Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Apperly, Ian
    2010Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind.”London: Psychology Press. doi:  10.4324/9780203833926
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833926 [Google Scholar]
  2. Banfield, Ann
    1982Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 language68 (3): 255–278. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001)
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & Harald Baayen
    2015 “Parsimonious mixed models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67 (1): 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bray, Joe
    2007 “The ‘dual voice’ of free indirect discourse: a reading experiment.” Language and Literature. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA16 (1): 37–52. doi:  10.1177/0963947007072844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007072844 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan, Susan E. & Joy E. Hanna
    2009 “Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.” Topics in Cognitive Science1 (2): 274–291. doi:  10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2009.01019.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown-Schmidt, Sarah & Joy Hanna
    2011 “Talking in another person’s shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing.” Dialogue & Discourse2 (1): 11–33. doi:  10.5087/dad.2011.102
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.102 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dancygier, Barbara
    2011The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511794414
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794414 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen
    eds. 2016Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning (Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, 10). Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eckardt, Regine
    2014The semantics of free indirect speech. How texts let you read minds and eavesdrop. Vol.31. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Epley, Nicholas, Boaz Keysar, Leaf Van Boven & Thomas Gilovich
    2004 “Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87 (3): 327–339. doi:  10.1037/0022‑3514.87.3.327
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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.” Cognition139: 50–70. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fludernik, Monika
    2003The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London, New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203451007
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203451007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Freeman, Jonathan B. & Nalini Ambady
    2010 “MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method.” Behavior Research Methods42 (1): 226–241. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.1.226
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.226 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 Language49 (1): 43–61. doi:  10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00022‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hehman, Eric, Ryan M. Stolier & Jonathan B. Freeman
    2015 “Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations18 (3): 384–401. doi:  10.1177/1368430214538325
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214538325 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heller, Daphna, Daniel Grodner & Michael K. Tanenhaus
    2008 “The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference.” Cognition108 (3): 831–836. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Horton, William S. & Boaz Keysar
    1996 “When do speakers take into account common ground?” Cognition59 (1): 91–117. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(96)81418‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Horton, William S. & David N. Rapp
    2003 “Out of sight, out of mind: Occlusion and the accessibility of information in narrative comprehension.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10 (1): 104–110. doi:  10.3758/BF03196473
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196473 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaiser, Elsi
    2015 “Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: Experimental investigations.” Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory25: 346–372. doi:  10.3765/salt.v25i0.3436
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3436 [Google Scholar]
  22. Keysar, Boaz, Dale J. Barr, Jennifer A. Balin & Jason S. Brauner
    2000 “Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension.” Psychological Science11 (1): 32–38. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9280.00211
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00211 [Google Scholar]
  23. Keysar, Boaz, Shuhong Lin & Dale J. Barr
    2003 “Limits on theory of mind use in adults.” Cognition89 (1): 25–41. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00064‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kieslich, Pascal J. & Felix Henninger
    2017 “Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package.” Behavior Research Methods49 (5): 1652–1667. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑017‑0900‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0900-z [Google Scholar]
  25. Kieslich, Pascal J., Felix Henninger, Dirk U. Wulff, Jonas Haslbeck & Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck
    2018 “Mouse-tracking: A practical guide to implementation and analysis.” PsyArXiv. doi:  10.31234/osf.io/zuvqa
    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zuvqa [Google Scholar]
  26. Köder, Franziska & Emar Maier
    2018 “The advantage of story-telling: children’s interpretation of reported speech in narratives.” Journal of Child Language. Cambridge University Press45 (2): 541–557. doi:  10.1017/S0305000917000344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000344 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. Routledge30 (8): 940–946. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2015.1047460
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1047460 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kronmüller, Edmundo & Ernesto Guerra
    2020 “Processing speaker-specific information in two stages during the interpretation of referential precedents.” Frontiers in Psychology11. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552368
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552368 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
    2017 “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models” Journal of Statistical Software82: 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meuser, Sara, Stefan Hinterwimmer & Maximilian Hörl
    2020 “Online-processing of protagonists’ perspective-taking” (poster presented atCUNY2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nadig, Aparna S. & Julie C. Sedivy
    2002 “Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children’s On-Line Reference Resolution.” Psychological Science13 (4): 329–336. doi:  10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2002.00460.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00460.x [Google Scholar]
  32. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2020 “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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 linguistics2 (1): 61. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.225
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.225 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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 Societyed. byNaomi Miyake, David Peebles and Richard P. Cooper, 959–964. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schlenker, Philippe
    2004 “Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present.” Mind & Language. Wiley Online Library19 (3): 279–304. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2004.00259.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Spivey, Michael J., Marc Grosjean & Günther Knoblich
    2005 “Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences102 (29): 10393–10398. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0503903102
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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 Language69 (1): 18–35. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2009Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. doi:  10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwartz
    2018 “PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX).” doi:  10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832
    https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error