Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 144–162

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Taking the perspective of narrative characters

A mouse-tracking study on the processing of ambiguous referring expressions in narrative discourse

 | University of Groningen
 | University of Groningen
 | University of Groningen
 | University of Groningen
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 29 October 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00054.vog
Abstract
An ongoing debate in the interpretation of referring expressions concerns the degree to which listeners make use of perspective information during referential processing. We aim to contribute to this debate by considering perspective shifting in narrative discourse. In a web-based mouse-tracking experiment in Dutch, we investigated whether listeners automatically shift to a narrative character’s perspective when resolving ambiguous referring expressions, and whether different linguistic perspective-shifting devices affect how and when listeners switch to another perspective. We compared perspective-neutral, direct, and free indirect discourse, manipulating which objects are visible to the character. Our results do not show a clear effect of the perspective shifting devices on participants’ eventual choice of referent, but our online mouse-tracking data reveal processing differences that suggest that listeners are indeed sensitive to the conventional markers of perspective shift associated with direct and (to a lesser degree) free indirect discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Predictions
  • 4.Materials and methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Design and analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Object selection
    • 5.2Reaction times
    • 5.3Mouse trajectories
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Open data
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Apperly, Ian. 2010. Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind.” London: Psychology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. “Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.” Journal of memory and language 68 (3): 255–278. )Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & Harald Baayen. 2015. “Parsimonious mixed models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bray, Joe. 2007. “The ‘dual voice’ of free indirect discourse: a reading experiment.” Language and Literature. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA 16 (1): 37–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E. & Joy E. Hanna. 2009. “Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2): 274–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah & Joy Hanna. 2011. “Talking in another person’s shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing.” Dialogue & Discourse 2 (1): 11–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2011. The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen, eds. 2016. Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning (Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, 10). Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2014. The semantics of free indirect speech. How texts let you read minds and eavesdrop. Vol. 311. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Boaz Keysar, Leaf Van Boven & Thomas Gilovich. 2004. “Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (3): 327–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, Heather J., Ian Apperly & Jumana Ahmad, Markus Bindemann & James Cane. 2015. “Task constraints distinguish perspective inferences from perspective use during discourse interpretation in a false belief task.” Cognition 1391: 50–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 2003. The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, Jonathan B. & Nalini Ambady. 2010. “MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method.” Behavior Research Methods 42 (1): 226–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., Michael K. Tanenhaus & John C. Trueswell. 2003. “The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation.” Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1): 43–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hehman, Eric, Ryan M. Stolier & Jonathan B. Freeman. 2015. “Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 18 (3): 384–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna, Daniel Grodner & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2008. “The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference.” Cognition 108 (3): 831–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S. & Boaz Keysar. 1996. “When do speakers take into account common ground?” Cognition 59 (1): 91–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S. & David N. Rapp. 2003. “Out of sight, out of mind: Occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 (1): 104–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2015. “Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: Experimental investigations.” Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 251: 346–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Dale J. Barr, Jennifer A. Balin & Jason S. Brauner. 2000. “Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension.” Psychological Science 11 (1): 32–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Shuhong Lin & Dale J. Barr. 2003. “Limits on theory of mind use in adults.” Cognition 89 (1): 25–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kieslich, Pascal J. & Felix Henninger. 2017. “Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package.” Behavior Research Methods 49 (5): 1652–1667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kieslich, Pascal J., Felix Henninger, Dirk U. Wulff, Jonas Haslbeck & Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck. 2018. “Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis.” PsyArXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köder, Franziska & Emar Maier. 2018. “The advantage of story-telling: children’s interpretation of reported speech in narratives.” Journal of Child Language. Cambridge University Press 45 (2): 541–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köder, Franziska, Emar Maier & Petra Hendriks. 2015. “Perspective shift increases processing effort of pronouns: a comparison between direct and indirect speech.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Routledge 30 (8): 940–946. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kronmüller, Edmundo & Ernesto Guerra. 2020. “Processing speaker-specific information in two stages during the interpretation of referential precedents.” Frontiers in Psychology 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2017. “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models” Journal of Statistical Software 821: 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meuser, Sara, Stefan Hinterwimmer & Maximilian Hörl. 2020. “Online-processing of protagonists’ perspective-taking” (poster presented at CUNY 2020).
Nadig, Aparna S. & Julie C. Sedivy. 2002. “Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children’s On-Line Reference Resolution.” Psychological Science 13 (4): 329–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, [URL]
Salem, Susanna, Thomas Weskott & Anke Holler. 2017. “Does narrative perspective influence readers’ perspective-taking? An empirical study on free indirect discourse, psycho-narration and first-person narration.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2 (1): 61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, Manami, Hiromu Sakai, Jennifer Wu & Benjamin K. Bergen. 2012. “Towards a Cognitive Science of Literary Style: Perspective-Taking in Processing Omniscient versus Objective Voice.” Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society ed. by Naomi Miyake, David Peebles and Richard P. Cooper, 959–964. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. “Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present.” Mind & Language. Wiley Online Library 19 (3): 279–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J., Marc Grosjean & Günther Knoblich. 2005. “Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences 102 (29): 10393–10398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomlinson, John M., Todd M. Bailey & Lewis Bott. 2013. “Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps.” Journal of Memory and Language 69 (1): 18–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwartz. 2018. “PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX).” Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue