Abstract
Communication is a co-operative process. The speaker’s purpose is to convey some information to the listener. The listener’s task is to extract this information and integrate it with existing knowledge. Although considerable progress has been made in studying the listener and the mechanisms responsible for information extraction and integration, much less is known about the mechanisms which underlie the speaker’s production of language. In particular, much of the existing evidence is limited to the production of isolated sentences. This chapter is, like Heydel and Murray’s chapter (this volume), concerned with the way in which previous context can affect syntactic processing during cross-linguistic language production. Our particular focus is on the relationship between features of the discourse context and the syntactic structure that a speaker assigns to a sentence. We will be especially concerned with the relationship between pragmatic theories and processing theories, and whether processing mechanisms which have been proposed for the production of isolated sentences can also account for context effects in production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bock, J. K. (1977). The effect of a pragmatic presupposition on syntactic structure in question answering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 723–734.
Bock, J. K. (1987). Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language (Vol. 3, pp. 337–389). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bock, J. K. & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 467–484.
Bock, J. K. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. (pp. 945–984). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bock, J. K. & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67.
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, defmiteness, subject, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic, pp.25-55. San Diego: Academic Press.
Clark, E. & Clark, H. (1978). Universals, relativity and language processing. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 1: Method and Theory (pp. 225–277). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1965). Some structural properties of simple active and passive sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 375–390.
Clark, H. H. & Begun, J.S. (1971). The semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14, 34–46.
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the Given-New Contract. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension (pp. 1–40). Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.
Dahl, O. (1974). Topic-comment revisited. In O. Dahl (Ed.), Topic and comment, contextual boundedness and focus, pp. 1–24. Hamburg: Buske.
Feleki, E. & Branigan, H.P. (1997). Animacy effects in Greek sentence production: Evidence for single-stage syntactic processing?. Poster presented at The Third Architectures & Mechanisms of Language Processing Conference. Edinburgh, September 1997.
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 9, pp. 133–177, San Diego: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.
Harris, M. (1978). Noun animacy and the passive voice: A developmental approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 199–244.
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.
Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 164–189. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Keenan, E.L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 22–99.
Kelly, M. H., Bock, J. K. & Keil, F. C. (1986). Prototypicality in a linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure. Journal of Language and Memory, 25, 59–74.
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.
Kempen, G. & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185–209.
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic, pp. 458–489. San Diego: Academic Press.
McDonald, J. L., Bock, J. K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188–230.
Osgood, C. E. & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In S. Rosenberg (Eds.), Sentence Production: Developments in Research and Theory, pp. 89–140. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prat-Sala, M. (1997). The Production of Different Word Orders: A Psycholinguistic and Developmental Approach. Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, The University of Edinburgh.
Prat-Sala, M. & Branigan, H.P. (1998). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English & Spanish. Ms.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics, pages 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and informationstatus. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text (pp. 295-325). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding Written Language. New York: Wiley.
Sgall, A. J., Hajicova, E., & Panevova, J. (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Teufel, S, Branigan, H.P. & Feleki, E. (1996). Conceptual accessibility and subjecthood in German sentence production. Poster presented at The Second Architectures & Mechanisms of Language Processing Conference. Turin, September 1996.
Webber, B.L. (1983). So what can we talk about now? In M. Brady & R.C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational Models of Discourse, pp. 331–371. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Branigan, H.P., Prat-Sala, M. (2000). A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Discourse Context and Syntactic Processing in Language Production. In: De Vincenzi, M., Lombardo, V. (eds) Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0292-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3949-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive