Understanding reading as a form of language-use: A language game hypothesis

New Ideas in Psychology

Volumn 42, Issue , 2016, Pages 21-28

  Wallot, Sebastian ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Conversation; Dynamic systems; Language games; Language use; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938150600     PISSN: 0732118X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bandt C., Pompe B. Permutation entropy: a natural complexity measure for time series. Physical Review Letters 2002, 88. 174102-1174102-2.
2. Brown C., Liebovitch L. Fractal analysis 2010, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
3. Chafe W., Tannen D. The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology 1987, 16:383-407.
4. Clark H.H. Using language 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Davidson D. Locating literary language. Literary theory after Davidson 1993, 295-308. University Park, PA, Penn State Press. R.W. Dasenbrock (Ed.).
6. Frost R. Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioural and Brain Science 2012, 35:263-279.
7. Fusaroli R., Bahrami B., Olsen K., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C., et al. Coming to terms: quantifying the benefits of linguistic coordination. Psychological Science 2012, 23:931-939.
8. Fusaroli R., Raczaszek-Leonardi J., Tylén K. Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology 2014, 32:147-157.
9. Graesser A.C., McNamara D.S. Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 2011, 3:371-398.
10. Grainger J. Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language 1990, 29:228-244.
11. Grainger J., Jacobs A.M. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 1996, 103:518-565.
12. Haberlandt K.F., Graesser A.C. Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1985, 114:357-374.
13. Hohenstein S., Kliegl R. Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014, 40:166-190.
14. Hunt R.A., Vipond D. First, catch the rabbit: the methodological imperative and the dramatization of dialogic reading. Poetics 1991, 20:577-595.
15. Keller T.A., Carpenter P.A., Just M.A. The neural bases of sentence comprehension: a fMRI examination of syntactic and lexical processing. Cerebral Cortex 2001, 11:223-237.
16. Linell P. The written language bias in Linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations 2005, Routledge, London, UK.
17. McNerney M.W., Goodwin K.A., Radvansky G.A. A novel study: a situation model analysis of reading times. Discourse Processes 2011, 48:453-474.
18. O'Brien B.A., Wallot S., Haussmann A., Kloos H. Using complexity metrics to assess silent reading fluency: a cross-sectional study comparing oral and silent reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 2014, 18:235-254.
19. Plamondon R., Srihari S.N. Online and off-line handwriting recognition: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2000, 22:63-84.
20. Rayner K., Chace K.H., Slattery T.J., Ashby J. Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 2006, 10:241-255.
21. Rayner K., Reichle E.D. Models of the reading process. Cognitive Science 2010, 1:787-799.
22. Reichle E.D., Rayner K., Pollatsek A. The EZ reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 2003, 26:445-476.
23. Reichle E.D., Warren T., McConnell K. Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher-level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2009, 16:1-21.
24. Richardson D.C., Dale R., Kirkham N.Z. The art of conversation is coordination common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science 2007, 18:407-413.
25. Raczaszek-Leonardi J. Symbols as constraints: the structuring role of dynamics and self-organization in natural language. Pragmatics & Cognition 2009, 17:653-676.
26. Van Petten C., Kutas M. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition 1991, 19:95-112.
27. Van Orden G.C., Kloos H. The question of phonology and reading. The science of reading: A handbook 2005, 61-78. Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. M.J. Snowling, C. Hulme (Eds.).
28. Van Orden G.C., Pennington B.F., Stone G.O. What do double dissociations prove?. Cognitive Science 2001, 25:111-172.
29. Wallot S. From "cracking the orthographic code" to "playing with language": toward a usage-based foundation of the reading process. Frontiers in Psychology 2014, 5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00891.
30. Wallot S., Hollis G., van Rooij M. Connected text reading and differences in text reading fluency in adult readers. PLoS One 2013, 8:e71914.
31. Wallot S., O'Brien B.A., Coey C.A., Kelty-Stephen D. Power-law fluctuations in eye movements predict text comprehension during connected text reading. Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the cognitive science society 2015.
32. Wallot S., O'Brien B.A., Haussmann A., Kloos A., Lyby M.S. The role of reading time complexity and reading speed in text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2014, 40:1745-1765.
33. Wallot S., Van Orden G. Toward a lifespan metric of reading fluency. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 2011, 21:1173-1192.
34. Webber C.L., Zbilut J.P. Dynamical assessment of physiological systems and states using recurrence plot strategies. Journal of Applied Physiology 1994, 76:965-973.
35. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations 1953/2010, Wiley- Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.