Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 3–23 | Cite as

Pragmatic Versus Form-Based Accounts of Referential Contrast: Evidence for Effects of Informativity Expectations

  • Julie C. Sedivy
Article

Abstract

Characterizing the relationship between form-based linguistic knowledge and representation of context has long been of importance in the study of on-line language processing. Recent experimental research has shown evidence of very rapid effects of referential context in resolving local indeterminacies on-line. However, there has been no consensus regarding the nature of these context effects. The current paper summarizes recent work covering a range of phenomena for which referential contrast has been shown to influence on-line processing, including prenominal and postnominal modification, focus operators, and intonational focus. The results of the body of work suggest that referential context effects are not limited to situations in which the linguistic form of the utterance directly specifies the point of contact with context. Rather, context effects of a pragmatic, Gricean nature appear to be possible, suggesting the relationship between linguistic form and context in rapid on-line processing can be of a very indirect nature.

referential contrast pragmatic knowledge discourse context eyetracking nominal modifier 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden-path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. (1994). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 20, 209-216.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.Google Scholar
  4. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, C., & Kingston, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In IBM Working Papers of the Institute for Logic & Linguistics, 1-10.Google Scholar
  6. Bierwisch, M. (1987). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional Adjectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 297-324.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, P. (2000). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Britt, A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and arguments structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2001). Circumscribing referential domains in real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 30-49.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, E. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language, 17, 417-431.Google Scholar
  12. Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1989). Ambiguity in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(SI), 77-103.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84-107.Google Scholar
  14. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 317-367.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D. R., Wall., R. E., & Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, S., Sedivy, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language processing in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409-436.Google Scholar
  18. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-316.Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.)., Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3: itSpeech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 33-70.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, M. (1991). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of SALT I (Semantics and Linguistic Theory). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nadig, A., Sedivy, J., Bortfeld, H., & A. Joshi. 2001. The development of discourse constraints on the interpretation of predicate and prenominal adjectives. Poster presented at the 7th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Saarbruken, Germany.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Paterson, K., Liversedge, S., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of short relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717-737.Google Scholar
  27. Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Coehn et al., (Eds.), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Prasada, S., & Cummins, M. (2001). Structural constraints on the interpretation of novel count nouns. Proceedings of Boston University Conference on Language Development, 25, 623-632.Google Scholar
  29. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.Google Scholar
  30. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  31. Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 341-370.Google Scholar
  32. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation, Cognition, 71, 109-147.Google Scholar
  33. Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie C. Sedivy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive and Linguistic SciencesBrown UniversityProvidence

Personalised recommendations