Plausibility and Perspective Influence the Processing of Counterfactual Narratives

References

• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, D. C., Michas, I. C., & Bersellini, E. (2003). Communicating information about medication: the benefits of making it personal. Psychology and Health, 18, 127–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (2000). Syntactic focusing structures influence discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 30, 285–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S. L., & Garnsey, S. M. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L.C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 25–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., Augustyn, J. S., & Taylor, H. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science, 20, 27–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, R.M.J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, R.M.J. (2002). Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 426–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, R.M.J., & Tasso A. (1999). Deductive reasoning with factual, possible, and counterfactual conditionals. Memory & Cognition, 27, 726–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vega, M., & Urrutia, M. (2012). Discourse updating after reading a counterfactual event. Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 33, 157–173.
   Google Scholar
• de Vega, M., Urrutia, M., & Riffo, B. (2007). Cancelling Updating in the Comprehension of Counterfactuals embedded in narratives. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1410–1421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J. (2012). Eye movements reveal rapid concurrent access to factual and counterfactual interpretations of the world. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 939–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., & Cane, J. E. (2015). Examining the cognitive costs of counterfactual language comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain research, 1622, 252–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H.J., & Sanford, A.J. (2008). Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 609–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H.J., Sanford, A.J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time-course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R. (2008). Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 106, 1038–1046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuda, Y., & Sanford, A. J. (2008). The effect of personalization on shallow processing. The 18th Annual Meeting of Society for Text and Discourse, Memphis, Tennessee, July 12-15th.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez-Veiga, I., García-Madruga, J. A., & Moreno-Ríos, S. (2010). The interpretation of indicative and subjunctive concessives. Acta Psychologica, 134, 245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia, 44, 752–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. (2002). Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph, H. S., Liversedge, S. P., Blythe, H. I., White, S. J., Gathercole, S. E., & Rayner, K. (2008). Children’s and adults’ processing of anomaly and implausibility during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 708–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 6–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam, The Nethelands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J.L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 913–934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, R. K., & Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ni, W., Fodor, J.D., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D.P. (1998). Anomalous strings: Eye movement patterns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 515–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2013). “If a lion could speak…”: Online sensitivity to propositional truth-value of unrealistic counterfactual sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 54–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Martin, A. E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 122, 102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M.S., & Van Berkum, J.J.A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B., & Liversedge, S. (2004). The effects of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (2005). Memory-based approaches and beyond. Discourse Processes, 39, 205–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A.J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A.J., 2011. Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Price, J., & Sanford, A. J. (2009). Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences. Memory & Cognition, 37, 880–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santamaria, C., Espino, O., & Byrne, R.M.J. (2005). Counterfactual and semifactual conditionals prime alternative possibilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 1149–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V., & Byrne, R.M.J. (2002). Reasoning about things that didn’t happen. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 28, 1154–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urrutia, M., de Vega, M., & Bastiaansen, M. (2012). Understanding counterfactuals in discourse modulates ERP and oscillatory gamma rhythms in the EEG. Brain Research, 1455, 40–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 770–775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, T., McConnell, K., & Rayner, K. (2008). Effects of context on eye movements when reading about possible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar