Location of Repository

Introducing a new entity into discourse: comprehension and production evidence for the status of dutch er ‘‘there” as a higher-level expectancy monitor

By Stefan Grondelaers, Dirk Speelman, Denis Drieghe, Marc Brysbaert and Dirk Geeraerts

Abstract

This paper reports on the ways in which new entities are introduced into discourse. First, we present the evidence in support of a model of indefinite reference processing based on three principles: the listener’s ability to make predictive inferences in order to decrease the unexpectedness of upcoming words, the availability to the speaker of grammatical constructions that customize predictive inferences, and the use of ‘‘expectancy monitors” to signal and facilitate the introduction of highly unpredictable entities. <br/><br/>We provide evidence that one of these expectancy monitors in Dutch is the post-verbal variant of existential er (the equivalent of the unstressed existential ‘‘there” in English). In an eye-tracking experiment we demonstrate that the presence of er decreases the processing difficulties caused by low subject expectancy. A corpus-based regression analysis subsequently confirms that the production of er is determined almost exclusively by seven parameters of low subject expectancy. <br/><br/>Together, the comprehension and production data suggest that while existential er functions as an expectancy monitor in much the same way as speech disfluencies (hesitations, pauses and filled pauses), er is a higher-level expectancy monitor because it is available in spoken and written discourse and because it is produced more systematically than any disfluency

Topics: BF
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:144733
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2002). 31Introducing a new entity into discourse
  2. (2007). A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences doi
  3. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London & doi
  4. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. doi
  5. (2008). Attention orienting effects of hesitations in speech: Evidence from ERPs. doi
  6. (1989). Changes in activation levels with negation. doi
  7. (1986). Completion norms for final words of sentences using a multiple production measure. doi
  8. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. doi
  9. (2003). De distributie van er in het gesproken Nederlands. Paper presented at the workshop Spraakmakende Spraak (Corpus Gesproken Nederlands),
  10. (1996). De distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats.
  11. (1971). De patronen van de zinspotente groepen; grondtype A en zijn varianten II. Publicaties van het archief voor de Nederlandse syntaxis.
  12. (2003). Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information.
  13. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguity during dialogue? doi
  14. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. doi
  15. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. doi
  16. (1993). Effects of thematic and lexical priming on readers’ eye movements. doi
  17. (2003). English inversion. A ground-before-figure construction. doi
  18. (2002). Er als accessibility marker: On- en offline evidentie voor een procedurele interpretatie van presentatieve zinnen.
  19. (1982). Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories. In doi
  20. (1992). Grammar in mind and brain. Explorations in cognitive syntax. doi
  21. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. doi
  22. (2008). Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech. doi
  23. (2000). Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands.
  24. (2007). How important are linguistic factors in word skipping during reading? doi
  25. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. doi
  26. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English.
  27. (2001). Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. doi
  28. (1977). Meaning and form. doi
  29. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. doi
  30. (1996). Possessives in English. An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. 32Introducing a new entity into discourse doi
  31. (2001). Predictability theory: An overview. In
  32. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative text. doi
  33. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. doi
  34. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. doi
  35. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure : For the speaker or for the addressee? doi
  36. (1991). Regionale variatie in het gebruik van er III.
  37. (2002). Regressing on er. Statistical analysis of texts and language variation.
  38. (1995). The feeling of another’ knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. doi
  39. (1979). The problem of existential sentences in Modern Dutch. doi
  40. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movement. doi
  41. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information.
  42. (2001). Trouble in mind: Paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication. In
  43. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. doi
  44. (2003). When conceptual paths are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. doi
  45. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. doi
  46. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. doi
  47. (1997). You don't have no chance. Use it. Predictability of double-negated referents. Paper presented at the Architecture and Mechanisms of Language Processing conference,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.