Introduction: Meaning Across Languages

  • Barbara HemforthEmail author
  • Barbara Mertins
  • Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 44)


In this chapter, we will introduce the basic research questions spanning all chapters in this volume: How do we ‘encode’ complex thoughts into linguistic signals, how do we interpret such signals in appropriate ways, and to what extent is what we encode constrained at the outset by the particular language we grow up with? We will introduce recent developments of an experimental approach to linguistics and argue for the necessity of cross-linguistic experimental paradigms for linguistic research at the interface of syntax, semantics and pragmatics.


Experimental linguistics Cross-linguistic variation Empirical methods 


  1. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 151–170.Google Scholar
  2. Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. E. (2013). Information status relates to production, distribution, and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00235
  4. Au, T. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrens, B., Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Solfjeld, K. (2012). Competing structures: The discourse perspective. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. T. T. Haug (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: The grammar of elaboration (pp. 179–225). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Blakemore, D. (2013). Voice and expressivity in free indirect thought representations: Imitation and representation. Mind and Language, 28(5), 579–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 871–882.Google Scholar
  9. Bott, L., Frisson, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2009). Interpreting conjunction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braginsky, P., & Rothstein, S. (2008). Vendlerian classes and the Russian aspectual system. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16(1), 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N. (2013). Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition, 126(3), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of Aspectual Coercion. Brain & Language, 106, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carston, R., & Blakemore, D. (2005). Coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20(2), 177–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the “Question Under Discussion.” Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 352–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colonna, S., Schimke, S., & Hemforth, B. (2012). Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A crosslinguistic study of pronoun resolution. Linguistics, 50(5), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cormack, A., & Smith, N. (2005). What is coordination? Lingua, 115, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowles, H. W., Walenski, M., & Kluender, R. (2007). Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: Topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi, 26, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de la Fuente, I., & Hemforth, B. (2013). Topicalization and focusing effects on subject and object pronoun resolution in Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, G. Lord, A. de Prada Pérez, & J. E. Aaron (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 27–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  25. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellert, M. (2010). Ambiguous pronoun resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch (MPI series in psycholinguistics, Vol. 58). Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.Google Scholar
  27. Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (Eds.). (2008). ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text—a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Sæbø, K. J. (2011). Behabitive reports. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation (pp. 85–106). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Filiaci, F. (2011). Anaphoric preferences of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  30. Filip, H. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 1186–1217). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459–464.Google Scholar
  32. Geber, D. (2006). Processing subject pronouns in relation to non-canonical (quirky) constructions. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa/Ottawa Papers in Linguistics, 34, 47–61.Google Scholar
  33. Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2013). Layered discourse representation theory. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 311–327). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Blackwell textbooks in linguistics: The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 385–422). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Giora, R., Heruti, V., Metuki, N., & Fein, O. (2009). “When we say no we mean no”: Interpreting negation in vision and language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2222–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 30(1), 5–56.Google Scholar
  39. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Güldemann, T., & von Roncador, M. (Eds.). (2002). Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. Haspelmath, M. (Ed.). (2004). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  42. Hemforth, B. (2013). Experimental linguistics. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford online bibliographies (pp. 1–16). doi:  10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0112.
  43. Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (Eds.). (2000). German sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Colonna, S., Schimke, S., Baumann, P., & Pynte, J. (2010). Language specific preferences in anaphor resolution: Exposure or Gricean maxims? In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2010, Portland, 11–14 August (pp. 2218–2223). Portland: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  45. Hertwig, R., Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition, 108, 740–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Joshi, A., Prasad, R., & Miltsakaki, E. (2005). Anaphora resolution: A centering approach. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 223–230). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  48. Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1625–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse representation theory. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 872–922). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2007). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination (Studies in language companion series, Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (2007). Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning (Vol. 3, pp.87–124). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Lee, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2010). Temporal interpretation without tense: Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 307–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Maier, E. (2009). Japanese reported speech. Against a direct–indirect distinction. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5447, 133–145.Google Scholar
  59. Maier, E. (2010). Presupposing acquaintance: A unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(5), 429–474. doi: 10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maier, E. (in press). Japanese reported speech: Towards an account of perspective shift as mixed quotation. In E. McCready, K. Yabushita, & K. Yoshimoto (Eds.), Formal approaches to semantics and pragmatics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Mayol, L., & Clark, R. (2010). Pronouns in Catalan: Games of partial information and the use of linguistic resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-linguistic variation in sentence processing. Evidence from RC attachment in Greek (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics, Vol. 36). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. J. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 537–577). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  67. Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., & Pollatsek, A. B. (2005). Eye movements during reading. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 79–97). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio obliqua, oratio recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Paper in semantics: OSU working papers in linguistics (Vol. 49, pp. 91–136). Columbus: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  70. Röhrig, S., Schlesewsky, M., Schumacher, P. B., & Meibauer, J. (2011, June). Und=∧?!. The role of context for the interpretation of the conjunction “und.” Poster presented at the experimental pragmatics conference. Universitat Popeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  71. Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2009). De re/de dicto ambiguity and presupposition projection. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 425–438). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  72. Sæbø, K. J. (2012). Reports of specific indefinites. Journal of Semantics, Advance Access. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs015.Google Scholar
  73. Sauerland, U., & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.). (2008). Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  74. Schmiedtová, B. (2004). At the same time: The expression of simultaneity in learner varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schmiedtová, B., & Flecken, M. (2008). Aspectual concepts across languages: Some considerations for second language learning. In S. de Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Pedagogical grammar (pp. 357–384). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  76. Schmiedtová, B., & Sahonenko, N. (2008). Die Rolle des grammatischen Aspekts in Ereignis-Enkodierung: Ein Vergleich zwischen Tschechischen und Russischen Lernern des Deutschen. In P. Gommes & M. Walter (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbforschung (pp. 45–71). Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  77. Schmiedtová, B., & Sahonenko, N. (2012). Acquisition of L2 narrative competence: Tense switching by Russian L2 speakers of German. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 20(1), 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shuval, N., & Hemforth, B. (2008). Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and spoken language comprehension. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Townsend, D. J. (2013). Aspectual coercion in eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(3), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Txurruka, I. G. (2003). The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van Rooij, R. (2006). Attitudes and changing contexts. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160 (Reprinted in 1967 in Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca: Cornell University).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M., & Schmiedtová, B. (2012). How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in the early phases of language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data and memory performance. Linguistics, 50(4), 833–856.Google Scholar
  88. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yamashita, H., Hirose, Y., & Packard, J. L. (2011). Processing and producing head-final structures. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zamparelli, R. (2011). Coordination. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (HSK): Vol. 33. Handbook of semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 1713–1741). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  91. Zeevat, H. (2014). Language production and interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition (= Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 30). Brill.Google Scholar
  92. Zeevat, H., & Jasinskaja, K. (2007). And as an additive particle. In M. Aurnague Miguelgorry, K. Korta Carrión, & J. M. Antia (Eds.), Language, representation and reasoning. Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka (pp. 315–340). University of the Basque Country Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Hemforth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barbara Mertins
    • 2
  • Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Linguistique FormelleCNRS, Université Paris DiderotParisFrance
  2. 2.Institut für Deutsch als FremdsprachenphilologieUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Literature, Area Studies and European LanguagesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations