ClarkH.H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
ClarkH.H.MarshallC.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. InJosheA.M.WebberB.SagI.A. (Eds.), Elements of discount understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
DellG.S.BrownP.M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production Limiting the role of the “model of the listener.”InNapoliD.KeglJ. (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics (pp. 105–129), New York: Academic Press.
4.
FussellS.R.KraussR.M. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203–219.
5.
GlucksbergS.KraussR.M.WeisbergR. (1966) Referential communication in nursery school children: Method and some preliminary findings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 333–342.
6.
HortonW.S.KeysarB. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.
7.
IsaacsE.A.ClarkH.H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 716, 26–37.
8.
KeysarB. (1993). Common sense and adult theory of communication, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 54.
9.
KeysarB. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165–208.
10.
KeysarB. (1997). Unconfounding common ground. Discourse Processes, 24, 253–270.
11.
KeysarB. (1998). Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve?InFussellS.R.KreuzR.J. (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 175–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
KeysarB.BarrD.J.BalinJ.A.BraunerJ.S. (1996, November), Common ground; An error correction mechanism in comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.
13.
KeysarB.BarrD.J.BalinJ.A.PaekT.S. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Processing models of common ground in comprehension, Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 1–20.
14.
KraussR.M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81–98.
15.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
OlsonD.R.TorranceN. (1987). Language, literacy, and mental states. Discourse Processes, 10, 157–168.
17.
RossL. (1990). Recognizing the role of construal processes. InRockI. (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 77–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
SimonH.A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
SperberD.WilsonD. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. InSmithN. (Eds.), Mutual knowledge (pp. 61–87). London: Academic Press.
20.
TanenhausM.K.Spivey-KnowltonM.J.EberhardK.SedivyJ.C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
21.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.