Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Meaning Across Languages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psycholinguistic Approaches to Meaning and Understanding across Languages

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 44))

Abstract

In this chapter, we will introduce the basic research questions spanning all chapters in this volume: How do we ‘encode’ complex thoughts into linguistic signals, how do we interpret such signals in appropriate ways, and to what extent is what we encode constrained at the outset by the particular language we grow up with? We will introduce recent developments of an experimental approach to linguistics and argue for the necessity of cross-linguistic experimental paradigms for linguistic research at the interface of syntax, semantics and pragmatics.

Formerly Barbara Schmiedtová

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.cas.uio.no/research/1011acrosslanguages/index.php

  2. 2.

    For example, five recent issues of the journal Language and Cognitive Processes (Taylor & Francis) contain 13 papers on English and 9 on other languages (Chinese, Dutch, German, Hindi, Japanese, and Spanish).

  3. 3.

    Other equivalent terms are “situation” (Klein 1994) and “situation type” (Smith 1997).

  4. 4.

    In their experimental study on clause conjunction, Bott et~al. (2009) come to a similar conclusion; see also Röhrig et~al. (2011).

References

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, J. E. (2013). Information status relates to production, distribution, and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00235

  • Au, T. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Solfjeld, K. (2012). Competing structures: The discourse perspective. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. T. T. Haug (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: The grammar of elaboration (pp. 179–225). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. (2013). Voice and expressivity in free indirect thought representations: Imitation and representation. Mind and Language, 28(5), 579–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 871–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bott, L., Frisson, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2009). Interpreting conjunction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braginsky, P., & Rothstein, S. (2008). Vendlerian classes and the Russian aspectual system. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16(1), 3–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N. (2013). Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition, 126(3), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of Aspectual Coercion. Brain & Language, 106, 132–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R., & Blakemore, D. (2005). Coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20(2), 177–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the “Question Under Discussion.” Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 352–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Hemforth, B. (2012). Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A crosslinguistic study of pronoun resolution. Linguistics, 50(5), 991–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 86–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormack, A., & Smith, N. (2005). What is coordination? Lingua, 115, 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Fuente, I., & Hemforth, B. (2013). Topicalization and focusing effects on subject and object pronoun resolution in Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, G. Lord, A. de Prada Pérez, & J. E. Aaron (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 27–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellert, M. (2010). Ambiguous pronoun resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch (MPI series in psycholinguistics, Vol. 58). Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (Eds.). (2008). ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text—a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Sæbø, K. J. (2011). Behabitive reports. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation (pp. 85–106). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filiaci, F. (2011). Anaphoric preferences of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filip, H. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 1186–1217). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geber, D. (2006). Processing subject pronouns in relation to non-canonical (quirky) constructions. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa/Ottawa Papers in Linguistics, 34, 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2013). Layered discourse representation theory. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 311–327). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Blackwell textbooks in linguistics: The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 385–422). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R., Heruti, V., Metuki, N., & Fein, O. (2009). “When we say no we mean no”: Interpreting negation in vision and language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2222–2239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 30(1), 5–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güldemann, T., & von Roncador, M. (Eds.). (2002). Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, M. (Ed.). (2004). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B. (2013). Experimental linguistics. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford online bibliographies (pp. 1–16). doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0112.

  • Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (Eds.). (2000). German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Baumann, P., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or Gricean maxims? In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2010, Portland, 11–14 August (pp. 2218–2223). Portland: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition, 108, 740–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., Prasad, R., & Miltsakaki, E. (2005). Anaphora resolution: A centering approach. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 223–230). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1625–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse representation theory. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 872–922). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2007). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination (Studies in language companion series, Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (2007). Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning (Vol. 3, pp.87–124). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2010). Temporal interpretation without tense: Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 307–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, E. (2009). Japanese reported speech. Against a direct–indirect distinction. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5447, 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, E. (2010). Presupposing acquaintance: A unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(5), 429–474. doi:10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, E. (in press). Japanese reported speech: Towards an account of perspective shift as mixed quotation. In E. McCready, K. Yabushita, & K. Yoshimoto (Eds.), Formal approaches to semantics and pragmatics. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayol, L., & Clark, R. (2010). Pronouns in Catalan: Games of partial information and the use of linguistic resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 319–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-linguistic variation in sentence processing. Evidence from RC attachment in Greek (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, Vol. 36). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. J. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 131–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 537–577). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Pollatsek, A. B. (2005). Eye movements during reading. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 79–97). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio obliqua, oratio recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Paper in semantics: OSU working papers in linguistics (Vol. 49, pp. 91–136). Columbus: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhrig, S., Schlesewsky, M., Schumacher, P. B., & Meibauer, J. (2011, June). Und=∧?!. The role of context for the interpretation of the conjunction “und.” Poster presented at the experimental pragmatics conference. Universitat Popeu Fabra, Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2009). De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 425–438). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sæbø, K. J. (2012). Reports of specific indefinites. Journal of Semantics, Advance Access. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U., & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.). (2008). Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmiedtová, B. (2004). At the same time: The expression of simultaneity in learner varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmiedtová, B., & Flecken, M. (2008). Aspectual concepts across languages: Some considerations for second language learning. In S. de Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Pedagogical grammar (pp. 357–384). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmiedtová, B., & Sahonenko, N. (2008). Die Rolle des grammatischen Aspekts in Ereignis-Enkodierung: Ein Vergleich zwischen Tschechischen und Russischen Lernern des Deutschen. In P. Gommes & M. Walter (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbforschung (pp. 45–71). Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmiedtová, B., & Sahonenko, N. (2012). Acquisition of L2 narrative competence: Tense switching by Russian L2 speakers of German. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 20(1), 35–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuval, N., & Hemforth, B. (2008). Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and spoken language comprehension. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 445–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, D. J. (2013). Aspectual coercion in eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(3), 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Txurruka, I. G. (2003). The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 255–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, R. (2006). Attitudes and changing contexts. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160 (Reprinted in 1967 in Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca: Cornell University).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M., & Schmiedtová, B. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in the early phases of language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data and memory performance. Linguistics, 50(4), 833–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 249–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamashita, H., Hirose, Y., & Packard, J. L. (2011). Processing and producing head-final structures. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zamparelli, R. (2011). Coordination. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 1713–1741). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeevat, H. (2014). Language production and interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition (= Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 30). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeevat, H., & Jasinskaja, K. (2007). And as an additive particle. In M. Aurnague Miguelgorry, K. Korta Carrión, & J. M. Antia (Eds.), Language, representation and reasoning. Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka (pp. 315–340). University of the Basque Country Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, CNRS, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France

    Barbara Hemforth

  2. Institut für Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Barbara Mertins

  3. Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen

Authors
  1. Barbara Hemforth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Mertins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Hemforth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Paris Diderot University, Paris, France

    Barbara Hemforth

  2. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Barbara Mertins

  3. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hemforth, B., Mertins, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2014). Introduction: Meaning Across Languages. In: Hemforth, B., Mertins, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds) Psycholinguistic Approaches to Meaning and Understanding across Languages. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation