Book contents
- Cognitive Discourse Analysis
- Cognitive Discourse Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Background and Scope
- 2 Language as a Representation of Thought
- 3 Resources
- 4 Identifying Cognitive Orientation
- 5 Identifying Cognitive Depth
- 6 Identifying Cognitive Constructiveness
- 7 Using Language to Convey Thoughts
- 8 CODA Procedures
- 9 Beyond CODA
- Register of Linguistic Features
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2020
Book contents
- Cognitive Discourse Analysis
- Cognitive Discourse Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Background and Scope
- 2 Language as a Representation of Thought
- 3 Resources
- 4 Identifying Cognitive Orientation
- 5 Identifying Cognitive Depth
- 6 Identifying Cognitive Constructiveness
- 7 Using Language to Convey Thoughts
- 8 CODA Procedures
- 9 Beyond CODA
- Register of Linguistic Features
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cognitive Discourse AnalysisAn Introduction, pp. 255 - 268Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80(2), 207–45.Google Scholar
Afflerbach, P. & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior 16, 307–22.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (1983). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Allen, G. L. (2000). Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14, 333–59.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. (2001). The language machine: Psycholinguistics in review. British Journal of Psychology 92, 129–70.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence 149(1), 91–130.Google Scholar
Andonova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Coventry, K. R. (2010). Function and context affect spatial information packaging at multiple levels. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17, 575–80.Google Scholar
Antaki, C., Billig, M. G., Edwards, D., and Potter, J. A. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online 1(1). https://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2002/002/antaki2002002-paper.htmlGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Product-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4), 495–527.Google Scholar
Bartl, C. & Dörner, D. (1998). Sprachlos beim Denken – Zum Einfluß von Sprache auf die Problemlöse- und Gedächtnisleistung bei der Bearbeitung eines nichtsprachlichen Problems. Sprache und Kognition 17, 224–38.Google Scholar
Bateman, J., Hois, J., Ross, R. R., & Tenbrink, T. (2010). A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1027–71.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., & Healing, S. (2017). Doing mutual understanding. Calibrating with micro-sequences in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 121, 91–112.Google Scholar
Bégoin-Augereau, S. & Caron-Pargue, J. (2003). Linguistic criteria for demarcation and hierarchical organization of episodes in a problem solving task. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 81–7. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Bégoin-Augereau, S. & Caron-Pargue, J. (2009). Linguistic markers of decision processes in a problem solving task. Cognitive Systems Research 10, 102–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition 42, 23–60.Google Scholar
Boren, M. & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43(3), 261–78.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22(6), 1482–93.Google Scholar
Brösamle, M. & Hölscher, C. (2012). Architectural gestures: Conserving traces of design processes. In Hölscher, C. & Bhatt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of SCAD Spatial Cognition for Architectural Design. Report No. 029–08/2012 Report Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition, pp. 215–23. Bremen: Bremen University.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1993). ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3, 46–74.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(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Bugmann, D., Coventry, K. R., & Newstead, S. E. (2007). Contextual cues and the retrieval of information from cognitive maps. Memory and Cognition 35(3), 381–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, C. S. & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Vol. 157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Canas, J., Quesada, J., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks. Ergonomics 46(5), 482–501.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. A., Hölscher, C., Shipley, T. F., & Dalton, R. C. (2010). Getting Lost in Buildings. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19(5), 284–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L. A. & van der Zee, E. (eds.) (2005). Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (1989). Processus psycholinguistiques et analyse des verbalisations dans une tâche cognitive. Archives de Psychologie 57, 3–32.Google Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (1995). La fonction cognitive des interjections. Faits de Langues 6, 111–20.Google Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (2000). Les interjections comme marqueurs du fonctionnement cognitif. Cahiers de praxématique 34, 51–76.Google Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J. & Gillis, S. (eds.) (1996). Verbal Production and Problem Solving. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (1993). The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions. Linguistics 31, 1011–41.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, pp. 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp. 21–30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, pp. 7–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialone, C., Tenbrink, T., & Spiers, H. J. (2018). Sculptors, architects, and painters conceive of depicted spaces differently. Cognitive Science 42, 524–53.Google Scholar
Clark, D. R., Li, D., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection. Journal of International Business Studies 49(4), 442–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Krych, M. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 62–81.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39.Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A. & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 214–30.Google Scholar
Çöltekin, A., Fabrikant, S. I., & Lacayo, M. (2010). Exploring the efficiency of users’ visual analytics strategies based on sequence analysis of eye movement recordings. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(10), 1559–75.Google Scholar
Corley, M. & Scheepers, C. (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an internet-based study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(1), 126–31.Google Scholar
Corteen, R. S. & Wood, B. (1972). Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel. Journal of Experimental Psychology 94(3), 308.Google Scholar
Couclelis, H. (1996). Verbal directions for way-finding: Space, cognition, and language. In Portugali, J. (ed.), The Construction of Cognitive Maps, pp. 133–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R. & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cuayáhuitl, H., Dethlefs, N., Richter, K.-F., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (2010). A dialogue system for indoor wayfinding using text-based natural language. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Applications 1(1–2), 285–304.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3), 219–53.Google Scholar
Danino, C. (2014). Language production and meaning construction mechanisms in the discourse on an ongoing event: the case study of CNN’s live broadcast on 9/11. PhD dissertation, University of Poitiers, France.Google Scholar
Danino, C. (2018). Introduction: Les Petits Corpus. Corpus 18. http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/3099Google Scholar
Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Current Psychology of Cognition 16, 409–58.Google Scholar
Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Bertolo, L. (1999). Spatial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13(2), 145–74.Google Scholar
Durning, S. J., Artino, A. R. Jr, Beckman, T. J., et al. (2013) Does the think-aloud protocol reflect thinking? Exploring functional neuroimaging differences with thinking (answering multiple choice questions) versus thinking aloud. Medical Teacher 35(9), 720–6.Google Scholar
Egorova, E. (2018). From text to space: Spatial discourse in alpine route directions and narratives. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Egorova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Purves, R. S. (2015). Where snow is a landmark: Route direction elements in alpine contexts. In Fabrikant, S. I., Raubal, M., Bertolotto, M., C., et al. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory, pp. 175–95. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Egorova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Purves, R. S. (2018). Fictive motion in the context of mountaineering. Spatial Cognition and Computation 18(4), 259–84.Google Scholar
Ehrich, V. & Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes 6, 169–95.Google Scholar
Elling, S., Lentz, L., & De Jong, M. (2012). Combining concurrent think-aloud protocols and eye-tracking observations: An analysis of verbalizations and silences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 55(3), 206–20.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5(3), 178–86.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2009a). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2009b). Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 27–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fan, Y. & Heeman, P. A. (2010). Initiative conflicts in task-oriented dialogue. Computer Speech and Language 24, 175–89.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. (2010). Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Physics of Life Reviews 7(4), 385–410.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: Investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse and Society 18(5), 603–25.Google Scholar
Filipi, A. & Wales, R. (2004). Perspective-taking and perspective-shifting as socially situated and collaborative actions. Journal of Pragmatics 36(10), 1851–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, M. S. & Minnery, B. S. (2009). Visual salience affects performance in a working memory task. Journal of Neuroscience 29(25), 8016–21.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Pinker, S., & Farah, M. J. (1989). Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental imagery. Cognitive Science 13(1), 51–78.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. H. & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(6), 825–50.Google Scholar
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32(4), 365–87.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G. (eds.) (2013). Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frankenstein, J., Büchner, S., Tenbrink, T., & Hölscher, C. (2010). Influence of geometry and objects on local route choices during wayfinding. In Hölscher, C., Shipley, T., Olivetti Belardinelli, M., Bateman, J., & Newcombe, N. (eds.), Spatial Cognition VII: International Conference, Spatial Cognition 2010, Mt. Hood/Portland, OR, USA, August 15–19, 2010, pp. 41–53. Berlin/: Springer.Google Scholar
Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A., & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory and Cognition 23, 397–407.Google Scholar
Freksa, C. (1981). Linguistic pattern characterization and analysis. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1), 8–11.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2013). Discourse versus discourse. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. www.geez.byethost17.com/pdfs/Big%20D%20Discourse.pdf?i=1Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5), 752–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., & Poltermann, A. (2009). Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In Kokinor, B., Holyoak, K., & Gentner, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Analogy Conference, pp. 175–82. Sofia, Bulgaria: NBU Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gralla, L. (2013). Linguistic representation of problem solving processes in unaided object assembly. PhD dissertation, Bremen University, Germany.Google Scholar
Gralla, L. & Tenbrink, T. (2013). ‘This is a wall’ – assigning function to objects. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: CogSci 2013, pp. 513–18. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Gralla, L., Tenbrink, T., Siebers, M., & Schmid, U. (2012). Analogical problem solving: Insights from verbal reports. In Miyake, N., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 396–401. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Gramann, K., Müller, H. J., Eick, E. M., & Schönebeck, B. (2005). Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31(6), 1199–223.Google Scholar
Grant, E. R. & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science 14, 462–6.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol 3), pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3), 175–204.Google Scholar
Gugerty, L. & Rodes, W. (2007). A cognitive model of strategies for cardinal direction judgments. Spatial Cognition and Computation 7(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
Gülşen, T. T. (2016). You tell me in emojis. In Ogata, T. & Akimoto, T. (eds.), Computational and Cognitive Approaches to Narratology, pp. 354–75. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Habel, C. & Tappe, H. (1999). Processes of segmentation and linearization in describing events. In Klabunde, R. & von Stutterheim, C. (eds.), Representations and Processes in Language Production, pp. 117–53. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2010). Turn-taking for turntaking: Mobility, time and action in the sequential organization of junction-negotiations in cars. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
Hart, C. & Lukeš, D. (eds.) (2009). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1, 77–89.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (eds.) (2004). The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M., Malcolm, G. L., & Schandl, C. (2009). Searching in the dark: Cognitive relevance drives attention in real-world scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16(5), 850–6.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1995). Sketch of an ontology underlying the way we talk about the world. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 43(5/6), 819–30.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. R., Trafton, G., & Roebber, P. (2005). Minding the Weather: How Expert Forecasters Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brösamle, M., & Knauff, M. (2006). Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies and multi-level buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26(4), 284–99.Google Scholar
Hölscher, C., Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognition 121, 228–47.Google Scholar
Jee, B. D., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., Sageman, B., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Drawing on experience. In Taatgen, N. A. & van Rijn, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2499–504. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Kastens, K. A., Agrawal, S., & Liben, L. S. (2009). How students and field geologists reason in integrating spatial observations from outcrops to visualize a 3-D geological structure. International Journal of Science Education 31(3), 365–93.Google Scholar
Klabunde, R. & von Stutterheim, C. (eds.) (1999). Representations and Processes in Language Production. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1979). Wegauskünfte (Route descriptions). Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) 33, 9–57.Google Scholar
Klippel, A. (2003). Wayfinding choremes. In Kuhn, W., Worboys, M., & Timpf, S. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science, pp. 320–34. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Knapton, O. & Rundblad, G. (2014). Public health in the UK media: Cognitive discourse analysis and its application to a drinking water emergency. In Hart, C. & Cap, P. (eds.), Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, pp. 559–82. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. & Ummelen, N. (2004). Thinking about thinking aloud: A comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 47(2), 105–17.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (eds.) (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (Vol. 39). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuipers, B. J. & Kassirer, J. P. (1984). Causal reasoning in medicine: Analysis of a protocol. Cognitive Science 8, 363–85.Google Scholar
Kuipers, B. J., Moskowitz, A. J., & Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Science 12, 177–210.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. D. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, pp. 1–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99.Google Scholar
Le Guen, O. (2011). Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35(5), 905–38.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research 30(2), 111–27.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, pp. 13–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linde, C. & Labov, W. (1975). Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51, 924–39.Google Scholar
Lindsey, A. E., Greene, J. O., Parker, R. G., & Sassi, M. (1995). Effects of advance message formulation on message encoding: Evidence of cognitively based hesitation in the production of multiple-goal messages. Communication Quarterly 43(3), 320–31.Google Scholar
Lutz, A., Lachaux, J. P., Martinerie, J., & Varela, F. J. (2002). Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data: Synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a simple visual task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(3), 1586–91.Google Scholar
Maes, A., Arts, A., & Noordman, L. (2004). Reference management in instructive discourse. Discourse Processes 37(2), 117–44.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Mast, F. W. & Kosslyn, S. M. (2002). Visual mental images can be ambiguous: Insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities. Cognition 86(1), 57–70.Google Scholar
McManus, I. C., Zhou, F. A., l’Anson, S., et al. (2011). The psychometrics of photographic cropping: The influence of colour, meaning, and expertise. Perception 40(3), 332–57.Google Scholar
Meilinger, T. & Knauff, M. (2008). Ask for your way or use a map: A field experiment on spatial orientation and wayfinding in an urban environment. Spatial Science 53(2), 13–24.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar
Montello, D. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In Frank, A. & Campari, I. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, pp. 312–21. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Moratz, R. & Tenbrink, T. (2006). Spatial reference in linguistic human-robot interaction: Iterative, empirically supported development of a model of projective relations. Spatial Cognition and Computation 6(1), 63–106.Google Scholar
Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 11(1), 56–60.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology 7, 480–94.Google Scholar
Nissen, M. J. & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirement of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology 19, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Newman, E. L., Caplan, J. B., Kirschen, M. P., et al. (2007). Learning your way around town: How virtual taxicab drivers learn to use both layout and landmark information. Cognition 104(2), 231–53.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation, pp. 1–15. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (2006). Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.) (1997). Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olloqui Redondo, J., Tenbrink, T., & Foltz, A. (2019.) Effects of animacy and linguistic construction on the interpretation of spatial descriptions in English and Spanish. Language and Cognition 11(2), 256–84.Google Scholar
O’Malley, M., Innes, A., Muir, S., & Wiener, J. M. (2018). ‘All the corridors are the same’: A qualitative study of the orientation experiences and design preferences of UK older adults living in a communal retirement development. Ageing and Society 38(9), 1791–816.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(3), 358–77.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Pick, H. L., Heinrichs, M. R., Montello, D. R., Smith, K., & Sullivan, C. N. (1995). Topographic map reading. In Hancock, P. A., Flach, J. M., Caird, J., & Vicente, K. J. (eds.), Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems (Vol. 2), pp. 255–84. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–226.Google Scholar
Purcell, T. & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies 19(4), 389–430.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., & Reif, M. (eds.) (2014). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use (Vol. 59). Chicago: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (eds.) (1997). Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rasinger, S. (2010). Research questions in linguistics. In Litosseliti, L. (ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics, pp. 49–67. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Riecke, B. E. & Wiener, J. M. (2007). Can people not tell left from right in VR? Point-to-origin studies revealed qualitative errors in visual path integration. In Sherman, W. R., Lin, M. C., & Steed, A. (eds.), Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2007, pp. 3–10. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Röder, B. & Rösler, F. (2003). Memory for environmental sounds in sighted, congenitally blind and late blind adults: Evidence for cross-modal compensation. International Journal of Psychophysiology 50(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, T. (1985). Sprachstatistisch objektivierbare Denkstilunterschiede zwischen ‘guten’ und ‘schlechten’ Bearbeitern komplexer Probleme. Sprache und Kognition 4, 178–91.Google Scholar
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition 17, 759–69.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1974). Memory in reading and listening to discourse. Memory and Cognition 2(1), 95–100.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24, 119–47.Google Scholar
Sarjakoski, L. & Nivala, A. M. (2005). Adaptation to context: A way to improve the usability of mobile maps. In Meng, L., Zipf, A., & Reichenbacher, T. (eds.), Map-Based Mobile Services, Theories, Methods and Implementations, pp. 107–23. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about location? Discourse Processes 20(2), 219–47.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. (1998). Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking. In Fussell, S. R. & Kreuz, R. J. (eds.), Social and Cognitive Psychological Approaches to Interpersonal Communication, pp. 145–74. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes, pp. 123–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schönebeck, B., Thanhäuser, J., & Debus, G. (2001). Die Tunnelaufgabe: Eine Methode zur Untersuchung kognitiver Teilprozesse räumlicher Orientierungsleistungen (The tunnel task: A method for the investigation of cognitive subprocesses of spatial orientation performance). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie 4, 339–64.Google Scholar
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122(2), 166–83.Google Scholar
Seifert, I. (2008). Spatial planning assistance: A cooperative approach. Dissertation, Bremen University, Germany.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29, 477–517.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (1994). Spatial reference in Kilivila: The Tinkertoy Matching Games – A case study. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 25, 55–93.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171(3972), 701–3.Google Scholar
Shi, H., Ross, R. J., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (2010). Modelling illocutionary structure: Combining empirical studies with formal model analysis. In Gelbukh, A. (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, pp. 340–53. LNCS 6008. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Sholl, M. J. (1988). The relationship between sense of direction and mental geographic updating. Intelligence 12(3), 299–314.Google Scholar
Siegel, A. W. & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In Reese, H. W. (ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior, pp. 9–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127(4), 377–97.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2), 129–38.Google Scholar
Sitter, S. & Stein, A. (1996). Modeling information-seeking dialogues: The conversational roles model. Review of Information Science 1(1), 165–80.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5, 157–77.Google Scholar
Spenader, J. (2002). Presupposed propositions in a corpus of dialogue. In van Deemter, K. & Kibble, R. (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spiers, H. J. & Maguire, E. A. (2008). The dynamic nature of cognition during wayfinding. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(3), 232–49.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex Cognition: The Psychology of Human Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steube, A. (ed.) (2004). Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 264–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. A. & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 371–91.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2007). Space, Time, and the Use of Language: An Investigation of Relationships. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2008). The verbalization of cognitive processes: Thinking-aloud data and retrospective reports. In Ramm, W. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.), Linearisation and Segmentation in Discourse. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse 2008 (MAD 08), pp. 125–35. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3), 704–22.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2014). Cognitive discourse analysis for cognitively supportive visualisations. Proceedings of DECISIVe 2014, Open Access Repository, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2015). Cognitive discourse analysis: Accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Language and Cognition 7(1), 98–137.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., & Coventry, K. R. (2008). Negotiating spatial relationships in dialogue: The role of the addressee. In Ginzburg, J., Healey, P., & Sato, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of LONDIAL, pp. 201–8. London: Queen Mary University.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., Schole, G., & Coventry, K. R. (2017). Communicative success in spatial dialogue: The impact of functional features and dialogic strategies. Language and Speech 60(2), 318–29.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Bergmann, E., Hertzberg, C., & Gondorf, C. (2016). Time will not help unskilled observers to understand a cluttered spatial scene. Spatial Cognition and Computation 16(3), 192–219.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Bergmann, E., & Konieczny, L. (2011a). Wayfinding and description strategies in an unfamiliar complex building. In Carlson, C. H. & Shipley, T. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1262–7. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Brösamle, M., & Hölscher, C. (2012). Flexibility of perspectives in architects’ thinking. In Hölscher, C. & Bhatt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of SCAD Spatial Cognition for Architectural Design. Report No. 029–08/2012 Report Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition, pp. 215–23. Bremen: Bremen University.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Coventry, K. R., & Andonova, E. (2011b). Spatial strategies in the description of complex configurations. Discourse Processes 48, 237–66.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Hölscher, C., Tsigaridi, D., & Conroy Dalton, R. (2014). Cognition and communication in architectural design. In Montello, D. R., Grossner, K. E., & Janelle, D. G. (eds.), Space in Mind: Concepts for Spatial Learning and Education, pp. 263–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Maas, A. (2015). Efficiently connecting textual and visual information in operating instructions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 58(4), 346–66.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Ross, R. R., Thomas, K. E., Dethlefs, N., & Andonova, E. (2010). Route instructions in map-based human-human and human-computer dialogue: A comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 21(5), 292–309.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Salwiczek, L. (2016). Orientation and metacognition in virtual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(5), 683–705.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Schilder, F. (2003). (Non)temporal concepts conveyed by before, after, and then in dialogue. In Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H., & Zeevat, H. (eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, pp. 353–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Seifert, I. (2011). Conceptual layers and strategies in tour planning. Cognitive Processing 12(1), 109–25.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Taylor, H. A. (2015). Conceptual transformation and cognitive processes in Origami paper folding. Journal of Problem Solving 8(1), 2–22.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Wiener, J. (2009). The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognitive Processing 10(2), 143–61.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. & Winter, S. (2009). Variable granularity in route directions. Spatial Cognition and Computation 9, 64–93.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trognon, A., Batt, M., & Laux, J. (2011). Why is dialogical solving of a logical problem more effective than individual solving? A formal and experimental study of an abstract version of Wason’s task. Language and Dialogue 1(1), 44–78.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. (1999). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and Space, pp. 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110, 124–9.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. & Lee, P. (1999). Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In Freksa, C. & Mark, D. M. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science (COSIT ’99), pp. 51–64. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Sciences, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Deemter, K. & Kibble, R. (eds.) (2002). Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
van Deemter, K. & Peters, S. (eds.) (1996). Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Cognitive discourse analysis: An introduction. www.discursos.org/unpublished%20articles/cogn-dis-anal.htmGoogle Scholar
van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vorwerg, C. (2009). Consistency in successive spatial utterances. In Coventry, K., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (eds.), Spatial Language and Dialogue, pp. 40–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vorwerg, C. & Tenbrink, T. (2007). Discourse factors influencing spatial descriptions in English and German. In Barkowsky, T., Knauff, M., Ligozat, G., & Montello, D. (eds.), Spatial Cognition V: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, pp. 470–88. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, I., de Ruiter, J., Jaecks, P., & Kopp, S. (eds.) (2013). Alignment in Communication: Towards a New Theory of Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2005). Patterns of late rising in New Zealand English: Intonational variation or intonational change? Language Variation and Change 17(2), 209–30.Google Scholar
Wen, W., Ishikawa, T., & Sato, T. (2013). Individual differences in the encoding processes of egocentric and allocentric survey knowledge. Cognitive Science 37, 176–92.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Spier, L. (ed.), Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, pp. 75–93. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(4), 625–36.Google Scholar
Winterboer, A., Tenbrink, T., & Moratz, R. (2013). Spatial directionals for robot navigation. In Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & van der Zee, E. (eds.), Motion Encoding in Spatial Language, pp. 84–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, S. C. (2003). Reconceptualizing think-aloud methodology: Refining the encoding and categorizing techniques via contextualized perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 95–115.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 29–58.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). The impact of inserting an additional mental process. Computational Brain and Behavior 1(1), 22–35.Google Scholar