Text representation as an interface between language and its users

Human Cognitive Processing

Volumn 8, Issue , 2001, Pages 1-25

  Sanders, Ted ^a   Spooren, Wilbert ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85190685474     PISSN: 13876724     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.8.02san     Document Type: Chapter

References (120)

1. Referential coherence: units are connected by repeated reference to the same object;
2. Relational coherence: text segments are connected by establishing coherence relations like Cause-consequence between them.
3. More radical in that radical conversation analysists deny the possibility of attributing any meaning to an utterance without regard of its context.
4. Strictly speaking there is no logical connection between dynamic systems and incremental systems, in that dynamic systems can be constructed that are not incremental and incremental systems that are not dynamic. Yet in every serious language interpretation system that we know of the two go together.
5. However, there are some problems with the Meyer and Freedle study, see Horowitz (1987) and Sanders and Noordman (2000) for further details.
6. Andriessen, J., De Smedt, K., & Zock, M. (1996). Discourse planning: Empirical research and computer models. In T. Dijkstra, & K. De Smedt (Eds.), Computational linguistics. AI and connectionist models of human language processing (pp. 247-278). London etc.: Taylor & Francis.
7. Anscombre, J., & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux MAIS en Français? Lingua, 43, 23-40.
8. Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65-87.
9. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
10. Bateman, J. A., & Rondhuis, K. J. (1997). Coherence relations: towards a general specification. Discourse Processes, 24, 3-49.
11. Birkmire, D. P. (1985). Text processing: The inXuence of text structure, background knowledge and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 314-326.
12. Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 267-275.
13. Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51-61.
14. Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text: Building mental structures to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 640-674). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
15. Bublitz, W., Lenk, U., & Ventola, E. (Eds.). (1999). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins.
16. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic Press.
17. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. The Xow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
18. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Kortmann, B. (Eds.). (2000). Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. Deaton, J. A., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (in press). Causal conjunctions: Cue mapping in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language.
20. Degand, L. (1996). A situation-based approach to causation in Dutch with some implications for text generation. Dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
21. Degand, L., Lefèvre, N., & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1, 39-51.
22. DuBois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 203-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23. Ducrot, O. (1980). Essai d'application: MAIS - les allusions a l'énonciation - délocutifs, performatifs, discours indirect. In H. Parret (Ed.), Le langage en context: études philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique (pp. 487-575). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
24. Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye movements and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 75-87.
25. Evers-Vermeul, J. (2000). De complexiteit van connectief-verwerving [The complexity of connective acquisition]. Nederlandse Taalkunde.
26. Fayol, M., & Costermans, J. (Eds.) (1997). Processing interclausal relationships in production and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
28. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse representation and text processing. A special issue of Language and Cognitive processes. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Garnham, A. (1996). Discourse comprehension models. In T. Dijkstra, & K. De Smedt (Eds.), Computational Linguistics. AI and connectionist models of human language processing (pp. 221-246). London etc.: Taylor & Francis.
30. Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675-698). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
31. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.) (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins.
32. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Shroyer, S. (1989). The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory & Cognition, 17, 536-540.
33. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure-building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411-446). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
35. Gibbs, R. W. (1996). What's cognitive about cognitive linguistics? In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods (pp. 27-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36. Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher, & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59-115). Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language, 31.
37. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
38. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
39. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & P. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
40. Haberlandt, K., & Bingham, G. (1978). Verbs contribute to the coherence of brief narratives: Reading related and unrelated sentence triples. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 419-425.
41. Haberlandt, K. (1994). Methods in reading research. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1-31). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
42. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of deWnite and indeWnite noun phrases. Unpublished Thesis, Univ. of Massachussetts.
43. Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition. Menlo Park, CA: CSLI.
44. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
45. Horowitz, R. (1987). Rhetorical structure in discourse processing. In R. Horowitz, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 117-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46. Hovy, E. H. (1990). Parsimonious and proXigate approaches to the question of discourse structure relations. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation.
47. Just, M. & Carpenter, P. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semanticsofnaturallanguage,formallogicanddiscourserepresentationtheory.Kluwer: Dordrecht.
49. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Truth, interpretation, and information (pp. 1-41). Dordrecht: Foris.
50. Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115-126.
51. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
52. Kintsch, W. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 721-739). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
53. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Knott, A. (1996). A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
55. Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62.
56. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
57. Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
58. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
59. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge (Ma) etc.: Bradford/MIT Press.
60. Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding condition revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161.
61. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse description. Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
62. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57-90.
63. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text. System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
64. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
65. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its eVects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
66. Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121-143.
67. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
68. Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved: Enhanced reading comprehension and memory across the life span through strategic text structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The inXuence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
70. Moore, J. D., & Pollack, M. E. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537-544.
71. Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 453-465.
72. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In M. Fayol, & J. Costermans (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships in production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1998). Memory-based processing in understanding causal information. Discourse Processes, 26, 191-212.
74. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1992). Readers' knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373-391.
75. Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 573-590.
76. Oversteegen, L. E. (1997). On the pragmatic nature of causal and contrastive connectives. Discourse Processes, 24, 51-85.
77. Pander Maat, H. (1998). The classification of negative coherence relations and connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 177-204.
78. Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use and subjectivity. On the distribution of three Dutch causual connnectives. In Couper-Kuhlen and Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse perspectives, 57-83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
79. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
80. Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of Given-New information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
81. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 305-319.
83. Risselada, R., & Spooren, W. (Eds.). (1998). Discourse Markers. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 30.
84. Sachs, J. D. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.
85. Sanders, J. M. (1994). Perspective in narrative discourse. Dissertation KU Brabant, Tilburg.
86. Sanders, J. M. & Redeker, G. (1996). Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars (pp. 290-317). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
87. Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 241-264.
88. Sanders. J., & Spooren, W. (1997). Perspective, subjectivity and modality from a cognitive linguistic point of view. In W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics. (pp. 85-112). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
89. Sanders, T. (1997a). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence. On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147.
90. Sanders, T. (1997b). Psycholinguistics and the discourse level: Challenges for cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 243-265.
91. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 1, 37-60.
92. Sanders, T., & Spooren W. (1999). Communicative intentions and coherence relations. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in text and discourse (pp. 235-250). Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins.
93. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.
94. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93-133.
95. Sanders, T., & van Wijk, C. (1996). PISA - A procedure for analyzing the structure of explanatory texts. Text, 16, 91-132.
96. Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind - the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89-130.
97. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Selective processes in text understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 699-720). San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
98. Schilperoord, J. (1996). It's about time. Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
99. Schilperoord, J., & Sanders, T. (1997). Pauses, cognitive rhythms and discourse structure. An empirical study of discourse production. In A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Disourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 247-249). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
100. Schilperoord, J., & Sanders, T. (1999). How hierarchical structure affects retrieval processes; implications of pause and text analysis. In D. Galbraith, & M. Torrance (Eds.), Conceptual processes in writing (pp. 13-30). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
101. Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
102. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1992). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
103. Spooren, W. P. M. S. (1989). Some aspects of the form and interpretation of global contrastive coherence relations. Ph.D. Dissertation Nijmegen University.
104. Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24, 149-168.
105. Spooren, W., Mulder, M., & Hoeken, H. (1998). The role of interest and text structure in professional reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 109-120.
106. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (in prep.). What does children's discourse tell us about the nature of coherence relations? Paper VU Amsterdam/UiL OTS Utrecht.
107. Spooren, W., Sanders, T., & Visser, J. (1994). Taxonomie van coherence-relaties: Evidentie uit taalverwervingsonderzoek? [Taxonomy of coherence relations: Evidence from language acquisition research?] Gramma/TTT, 3, 33-54.
108. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 3, 285-298.
109. Stein, D., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
110. Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
111. Sweetser, E. (1996). Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In G. Fauconnier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar (pp. 318-333). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
112. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595-611.
113. Trabasso, T., & Van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
114. Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 406-416.
115. Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (Eds.). (1991). Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
116. Van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1998). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. Van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
117. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
118. Verhagen, A. (1995). Subjectification, syntax and communication. In D. Stein, & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
119. Verhagen, A. (2000). Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In Couper-Kuhlen & Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse perspectives, 361-380. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
120. Vonk, W., Hustinx, L. G. M. M., & Simons, W. H. G. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 301-333.