Skip to main content
×
×
Home

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

  • THORA TENBRINK (a1)
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Cognitive Discourse Analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Cognitive Discourse Analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Cognitive Discourse Analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data*
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
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
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307322.
Allen, G. L. (2000). Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 333359.
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, 259268.
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.
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). 10361060.
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bateman, J., Hois, J., Ross, R. J., & Tenbrink, T. (2010). A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 174, 10271071.
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. 8187). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in a narrative. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. 4249). Groningen: Universal Press.
Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 343.
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.
Boutonnet, B., Athanasopoulos, P., & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during object categorisation. Brain Research, 1479, 7279.
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, 383398.
Brösamle, M. (2013). Sketches of wayfinding design: empirical studies of architectural design processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.
Brunyé, T. T., & Taylor, H. A. (2008). Working memory in developing and applying mental models from spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 701729.
Cabeza, R., & Klingstone, A. (2001). Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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), 1332.
Carlson, L., & Logan, G. D. (2001). Using spatial terms to select an object. Memory & Cognition, 29, 883892.
Caron, J. (1996). Linguistic markers and cognitive operations. In Caron-Pargue, J. & Gillis, S. (Eds), Verbal production and problem solving (pp. 1128) (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85). Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Caron-Pargue, J., & Gillis, S. (Eds.) (1996). Verbal production and problem solving (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85). Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 6281.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 3746.
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289309.
Crampton, J. (1992). A cognitive analysis of wayfinding expertise. Cartographica, 29 (3/4), 4665.
Daniel, M.-P., & Denis, M. (2004). The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favor conciseness in spatial discourse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 (1), 5775.
de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse and process: toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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>.
Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 16 (4), 409458.
Ellis, A. W. (1985−1987). Progress in the psychology of language, 3 vols. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Emmorey, K., & Casey, S. (2002). Gesture, thought, and spatial language. In Coventry, K. R. & Olivier, P. (Eds.), Spatial language: cognitive and computational aspects (pp. 87101). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data, 2nd ed.; first ed. 1984. Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/MIT Press.
Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: uncovering the true nature of language, mind and being human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
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, 33463351.
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. 135159). New York: Psychology Press.
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 419429.
Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Criteria for design evaluation: a process-oriented paradigm. In Kalay, Y. E. (Ed.), Evaluating and predicting design performance (pp. 6779). Chichester: J. Wiley.
Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: unfolding the design process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gorniak, P., & Roy, D. (2004). Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21, 429470.
Graham, S. M., Joshi, A., & Pizlo, Z. (2000). The Traveling Salesman Problem: a hierarchical model. Memory & Cognition, 28, 11911204.
Gralla, L. (2014). Linguistic representation of problem solving processes in unaided object assembly. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bremen.
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. 396401). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (3), 175204.
Gugerty, L., & Rodes, W. (2007). A cognitive model of strategies for cardinal direction judgments. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 7 (2), 179212.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999) Construing experience: a language-based approach to cognition. London / New York: Continuum.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 7789.
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275310.
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.) (2004). The interface of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press.
Holsanova, J. (2008). Discourse, vision, and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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), 284299.
Hölscher, C., Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognition, 121, 228247.
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), 105117.
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. 155207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed.London: Sage.
Kuipers, B. J., Moskowitz, A. J., and Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: representation and structure. Cognitive Science, 12, 177210.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 164). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
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. 5459), Uppsala, Sweden, online: <http://anthology.aclweb.org//P/P10/P10-4010.pdf>.
Li, Z. (2002). A saliency map in primary visual cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (1), 916.
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), 320331.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8 (3), 243281.
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. 990995). Berlin, Germany.
Miller, G. A. (1951). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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), 63106.
Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2005). Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research, 45 (2), 205231.
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. 5376). New York: Oxford University Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nuyts, J., & Pederson, E. (Eds.) (1997). Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. 255284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Company.
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, 477498.
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), 389430.
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. 193198), online: <http://iccm2010.cs.drexel.edu/proceedings/>.
Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (Eds.) (1997). Decision making: cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696735.
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119147.
Schelhorn, S. E., Griego, J., & Schmid, U. (2007). Transformational and derivational strategies in analogical problem solving. Cognitive Processing, 8, 4555.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. 145174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. 123164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: when language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122 (2), 166183.
Seifert, I. (2008). Spatial planning assistance: a cooperative approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universität Bremen.
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477517.
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), 155173.
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. 14411446), Austin, TX.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spiers, H. J., & Maguire, E. A. (2008). The dynamic nature of cognition during wayfinding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (3), 232249.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371391.
Tenbrink, T. (2007). Space, time, and the use of language: an investigation of relationships. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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. 125135). Lysebu, Oslo: Department of Literature, University of Oslo.
Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (3), 704722.
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. 12621267). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Tenbrink, T., Coventry, K. R., & Andonova, E. (2011). Spatial strategies in the description of complex configurations. Discourse Processes, 48, 237266.
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. 279298). Heidelberg: Springer.
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), 292309.
Tenbrink, T., & Seifert, I. (2011). Conceptual layers and strategies in tour planning. Cognitive Processing, 12 (1), 109125.
Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2009). The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognitive Processing, 10 (2), 143161.
Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2007). Moving eyes and moving thought: on the spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 663668.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tversky, B. (1999). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In Bloom, P.Peterson, M. A.Nadel, L., & Garrett, M. F. (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4 (2), 249283.
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, 205221.
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. 470488). Berlin: Springer.
Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. (1996). The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 79109.
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. 7593). Sapir Memorial Publication Fund: Menasha, WI.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed