Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse

Discourse Processes

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 109-130

  Sanford, Alison J S ^a   Sanford, Anthony J ^b   Molle, Jo ^a   Emmott, Catherine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748565338     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodie prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31-56.
2. Banks, I. (1992). Crow road. London: Abacus.
3. Barton, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477-487.
4. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Effects of varying focus and accenting adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 571-588.
5. Birch, S., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232-267.
6. Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts. London: Arnold.
7. Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Penalization effects on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135-144.
8. Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111-133.
9. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, defmiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In D. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic.
10. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368-407.
11. Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jacobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 183-216). London: Cambridge University Press.
12. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1984). A new look at contrastive intonation. In R. Watts & U. Weidman (Eds.), Modes of interpretation: Essays presented to Ernst Leisi (pp. 137-158). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
13. Dahl, R. (1979). Tales of the unexpected. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
14. Dahl, R. (1990). The best of Roald Dahl. New York: Vintage.
15. Emmott, C., Sanford, A. J., & Morrow, L. I. (2006a). Capturing the attention of readers? Stylistic and psychological perspectives on the use and effect of text fragmentation in narratives. Journal of Literary Semantics, 35, 1-30.
16. Emmott, C., Sanford A. J., & Morrow, L. I. (2006b). Sentence fragmentation: Stylistic aspects. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 11). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
17. Erickson, T. A., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meanings: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540-552.
18. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
19. Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
20. Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Pragmatic normalization: Further results from some conjunctive and disjunctive sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 574-578.
21. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings versus multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.
22. Frisson, S. P., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: LMC, 25, 1366-1383.
23. Guterson, D. (1995). Snow falling on cedars. London: Bloomsbury.
24. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Parts 1-3). Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.
25. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
26. Hobbs, J. R. (1985, August). Granularity (pp. 432-435). Paper presented at the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles.
27. Hollingworth, A., Schrock, G., & Henderson, J. M. (2001). Change detection and the flicker paradigm: The role of fixation position within the scene. Memory & Cognition, 29, 296-304.
28. Ito, K., & Speer, S. (2005, September). Immediate use of intonational cues in a discourse-based visual search task. Presented at the 11th annual meeting of Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Ghent, Belgium.
29. Kimmage, P. (1990). Rough ride: Behind the wheel with a pro cyclist. London: Yellow Jersey Press.
30. Koh, S., Sanford, A. J., Clifton, C., Jr., & Dawydiak, E. J. (in press). Good-enough representation in plural and singular pronominal reference: Modulating the conjunction cost. In J. Gundel & N. Hedberg (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on reference processing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31. Krause, J. (2004). Design basics index. Newton Abbott, UK: David and Charles.
32. Ladd, R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
33. Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Leech, G. N., & Short, M. H. (1981). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. London: Longman.
35. McAteer, E. (1989). Typeface effects in written language: Functions of typeface change for signaling meaning in text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
36. McAteer, E. (1992). Typeface emphasis and information focus in written language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 345-359.
37. Mukařovský, J. (1964). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on aesthetics, literary structure, and poetic language (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
38. Murray, A. W. (1976). The curse of Mathair Nan Uisgeachan. In G. Gordon (Ed.), Scottish ghost stories (pp. 117-139). Edinburgh, Scotland: Lomond.
39. Paul, A. (2005). The effects of linguistic subordination, semantic distance and recency in discourse processing. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
40. Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes, 42, 131-155.
41. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
42. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of international contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 342-365). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157-175.
44. Rabinowitz, P. J. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Columbus: Ohio State Press.
45. Rankin, I. (2001). The falls. London: Orion.
46. Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385-406.
47. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
48. Rowling, J. K. (1999). Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury.
49. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective mechanisms in text understanding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 699-720). New York: Wiley.
50. Sanford, A. J., & Graesser, A. (2006). Shallow processing and Underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42, 99-108.
51. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
52. Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Filik, R., & Molle, J. (2005). Depth of lexical-semantic processing and sentential load. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 378-396.
53. Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). London: Blackwell.
54. Smith, Z. (2000). White teeth. London: Penguin.
55. Simmons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 261-267.
56. Stewart, A. J., Holler, J., & Kidd, E. (2005, March). Pronoun resolution varies as a function of depth of reading. Presented to the Eighteenth City University of New York Sentence Processing Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson.
57. Stöckl, H. (2005). Typography: Body and dress of a text-A signing mode between language and image. Visual Communication, 4, 204-214.
58. Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 882-888.
59. Swanson, G. (2000). Graphic design and reading. New York: Allworth.
60. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication, 4, 137-143.
61. van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
62. van Peer, W., & Hakemulder, J. (2006). Foregrounding. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 546-550). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
63. Wales, K. (2001). A dictionary of stylistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
64. Warren, P. (1999). Prosody and language processing. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering, (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 155-188). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
65. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
66. Wason, P., & Reich, S. S. (1979). A verbal illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 591-597.