The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension

Sanford, Anthony J.; Garrod, Simon

doi:10.1080/01638539809545043

Cited by 186 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discourse prominence theory shares basic features with other approaches that situate coreferential processing during language comprehension within the building of a model of discourse (e.g., Garnham, 2001;Johnson-Laird, 1983;Sanford & Garrod, 1981). It differs from other approaches that have emphasized semantic factors, such as the scenario-mapping theory (Sanford & Garrod, 1998;Sanford & Moxey, 1995), in that it has been developed primarily to account for structural factors in coreferential processing, particularly the connection between coreferential processing and grammatical theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of repeated expressions to establish coreference allows an investigation of the relationship between basic processes of word recognition and higher level language processes that involve the integration of information into a discourse model. In two experiments on reading, we used eye tracking and event-related potentials to examine whether repeated expressions that are coreferential within a local discourse context show the kind of repetition priming that is shown in lists of words. In both experiments, the effects of lexical repetition were modulated by the effects of local discourse context that arose from manipulations of the linguistic prominence of the antecedent of a coreferentially repeated name. These results are interpreted within the context of discourse prominence theory, which suggests that processes of coreferential interpretation interact with basic mechanisms of memory integration during the construction of a model of discourse.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If objects or protagonists take typical roles in a scenario, or if protagonists' goals map onto roles in a scenario, comprehenders will make use of their scenario knowledge and will anticipate the following events in a story. This use of prior knowledge in comprehension is central to Sanford and Garrod's (1998) scenario-mapping model (see also Schmalhofer, McDaniel, & Keefe, 2002). However, the knowledge on which the detection of causal relevance is based does not have to be of a full scenario, script, or schema (Hannigan & Reinitz, 2001).…”

Section: Causal Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Three Turtles in Danger: Spontaneous Construction of Causally Relevant Spatial Situation Models.

Jahn¹

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments, the author explored the spontaneous construction of spatial situation models during discourse comprehension by using the sentence-recognition paradigm of J. D. Bransford, J. R. Barclay, and J. J. Franks (1972). In Experiment 1, signaling causal relevance of spatial relations was a necessary precondition for replicating their original finding of spontaneously constructed spatial representations. Causal relevance was ensured in the subsequent experiments by a judgment task indirectly demanding the evaluation of described spatial relations with regard to causal relevance. Participants spontaneously constructed spatial situation models of text presented auditorily or visually. Effects of spontaneous construction were more reliable when encoding was easier. The results suggest a revised interpretation of J. D. Bransford et al.'s study and corroborate recent evidence showing that relevant spatial information in texts is reliably represented.

show abstract

“…(Barton & Sanford, 1993). Although burying survivors has a good global fit in the context of an aircraft crash (i.e., readers predict there are often people to be buried), it has a poor fit in the context of a bicycle crash (Sanford & Garrod, 1998). Thus, prediction may be related to some instances of shallow semantic processing.…”

Section: Predicting the Speaker's Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating Utterances During Turn-Taking: The Role of Prediction, Response Preparation, and Articulation

Corps

Gambi

Pickering

2017

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During conversation, interlocutors rapidly switch between speaker and listener roles and take turns at talk. How do they achieve such fine coordination? Most research has concentrated on the role of prediction, but listeners must also prepare a response in advance (assuming they wish to respond) and articulate this response at the appropriate moment. Such mechanisms may overlap with the processes of comprehending the speaker's incoming turn and predicting its end. However, little is known about the stages of response preparation and production. We discuss three questions pertaining to such stages: (1) Do listeners prepare their own response in advance?, (2) Can listeners buffer their prepared response?, and (3) Does buffering lead to interference with concurrent comprehension? We argue that fine coordination requires more than just an accurate prediction of the interlocutor's incoming turn: Listeners must also simultaneously prepare their own response.

show abstract

The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension

Cited by 186 publications

References 44 publications

Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration

Coreference and lexical repetition: Mechanisms of discourse integration

Three Turtles in Danger: Spontaneous Construction of Causally Relevant Spatial Situation Models.

Coordinating Utterances During Turn-Taking: The Role of Prediction, Response Preparation, and Articulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About