oa The role of non-connective discourse cues and their interaction with connectives

References

1. 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]
2. Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg
   2016 But vs. although under the microscope. Poster atCogSci2016, Philadelphia, USA.
3. Baayen, Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, & Douglas M. Bates
   2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language59. 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
4. Blakemore, Diane
   1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Brysbaert, Marc & Michael Stevens
   2018 Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition1(1). 9. 1–20. 10.5334/joc.10
   https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 [Google Scholar]
6. Cain, Kate & Hannah Nash
   2011 The influence of connective on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology103(2). 429–441. 10.1037/a0022824
   https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
7. Carlson, Katy
   2014 Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua150. 78–91. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008 [Google Scholar]
8. Crible, Ludivine
   . In press. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations: From relative configurations to predictive signals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Crible, Ludivine
   2020 Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat and writing: How signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations. Discourse Processes57(9). 793–807. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778 [Google Scholar]
10. Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
    2020 When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours26. 10.4000/discours.10848
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10848 [Google Scholar]
11. Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering
    2020 Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes57(10). 862–879. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493 [Google Scholar]
12. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    2018 Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes55(8). 743–770. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
13. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    2019 Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours26. 10.4000/discours.10032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10032 [Google Scholar]
14. Degand, Liesbeth & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2002 The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal15. 739–757. 10.1023/A:1020932715838
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020932715838 [Google Scholar]
15. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2009 The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language36. 829–854. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
16. Grisot, Cristina
    2018 Cohesion, coherence and temporal reference from an experimental corpus pragmatics perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑96752‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96752-3 [Google Scholar]
17. Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak
    2019 Temporal connectives and verbal tenses as processing instructions. Pragmatics and Cognition24(3). 404–440. 10.1075/pc.17009.gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17009.gri [Google Scholar]
18. Hale, John
    2001 A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. InProceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies, 1–8. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hansen, Maj-Britt M.
    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]
20. Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2017 Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics121. 113–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
21. Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2019 The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics and Cognition25(2). 275–309.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Kitis, Eliza
    2000 Connectives and frame theory: The case of hypotextual antinomial ‘and’. Pragmatics and Cognition8(2). 357–409. 10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit [Google Scholar]
23. Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
    1994 Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes18. 35–62. 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
24. Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger
    2007 Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. InBernhard Schölkopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Luscher, Jean-Marc & Jacques Moeschler
    1990 Approches dérivationnelles et procédurales des opérateurs et connecteurs temporels: Les exemples de et et de enfin. Cahiers de Linguistique Française11. 77–104.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse8. 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
27. Millis, Keith K. & Marcel A. Just
    1994 The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language33. 128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
28. Murray, John
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition25(2). 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
29. Pander Maat, Henk
    1999 The differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics10(2). 147–184.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Paper presented at the6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber & Alan Lee
    2018 Discourse annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. InHarry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, 87–97. Santa Fe, NM: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Pusse, Florian, Sayeed Asad & Vera Demberg
    2016 Lingoturk: Managing crowdsourced tasks for psycholinguistics. Proc. of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/N16‑3012
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-3012 [Google Scholar]
33. Rohde, Hannah, Joseph Tyler & Katy Carlson
    2017 Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa2(1). 10.5334/gjgl.134
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.134 [Google Scholar]
34. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo Noordman
    2000 The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes29. 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
35. Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman
    1993 Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics4(2). 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
36. Spooren, Wilbert
    1997 The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes24. 149–168. 10.1080/01638539709545010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010 [Google Scholar]
37. Traxler, Matthew, Michael Bybee & Martin J. Pickering
    1997 Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50A(3). 481–497. 10.1080/027249897391982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982 [Google Scholar]
38. Van Silfhout, Gerineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. 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]
39. Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand
    2013 Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13(2). 399–422. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022 [Google Scholar]