Enhaus, Eberhard, Filip, Carlson, 2002; Kaiser Trueswell, 2004; Kamide et al., 2003; Matsuki et al., 2011; Metusalem et al., 2012; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), information about future events and states (e.g. Altmann Kamide, 2007; Hare et al., 2003; Kuperberg, Paczynski, Ditman, 2011; Pyykk en J vikivi, 2010; Rohde order BL-8040 Horton, 2014; Xiang Kuperberg, 2015), as well as more general schema information (e.g. Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012). In addition, there is a large body of evidence that a comprehender can use her internal representation of context to UNC0642 price facilitate the processing of incoming information at multiple other levels of representation. For example, contextual information can lead to facilitated processing of incoming information at the level of syntactic structure (see previous section, and Arai Keller, 2013; Farmer, Christiansen, Monaghan, 2006; Garnsey et al., 1997; Gibson Wu, 2013;Hare et al., 2003; Rohde, Levy, Kehler, 2011; Tanenhaus, SpiveyKnowlton, Eberhard, Sedivy, 1995; Wilson Garnsey, 2009), phonological information (Allopenna, Magnuson, Tanenhaus, 1998; DeLong et al., 2005) and orthographic information (DeLong et al., 2005;Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, Pylkk en, 2010). Moreover, this type of facilitation can stem from multiple types of information within a given context. For example, to facilitate semantic processing of new information, comprehenders are able to use information within a verbal context about specific discourse connectives (Rohde Horton, 2014; Xiang Kuperberg, 2015), inferential causal relationships (Kuperberg et al., 2011), the selection restrictions of a verb (Altmann Kamide, 1999; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), the tense of a preceding verb (Altmann Kamide, 2007), the combination of a specific verb and argument (Kamide et al., 2003; Matsuki et al., 2011; Metusalem et al., 2012; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), pre-verbal arguments (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky Schlesewsky, 2009; Kamide et al., 2003), specific prepositions (Chambers et al., 2002), and prosody (Kurumada, Brown, Bibyk, Pontillo, Tanenhaus, 2014; Snedeker Yuan, 2008). Similarly, to facilitate the processing of newAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPageinformation at the level of syntactic structure, comprehenders can use information within a verbal context about its referential discourse structure (Gibson Wu, 2013), discourse coherence relationships (Rohde et al., 2011), thematic relationships between verbs and arguments (Garnsey et al., 1997; Wilson Garnsey, 2009), the specific sense of a verb (Hare et al., 2003), or even their knowledge about a verb’s phonological typicality (Farmer et al., 2006). There is also evidence that syntactic information within a context can facilitate the processing of orthographic information (Dikker et al., 2010) or even low level perceptual features (Dikker, Rabagliati, Pylkk en, 2009). In addition, comprehenders can pick up on non-verbal information in the context to influence the processing of a referent (e.g. Knoeferle, Crocker, Scheepers, Pickering, 2005; Sedivy, Tanenhaus, Chambers, Carlson, 1999; Tanenhaus et al., 1995). Taken together, this literature supports the idea that, at any given time, a comprehender’s internal representations of context encodes multiple different types of information, at different grains of representation (see al.Enhaus, Eberhard, Filip, Carlson, 2002; Kaiser Trueswell, 2004; Kamide et al., 2003; Matsuki et al., 2011; Metusalem et al., 2012; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), information about future events and states (e.g. Altmann Kamide, 2007; Hare et al., 2003; Kuperberg, Paczynski, Ditman, 2011; Pyykk en J vikivi, 2010; Rohde Horton, 2014; Xiang Kuperberg, 2015), as well as more general schema information (e.g. Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012). In addition, there is a large body of evidence that a comprehender can use her internal representation of context to facilitate the processing of incoming information at multiple other levels of representation. For example, contextual information can lead to facilitated processing of incoming information at the level of syntactic structure (see previous section, and Arai Keller, 2013; Farmer, Christiansen, Monaghan, 2006; Garnsey et al., 1997; Gibson Wu, 2013;Hare et al., 2003; Rohde, Levy, Kehler, 2011; Tanenhaus, SpiveyKnowlton, Eberhard, Sedivy, 1995; Wilson Garnsey, 2009), phonological information (Allopenna, Magnuson, Tanenhaus, 1998; DeLong et al., 2005) and orthographic information (DeLong et al., 2005;Dikker, Rabagliati, Farmer, Pylkk en, 2010). Moreover, this type of facilitation can stem from multiple types of information within a given context. For example, to facilitate semantic processing of new information, comprehenders are able to use information within a verbal context about specific discourse connectives (Rohde Horton, 2014; Xiang Kuperberg, 2015), inferential causal relationships (Kuperberg et al., 2011), the selection restrictions of a verb (Altmann Kamide, 1999; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), the tense of a preceding verb (Altmann Kamide, 2007), the combination of a specific verb and argument (Kamide et al., 2003; Matsuki et al., 2011; Metusalem et al., 2012; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012), pre-verbal arguments (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky Schlesewsky, 2009; Kamide et al., 2003), specific prepositions (Chambers et al., 2002), and prosody (Kurumada, Brown, Bibyk, Pontillo, Tanenhaus, 2014; Snedeker Yuan, 2008). Similarly, to facilitate the processing of newAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptLang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPageinformation at the level of syntactic structure, comprehenders can use information within a verbal context about its referential discourse structure (Gibson Wu, 2013), discourse coherence relationships (Rohde et al., 2011), thematic relationships between verbs and arguments (Garnsey et al., 1997; Wilson Garnsey, 2009), the specific sense of a verb (Hare et al., 2003), or even their knowledge about a verb’s phonological typicality (Farmer et al., 2006). There is also evidence that syntactic information within a context can facilitate the processing of orthographic information (Dikker et al., 2010) or even low level perceptual features (Dikker, Rabagliati, Pylkk en, 2009). In addition, comprehenders can pick up on non-verbal information in the context to influence the processing of a referent (e.g. Knoeferle, Crocker, Scheepers, Pickering, 2005; Sedivy, Tanenhaus, Chambers, Carlson, 1999; Tanenhaus et al., 1995). Taken together, this literature supports the idea that, at any given time, a comprehender’s internal representations of context encodes multiple different types of information, at different grains of representation (see al.
