Cover not available
Part of
Visually Situated Language Comprehension
Edited by Pia Knoeferle, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck and Matthew W. Crocker
[Advances in Consciousness Research 93] 2016
► pp. 151–184

Discourse level processing

This chapter provides an overview of how the visual-world eye-tracking paradigm has been used to investigate the processing and representation of discourse-level information. The chapter starts by reviewing some theoretical approaches to information structure, and then turns to visual-world experiments on the prosodic and syntactic reflexes of information structure, as well as the consequences of information structure for reference resolution. The notion of ‘prominence’ plays a central role in many of these investigations, in the shape of prosodic prominence (associated with new information), syntactic prominence (often associated with given or topical information) and representational prominence / accessibility in the domain of reference resolution. Comprehenders use prominence-related information to guide discourse-level aspects of processing, but prosodic prominence and syntactic prominence have different information-structural correlates. Furthermore, if we want to conceptualize reference resolution as a process sensitive to the prominence of mental representations, our view of what factors influence referential prominence needs to include not only entity-related factors (e.g. givenness), but also event-related factors (e.g. verb semantics and coherence relations between events). As a whole, the findings discussed in this chapter highlight the rapidity with which the human language processing system uses of discourse-level information, whether it be encoded in pitch accents, word order or the form of referring expressions. These findings suggest that discourse-level comprehension should not be relegated to a secondary stage of processing and instead occurs in tandem with other aspects of language comprehension, such as lexical access and syntactic processing.
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.93.06kai
References (113)
References
Allopenna, P.D., Magnuson, J.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748-765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G.T.M. & Kamide, Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G.T.M. (2004). Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The ‘blank screen paradigm’. Cognition, 93, 79-87 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge, Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation, linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29-87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2011). Disfluency effects in comprehension: How new information can become accessible. In E. Gibson & N. Perlmutter (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., Eisenband, J.G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J.C. (2000). The immediate use of gender information: Eyetracking evidence of the time-course of pronoun resolution. Cognition, 76, B13-B26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28-55 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J.C. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 527-565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M.E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M.E., & Ayers, G.M. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labelling, vers 3.0. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Birch, S.L., Albrecht, J.E., & Myers, J.L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30, 285-304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3/4, 1167-1187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., Friedman, M.A., & Pollard, C.J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 155-162). Stanford, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logo
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2005) Language processing in conversation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D.K., & Tanenhaus, M. (2005). Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 292-313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus – The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111-133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chen, A., Den Os, E., & De Ruiter, J.P. (2007). Pitch accent type matters for online processing of information status: Evidence from natural and synthetic speech. The Linguistic Review, 24(2), 317-344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jacobovits (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 183-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition, 32(6), 886-895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Hemforth, B. (2010). Le rôle de la structure informationnelle dans l’interprétation d’une anaphore pronominale inter-phrastique. In F. Neveu at al. (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1489-1499.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84-107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowles, H.W. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSD.Google Scholar
Cowles, H.W., Walenski, M., & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, constrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26, 3-18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawley, R.J., & Stevenson, R.J. (1990). Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191-210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49-59 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Chambers, C.G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292-314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, J., & Oberlander, J. (1995). Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics, 33, 3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufter, A. (2009). Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and background in romance languages (Studies in Language Companion Series 112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellert, M., Järvikivi, J., & Roberts, L. (2009) Information structure guides gaze behavior: Processing the German subject pronouns er and der in spoken discourse. Poster presented at 15th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing , Barcelona, Spain.
Engelhardt, P.E., Ferreira, F., & Patsenko, E.G. (2010). Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 639-645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. Skopeteas, S., & Hörnig, R, . (2010). Cross-linguistic comparison of prosody, syntax and information structure in a production experiment on localizing expressions. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(3), 329-351 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 357-383 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L., January, D., Nappa, R. & Trueswell, J. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544-569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., & Gilliom, L.A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering o attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M. & Jaggar, P. (2003). ‘Ex-situ and In-situ Focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics and discourse.’ In Lecarme, J (Ed.), Research in afroasiatic grammar II. [CILT 241]. (pp. 187-213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z.M., & Bock, J.K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274-279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J.K. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravczik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209-239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J.K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics). (pp.175-196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode, and nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 377-417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 1 and 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 37-81; 199-244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, Joshua K., Nappa, R., & Snedeker, J. (in press). Development of the first-mention bias. Journal of Child Language.
Haviland, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512-521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, N. (1990). Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Ph.D dissertation, Universitiy of Minnesota.Google Scholar
. (2000). The referential status of clefts. Language, 76, 891-920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P.A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530-538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376-415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, Heeju, & Kaiser, Elsi. (2014). The role of the verb in grammatical function assignment in English and Korean. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1363-1376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Järvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R.P.G., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260-264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J.C. (2008) Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 709-748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004) The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113-147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. (2009). Effects of anaphoric dependencies and semantic representations on pronoun interpretation. In S.L. Devi, A. Branco, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications (pp.121-130). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E., Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S., & Tanenhaus. M.K. (2009). Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112, 55-80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. (2011a). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625-1666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011b). Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: The interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives, Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1587-1624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G.T.M., & Haywood, S. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics (Special Issue on Processing Meaning), 25(1), 1-44.Google Scholar
Kiss, K.E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245-273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M.W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M.J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95, 95-127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, A.W., & Van Berkum, J.J.A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445-465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39, 463-516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnuson, J.S., Dixon, J.A., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Aslin, R.N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31, 133-156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J. (1992). Typological discourse analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M.E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E.F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883-906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295-325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57 (1), 5-16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online language comprehension: A visual world study of pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 115-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. University of Indiana Linguistics Club. (also Philosophica 1981, 27, 53-94).Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, Avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141-177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C., & Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sekerina, I.E. & Trueswell, J.C. (2012). Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children. First Language 32: 63-87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E.O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J.A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., & Hajicova, W.E. (1977). Focus on focus. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 28: 5-54.Google Scholar
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who’s ‘she’? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29-57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M.J., Richardson, D.C., & Fitneva, S.A. (2004). Thinking outside the brain: Spatial indices to visual and linguistic Information. In J. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Interfacing language, vision, and action (pp. 161-190). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649-689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strube, M., & Hahn, U. (1996). Functional centering. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 270-277), Santa Cruz, CA. DOI logo
. (1999). Functional centering: Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 309-344.Google Scholar
Sturt, P., Sanford, A.J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 882-888. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M.K. (2007). Spoken language comprehension: insights from eye movements. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 309-326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavano, E., & Kaiser, E. (2008). Effects of stress and coherence on pronoun interpretation. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing , University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and kontrast. In P. Culicover & M. Louise (Eds.), The limits of syntax. Syntax and semantics 29 (pp. 79-108). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vallduvi. E. (1990). The information component. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, M., Meyer, A.S., & Konopka, A.E. (2014). Message formulation and structural assembly: Describing "easy" and "hard" events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 71(1), 124-144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venditti, J.J., Stone, M., Nanda, P., & Tepper, P. (2001). Discourse constraints on the interpretation of nuclear-accented pronouns. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Speech Prosody , Aix-en-Provence, France.
Vilkuna, M. (1989) Free word order in finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Ward, G. (1985). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye-movement study. Memory and Cognition, 35, 73-86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M.W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49, 367-392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., Grice, M., & Crocker, M.W. (2006). The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eyemovements. Cognition, 99, B63-B72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson. F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Yee, E., Heller, D., & Sedivy, J.C. (2009). On the relationship between eye-movements and activation: Active vs. passive tasks during ambiguous pronoun resolution. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing .
Zimmer, H.D., & Engelkamp, J. (1981). The given-new structure of cleft sentences and their influence on picture viewing. Psychological Research, 43, 375-389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina, Sol Lago, Duygu Fatma Şafak, Orhan Demir & Bilal Kırkıcı
2017. The Interaction of Contextual and Syntactic Information in the Processing of Turkish Anaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46:6 ► pp. 1397 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2024. 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.