Article published in:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 144–162

Taking the perspective of narrative characters

A mouse-tracking study on the processing of ambiguous referring expressions in narrative discourse

| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen
An ongoing debate in the interpretation of referring expressions concerns the degree to which listeners make use of perspective information during referential processing. We aim to contribute to this debate by considering perspective shifting in narrative discourse. In a web-based mouse-tracking experiment in Dutch, we investigated whether listeners automatically shift to a narrative character’s perspective when resolving ambiguous referring expressions, and whether different linguistic perspective-shifting devices affect how and when listeners switch to another perspective. We compared perspective-neutral, direct, and free indirect discourse, manipulating which objects are visible to the character. Our results do not show a clear effect of the perspective shifting devices on participants’ eventual choice of referent, but our online mouse-tracking data reveal processing differences that suggest that listeners are indeed sensitive to the conventional markers of perspective shift associated with direct and (to a lesser degree) free indirect discourse.
Keywords: perspective shifting, narrative, free indirect discourse, mouse tracking, reference resolution
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Predictions
  • 4.Materials and methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Design and analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Object selection
    • 5.2Reaction times
    • 5.3Mouse trajectories
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Open data
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00054.vog
References
Apperly, Ian
2010 Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind.” London: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, Ann
1982 Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily
2013 “Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.” Journal of memory and language 68 (3): 255–278. Crossref)Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & Harald Baayen
2015 “Parsimonious mixed models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bray, Joe
2007 “The ‘dual voice’ of free indirect discourse: a reading experiment.” Language and Literature. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA 16 (1): 37–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan E. & Joy E. Hanna
2009 “Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2): 274–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah & Joy Hanna
2011 “Talking in another person’s shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing.” Dialogue & Discourse 2 (1): 11–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
2011 The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen
eds. 2016 Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning (Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, 10). Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2014 The semantics of free indirect speech. How texts let you read minds and eavesdrop. Vol. 311. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Boaz Keysar, Leaf Van Boven & Thomas Gilovich
2004 “Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (3): 327–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Heather J., Ian Apperly & Jumana Ahmad, Markus Bindemann & James Cane
2015 “Task constraints distinguish perspective inferences from perspective use during discourse interpretation in a false belief task.” Cognition 1391: 50–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika
2003 The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London, New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Jonathan B. & Nalini Ambady
2010 “MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method.” Behavior Research Methods 42 (1): 226–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., Michael K. Tanenhaus & John C. Trueswell
2003 “The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation.” Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1): 43–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hehman, Eric, Ryan M. Stolier & Jonathan B. Freeman
2015 “Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 18 (3): 384–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Daphna, Daniel Grodner & Michael K. Tanenhaus
2008 “The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference.” Cognition 108 (3): 831–836. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horton, William S. & Boaz Keysar
1996 “When do speakers take into account common ground?” Cognition 59 (1): 91–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horton, William S. & David N. Rapp
2003 “Out of sight, out of mind: Occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 (1): 104–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi
2015 “Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: Experimental investigations.” Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 251: 346–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Dale J. Barr, Jennifer A. Balin & Jason S. Brauner
2000 “Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension.” Psychological Science 11 (1): 32–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Shuhong Lin & Dale J. Barr
2003 “Limits on theory of mind use in adults.” Cognition 89 (1): 25–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kieslich, Pascal J. & Felix Henninger
2017 “Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package.” Behavior Research Methods 49 (5): 1652–1667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kieslich, Pascal J., Felix Henninger, Dirk U. Wulff, Jonas Haslbeck & Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck
2018 “Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis.” PsyArXiv. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köder, Franziska & Emar Maier
2018 “The advantage of story-telling: children’s interpretation of reported speech in narratives.” Journal of Child Language. Cambridge University Press 45 (2): 541–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köder, Franziska, Emar Maier & Petra Hendriks
2015 “Perspective shift increases processing effort of pronouns: a comparison between direct and indirect speech.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Routledge 30 (8): 940–946. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kronmüller, Edmundo & Ernesto Guerra
2020 “Processing speaker-specific information in two stages during the interpretation of referential precedents.” Frontiers in Psychology 111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
2017 “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models” Journal of Statistical Software 821: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meuser, Sara, Stefan Hinterwimmer & Maximilian Hörl
2020 “Online-processing of protagonists’ perspective-taking” (poster presented at CUNY 2020).
Nadig, Aparna S. & Julie C. Sedivy
2002 “Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children’s On-Line Reference Resolution.” Psychological Science 13 (4): 329–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2020 “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Salem, Susanna, Thomas Weskott & Anke Holler
2017 “Does narrative perspective influence readers’ perspective-taking? An empirical study on free indirect discourse, psycho-narration and first-person narration.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2 (1): 61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Manami, Hiromu Sakai, Jennifer Wu & Benjamin K. Bergen
2012 “Towards a Cognitive Science of Literary Style: Perspective-Taking in Processing Omniscient versus Objective Voice.” Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society ed. by Naomi Miyake, David Peebles and Richard P. Cooper, 959–964. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
2004 “Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present.” Mind & Language. Wiley Online Library 19 (3): 279–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, Michael J., Marc Grosjean & Günther Knoblich
2005 “Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences 102 (29): 10393–10398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, John M., Todd M. Bailey & Lewis Bott
2013 “Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps.” Journal of Memory and Language 69 (1): 18–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2009 Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwartz
2018 “PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX).” CrossrefGoogle Scholar