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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 9 november 2023. 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.