Propositional Integration and World-Knowledge Inference: Processes in Understanding Because Sentences

Discourse Processes

Volumn 48, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 475-500

  Cozijn, Reinier ^a   Noordman, Leo G M ^a,b   Vonk, Wietske ^c,d  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858062159     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Asher, N. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse., Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
2. Bird, K. D. 2002. Confidence intervals for effect sizes in analysis of variance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62: 197-226.
3. Cozijn, R. 1992. "Inferential processes during the construction of a coherent text representation". In CLS conference 1992, Edited by: van Oostendorp, M. 1-14. Nijmegen/Tilburg, The Netherlands: Center for Language Studies.
4. Cozijn, R. 2006. Het gebruik van oogbewegingen in leesonderzoek [The use of eye movements in reading research]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 28: 220-232.
5. Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W. and Noordman, L. G. M. 2011. The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A Visual World Paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 381-403.
6. Crothers, E. J. 1979. Paragraph structure inference., Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7. Fletcher, C. R. and Chrysler, S. T. 1990. Surface forms, textbases, and situation models: Recognition memory for three types of textual information. Discourse Processes, 13: 175-190.
8. Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Guenthner, F. 1989. "Discourse: Understanding in context". In Logic and linguistics: Research directions in cognitive science: European perspectives, Edited by: Schnelle, H. and Bernsen, N. O. Vol. 2, 127-142. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Haberlandt, K. 1984. "Components of sentence and word reading times". In New methods in reading comprehension research, Edited by: Kieras, D. E. and Just, M. A. 219-251. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English., London, England: Longman.
12. Irwin, D. E. 1998. Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36: 1-27.
13. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic, and Discourse Representation Theory., Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
15. Katz, B., Müller, K. and Helmle, H. 1987. Binocular eye movement recording with CCD arrays. Neuro-Ophtalmology, 7: 81-91.
16. Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11: 201-258.
17. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kintsch, W. and Van Dijk, T. A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85: 363-394.
19. Koornneef, A. W. 2008. Eye-catching anaphora., The Netherlands: Utrecht University. Unpublished doctoral thesis
20. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Millis, K. K., Golding, J. M. and Barker, G. 1995. Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20: 29-49.
22. Millis, K. K. and Just, M. A. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 128-147.
23. Mouchon, S., Ehrlich, M.-F. and Loridant, C. 1999. Effets immédiats ou différés du connecteur "parce que" dans la compréhension de phrases? Réexamen du modèle de Millis et Just (1994) [Immediate or delayed effects of the connective "parce que" (because) in understanding sentences? Re-examination of the model by Millis and Just (1994)]. L'Année Psychologique, 99: 239-269.
24. Murray, J. D. 1995. "Logical connectives and local coherence". In Sources of coherence in reading, Edited by: Lorch, R. F. and O'Brien, E. J. 107-125. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25. Murray, W. S. 2000. "Sentence processing: Issues and measures". In Reading as a perceptual process, Edited by: Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D. and Pynte, J. 649-664. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
26. Noordman, L. G. M. 1979. Inferring from language., Berlin, Germany: Springer.
27. Noordman, L. G. M. and Vonk, W. 1992. Reader's knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7: 373-391.
28. Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W. and Kempff, H. J. 1992. Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 31: 573-590.
29. Ochs, E. 1979. "Planned and unplanned discourse". In Syntax and semantics (XII): Discourse and syntax, Edited by: Givón, T. 51-80. New York, NY: Academic.
30. Oversteegen, L. E. 1996. Dutch temporal connectives, Nijmegen/Tilburg, The Netherlands: Center for Language Studies. (No. Dandelion R1.3.2a)
31. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M. and Noordman, L. G. M. 1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15: 1-35.
32. Segal, E. M., Duchan, J. F. and Scott, P. J. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes, 14: 27-54.
33. Simons, W. H. G. 1993. The control of inferences by the knowledge of the reader., The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen. Unpublished doctoral thesis
34. Singer, M. and Halldorson, M. 1996. Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30: 1-38.
35. Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C. and Andrusiak, P. 1992. Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 31: 507-524.
36. Singer, M., Harkness, D. and Stewart, S. T. 1997. Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24: 199-228.
37. Singer, M. and O'Connell, G. 2003. Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15: 607-631.
38. Smabers, N. 2009. De man van gas en licht [The man of gas and light], Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Bezige Bij.
39. Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P. and Moxey, L. M. 1997. Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23: 88-101.
41. Van Leusen, N. 2007. Description grammar for discourse., The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen. Unpublished doctoral thesis
42. Vasishth, S. 2003. Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings., New York, NY: Garland.
43. Vonk, W. and Cozijn, R. 2003. "On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time". In The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, Edited by: Hyönä, J., Radach, R. and Deubel, H. 291-312. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
44. Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123: 162-185.