Presentation Mode. Frontiers in Psychology 10
Fossard, Marion, Amélie M. Achim, Lucie Rousier-Vercruyssen, Sylvia Gonzalez, Alexandre Bureau & Maud Champagne-Lavau
2018. Referential Choices in a Collaborative Storytelling Task: Discourse Stages and Referential Complexity Matter. Frontiers in Psychology 9
Misu, Teruhisa
2018. Situated reference resolution using visual saliency and crowdsourcing-based priors for a spoken dialog system within vehicles. Computer Speech & Language 48 ► pp. 1 ff.
Baltaretu, Adriana, Emiel J. Krahmer, Carel van Wijk & Alfons Maes
2016. Talking about Relations: Factors Influencing the Production of Relational Descriptions. Frontiers in Psychology 7
Koolen, Ruud, Emiel Krahmer & Marc Swerts
2016. How Distractor Objects Trigger Referential Overspecification: Testing the Effects of Visual Clutter and Distractor Distance. Cognitive Science 40:7 ► pp. 1617 ff.
Poesio, Massimo
2016. Linguistic and Cognitive Evidence About Anaphora. In Anaphora Resolution [Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, ], ► pp. 23 ff.
Yoon, Si On, Aaron S. Benjamin & Sarah Brown-Schmidt
2016. The historical context in conversation: Lexical differentiation and memory for the discourse history. Cognition 154 ► pp. 102 ff.
Yoon, Si On, Aaron S. Benjamin & Sarah Brown‐Schmidt
2021. Referential Form and Memory for the Discourse History. Cognitive Science 45:4
2013. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ► pp. 515 ff.
Vogels, Jorrig, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes
2013. Who is where referred to how, and why? The influence of visual saliency on referent accessibility in spoken language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 28:9 ► pp. 1323 ff.
Yoon, Si On & Sarah Brown-Schmidt
2013. Lexical differentiation in language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 69:3 ► pp. 397 ff.
Brovold, Amanda & Rick Grush
2012. Towards an (improved) interdisciplinary investigation of demonstrative reference. In Perception, Realism, and the Problem of Reference, ► pp. 11 ff.
Arts, Anja, Alfons Maes, Leo Noordman & Carel Jansen
2011. Overspecification facilitates object identification. Journal of Pragmatics 43:1 ► pp. 361 ff.
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah & Agnieszka E. Konopka
2011. Experimental Approaches to Referential Domains and the On-Line Processing of Referring Expressions in Unscripted Conversation. Information 2:2 ► pp. 302 ff.
Staudte, Maria & Matthew W. Crocker
2011. Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human–robot interaction. Cognition 120:2 ► pp. 268 ff.
Fukumura, Kumiko, Roger P. G. van Gompel & Martin J. Pickering
2010. The use of visual context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63:9 ► pp. 1700 ff.
Louwerse, Max M. & Adrian Bangerter
2010. Effects of Ambiguous Gestures and Language on the Time Course of Reference Resolution. Cognitive Science 34:8 ► pp. 1517 ff.
Brown‐Schmidt, Sarah & Michael K. Tanenhaus
2008. Real‐Time Investigation of Referential Domains in Unscripted Conversation: A Targeted Language Game Approach. Cognitive Science 32:4 ► pp. 643 ff.
Carlson, Laura A. & Shannon R. Van Deman
2008. Inhibition within a reference frame during the interpretation of spatial language. Cognition 106:1 ► pp. 384 ff.
Piwek, Paul, Robbert-Jan Beun & Anita Cremers
2008. ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 40:4 ► pp. 694 ff.
Tanenhaus, Michael K & Sarah Brown-Schmidt
2008. Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:1493 ► pp. 1105 ff.
Richardson, Daniel C., Rick Dale & Natasha Z. Kirkham
2007. The Art of Conversation Is Coordination. Psychological Science 18:5 ► pp. 407 ff.
2006. Should remote collaborators be represented by avatars? A matter of common ground for collective medical decision-making. AI & SOCIETY 20:3 ► pp. 331 ff.
van Deemter, Kees
2006. Generating Referring Expressions that Involve Gradable Properties. Computational Linguistics 32:2 ► pp. 195 ff.
Landragin, Frédéric
2005. Modeling Context for Referring in Multimodal Dialogue Systems. In Modeling and Using Context [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3554], ► pp. 240 ff.
Landragin, Frédéric
2006. Visual perception, language and gesture: A model for their understanding in multimodal dialogue systems. Signal Processing 86:12 ► pp. 3578 ff.
Bangerter, Adrian
2004. Using Pointing and Describing to Achieve Joint Focus of Attention in Dialogue. Psychological Science 15:6 ► pp. 415 ff.
Clark, Herbert H. & Adrian Bangerter
2004. Changing Ideas about Reference. In Experimental Pragmatics, ► pp. 25 ff.
Maes, Alfons, Anja Arts & Leo Noordman
2004. Reference Management in Instructive Discourse. Discourse Processes 37:2 ► pp. 117 ff.
Landragin, F.
2002. Proceedings. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ► pp. 173 ff.
[no author supplied]
2013. Bibliography. In Man–Machine Dialogue, ► pp. 193 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.