The effect of substituting discourse markers on their role in dialogue

Discourse Processes

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 388-420

  Groen, Martin ^a   Noyes, Jan ^a   Verstraten, Frans ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954627312     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530903223372     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson, T., Sanford, A., Thomson, A., & Ion, W. (2007). Computer-supported and face-to-face collaboration on design tasks. Discourse Processes, 43, 201-228.
2. Austin, J. L. (1976). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3. Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27,195-225.
4. Bestgen, Y., & Vonk, W. (1995). The role of temporal segmentation markers in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 19, 385-406.
5. Bornstein, M. H., & Cote, L. R. (2004). Cross-linguistic analysis of vocabulary in young children: Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, and American English. Child Development, 75, 1115-1139.
6. Byron, D. K., & Heeman, P. A. (1997). Discourse marker use in task oriented spoken dialogue. In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, and E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th biennial European conferenceon Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech'97) (pp. 2223-2226).Greece: University of Rhodes.
7. Campbell, D. T. (1986). Science's social system of validity-enhancing collective belief change and the problems of the social scientists. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 108-135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10,415-422.
10. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
11. Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (1999a). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280-295.
12. Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (1999b, November). I mean, understanding you know and I mean, you know? Poster session presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
13. Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727-747.
14. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167-190.
15. Frick, R. W. (1995). Accepting the null hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 23, 132-138.
16. Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., & Sanders, T. (2006). Effects of coherence marking on the comprehension and appraisal of discourse. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1575-1580). Vancouver, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.
17. Kane, M. J., Poole, B. J., Tuholski, S. W., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: Exploring the boundaries of executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 749-777.
18. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
19. Knott, A., & Mellish, C. (1996). A feature-based account of the relations signaled by sentence and clause connectives. Language and Speech, 39, 143-183.
20. Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30,245-257.
21. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Louwerse, M. M., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35, 199-239.
23. Maury, P., & Teisserenc, L. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489-512.
24. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
25. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
26. Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172.
27. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2006). E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 4-22.
28. Risselada, R., & Spooren, W. (1998). Introduction: Discourse markers and coherence relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 131-133.
29. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227-265.
31. Schrock, J. C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2000, November). So and and in spontaneous speech. Poster session presented at the 41st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.
32. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts, an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50, 481-497.