Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80(2), 207–45.Google Scholar

Afflerbach, P. & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior 16, 307–22.Google Scholar

Aitchison, J. (1983). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). London: Hutchison.Google Scholar

Allen, G. L. (2000). Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14, 333–59.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmann, G. T. (2001). The language machine: Psycholinguistics in review. British Journal of Psychology 92, 129–70.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence 149(1), 91–130.Google Scholar

Andonova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Coventry, K. R. (2010). Function and context affect spatial information packaging at multiple levels. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17, 575–80.Google Scholar

Antaki, C., Billig, M. G., Edwards, D., and Potter, J. A. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online 1(1). https://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2002/002/antaki2002002-paper.htmlGoogle Scholar

Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Product-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4), 495–527.Google Scholar

Arts, A. (2004). Overspecification in Instructive Texts. Nijmegen: Wolf Publishers.Google Scholar

Atit, K., Shipley, T. F., & Tikoff, B. (2013). Cognitive Processing 14, 163–73.Google Scholar

Bartl, C. & Dörner, D. (1998). Sprachlos beim Denken – Zum Einfluß von Sprache auf die Problemlöse- und Gedächtnisleistung bei der Bearbeitung eines nichtsprachlichen Problems. Sprache und Kognition 17, 224–38.Google Scholar

Bateman, J., Hois, J., Ross, R. R., & Tenbrink, T. (2010). A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1027–71.Google Scholar

Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., & Healing, S. (2017). Doing mutual understanding. Calibrating with micro-sequences in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 121, 91–112.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, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 81–7. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar

Bégoin-Augereau, S. & Caron-Pargue, J. (2009). Linguistic markers of decision processes in a problem solving task. Cognitive Systems Research 10, 102–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M. & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition 42, 23–60.Google Scholar

Boren, M. & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43(3), 261–78.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22(6), 1482–93.Google Scholar

Brösamle, M. & Hölscher, C. (2012). Architectural gestures: Conserving traces of design processes. In Hölscher, C. & Bhatt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of SCAD Spatial Cognition for Architectural Design. Report No. 029–08/2012 Report Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition, pp. 215–23. Bremen: Bremen University.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1993). ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3, 46–74.Google Scholar

Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review 65(1), 14–21.Google Scholar

Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., Augustyn, J. S., & Taylor, H. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science 20(1), 27–32.Google Scholar

Bugmann, D., Coventry, K. R., & Newstead, S. E. (2007). Contextual cues and the retrieval of information from cognitive maps. Memory and Cognition 35(3), 381–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Butler, C. S. & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Vol. 157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Canas, J., Quesada, J., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks. Ergonomics 46(5), 482–501.Google Scholar

Carlson, L. A., Hölscher, C., Shipley, T. F., & Dalton, R. C. (2010). Getting Lost in Buildings. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19(5), 284–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, L. A. & van der Zee, E. (eds.) (2005). Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (1989). Processus psycholinguistiques et analyse des verbalisations dans une tâche cognitive. Archives de Psychologie 57, 3–32.Google Scholar

Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (1995). La fonction cognitive des interjections. Faits de Langues 6, 111–20.Google Scholar

Caron-Pargue, J. & Caron, J. (2000). Les interjections comme marqueurs du fonctionnement cognitif. Cahiers de praxématique 34, 51–76.Google Scholar

Caron-Pargue, J. & Gillis, S. (eds.) (1996). Verbal Production and Problem Solving. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 85, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar

Carroll, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (1993). The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions. Linguistics 31, 1011–41.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, pp. 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp. 21–30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, pp. 7–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Cialone, C., Tenbrink, T., & Spiers, H. J. (2018). Sculptors, architects, and painters conceive of depicted spaces differently. Cognitive Science 42, 524–53.Google Scholar

Clark, D. R., Li, D., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection. Journal of International Business Studies 49(4), 442–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Krych, M. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 62–81.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39.Google Scholar

Cleland, A. A. & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 214–30.Google Scholar

Çöltekin, A., Fabrikant, S. I., & Lacayo, M. (2010). Exploring the efficiency of users’ visual analytics strategies based on sequence analysis of eye movement recordings. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(10), 1559–75.Google Scholar

Corley, M. & Scheepers, C. (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence from an internet-based study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(1), 126–31.Google Scholar

Corteen, R. S. & Wood, B. (1972). Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel. Journal of Experimental Psychology 94(3), 308.Google Scholar

Couclelis, H. (1996). Verbal directions for way-finding: Space, cognition, and language. In Portugali, J. (ed.), The Construction of Cognitive Maps, pp. 133–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Coventry, K. R. & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Cuayáhuitl, H., Dethlefs, N., Richter, K.-F., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (2010). A dialogue system for indoor wayfinding using text-based natural language. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Applications 1(1–2), 285–304.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3), 219–53.Google Scholar

Danino, C. (2014). Language production and meaning construction mechanisms in the discourse on an ongoing event: the case study of CNN’s live broadcast on 9/11. PhD dissertation, University of Poitiers, France.Google Scholar

Danino, C. (2018). Introduction: Les Petits Corpus. Corpus 18. http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/3099Google Scholar

Denis, M. (1997). The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Current Psychology of Cognition 16, 409–58.Google Scholar

Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Bertolo, L. (1999). Spatial discourse and navigation: An analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13(2), 145–74.Google Scholar

Durning, S. J., Artino, A. R. Jr, Beckman, T. J., et al. (2013) Does the think-aloud protocol reflect thinking? Exploring functional neuroimaging differences with thinking (answering multiple choice questions) versus thinking aloud. Medical Teacher 35(9), 720–6.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Egorova, E. (2018). From text to space: Spatial discourse in alpine route directions and narratives. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar

Egorova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Purves, R. S. (2015). Where snow is a landmark: Route direction elements in alpine contexts. In Fabrikant, S. I., Raubal, M., Bertolotto, M., C., et al. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory, pp. 175–95. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Egorova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Purves, R. S. (2018). Fictive motion in the context of mountaineering. Spatial Cognition and Computation 18(4), 259–84.Google Scholar

Ehrich, V. & Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes 6, 169–95.Google Scholar

Elling, S., Lentz, L., & De Jong, M. (2012). Combining concurrent think-aloud protocols and eye-tracking observations: An analysis of verbalizations and silences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 55(3), 206–20.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5(3), 178–86.Google Scholar

Evans, V. (2009a). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, V. (2009b). Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 27–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fan, Y. & Heeman, P. A. (2010). Initiative conflicts in task-oriented dialogue. Computer Speech and Language 24, 175–89.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Feldman, J. (2010). Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Physics of Life Reviews 7(4), 385–410.Google Scholar

Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: Investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse and Society 18(5), 603–25.Google Scholar

Filipi, A. & Wales, R. (2004). Perspective-taking and perspective-shifting as socially situated and collaborative actions. Journal of Pragmatics 36(10), 1851–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fine, M. S. & Minnery, B. S. (2009). Visual salience affects performance in a working memory task. Journal of Neuroscience 29(25), 8016–21.Google Scholar

Finke, R. A., Pinker, S., & Farah, M. J. (1989). Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental imagery. Cognitive Science 13(1), 51–78.Google Scholar

Fischer, M. H. & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(6), 825–50.Google Scholar

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32(4), 365–87.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar

Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G. (eds.) (2013). Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Frankenstein, J., Büchner, S., Tenbrink, T., & Hölscher, C. (2010). Influence of geometry and objects on local route choices during wayfinding. In Hölscher, C., Shipley, T., Olivetti Belardinelli, M., Bateman, J., & Newcombe, N. (eds.), Spatial Cognition VII: International Conference, Spatial Cognition 2010, Mt. Hood/Portland, OR, USA, August 15–19, 2010, pp. 41–53. Berlin/: Springer.Google Scholar

Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A., & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory and Cognition 23, 397–407.Google Scholar

Freksa, C. (1981). Linguistic pattern characterization and analysis. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Garrod, S. & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1), 8–11.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2013). Discourse versus discourse. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. www.geez.byethost17.com/pdfs/Big%20D%20Discourse.pdf?i=1Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5), 752–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., & Poltermann, A. (2009). Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In Kokinor, B., Holyoak, K., & Gentner, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Analogy Conference, pp. 175–82. Sofia, Bulgaria: NBU Press.Google Scholar

Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gralla, L. (2013). Linguistic representation of problem solving processes in unaided object assembly. PhD dissertation, Bremen University, Germany.Google Scholar

Gralla, L. & Tenbrink, T. (2013). ‘This is a wall’ – assigning function to objects. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: CogSci 2013, pp. 513–18. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.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

Gramann, K., Müller, H. J., Eick, E. M., & Schönebeck, B. (2005). Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31(6), 1199–223.Google Scholar

Grant, E. R. & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science 14, 462–6.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol 3), pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.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

Gülşen, T. T. (2016). You tell me in emojis. In Ogata, T. & Akimoto, T. (eds.), Computational and Cognitive Approaches to Narratology, pp. 354–75. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Habel, C. & Tappe, H. (1999). Processes of segmentation and linearization in describing events. In Klabunde, R. & von Stutterheim, C. (eds.), Representations and Processes in Language Production, pp. 117–53. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar

Haddington, P. (2010). Turn-taking for turntaking: Mobility, time and action in the sequential organization of junction-negotiations in cars. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(4), 372–400.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1), 43–61.Google Scholar

Hart, C. & Lukeš, D. (eds.) (2009). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.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

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

Henderson, J. M., Malcolm, G. L., & Schandl, C. (2009). Searching in the dark: Cognitive relevance drives attention in real-world scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16(5), 850–6.Google Scholar

Hobbs, J. R. (1995). Sketch of an ontology underlying the way we talk about the world. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 43(5/6), 819–30.Google Scholar

Hoffman, R. R., Trafton, G., & Roebber, P. (2005). Minding the Weather: How Expert Forecasters Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT 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), 284–99.Google Scholar

Hölscher, C., Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognition 121, 228–47.Google Scholar

Jee, B. D., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., Sageman, B., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Drawing on experience. In Taatgen, N. A. & van Rijn, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2499–504. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Kastens, K. A., Agrawal, S., & Liben, L. S. (2009). How students and field geologists reason in integrating spatial observations from outcrops to visualize a 3-D geological structure. International Journal of Science Education 31(3), 365–93.Google Scholar

Klabunde, R. & von Stutterheim, C. (eds.) (1999). Representations and Processes in Language Production. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar

Klein, W. (1979). Wegauskünfte (Route descriptions). Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) 33, 9–57.Google Scholar

Klippel, A. (2003). Wayfinding choremes. In Kuhn, W., Worboys, M., & Timpf, S. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science, pp. 320–34. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Knapton, O. & Rundblad, G. (2014). Public health in the UK media: Cognitive discourse analysis and its application to a drinking water emergency. In Hart, C. & Cap, P. (eds.), Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, pp. 559–82. London: Bloomsbury.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), 105–17.Google Scholar

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (eds.) (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (Vol. 39). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kuipers, B. J. & Kassirer, J. P. (1984). Causal reasoning in medicine: Analysis of a protocol. Cognitive Science 8, 363–85.Google Scholar

Kuipers, B. J., Moskowitz, A. J., & Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Science 12, 177–210.Google Scholar

Ladd, R. D. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40.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 Publications.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99.Google Scholar

Le Guen, O. (2011). Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35(5), 905–38.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research 30(2), 111–27.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, pp. 13–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Linde, C. & Labov, W. (1975). Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language 51, 924–39.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), 320–31.Google Scholar

Lutz, A., Lachaux, J. P., Martinerie, J., & Varela, F. J. (2002). Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data: Synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a simple visual task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(3), 1586–91.Google Scholar

Maes, A., Arts, A., & Noordman, L. (2004). Reference management in instructive discourse. Discourse Processes 37(2), 117–44.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar

Mast, F. W. & Kosslyn, S. M. (2002). Visual mental images can be ambiguous: Insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities. Cognition 86(1), 57–70.Google Scholar

McManus, I. C., Zhou, F. A., l’Anson, S., et al. (2011). The psychometrics of photographic cropping: The influence of colour, meaning, and expertise. Perception 40(3), 332–57.Google Scholar

Meilinger, T. & Knauff, M. (2008). Ask for your way or use a map: A field experiment on spatial orientation and wayfinding in an urban environment. Spatial Science 53(2), 13–24.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar

Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria 36(3), 373–98.Google Scholar

Montello, D. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In Frank, A. & Campari, I. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, pp. 312–21. Berlin: Springer.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.Google Scholar

Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 11(1), 56–60.Google Scholar

Neisser, U. & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology 7, 480–94.Google Scholar

Nissen, M. J. & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirement of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology 19, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Newman, E. L., Caplan, J. B., Kirschen, M. P., et al. (2007). Learning your way around town: How virtual taxicab drivers learn to use both layout and landmark information. Cognition 104(2), 231–53.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation, pp. 1–15. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (2006). Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.) (1997). Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Olloqui Redondo, J., Tenbrink, T., & Foltz, A. (2019.) Effects of animacy and linguistic construction on the interpretation of spatial descriptions in English and Spanish. Language and Cognition 11(2), 256–84.Google Scholar

O’Malley, M., Innes, A., Muir, S., & Wiener, J. M. (2018). ‘All the corridors are the same’: A qualitative study of the orientation experiences and design preferences of UK older adults living in a communal retirement development. Ageing and Society 38(9), 1791–816.Google Scholar

Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(3), 358–77.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar

Pick, H. L., Heinrichs, M. R., Montello, D. R., Smith, K., & Sullivan, C. N. (1995). Topographic map reading. In Hancock, P. A., Flach, J. M., Caird, J., & Vicente, K. J. (eds.), Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems (Vol. 2), pp. 255–84. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–226.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

Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., & Reif, M. (eds.) (2014). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use (Vol. 59). Chicago: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (eds.) (1997). Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rasinger, S. (2010). Research questions in linguistics. In Litosseliti, L. (ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics, pp. 49–67. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Riecke, B. E. & Wiener, J. M. (2007). Can people not tell left from right in VR? Point-to-origin studies revealed qualitative errors in visual path integration. In Sherman, W. R., Lin, M. C., & Steed, A. (eds.), Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2007, pp. 3–10. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Röder, B. & Rösler, F. (2003). Memory for environmental sounds in sighted, congenitally blind and late blind adults: Evidence for cross-modal compensation. International Journal of Psychophysiology 50(1), 27–39.Google Scholar

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roth, T. (1985). Sprachstatistisch objektivierbare Denkstilunterschiede zwischen ‘guten’ und ‘schlechten’ Bearbeitern komplexer Probleme. Sprache und Kognition 4, 178–91.Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition 17, 759–69.Google Scholar

Sachs, J. S. (1974). Memory in reading and listening to discourse. Memory and Cognition 2(1), 95–100.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, O. (2010). The Mind’s Eye. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24, 119–47.Google Scholar

Sarjakoski, L. & Nivala, A. M. (2005). Adaptation to context: A way to improve the usability of mobile maps. In Meng, L., Zipf, A., & Reichenbacher, T. (eds.), Map-Based Mobile Services, Theories, Methods and Implementations, pp. 107–23. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schlobinski, P. (1996). Empirische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about location? Discourse Processes 20(2), 219–47.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. 145–74. 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. 123–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Schönebeck, B., Thanhäuser, J., & Debus, G. (2001). Die Tunnelaufgabe: Eine Methode zur Untersuchung kognitiver Teilprozesse räumlicher Orientierungsleistungen (The tunnel task: A method for the investigation of cognitive subprocesses of spatial orientation performance). Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie 4, 339–64.Google Scholar

Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122(2), 166–83.Google Scholar

Seifert, I. (2008). Spatial planning assistance: A cooperative approach. Dissertation, Bremen University, Germany.Google Scholar

Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29, 477–517.Google Scholar

Senft, G. (1994). Spatial reference in Kilivila: The Tinkertoy Matching Games – A case study. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 25, 55–93.Google Scholar

Shepard, R. N. & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171(3972), 701–3.Google Scholar

Shi, H., Ross, R. J., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (2010). Modelling illocutionary structure: Combining empirical studies with formal model analysis. In Gelbukh, A. (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, pp. 340–53. LNCS 6008. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Sholl, M. J. (1988). The relationship between sense of direction and mental geographic updating. Intelligence 12(3), 299–314.Google Scholar

Siegel, A. W. & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In Reese, H. W. (ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior, pp. 9–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S. & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127(4), 377–97.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2), 129–38.Google Scholar

Sitter, S. & Stein, A. (1996). Modeling information-seeking dialogues: The conversational roles model. Review of Information Science 1(1), 165–80.Google Scholar

Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5, 157–77.Google Scholar

Smith, W. & Dror, I. E. (2001). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8, 732–41.Google Scholar

Spenader, J. (2002). Presupposed propositions in a corpus of dialogue. In van Deemter, K. & Kibble, R. (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.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), 232–49.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex Cognition: The Psychology of Human Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Steube, A. (ed.) (2004). Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 264–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Taylor, H. A. & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 371–91.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 2008 (MAD 08), pp. 125–35. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3), 704–22.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. (2014). Cognitive discourse analysis for cognitively supportive visualisations. Proceedings of DECISIVe 2014, Open Access Repository, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. (2015). Cognitive discourse analysis: Accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Language and Cognition 7(1), 98–137.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., & Coventry, K. R. (2008). Negotiating spatial relationships in dialogue: The role of the addressee. In Ginzburg, J., Healey, P., & Sato, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of LONDIAL, pp. 201–8. London: Queen Mary University.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., Schole, G., & Coventry, K. R. (2017). Communicative success in spatial dialogue: The impact of functional features and dialogic strategies. Language and Speech 60(2), 318–29.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Bergmann, E., Hertzberg, C., & Gondorf, C. (2016). Time will not help unskilled observers to understand a cluttered spatial scene. Spatial Cognition and Computation 16(3), 192–219.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Bergmann, E., & Konieczny, L. (2011a). Wayfinding and description strategies in an unfamiliar complex building. In Carlson, C. H. & Shipley, T. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1262–7. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Brösamle, M., & Hölscher, C. (2012). Flexibility of perspectives in architects’ thinking. In Hölscher, C. & Bhatt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of SCAD Spatial Cognition for Architectural Design. Report No. 029–08/2012 Report Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition, pp. 215–23. Bremen: Bremen University.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Coventry, K. R., & Andonova, E. (2011b). Spatial strategies in the description of complex configurations. Discourse Processes 48, 237–66.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Hölscher, C., Tsigaridi, D., & Conroy Dalton, R. (2014). Cognition and communication in architectural design. In Montello, D. R., Grossner, K. E., & Janelle, D. G. (eds.), Space in Mind: Concepts for Spatial Learning and Education, pp. 263–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Maas, A. (2015). Efficiently connecting textual and visual information in operating instructions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 58(4), 346–66.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T., Ross, R. R., 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. & Salwiczek, L. (2016). Orientation and metacognition in virtual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(5), 683–705.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Schilder, F. (2003). (Non)temporal concepts conveyed by before, after, and then in dialogue. In Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H., & Zeevat, H. (eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, pp. 353–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Seifert, I. (2011). Conceptual layers and strategies in tour planning. Cognitive Processing 12(1), 109–25.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Taylor, H. A. (2015). Conceptual transformation and cognitive processes in Origami paper folding. Journal of Problem Solving 8(1), 2–22.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Wiener, J. (2009). The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognitive Processing 10(2), 143–61.Google Scholar

Tenbrink, T. & Winter, S. (2009). Variable granularity in route directions. Spatial Cognition and Computation 9, 64–93.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Trognon, A., Batt, M., & Laux, J. (2011). Why is dialogical solving of a logical problem more effective than individual solving? A formal and experimental study of an abstract version of Wason’s task. Language and Dialogue 1(1), 44–78.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. 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tversky, B. & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110, 124–9.Google Scholar

Tversky, B. & Lee, P. (1999). Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In Freksa, C. & Mark, D. M. (eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science (COSIT ’99), pp. 51–64. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Sciences, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

van Deemter, K. & Kibble, R. (eds.) (2002). Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

van Deemter, K. & Peters, S. (eds.) (1996). Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Cognitive discourse analysis: An introduction. www.discursos.org/unpublished%20articles/cogn-dis-anal.htmGoogle Scholar

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Houndsmills: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar

van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Vorwerg, C. (2009). Consistency in successive spatial utterances. In Coventry, K., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (eds.), Spatial Language and Dialogue, pp. 40–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. 470–88. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Wachsmuth, I., de Ruiter, J., Jaecks, P., & Kopp, S. (eds.) (2013). Alignment in Communication: Towards a New Theory of Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Warren, P. (2005). Patterns of late rising in New Zealand English: Intonational variation or intonational change? Language Variation and Change 17(2), 209–30.Google Scholar

Wen, W., Ishikawa, T., & Sato, T. (2013). Individual differences in the encoding processes of egocentric and allocentric survey knowledge. Cognitive Science 37, 176–92.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. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.Google Scholar

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(4), 625–36.Google Scholar

Winterboer, A., Tenbrink, T., & Moratz, R. (2013). Spatial directionals for robot navigation. In Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & van der Zee, E. (eds.), Motion Encoding in Spatial Language, pp. 84–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Yang, S. C. (2003). Reconceptualizing think-aloud methodology: Refining the encoding and categorizing techniques via contextualized perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 95–115.Google Scholar

Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 29–58.Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). The impact of inserting an additional mental process. Computational Brain and Behavior 1(1), 22–35.Google Scholar