1887
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943

Abstract

Abstract

The disambiguation and processing of coherence relations is often investigated with a focus on explicit connectives, such as or . Other, non-connective cues from the context also facilitate discourse inferences, although their precise disambiguating role and interaction with connectives have been largely overlooked in the psycholinguistic literature so far. This study reports on two crowdsourcing experiments that test the role of contextual cues (parallelism, antonyms, resultative verbs) in the disambiguation of contrast and consequence relations. We compare the effect of contextual cues in conceptually different relations, and with connectives that differ in their semantic precision. Using offline tasks, our results show that contextual cues significantly help disambiguating contrast and consequence relations in the absence of connectives. However, when connectives are present in the context, the effect of cues only holds if the connective is acceptable in the target relation. Overall, our study suggests that cues are decisive on their own, but only secondary in the presence of connectives. These results call for further investigation of the complex interplay between connective types, contextual cues, relation types and other linguistic and cognitive factors.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20003.cri
2021-10-06
2022-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pc.20003.cri.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20003.cri&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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. 2016But 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
    1987Semantic 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. 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. 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
    2018Cohesion, 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. 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20003.cri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.20003.cri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coherence relations; disambiguation; discourse cues; information density
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