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.
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748-765. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Altmann, G.T.M. & Kamide, Y. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge, Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M. (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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beckman, M.E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beckman, M.E., & Ayers, G.M. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labelling, vers 3.0. Ohio State University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Birch, S.L., Albrecht, J.E., & Myers, J.L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30, 285-304. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3/4, 1167-1187. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2005) Language processing in conversation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Rochester.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Büring, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus – The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W.L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111-133. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W.L. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition, 32(6), 886-895. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowles, H.W. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSD.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crawley, R.J., & Stevenson, R.J. (1990). Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191-210. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49-59 ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delin, J., & Oberlander, J. (1995). Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics, 33, 3. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Griffin, Z.M., & Bock, J.K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274-279. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gundel, J.K. (1974). The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode, and nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 377-417. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 1 and 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 37-81; 199-244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hedberg, N. (1990). Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Ph.D dissertation, Universitiy of Minnesota.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hedberg, N. (2000). The referential status of clefts. Language, 76, 891-920. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hornby, P.A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530-538. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376-415. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J.C. (2004) The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113-147. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaiser, Elsi. (2011a). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625-1666. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaiser, Elsi. (2011b). Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: The interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives, Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1587-1624. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiss, K.E. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245-273. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39, 463-516. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Myhill, J. (1992). Typological discourse analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, E.F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883-906. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57 (1), 5-16. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. University of Indiana Linguistics Club. (also Philosophica 1981, 27, 53-94).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, Avoid F and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141-177. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sedivy, J., Tanenhaus, M., Chambers, C., & Carlson, G. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sekerina, I.E. & Trueswell, J.C. (2012). Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children. First Language 32: 63-87. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sgall, P., & Hajicova, W.E. (1977). Focus on focus. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 28: 5-54.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who’s ‘she’? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29-57. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steedman, M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649-689. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Strube, M., & Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering: Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 309-344.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vallduvi. E. (1990). The information component. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ward, G. (1985). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye-movement study. Memory and Cognition, 35, 73-86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson. F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 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.