Language Processing: Construction of Mental Models or More?

Abstract Language comprehension is often seen as the incremental update of a mental model of the situation described in the text. With every word a reader or listener processes, the model is adjusted to fit the linguistic input. This conception of language comprehension sounds very plausible at first sight but its scientific utility strongly depends on the definition of a mental model. In this paper, we will discuss different definitions of mental models for text comprehension, as well as the way these models may have an impact on comprehension processes. A second distinction we will discuss is an “eliminative” view of mental modeling compared to a “hybrid” view. An eliminative view denies the relevance of more linguistic levels of processing below the construction of a mental model; claiming that most if not all processing phenomena can be explained without reference to syntactic or semantic levels of representation. From a more hybrid perspective, inspection of a mental model is one among several factors influencing linguistic processing. We will argue for this latter perspective. (We are, of course, not arguing against every possible variety of an eliminative view, but just against some that have been and still are very prominent in the psycholinguistic literature. So there surely are conceivable variants that are compatible with our objections.)

[1]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Natural Language Parsing , 2005 .

[2]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[3]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[4]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[5]  David C. Geary,et al.  Reflections of evolution and culture in children's cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction. , 1995 .

[6]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  The Neurobiology of Language Comprehension , 1998 .

[7]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[8]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[9]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language. part 2 , 1981 .

[10]  P. Sturt,et al.  The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution , 2003 .

[11]  A. Vandierendonck,et al.  Interaction of knowledge and working memory in reasoning about relations , 2006 .

[12]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[13]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Comprehending Conceptual Anaphors. , 1991, Language and cognitive processes.

[14]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension , 1987 .

[15]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. , 1994 .

[16]  Christoph Schwarze,et al.  Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language , 1983 .

[17]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Advances in psycholinguistics , 1970 .

[18]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[19]  G. Vosgerau The Perceptual Nature of Mental Models , 2006 .

[20]  J. Kimball Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language , 1973 .

[21]  B. Claus,et al.  Representing a described sequence of events: a dynamic view of narrative comprehension. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[23]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Psycholinguistics: Central Topics , 1985 .

[24]  L. Konieczny,et al.  Referential Biases in Syntactic Attachment , 2000 .

[25]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Psychological Studies of Quantifiers , 1994, J. Semant..

[26]  Irina A. Sekerina,et al.  The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children , 1999, Cognition.

[27]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  On Sentence Interpretation , 1999 .

[28]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Effects of negation and situational presence on the accessibility of text information. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Irene Heim,et al.  File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness , 2008 .

[30]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model , 1978, Cognition.

[31]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[32]  M. A. Britt,et al.  Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits , 1992 .

[33]  L. Osterhout,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Failure to Agree , 1995 .

[34]  Lars Konieczny,et al.  German Sentence Processing , 1999 .

[35]  P. Friederici Language Comprehension: A Biological Perspective , 1999, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[36]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[37]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[38]  Paul Gorrell Syntax and Parsing , 1995 .

[39]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .