Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-d2fvj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T04:34:17.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Discourse Analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

THORA TENBRINK
THORA TENBRINK*
Affiliation:
School of Linguistics and English Language, Bangor University, Wales, UK
*
†Address for correspondence: Thora Tenbrink, School of Linguistics & English Language, Room 306 Linguistics, Bangor University, 39 College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG, UK. tel: +44 1248 382263; fax: +44 1248 383267; e-mail: t.tenbrink@bangor.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers the first general introduction to CODA (Cognitive Discourse Analysis), a methodology for analyzing verbal protocols and other types of unconstrained language use, as a resource for researchers interested in mental representations and high-level cognitive processes. CODA can be used to investigate verbalizations of perceived scenes and events, spatio-temporal concepts, complex cognitive processes such as problem-solving and cognitive strategies and heuristics, and other concepts that are accessible for verbalization. CODA builds on and extends relevant established methodologies such as cognitive linguistic perspectives, verbal protocol analysis in cognitive psychology and interdisciplinary content analysis, linguistic discourse analysis, and psycholinguistic experimentation.

Keywords

applied cognitive linguisticsverbalization of thoughtconceptualizationproblem solvingdiscourse analysis

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 98 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I feel privileged for the many opportunities of collaborating with diverse experts across disciplines. My sincere thanks go to the numerous project partners and collaborators in projects and publications mentioned throughout this paper, especially to Holly Taylor for intense collaboration over the past years, and to Vyv Evans for support and inspiring discussion. I am also grateful for diverse comments from many people on earlier versions of this paper, most prominently Michel Denis, Vivien Mast, Dan Montello, Holly Taylor, and Matthew Walsh.

References

references

Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307−322.Google Scholar
Allen, G. L. (2000). Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 333−359.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, G. L. (2003). Gestures accompanying verbal route directions: Do they point to a new avenue for examining spatial representations? Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4, 259−268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111 (4). 1036−1060.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bateman, J., Hois, J., Ross, R. J., & Tenbrink, T. (2010). A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 174, 1027–1071.Google Scholar
Bégoin-Augereau, S., & Caron-Pargue, J. (2003). Linguistic criteria for demarcation and hierarchical organization of episodes in a problem solving task. In van Eemeren, Frans H., Blair, J. Anthony, Willard, Charles A, & Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck (Eds.), 5th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 81−87). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in a narrative. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Best, B. J., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Simulating human performance on the traveling salesman problem. In Taatgen, N. & Aasman, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 42−49). Groningen: Universal Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3−43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think? In Brockman, M. (Ed.), What’s next? Dispatches on the future of science. Vintage Press.Google Scholar
Boutonnet, B., Athanasopoulos, P., & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during object categorisation. Brain Research, 1479, 72–79.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383−398.Google Scholar
Brösamle, M. (2013). Sketches of wayfinding design: empirical studies of architectural design processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.Google Scholar
Brunyé, T. T., & Taylor, H. A. (2008). Working memory in developing and applying mental models from spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 701–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabeza, R., & Klingstone, A. (2001). Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Anderson, A. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23 (1), 13–32.Google Scholar
Carlson, L., & Logan, G. D. (2001). Using spatial terms to select an object. Memory & Cognition, 29, 883−892.Google Scholar
Caron, J. (1996). Linguistic markers and cognitive operations. In Caron-Pargue, J. & Gillis, S. (Eds), Verbal production and problem solving (pp. 11–28) (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85). Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Caron-Pargue, J., & Gillis, S. (Eds.) (1996). Verbal production and problem solving (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85). Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62–81.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289−309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, J. (1992). A cognitive analysis of wayfinding expertise. Cartographica, 29 (3/4), 46−65.Google Scholar
Daniel, M.-P., & Denis, M. (2004). The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favor conciseness in spatial discourse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 (1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse and process: toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2009). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4: Linearization and segmentation in discourse (Special Issue), online: <http://discours.revues.org/index5852.html>.Google Scholar
Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 16 (4), 409−458.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. W. (1985−1987). Progress in the psychology of language, 3 vols. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., & Casey, S. (2002). Gesture, thought, and spatial language. In Coventry, K. R. & Olivier, P. (Eds.), Spatial language: cognitive and computational aspects (pp. 87−101). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data, 2nd ed.; first ed. 1984. Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: uncovering the true nature of language, mind and being human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fincham, J. M., Carter, C. S., van Veen, V., Stenger, V. A., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Neural mechanisms of planning: a computational analysis using event-related fMRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 99, 3346–3351.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. M. (2004). Eye scanning and visual search. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world (pp. 135–159). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 419−429.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Criteria for design evaluation: a process-oriented paradigm. In Kalay, Y. E. (Ed.), Evaluating and predicting design performance (pp. 67–79). Chichester: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: unfolding the design process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorniak, P., & Roy, D. (2004). Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21, 429−470.Google Scholar
Graham, S. M., Joshi, A., & Pizlo, Z. (2000). The Traveling Salesman Problem: a hierarchical model. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1191−1204.Google Scholar
Gralla, L. (2014). Linguistic representation of problem solving processes in unaided object assembly. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bremen.Google Scholar
Gralla, L., Tenbrink, T., Siebers, M., & Schmid, U. (2012). Analogical problem solving: insights from verbal reports. In Miyake, N., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 396–401). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (3), 175−204.Google Scholar
Gugerty, L., & Rodes, W. (2007). A cognitive model of strategies for cardinal direction judgments. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 7 (2), 179–212.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999) Construing experience: a language-based approach to cognition. London / New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77−89.Google Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275−310.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.) (2004). The interface of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Holsanova, J. (2008). Discourse, vision, and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brösamle, M., & Knauff, M. (2006). Up the down staircase: wayfinding strategies and multi-level buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26 (4), 284−299.Google Scholar
Hölscher, C., Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognition, 121, 228−247.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E., & Ummelen, N. (2004). Thinking about thinking aloud: a comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47 (2), 105−117.Google Scholar
Kranstedt, A., Lücking, A., Pfeiffer, T., Rieser, H., & Wachsmuth, I. (2006). Deictic object reference in task-oriented dialogue. In Rickheit, G. & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Situated communication (pp. 155–207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed.London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kuipers, B. J., Moskowitz, A. J., and Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: representation and structure. Cognitive Science, 12, 177−210.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Leidner, J., & Schilder, F. (2010). Hunting for the black swan: risk mining from text. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2010) (pp. 54−59), Uppsala, Sweden, online: <http://anthology.aclweb.org//P/P10/P10-4010.pdf>.Google Scholar
Li, Z. (2002). A saliency map in primary visual cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (1), 9−16.Google Scholar
Lindsey, A. E., Greene, J. O., Parker, R. G., & Sassi, M. (1995). Effects of advance message formulation on message encoding: evidence of cognitively based hesitation in the production of multiple-goal messages. Communication Quarterly, 43 (3), 320−331.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8 (3), 243−281.Google Scholar
Mast, V., & Bergmann, E. (2013). Is it really that simple? The complexity of object descriptions in human-computer interaction. In Knauff, Markus, Sebanz, Natalie, Pauen, Michael, & Wachsmuth, Ipke (Eds.), 35th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: CogSci 2013 (pp. 990–995). Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1951). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Moratz, R., & Tenbrink, T. (2006). Spatial reference in linguistic human-robot interaction: iterative, empirically supported development of a model of projective relations. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6 (1), 63−106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2005). Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research, 45 (2), 205−231.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N. S., & Ratliff, K. R. (2007). Explaining the development of spatial reorientation: modularity-plus-language versus the emergence of adaptive combination. In Plumert, J. M. & Spencer, J. P. (Eds.), The emerging spatial mind (pp. 53–76). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J., & Pederson, E. (Eds.) (1997). Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pick, H. L., Heinrichs, M. R., Montello, D. R., Smith, K., and Sullivan, C. N. (1995). Topographic map reading. In Hancock, Peter A., Flach, John M., Caird, Jeff, & Vicente, Kim J. (Eds.), Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems, vol. 2 (pp. 255−284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
Plumert, J. M., Carswell, C., de Vet, K., & Ihrig, D. (1995). The content and organization of communication about object locations. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 477−498.Google Scholar
Purcell, T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: a review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19 (4), 389−430.Google Scholar
Ragni, M., Fangmeier, T., & Brüssow, S. (2010). Deductive spatial reasoning: from neurological evidence to a cognitive model. In Salvucci, Dario D. & Gunzelmann, Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 193–198), online: <http://iccm2010.cs.drexel.edu/proceedings/>.Google Scholar
Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (Eds.) (1997). Decision making: cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696−735.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119−147.Google Scholar
Schelhorn, S. E., Griego, J., & Schmid, U. (2007). Transformational and derivational strategies in analogical problem solving. Cognitive Processing, 8, 45−55.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. (1998). Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking. In Fussell, S. R. & Kreuz, R. J. (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 145–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: the role of the partner. In Graesser, A. C.Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: when language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122 (2), 166−183.Google Scholar
Seifert, I. (2008). Spatial planning assistance: a cooperative approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517.Google Scholar
Shi, H., Jian, C., & Rachuy, C. (2011). Evaluation of a unified dialogue model for human-computer interaction. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Applications, 2 (1), 155–173.Google Scholar
Smith, M. R., Lewis, R. L., Howes, A., Chu, A., Green, C., & Vera, A. (2008). More than 8,192 ways to skin a cat: modeling behavior in multidimensional strategy spaces. In Love, B. C.McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1441–1446), Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spiers, H. J., & Maguire, E. A. (2008). The dynamic nature of cognition during wayfinding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (3), 232−249.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371−391.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2007). Space, time, and the use of language: an investigation of relationships. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2008). The verbalization of cognitive processes: thinking-aloud data and retrospective reports. In Ramm, W. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.), Linearisation and segmentation in discourse: multidisciplinary approaches to discourse (MAD 08) (pp. 125–135). Lysebu, Oslo: Department of Literature, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (3), 704−722.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Bergmann, E., & Konieczny, L. (2011). Wayfinding and description strategies in an unfamiliar complex building. In Carlson, L.Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1262–1267). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Coventry, K. R., & Andonova, E. (2011). Spatial strategies in the description of complex configurations. Discourse Processes, 48, 237–266.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., & Ragni, M. (2012). Linguistic principles for spatial relational reasoning. In Stachniss, C.Schill, K., & Uttal, D. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition 2012 (LNAI 7463) (pp. 279–298). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., Ross, R. J., Thomas, K. E., Dethlefs, N., & Andonova, E. (2010). Route instructions in map-based human-human and human-computer dialogue: a comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 21 (5), 292–309.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., & Seifert, I. (2011). Conceptual layers and strategies in tour planning. Cognitive Processing, 12 (1), 109–125.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2009). The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognitive Processing, 10 (2), 143−161.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2007). Moving eyes and moving thought: on the spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 663−668.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. (1999). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In Bloom, P.Peterson, M. A.Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. F. (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109−169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4 (2), 249−283.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205−221.Google Scholar
Vorwerg, C., & Tenbrink, T. (2007). Discourse factors influencing spatial descriptions in English and German. In Barkowsky, T.Knauff, M.Ligozat, G., & Montello, D. (Eds.), Spatial cognition V: reasoning, action, interaction (pp. 470–488). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. (1996). The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 79−109.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Spier, L. (Ed.), Language, culture, and personality: essays in memory of Edward Sapir (pp. 75–93). Sapir Memorial Publication Fund: Menasha, WI.Google Scholar