Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Allgemeine Psychologie pp 467–530Cite as

Sätze und Texte verstehen und produzieren

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Kapitel beschäftigen wir uns mit den Prozessen, die der menschlichen Sprachverarbeitung jenseits der Wortebene zugrunde liegen. Zunächst werden die unterschiedlichen Aspekte der menschlichen Sprachverarbeitung vornehmlich aus der Perspektive der Sprachverstehensforschung behandelt. Hier geht es um die syntaktische, semantische und pragmatische Analyse von Sätzen sowie die Forschung zum Textverstehen. Die Sprachproduktion wird in einem gesonderten Abschnitt behandelt. An Ende des Kapitels werden die neurobiologischen Grundlagen der menschlichen Sprachverarbeitung diskutiert, einige Anwendungsbeispiele aufgeführt und ein Ausblick auf zukünftige Forschung im Bereich der Sprachpsychologie gegeben.

Schlüsselwörter: Ambiguität; Bedeutung; Bedeutungskomposition; Kohärenz; Parsing; Pragmatik; Satzverstehen; Semantik; Sprachproduktion; Sprachwissen; Syntax; Textlinguistik, Textverstehen; Versprecher

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Adams, B. C., Clifton, C., & Mitchell, D. C. (1998). Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 265–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akinnaso, F. N. (1982). On the differences between spoken and written language. Language and Speech, 25, 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., & Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 593–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13–B26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). Philosophical Papers. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T., & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination. Memory & Cognition, 15, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroni, M., Bernardi, R., & Zamparelli, R. (2014). Frege in space: A program for compositional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies, 9, 5–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2006). Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use. In M. Traxler, & M. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2. Aufl. S. 901–938). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22, 637–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Hrsg.), Grounding Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2014). Cognitive Psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E., Masling, M., & Kintsch, W. (1978). Recognition memory for aspects of dialogue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & Gergel, R. (2014). Contrasting English and German Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112, 150–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J. J. A. van, Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berkum, J. J. van, Van Den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580–591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Hrsg.), Cognition and the development of language (S. 279–362). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierwisch, M. (1982). Formal and lexical semantics. Linguistische Berichte, 80/82, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 527–536.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767–2796.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1986a). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 575–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1986b). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K. J., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (S. 945–984). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. H. (2007). Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104, 437–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bott, O. (in press). The processing domain of aspectual interpretation. In B. Arsenijevic, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.): Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 39, 39–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11, 717–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In G. Miller, J. Bresnan, & M. Halle (Hrsg.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality (S. 1–59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. M. (1982). Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. In J. Bresnan (Hrsg.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broca, P. (1861). Perte de la parole, ramollissement chronique et destruction partielle du lobe antérieur gauche du cerveau. Bulletin de la Société Anthropologique, 2, 235–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Bredenkamp, J. (1996). SLIP-Technik, Prozeßdissoziationsmodell und multinomiale Modellierung: neue Werkzeuge zum experimentellen Nachweis „Freudscher Versprecher?“. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 43, 175–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broek, P. van den, Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49, 664–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M., Small, S., & Blumstein, S. (2000). The role of segmentation in phonological processing: an fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 679–690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K. (2009). How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1188–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, D. (1994). Psychology of language. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubim, D. (Hrsg.). (1980). Fehlerlinguistik. Beiträge zum Problem der sprachlichen Abweichung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing. (S. 169–174). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Hrsg.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (S. 127–149). Washington: APA Books.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given – new contract. In R. O. Freedle (Hrsg.), DiscourseProduction and Comprehension (S. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Sengul, C. M. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition, 7, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claus, B. (2015). Verb gapping: an action-gap compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 156, 104–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Claus, B., & Kelter, S. (2006). Comprehending narratives containing flashbacks: evidence for temporally organized representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1031–1044.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton Jr, C., & Odom, P. (1966). Similarity relations among certain English sentence constructions. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Chang, F. R. (1983). Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents. Memory & Cognition, 11, 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. Natural Language Parsing, 320–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Resher (Hrsg.), The logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drieman, G. H. (1962). Differences between written and spoken language: An exploratory study. Acta Psychologica, 20, 78–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudschig, C., Maienborn, C., & Kaup, B. (2016). Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 103, 38–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547–582.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christinsen, M. H. (2012). In M. Spivey, M. Joanisse, & K. McRae (Hrsg.), In (S. 353–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review, 100, 233–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Clifton Jr, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–568.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: Evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45, 554–558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Filik, R., Paterson, K. B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 953–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Hrsg.), Universals in linguistic theory (S. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart und Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Philological Society (Great Britain), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Grounding Cognition in Perception and Action. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1987). Syntactic processing during reading for comprehension. Attention and Performance, Bd. XII, S. 619–633). The Psychology of Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., & Bever, T. G. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 414–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of langauge. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltz, P. W., Gilliam, S., & Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in on-line writing evaluation with LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, L. B. (1996). Discourse goals and attentional processes in sentence production: The dynamic construal of events. In A. E. Goldberg (Hrsg.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (S. 149–162). Stanford, CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, N.F, 100, 25–50.. Neuabdruck in Frege (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1901). Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens. Über Vergessen, Versprechen, Vergreifen, Aberglaube und Irrtum. In: Project Gutenberg eBook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91, 1357–1392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Logic, Language, and Meaning, Bd. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, A., Shillcock, R. C., Brown, G. D., Mill, A. I., & Cutler, A. (1981). Slips of the tongue in the London-Lund corpus of spontaneous conversation. Linguistics, 19, 805–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Hrsg.), The psychology of learning and motivation Bd. 9 New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, M. F. (1992). Disorder of lexical selection. Cognition, 42, 143–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, M. F., Bever, T., & Fodor, J. (1966). The active use of grammar in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 30–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 8–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (S. 675–698). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2006). Figurative language. In M. Traxler, & M. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2. Aufl. S. 835–862). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2010). Psychology. New York, NJ: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2014). How acting out in school boosts learning. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-acting-out-in-school-boosts-learning/

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and language, 26, 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and Imagined Activity Can Enhance Young Children’s Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., & Cattaneo, L. (2008). Use-induced motor plasticity affects the processing of abstract and concrete language. Current Biology, 18, R290–R291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 419–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12, 516–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gompel, R. P. van, & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton, and Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 851–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompel, R. P. van, & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Syntactic parsing. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, Gareth Gaskell. Oxford University Press, NY, 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompel, R. P. van, Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompel, R. P. van, Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, G. (2006). Noam Chomsky. München: CH Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, G., Hamm, F., & Sternefeld, W. (1989). Sprachliches Wissen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Hrsg.), Speech acts Syntax and semantics, (Bd. 3, S. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze duration during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grober, E. H., Beardsley, W., & Caramazza, A. (1978). Parallel function strategy in pronoun assignment. Cognition, 6, 117–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). „Some,“ and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J., Weinstein, S., & Joshi, A. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullberg, M., De Bot, K., & Volterra, V. (2008). Gestures and some key issues in the study of language development. Gesture, 8, 149–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habel, C. (1986). Prinzipien der Referentialität. Untersuchungen zur propositionalen Repräsentation von Wissen. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., & Berkum, J. van (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 801–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hakes, D. T. (1972). Effects of reducing complement constructions on sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 278–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., & McRae, K. (2009). Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111, 151–167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, T. A. (1984). A Critique of Top-down Independent Levels Models of Speech Production: Evidence from Non-plan-Internal Speech Errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, T. A. (2013). The psychology of language: From data to theory. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, J. K. (2013). What is implicit causality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartsuiker, R. J., & Westenberg, C. (2000). Word order priming in written and spoken sentence production. Cognition, 75, B27–B39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Bd. 13. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, C., Deutsch, R., Sütterlin, S., Kübler, A., & Pauli, P. (2011). Negation as a means for emotion regulation? Startle reflex modulation during processing of negated emotional words. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. (2003). Theorien und Modelle der Sprachproduktion. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Hrsg.), Psycholinguistik. Ein internationals Handbuch (S. 213–228). Berlin, New York: DeGruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 131–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92, 67–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, V. M., & Forster, K. I. (1970). Detection of extraneous signals during sentence recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 7, 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger, E. (2013). Representing Idioms: Syntactic and contextual effects on idiom processing. Language and Speech, 56, 373–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hörnig, R., Oberauer, K., & Weidenfeld, A. (2005). Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 33, 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. T., & Gordon, P. C. (2011). Distinguishing the time course of lexical and discourse processes through context, coreference, and quantified expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 966–978.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2011). Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1161–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. C., Keeling, B., & Tuck, B. F. (1983). The effects of instructions to scorers intended to reduce context effects in essay scoring. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 1047–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isberner, M. B., & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). What’s communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Developmental Psychology, 33, 453–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16, 367–371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. (2014). Compositional semantics: An introduction to the syntax/semantics interface. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Bd. 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. N., Willits, J. A. & Dennis, S. (im Druck). Models of semantic memory. In J. R. Busemeyer & J. T. Townsend (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Mathematical and Computational Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 631–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamide, Y., Altmann, G., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A. N., & Ferretti, T. R. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 193–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaup, B. (2001). Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. Memory & Cognition, 20, 960–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaup, B. & Ulrich, R. (im Druck). Die Beziehung zwischen sprachlicher und nicht-sprachlicher Kognition: Die Bedeutung von Repräsentationsformaten. Psychologische Rundschau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaup, B., de la Vega, I., Strozyk, J., & Dudschig, C. (im Druck). The role of sensorimotor processes in meaning composition. In M. H. Fischer & Y. Coello (Eds.), Foundations of Embodied Cognition: Conceptual and Interactive Embodiment. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1999). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. H., Bock, J. K., & Keil, F. C. (1986). Prototypicality in a linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelter, S. (2003). Mentale Modelle. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Hrsg.), Psycholinguistik-Psycholinguistics (S. 505–517). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelter, S., Kaup, B., & Claus, B. (2004). Representing a described sequence of events: a dynamic view of narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 451–464.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. (1997). Gesture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI51–SI76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95, 163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Dijk, T. A. van (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (Hrsg.), Language and Gesture (S. 162–185). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 627–645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., & Strube, G. (1991). Psychologisch fundierte Prinzipien der Satzverarbeitung jenseits von Minimal Attachment. Kognitionswissenschaft, 1, 58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Priming sentence planning. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 1–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, R. M., Dushay, R. A., Chen, Y., & Rauscher, F. (1995). The communicative value of conversational hand gesture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Bd. 10. Paderborn: W. Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (2004). Argumentstruktur und Verbsemantik. Skript zum Grundkurs C WS 2004/5. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1970). Global rules. Language, 46(3), 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, E., & Maienborn, C. (2011). Two-level semantics: Semantic form and conceptual structure. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Hrsg.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Bd. I, S. 709–740). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: Hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129, 544–562.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard, W., Baier, H., Hoffmann, J., & Schneider, W. (2007). Automatische Bewertung offener Antworten mittels Latenter Semantischer Analyse. Diagnostica, 53, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuninger, H. (1999). Reden ist Schweigen, Silber ist Gold: gesammelte Versprecher. München: DTV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtheim, L. (1885). On aphasia. Brain, 7, 433–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., & Just, M. A. (1989). Changes in activation levels with negation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 633.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia, M. (2014). Bringing back the body into the mind: gestures enhance word learning in foreign language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1467.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maienborn, C. (2003). Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maienborn, C. (2011). Event semantics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Hrsg.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Bd. 1, S. 802–829). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.. HSK 33.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 10, 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Warren, P., Grenier, P., & Lee, C. S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, E. (2000). Versprecher und Genusverarbeitung. Analyse spontaner und experimentell erzeugter Sprechfehler. Wiesbaden: DUV.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCelland, J., & Rumelhart, D. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78, B17–B25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meringer, R., & Mayer, C. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: eine philologisch-linguistische Studie. Stuttgart: Göschen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & McKean, K. O. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action, 27, Oxford Psychology Series 27. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., & Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, 414–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Hrsg.), Attention and performance XII (S. 601–618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M., & Brysbaert, M. (1995). Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. M. (1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 542–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34, 1388–1429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Hrsg.), Approaches to Natural Language (S. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L., Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1987). Structural packaging in the input to language learning: Contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 498–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. D., Klin, C. M., & Myers, J. L. (1993). Forward inferences in narrative text. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know – and sometimes misjudge – what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwland, M. S., & Berkum, J. J. van (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, E. J. (1987). Antecedent search processes and the structure of text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 278–290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing víew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learníng, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, R. C. (1974). Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech, 49, 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özyürek, A., Willems, R., Kita, S., & Hagoort, P. (2007). On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 605–616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1984). Compositionality. Varieties of Formal Semantics, 3, 281–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (Hrsg.). (2012). Sign language: An international handbook. Bd. 37. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 105–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poeppel, D., & Hickok, G. (2004). Towards a new functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92, 1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. J. (2010). The anatomy of language: a review of 100 fMRI studies published in 2009. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 62–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (S. 537–577). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher, F. H., Krauss, R. M., & Chen, Y. (1996). Gesture, speech, and lexical access: The role of lexical movements in speech production. Psychological Science, 7, 226–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1987). Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 657–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Kambe, G., & Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53, 1061–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S., & Anderson, J. R. (1970). The perception of clicks in linguistic and nonlinguistic messages. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rinck, M., & Bower, G. H. (1995). Anaphora resolution and the focus of attention in situation models. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow, & M. A. Collins (Hrsg.), Representation and understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (S. 211–236). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, & D. E. Rumelhart (Hrsg.), Parallel Distributed Processing (Bd. II, S. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by back propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recopition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., Moar, K., & Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech, 31, 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. (2011). Traces. In P. C. Hogan (Hrsg.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (S. 866–867). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savin, H. B., & Perchonock, E. (1965). Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 348–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlotterbeck, F., & Bott, O. (2013). Easy Solutions for a Hard Problem? The Computational Complexity of Reciprocals with Quantificational Antecedents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22, 363–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, F. (2007). Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics, 24, 373–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, K. M., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Murphy, G. (1993). Can you answer a question for me? Evidence for a salience-based theory of indirect speech act. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what’s on your mind: Working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1503–1514.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Slobin, D. I. (1966). Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 5, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processes. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (S. 479–515). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S., & Blodgett, A. (2006). Prosody. In M. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (S. 505–537). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Backwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447–481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 392–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: The closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 267–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and progressing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 18, 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G., & Trueswell, J. C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, SI211–SI234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, S. (2014). The Processing of ’wieder’ (’again’) and Other Presupposition Triggers (Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 16, 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10, 131–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Hrsg.), Perspectives in Sentence Processing (S. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics & processing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., & Maienborn, C. (2010). Left-right coding of past and future in language: The mental timeline during sentence processing. Cognition, 117, 126–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velde, F. van der, Van der Voort van der Kleij, G. T., & Kamps, M. de (2004). Lack of combinatorial productivity in language processing with simple recurrent networks. Connection Science, 16, 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velde, M. van de, 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, 124–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2009). The Unification Space implemented as a localist neural net: predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 331–346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423–440.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 4, 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 591–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A., Grice, M., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition, 99, B63–B72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welke, K. (1988). Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernicke, C. (1874/1974). Der aphasische Symptomenkomplex (pp. 1–70). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L. (2000). Generating prosodic structures. In L. R. Wheeldon (Hrsg.), Aspects of language production (S. 249–274). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L. (2012). Producing spoken sentences: The scope of incremental planning. In S. Fuchs, M. Weirich, D. Pape, & P. Perrier (Hrsg.), Speech planning and dynamics Speech production and perception, (Bd. 1, S. 97–118). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Land.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L., & Lahiri, A. (1997). Prosodic units in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 356–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeldon, L. R., & Levelt, W. J. (1995). Monitoring the time course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • William, M., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, Y. (2014). Multidimensional vocabulary acquisition through deliberate vocabulary list learning. System, 42, 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeari, M., & Broek, P. W. van den (2011). A cognitive account of discourse understanding and discourse interpretation: The landscape model of reading. Discourse Studies, 13, 635–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C. H., & Blackman, H. S. (1979). The role of presupposed and focal information in integrating sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 535–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first pass reading times in French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50, 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, T. E., & Sternefeld, W. (2013). Introduction to semantics: an essential guide to the composition of meaning. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Hrsg.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Bd. 43, S. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 229–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Hrsg.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (S. 224–245). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler, & M. Gernsbacher (Hrsg.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2. Aufl. S. 725–764). Oxford, U.K: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwitserlood, P., & Bölte, J. (2015). Psycholinguistik 1: Worterkennung und Wortproduktion. In J. M. Müsseler, & M. Rieger (Hrsg.), Allgemeine Psychologie. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychologisches Institut, Universität Tübingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Barbara Kaup & Dr. Carolin Dudschig

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Barbara Kaup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Carolin Dudschig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Kaup .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany

    Jochen Müsseler

  2. UMIT – Private Universität für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Medizinische Informatik und Technik, Institut für Psychologie, Hall in Tirol, Austria

    Martina Rieger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaup, B., Dudschig, C. (2017). Sätze und Texte verstehen und produzieren. In: Müsseler, J., Rieger, M. (eds) Allgemeine Psychologie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-53897-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-53898-8

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation