Determining subjectivity in text: The case of backward causal connectives in Dutch

Discourse Processes

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 151-174

  Pit, Mirna ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645080441     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326950dp4102_3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge.
2. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
3. Cornells, L. H. (1997). Passive and perspective. Utrecht Studies in language and communication 10. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
4. Degand, L. (1996). A situation-based approach to causation in Dutch with some implications for text generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
5. Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.), (1995). Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
6. Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspect of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge. England: Bradford.
7. Fleischman, S. (1990). Tense and narrativitv. From medieval performance to modern fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press.
8. Haiman, J. (1995). Grammatical signs of the divided self. A study of language and culture. In W. Abraham, T. Givón, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse grammar and typology. Papers in honour of John W. M. Verhaar. Studies in languages companion series (vol. 27, pp. 213-234). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
9. Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Anaphor in subjective contexts in narrative fiction. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.). Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 325-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc
10. Keller, R. (1995). The epistemic weil. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 16-30). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2003). Automatic retrieval of semantic (dis)similarities? A comparison of latent semantic analysis with weighted metric multidimensional scaling of the basis of a simple text. In L. Lagerwerf, W. Spooren, & L. Degand (Eds.), Determination of information and tenor in texts: Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse 2003 (pp. 203-214). Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Münster, Nodus Publikationen.
12. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles, a comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
13. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
14. Küper, C. (1984). Zum sprechaktbezogenen Gebrauch der Kausalverknüpfer denn und weil: Grammatisch-pragmatische Interrelationen [About the speech act use of the causal connectives 'denn' and 'well': Grammatical-pragmatic interrelations]. Linguistische Berichte, 92, 15-30.
15. Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Typological studies in syntax Vol. 7 (pp. 109-150). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
16. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. Le Groupe l-λ. (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane 17 X. University of Copenhague, 249-280.
18. Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivtiy: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action (pp. 101-124). Chichester, England: Wiley.
19. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
21. Pander Maat, H. (2003). Reference point concepts and document quality. Document Design, 4, 2-16.
22. Pander Maat, H., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 211-245.
23. Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (1995). Nederlandse causale connectieven en het onderscheid tussen inhoudelijke en epistemische coherentie-relaties [Dutch causal connectives and the distinction between content and epistemic coherence relations]. Leuvense Bijdragen, 84, 349-347.
24. Pander Maat, H., & Sanders. T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 247-273.
25. Pasch, R. (1983). Die Kausalkonjunktionen "da", "denn", und "weil": drei Konjunktionen-drei lexikalische Klassen [The causal conjunctions "da", "denn", and "weil": Three conjuctions: Three lexical classes]. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 20, 332-337.
26. Pit, M. T. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective. Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
27. Pit, M. T., Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (1997). "Doordat," "omdat" en "want". Perspectieven op hun gebruik ["Doordat," "omdat" and "want". Perspectives on their use]. Taalbeheersing, 19, 238-251.
28. Sanders, J. (1994). Perspective in narrative discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
29. Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. (1997). Perspective, subjectivity and modality from a cognitive linguistic point of view. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 85-112). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.
31. Stein, D., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
34. Van den Bergh, H. (1989). Examens geëxamineerd. The Hague, The Netherlands: SVO.
35. Van Belle, W. (1989). Want, omdat en aangezien. Een argumentatieve analyse [Want, omdat and aangezien. An argumentational analysis]. Leuvense bijdragen, 78, 435-456.
36. Verhagen, A. (1995, July). Meaning and the coordination of cognition. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
37. Verhagen, A. (2000, March). Achter het Nederlands. Over interacties tussen taal en achtergrondcognitie [Behind Dutch. About interactions between language and background cognition]. Inaugural lecture, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.