Information structure: Linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 403-413

  Arnold, Jennifer E ^a   Kaiser, Elsi ^b   Kahn, Jason M ^a   Kim, Lucy K ^b  

^a The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878953099     PISSN: 19395078     EISSN: 19395086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1234     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Halliday MAK. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. J Linguist 1967, 3:199-244.
2. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
3. Chafe WL. Language and consciousness. Language 1974, 50:111-133.
4. Prince EF. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In: Cole P, ed. Radical Pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981, 223-256.
5. Chafe WL. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1994.
6. Halliday MAK, Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman; 1976.
7. Hawkins J. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. J Linguist 1991, 27: 405-442.
8. Clark HH, Haviland SE. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In: Freedle RO, ed. Discourse Production and Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1977, 1-40.
9. Gordon P, Grosz B, Gilliom L. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cogn Sci 1993, 17:311-347.
10. Ariel M. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge; 1990.
11. Gundel J, Hedberg N, Zacharski R. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 1993, 69:274-307.
12. Arnold JE. Reference form and discourse patterns, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1998.
13. Kaiser E. Focusing on pronouns: consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Lang Cogn Process 2011, 26:1625-1666.
14. Chambers C, Smyth R. Structural parallelism and attentional focus: a test of centering theory. J Memory Lang 1998, 39:593-608.
15. Garvey C, Caramazza A. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguist Inq 1974, 5:459-464.
16. Kehler A, Kertz L, Rohde H, Elman JL. Coherence and coreference revisited. J Semant 2008, 25:1-44.
17. Kaiser E, Trueswell JC. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Lang Cogn Process 2008, 23:709-748.
18. Järvikivi J, van Gompel RPG, Hyönä J, Bertram R. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychol Sci 2005, 4:260-264.
19. Kuno S. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1973.
20. Lee C. Contrastive topic: a locus of the interface: evidence from Korean and English. Turner K et al, Eds. The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 1999.
21. Kim LK, Kaiser E. Asymmetrical effects of topic-marking on discourse processing and memory retention. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL): Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8). In press
22. Han C. Asymmetry in the interpretation of -(n)un in Korean. Jpn/Korean Linguist 1998, 7:1-15.
23. Aissen JL. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 1992, 68:43-80.
24. Fiedler I, Hartmann K, Reineke B, Schwarz A, Zimmermann M. Subject focus in West African languages. In: Zimmermann M, Féry C, eds. Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009, 234-257.
25. Partee BH, Borschev V. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: the nature and role of perspectival structure. In: Young RB, ed. Proceedings from SALT XIV. Ithaca: CLC Publications; 2004, 212-234.
26. Kaiser E. Case alternations and NPIs in questions in Finnish. WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press; 2002, 194-207.
27. Grimes JE. Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. IJAL 1985, 51:141-163.
28. Arnold JE. The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista Lingüíst Teórica Apl 1997, 34:9-48.
29. König E. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge; 2001.
30. Birner BJ, Ward G. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins; 1998.
31. Firbas J. Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux linguistiques Prague 1966, 2: 239-256.
32. Wasow T. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford University: CSLI Publications; 2002.
33. Arnold JE, Wasow T, Losongco T, Ginstrom R. Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 2000, 76:28-55.
34. Karttunen L, Kay M. Parsing in a free word order language. In: Dowty D, Karttunen L, Zwicky A, eds. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985, 279-306.
35. Pierrehumbert JB, Hirschberg J. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In: Cohen PR, et al, eds. Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990, 271-311.
36. Selkirk E. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In: Goldsmith J, ed. The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell; 1995, 550-569.
37. Rooth M. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Lang Semant 1992, 1:75-116.
38. Schwarzschild R. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Lang Semant 1999, 7:141-177.
39. Fowler CA, Housum J. Talkers' signaling of "new" and "old" words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. J Memory Lang 1987, 26:489-504.
40. Dahan D, Tanenhaus M, Chambers K. CG Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. J Memory and Lang 2002, 47:292-314.
41. Gundel JK. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1974.
42. Reinhart T. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. University of Indiana Linguistics Club, 1982 (also Philosophica 1981, 27:53-94)
43. Sgall P, Hajicova WE. Focus on focus. Prague Bull Math Linguist 1977, 28:5-54.
44. Chomsky N. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In: Steinberg D, Jacobovits L, eds. Semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1971, 183-216.
45. Jackendoff R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1972.
46. Ward G. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
47. Vallduví E. The information component. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1990.
48. Givón T. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 1983.
49. Arnold JE. How speakers refer: the role of accessibility. Lang Linguist Comp 2010, 4:187-203. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x
50. Tily H, Piantadosi S. 2009. Refer efficiently: use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference, 2009.
51. Fukumura K, Van Gompel RPG. Choosing anaphoric expressions: do people take into account likelihood of reference? J Memory Lang 2010, 62:52-66.
52. Kaiser E. Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. Int Rev Pragmat 2010, 2:266-297.
53. Grice HP. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics III. In: Cole P, Morgan J, eds. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press; 1975, 41-58.
54. Clark HH, Marshall CR. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi AK, Webber BL, Sag IS, eds. Elements of Discourse Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1981, 10-63.
55. Prince E. The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In: Thompson S, Mann W, eds. Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.; 1992, 295-325.
56. Brennan SE, Clark HH. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 1996, 22:482-1493. doi:10.1.1.121.3930
57. Brown-Schmidt S, Tanenhaus MK. Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. J Memory Lang 2006, 54:592-609.
58. Hanna JE, Tanenhaus MK, Trueswell JC. The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. J Memory Lang 2003, 49:43- 61.
59. Hanna JE, Brennan SE. Speakers' eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. J Memory Lang 2007, 57:596-615.
60. Ferreira VS, Slevc LR, Rogers ES. How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition 2005, 96:263-284.
61. Keysar B, Barr DJ, Balin JA, Brauner JS. Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol Sci 2000, 11: 32-38.
62. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Labs Techn J 1948, 27:623-656.
63. Aylett M, Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Lang Speech 2004, 47:31-56.
64. Bell A, Brenier JM, Gregory M, Girand C, Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. J Memory Lang 2009; 60:92-111.
65. Levy R, Jaeger TF. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In: Schlokopf B, Platt J, Homan T, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 19. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007, 849-856.
66. Qian T, Jaeger TF. Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production. Cogn Sci 2012, 36.
67. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126-1177.
68. Jaeger TF, Tily H. On language 'utility': processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2010, 2:323-335.
69. Schmitt BM, Meyer AS, Levelt WJ. Lexical access in the production of pronouns. Cognition 1999, 69: 313-35. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10193050.
70. Arnold JE, Griffin Z. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: everyone competes. J Memory Lang 2007, 56:521-536.
71. Kaiser E. Taking action: a cross-modal investigation of discourse-level representations. Front Psychol 2012, 3:156. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00156.
72. Grosz B, Joshi A, Weinstein S. Centering: a framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Comput Linguist 1995, 2:203-225.
73. Horton WS, Gerrig RJ. Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Process 2005, 40:1-35.
74. Cinque G, Rizzi L. In: Heine B, Narrog H, eds. 'The Cartography of Syntactic Structures', The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.51-65.
75. Shlonsky U. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Lang Linguist Comp 2010, 4:417-429.
76. Rizzi L. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman L, ed. Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1997, 281-337.
77. Ferreira VS. The persistence of optional complementizer production: why saying "that" is not saying "that" at all. J Mem Lang 2003, 48:379-398.
78. Gleitman LR, January D, Nappa R, Trueswell JC. On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. J Memory Lang 2007, 57:544-569.
79. Kahn J, Arnold JE. A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. J Mem Lang. In press
80. Singer M. Thematic structure and the integration of linguistic information. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1976, 15:549-558.
81. Terken J, Noteboom S. Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information. Lang Cogn Process 1987, 2:145-163.