Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1394-1413

  Canestrelli, Anneloes R ^a   Mak, Willem M ^a   Sanders, Ted J M ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Causality; Connectives; Discourse processing; Eye tracking; Subjectivity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAUSAL CONNECTIVE; COMPREHENSION; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; EQUIPMENT; EYE MOVEMENT; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE ANALYTICAL PROCESSING; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84886381585     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Anscombre, J., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'agumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in Language]. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
2. Baayen, H. R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]: Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
3. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bestgen, Y., & Costerman, J. (1994). Time, space, and action: Exploring the narrative structure and its marking. Discourse Processes, 17, 421-446.
5. Bestgen, Y., & Vonk, W. (2000). Temporal adverbials as segmentation markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 74-87.
6. Bolkestein, A. M. (1991). Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis and hypotaxis in Latin. In R. Coleman (Ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics (pp. 427-451). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
7. Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text. Building mental structures to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641-674). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389-426.
10. Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inferences in understanding causal sentences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
11. Cozijn, R., Noordman, L., & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475-500.
12. De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365-392.
13. Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage based approaches to Dutch (pp. 175-199). Utrecht: LOT.
14. Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains - On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645-1662.
15. Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
16. Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Groupe Lambda-λ. (1975). Car, parc eque, puisque. Revue Romane, 10, 248-280.
19. Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 239-249). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London/New York: Longman.
21. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
22. Jaszczolt, K. M. (2003). Book review: Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 657-663.
23. Knott, A. (2001). Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 127-152). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
24. Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62.
25. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
26. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 301-248.
27. Kroon, C. (1998). A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(2), 205-223.
28. Lopes, A. C. M. (2009). Justification: A coherence relation. Pragmatics, 19(2), 241-252.
29. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
30. Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489-512.
31. Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
32. Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.
33. Noordman, L. G. M., & de Blijzer, F. (2000). On the processing of causal relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast (pp. 35-56). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
34. Oversteegen, L. (2005). Causality and tense - Two temporal structure builders. Journal of semantics, 22, 307-337.
35. Pander Maat, H., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 211-245.
36. Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity: The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 57-82). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
37. Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 247-273.
38. Pasch, R. (1983). Die Kausalkonjunktionen 'da', 'denn', und 'weil': drei Konjunktionen - drei lexikalische Klassen. Deutsch als Fremsprache, 20, 332-337.
39. Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective? Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.
40. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43, 103-121.
41. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
42. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191-201.
43. Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movements in reading: Psycholinguistic studies. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 57-82). New York: Academic Press.
44. Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 222-272). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
45. Rutherford, W. (1970). Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language, 46(1), 97-115.
46. Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In S. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 19-59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
47. Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E. (2011). Responsible subjects and discourse causality. How mental spaces and perspective help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 191-231.
48. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2007). Discourse and text structure. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuykens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 37-60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2009). Causal categories in discourse - Converging evidence from language use. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 205-246). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
50. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1-35.
51. Segal, E., & Duchan, J. (1997). Interclausal connectives as indicators of structuring in narratives. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 95-119). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Segal, E., Duchan, J., & Scott, P. (1991). The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse processes, 14, 27-54.
53. Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language, 12, 67-83.
54. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40, 2003-2026.
55. Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. (2011). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 169-190.
56. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 481-497.
58. Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P., & Moxey, L. M. (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88-101.
59. Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447-456.
60. Veenker, T. J. G. (2006). FEP: A tool for designing and running computerized experiments (version 2.4.33a) [UiL-OTS computer program]. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University.
61. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62. Xing, F. (2001). A study of Chinese complex sentences. Beijing: Commercial Publishing House.
63. Zufferey, S. (2010). Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind. The acquisition of connectives as a window on cognitive development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
64. Zufferey, S. (2011). "Car, Parce Que, Puisque" Revisited. Three empirical studies with French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 138-153.
65. Zwaan, R. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1196-1207.