The role of conceptualization during language production: evidence from event encoding

References

• Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (2004). Now you see it, now you don’t: Mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In J. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action (pp. 347–386). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. C. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Handbook of generative syntax (pp. 73–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Matthew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth, & Newlands, Alison. (2000). Controlling the Intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1986). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 575–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In J. Miller & P. Eimas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Speech, language, and communication (Vol. 11, pp. 181–216). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, K., Irwin, D., & Davidson, D. (2004). Putting first things first. In J. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface between language, vision and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 249–317). New York and Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, Kathryn, Irwin, David E., Davidson, Douglas J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Minding the clock. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 653–685. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(6), 1482–1493.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 301–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Dell, G. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Duff, M. C. (2016). Memory and common ground processes in language use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(4), 722–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: Message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunger, A., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Event structure influences language production: Evidence from structural priming in motion event description. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 299–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunger, A., Skordos, D., Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A. (2018). How children attend to events before speaking: Cross-linguistic evidence from the motion domain. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Bunger, A., Skordos, D., Trueswell, J. C., & Papafragou, A. (2016). How children and adults encode causative events cross-linguistically: Implications for language production and attention. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 1015–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunger, A., Trueswell, J. C., & Papafragou, A. (2012). The relation between event apprehension and utterance formulation in children: Evidence from linguistic omissions. Cognition, 122(2), 135–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. H. Joshi, B. I. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dobel, C., Glanemann, R., Kreysa, H., Zwitserlood, P., & Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Visual encoding of coherent and non-coherent scenes. In E. Pedersen & J. Bohnemeyer (Eds.), Event representation in language: Encoding events at the language cognition interface (pp. 189–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dobel, C., Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2007). Describing scenes hardly seen. Acta Psychologica, 125, 129–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, C. A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers signaling ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2016). New perspectives on language and thought. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (2nd , pp. 543–568). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0028
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grigoroglou, M., & Papafragou, A. (2018, July). Children’s adjustments to listener needs in spontaneous event descriptions. Poster presented at the International Workshop on Language Production (IWLP), Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Grigoroglou, M., & Papafragou, A. (2019). Interactive contexts increase informativeness in children’s referential communication. Developmental Psychology. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1037/dev0000693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafri, A., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Getting the gist of events: Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 880–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafri, A., Trueswell, J. C., & Strickland, B. (2018). Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing. Cognition, 175, 36–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: Shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 290–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ji, Y., & Papafragou, A. (2017). Viewers’ sensitivity to abstract event structure. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 594–599). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Ji, Y., & Papafragou, A. (2018). Midpoints and endpoints in event perception. In T. T. Rogers, M. Rau, X. Zhu, & C. W. Kalish (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1877–1882). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Konopka, A. E., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2014). Message encoding. In V. Ferreira, M. Goldrick, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Konopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). Priming sentence planning. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 1–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, R. M., & Glucksberg, S. (1977). Social and nonsocial speech. Scientific American, 236, 100–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113–114.
   Google Scholar
• Kuchinsky, S. E., Bock, K., & Irwin, D. E. (2011). Reversing the hands of time: Changing the mapping from seeing to saying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(3), 748–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlen, A. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 567–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakusta, Laura, & Carey, Susan. (2014). Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 152–175. doi:10.1080/15475441.2014.896168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakusta, Laura, & Landau, Barbara. (2005). Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakusta, Laura, & Landau, Barbara. (2012). Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between source and goal paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544. doi:10.1111/cogs.2012.36.issue-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. W. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: Incrementality in language production. Cognition, 129, 544–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning: Essays in honor of Sir John Lyons. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.) Grammar and meaning (pp. 90–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liebal, K., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Young children’s understanding of cultural com- mon ground. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 88–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 550–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109, 235–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., & Wolff, P. M. (Eds.). (2010). Words and the mind: How words capture human experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moll, Henrike, & Kadipasaoglu, Derya. (2013). The primacy of social over visual perspective-taking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13(4), 329–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1187–1208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafragou, Anna. (2010). Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 1064–1092. doi:10.1111/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), B75–B87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, H. (1970). The sentence as the expression of the combination of several ideas. In A. L. Numenthal (Trans.), Language and psychology: Historical aspects of psycholinguistics (pp. 20–31). New York: Wiley (Original work published in 1886).
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. In Language (Vol. 68, pp. xiv, 411). Retrieved from http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/ langev/paper/pinker89book.html
   Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2014). Event cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuel, S. G., & Troicki, M. (1998). Articulation quality is inversely related to redundancy when children or adults have verbal control. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 175–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipley, T. F., & Zacks, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding events: From perception to action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 64–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ünal, E., & Papafragou, A. (2016). Interactions between language and mental representations. Language Learning, 66(3), 554–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ünal, E., Trueswell, J., & Papafragou A. (2017, July). How children map event participants onto language. Talk presented at Symposium on ‘Encoding events in language and cognition’, 14th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Lyon.
   Google Scholar
• van de Velde, M., Meyer, A., & Konopka, A. E. (2014). Message formulation and structural assembly: Describing “easy” and “hard” events with preferred and dispreferred syntactic structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 71, 124–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, A., Knott, A., & MacAskill, M. R. (2010). Eye movements during transitive action observation have sequential structure. Acta Psychologica, 133, 51–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, F., Papafragou, A., Bunger, A., & Trueswell, J. (2011). Rapid extraction of event participants in caused motion events. Proceedings from the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Wundt, W. (1970). The psychology of the sentence. In A. L. Blumenthal (Trans.), Language and psychology: Historical aspects of psycholinguistics (pp. 20–31) ( Original work published in 1900). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zwitserlood, P., Bölte, J., Hofmann, R., Meier, C. C., Dobel, C., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2018). Seeing for speaking: Semantic and lexical information provided by briefly presented, naturalistic action scenes. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0194762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar