1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This contribution aims to set out the effects of discourse marking on processing. On the basis of examples from Spanish, we try to show the principles governing the interplay between the procedural meaning of discourse markers (connectives) and the conceptual meaning of the discourse segments linked by them. To determine these principles, two types of experiments were performed: one comparing marked and unmarked utterances, and a second one comparing utterances that activate mental representations that pragmatically match or clash with the instruction encoded by the connective. Evidence shows that (a) discourse marking by means of a connective generates a new route for accessing information; (b) procedural meaning is a definitory feature of connectives; (c) the procedural meaning of connectives introduces and into discourse as to conceptual meanings; (d) in mismatches between the assumption activated by the instructions of a connective and mind-stored assumptions, accommodation processes may take place, which are effortful but seek to guarantee the retrieval of cognitive effects from the utterance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22020.rec
2023-01-30
2024-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arunachalam, Sudha
    2013 Experimental methods for linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass7(4). 221–232. 10.1111/lnc3.12021
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12021 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg
    2012 Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. InEva Hajičová, Lucie Poláková & Jiří Mírovský (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), 33–42. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, Rolf, Douglas Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subject and items. Journal of Memory and Language591. 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat
    2007 Accommodation. InGillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–541. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1989 Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy12(1). 15–37. 10.1007/BF00627397
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1992Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2002Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2006 Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua1161. 1670–1687. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Briz, Antonio, Salvador Pons & José Portolés
    2008Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español. (www.dpde.es; last access: 12/08/2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Canestrelli, Anneloes, Willem Mak & Ted Sanders
    2013 Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes28(9). 1394–1413. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrol, Garrit & Kathy Conklin
    2004 Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research7(5). 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Conklin, Kathy, Ana Pellicer-Sánchez & Gareth Carrol
    2018Eye-tracking. A guide for applied linguistic research. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108233279
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108233279 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cuello, Carlos
    2022 Psycholinguistic correlates of grammaticalization of discourse markers: Analysis of a consecutive subparadigm through eye-tracking. Heidelberg/Valencia: Universität Heidelberg/Universitat de València PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cunnings, Ian
    2012 An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research28(3). 369–382. 10.1177/0267658312443651
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312443651 [Google Scholar]
  17. Curcó, Carmen
    2011 On the status of procedural meaning in natural language. InMaría Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 33–54. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025006
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025006 [Google Scholar]
  18. De Vega, Manuel
    2005 El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva171. 85–108. 10.1174/0214355053114745
    https://doi.org/10.1174/0214355053114745 [Google Scholar]
  19. Degand, Liesbeth & Ted Sanders
    2002 The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing15(7–8). 739–757. 10.1023/A:1020932715838
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020932715838 [Google Scholar]
  20. Degand, Liesbeth
    1998 On classifying connectives and coherence relations. InManfred Stede, Leo Wanner & Eduard Hovy (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, 29–35. Montréal: Université de Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria & Manuel Leonetti
    2011 On the rigidity of procedural meaning. InMaría Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81–102. 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025008
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern
    (eds.) 2011Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9780857240941
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941 [Google Scholar]
  23. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria
    2017 Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 79–95. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110546095‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern
    2020Pragmática. Madrid: AKAL.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fahrmeier, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang & Brian Marx
    2013Regression. models, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑34333‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34333-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fischer, Kerstin
    (ed.) 2006Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fraser, Bruce
    2006 Towards a theory of discourse markers. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Garrido, Joaquín
    2007 Relaciones de discurso. Pandora: Revue d’Etudes Hispaniques71. 305–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Guillén, Diego
    2021 Experimental analysis of the processing schemas of counter-argumentation and anaphoric substitution signaled by the Spanish connective a pesar de ello. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haberlandt, Karl
    1982 Reader expectations in text comprehension. InJean-Francois Le Ny & Walter Kintsch (eds.), Language and comprehension, 239–250. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoek, Jet & Sandrine Zufferey
    2015 Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. InHarry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), 39–45. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka & Joost van de Weijer
    2011Eye-tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hopper, Paul
    1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. InElizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  34. Kleijn, Suzanne, Henk Pander Maat & Ted Sanders
    2019 Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes56(5–6). 447–464. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257 [Google Scholar]
  35. Köhne, Judith & Vera Demberg
    2013 The time-course of processing discourse connectives. InMarkus Knauff, Michael Pauen, Natalie Sebanz & Ipke Wachsmuth (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2760–2765. Berlin: the Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Brockhoff & Rune Christensen
    2016 lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0–32. (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html; last access: 12/08/2022).
  37. Leonetti, Manuel & María Victoria Escandell-Vidal
    2004 Conceptual semantics/procedural semantics. InMilka Villayandre Llamazares (ed.), Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General: León 5–8 March 2002, 1727–1738. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012 El significado procedimental: Rutas hacia una idea. InJosé Luis Mendívil Giró & María del Carmen Horno Chéliz (eds.), La sabiduría de Mnemósine. Ensayos de historia de la lingüística ofrecidos a José Francisco Val Álvaro, 157–167. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Loureda, Óscar & Esperanza Acín Villa
    (eds.) 2010Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Loureda, Óscar, Adriana Cruz, Inés Recio & Martha Rudka
    2021Comunicación, partículas discursivas y pragmática experimental. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia & José Portolés
    1999 Los marcadores del discurso. InIgnacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol.III1, 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McNamara, Danielle, Eileen Kintsch, Nancy Songer & Walter Kintsch
    1996 Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction141. 1–43. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Millis, Keith & Marcel Just
    1994 The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language33(1). 128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
  44. Moncada, Fernando
    2018 Interaction between connectives and previous knowledge in the processing of causal coherence. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación761. 179–196. 10.5209/CLAC.62504
    https://doi.org/10.5209/CLAC.62504 [Google Scholar]
  45. Montolío, Estrella
    2001Conectores de la lengua escrita. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt
    2006 A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Murillo, Silvia
    2010 Los marcadores del discurso y su semántica. InÓscar Loureda & Esperanza Acín (eds.), Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, 241–280. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Murray, John
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition25(2). 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nadal, Laurai
    2019Lingüística experimental y contraargumentación: Un estudio del conector del españolsin embargo. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b16019
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b16019 [Google Scholar]
  50. Narváez, Elisa
    2019 Causality and its processing paths: An experimental study of Spanish por tanto. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nicolle, Steve
    2015 Diachronic change in procedural semantic content. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française321. 133–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Noordman, Leo & Wietske Vonk
    1998 Discourse comprehension. InAngela Friederici (ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective, 229–262. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑97734‑3_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-97734-3_8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pander Maat, Henk & Liesbeth Degand
    2001 Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics12(3). 211–245. 10.1515/cogl.2002.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pickering, Martin & Matthew Traxler
    2009 Parsing and incremental understanding during reading. InMatthew Crocker, Martin Pickering, & Charles Clifton (eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing, 238–258. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pickering, Martin, Matthew Traxler & Matthew Crocker
    2000 Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language43(3). 447–475. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2708
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2708 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pons Bordería, Salvador
    1998 Conexión y conectores: Estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Valencia: Universitat de València PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Portolés, José, Eugenia Sáinz & Silvia Murillo
    2020 Partículas discursivas e instrucciones de procesamiento. InMaría Victoria Escandell-Vidal, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 284–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Portolés, José
    2001[1998]Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2018R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (www.R-project.org).
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rayner, Keith
    1998 Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin124(3). 372–422. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2009 Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology62(8). 1457–1506. 10.1080/17470210902816461
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461 [Google Scholar]
  62. Recio Fernández, Inés
    2020 The impact of procedural meaning in L2-processing: A study on connectives. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Reichle, Erik, Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek
    2003 The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Science26(4). 445–476. 10.1017/S0140525X03000104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104 [Google Scholar]
  64. Romero, Esther & Belén Soria
    2020 The conceptual adjustment of lexical meaning. InMaría Victoria Escandell-Vidal, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 125–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InMichel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Segal, Erwin, Duchan, Judith & Paula J. Scott
    1991 The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes141, 27–54. 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
  67. Thome, Sarah
    2018 Additive Konnektoren mit argumentativer Funktion. Eine experimentelle Studie zu sp. ademásund it. inoltre. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg master thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Traxler, Matthew, Michael Bybee & Martin Pickering
    1997 Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50(3). 481–497. 10.1080/027249897391982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982 [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted Sanders
    2015 Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes52(1). 47–76. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237 [Google Scholar]
  70. Vasishth, Shravan, Daniela Mertzen, Lena Jäger & Andrew Gelman
    2018 The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language1031. 151–175. 10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua901. 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wood, Simon
    2017Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. University of Bristol: Chapman and Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9781315370279
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279 [Google Scholar]
  73. Xiang, Ming & Gina Kuperberg
    2015 Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30(6). 648–672. 10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995679 [Google Scholar]
  74. Xu, Xiaodong, Qingrong Chen, Klaus-Uwe Panther & Yicheng Wu
    2017 Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes55(4). 387–409. 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1272088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1272088 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zunino, Gabriela, Valeria Abusamra & Alejandro Raiter
    2012 Causalidad: Relación entre conocimiento del mundo y conocimiento lingüístico. Pragmalingüística201. 200–219. 10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2012.i20.09
    https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2012.i20.09 [Google Scholar]
  76. Zunino, Gabriela
    2014 Cognitive perspectives on discourse processing: Causality and counter-causality. Signos Lingüísticos101. 154–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2016 Comprensión y producción de causalidad y contracausalidad: Distinciones en función del proceso subyacente y efectos de la escolarización formal. Onomázein341. 132–151. 10.7764/onomazein.34.6
    https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.34.6 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22020.rec
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22020.rec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error