1887
Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The presence of discourse relations can be marked explicitly with lexical items such as specialized and underspecified connectives or left implicit. It is now well established that the presence of specialized connective facilitates the processing of these relations. The question is to gauge how different degrees of explicitness affect the processing of discourse relations. This study investigates this question with respect to two relations, which are fundamental to our cognition and which are closely tied: causal relations and temporal relations. We carried out a self-paced reading experiment, in which we sought to compare the cost of inferring the presence of causal vs. temporal relations in the absence vs. presence of a connective indicating a given relation in French. For the explicit marking, two types of connectives were tested – one specialized for each relation ( for causality and for temporality) and one underspecified ( in its temporal and causal readings). Overall, our results confirm the facilitator role of discourse connectives: we find that explicit discourse relations are processed faster than implicit ones. The specific (rather than underspecified) connective facilitates processing for temporal relations but not for causal relations; and temporal relations were read equally fast as causal relations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21001.blo
2023-02-02
2024-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersson, Marta & Jennifer Spenader
    2014 Result and Purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua1481. 1–27. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. Harald
    2008Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Lev, Zev & Arthur Palacas
    1980 Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua51(2/3). 137–146. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90004‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90004-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Black, John B. & Hyman Bern
    1981 Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20(3). 267–275. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90417‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90417-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blakemore, Diane & Robyn Carston
    1999 The pragmatics of and-conjunctions: The non-narrative cases. CILISC1 (L’économie dans les structures, les computations etl’utilisation du langage, 12–15octobre 1999), ISCL.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blochowiak, Joanna
    2009 La relation causale, ses relata et la négation. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française291. 149–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014 A theoretical approach to the quest for understanding. Semantics and pragmatics of whys and becauses. Geneva: University of Geneva PhD dissertation.
  10. 2016 A presuppositional account of causal and temporal interpretations of and. Topoi35(1). 93–107. 10.1007/s11245‑014‑9289‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9289-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blochowiak, Joanna & Thomas Castelain
    2018 How logical is natural language conjunction? An experimental investigation of the French conjunction et. InPierre Saint-Germier (ed.), Language, evolution and mind: Essays in honour of Anne Reboul, 97–125. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter & Kathleen Fiess
    1980 Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language7(2). 235–261. 10.1017/S0305000900002610
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002610 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bras, Myriam, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu
    2001 French adverbial puis between temporal structure and discourse structure. InMyriam Bras & Laure Vieu (eds.), Semantic and pragmatic issues in discourse and dialogue: Experimenting with current theories, 109–146. London: Brill. 10.1163/9780585474397_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585474397_008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Britton, Bruce K., Shawn M. Glynn, Bonnie J. Meyer & M. J. Penland
    1982 Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology74(1). 51. 10.1037/0022‑0663.74.1.51
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.51 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brysbaert, Marc
    2007The language-as-fixed-effect-fallacy: Some simple SPSS solutions to a complex problem. London: University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cain, Kate & Hannah M. Nash
    2011 The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology103(2). 429. 10.1037/a0022824
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
  17. Canestrelli, Anneloes R., 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]
  18. Carston, Robyn
    1993 Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua90(1). 27–48. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90059‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90059-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1998 Conjunction and pragmatic effects. InRon E. Asher (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 692–698. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Eve V.
    2003First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, Herbert H.
    1973 The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12(4). 335–359. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(73)80014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cozijn, Reinier, Leo Noordman & Wietske Vonk
    2011 Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes48(7). 475–500. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421 [Google Scholar]
  24. Crible, Ludivine
    2017 Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(2). 242–269. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri [Google Scholar]
  25. Crible, Ludivine, Ágnes Abuczki, Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Péter Furkó, Anna Nedoluzhko, Sigita Rackevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienėc & Šárka Zikánová
    2019 Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics1421. 139–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Crible, Ludivine & Demberg, Vera
    2020 When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours261. 10.4000/discours.10848
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10848 [Google Scholar]
  27. Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering
    2020 Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes57(10). 826–879. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493 [Google Scholar]
  28. Croft, William
    2010 The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics481. 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Degand, Liesbeth, Nathalie Lefèvre & Yves Bestgen
    1999 The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design1(1). 39–51. 10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg [Google Scholar]
  30. Duran, Nicholas D., Philip M. McCarthy, Art C. Graesser & Danielle S. McNamara
    2007 Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods39(2). 212–223. 10.3758/BF03193150
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193150 [Google Scholar]
  31. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel Scholman
    2017 On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse8(2). 1–20. 10.5087/dad.2017.201
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.201 [Google Scholar]
  32. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted Sanders
    2009 The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language36(4). 829–854. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
  33. Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles & Zoë Field
    2014Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. de Saussure, Louis
    2003 Cause implicitée et temps explicité. Cahiers de Linguistique Française251. 119–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2007 L’étrange cas de puis en usages discursif et argumentatif. InEstelle Moline & Carl Vetters (eds.), Temps, aspect et modalité en français, 261–275. London: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. de Saussure, Louis & Bertrand Sthioul
    2002 Interprétations cumulative et distributive du connecteur et: Temps, argumentation, séquencement. Cahiers de Linguistique Française241. 293–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gómez Txurruka, Isabel
    2003 The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3). 255–285. 10.1023/A:1024117423963
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024117423963 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gosselin, Laurent
    2007 Les séquences de connecteurs temporels: Ordre et informativité des constituants. Cahiers Chronos181. 47–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan
    1997 Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology481. 163–189. 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  40. Graesser, Arthur C., Murray Singer & Tom Trabasso
    1994 Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review101(3). 371–395. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  41. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (vol.31), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Grisot, Cristina & Blochowiak, Joanna
    2019 Temporal connectives and verbal tenses as processing instructions: Evidence from French. Pragmatics & Cognition24(3). 404–440. 10.1075/pc.17009.gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17009.gri [Google Scholar]
  43. 2021 Temporal relations at the sentence and text genre level: The role of linguistic cueing and non-linguistic biases: An annotation study of a bilingual corpus. Corpus Pragmatics5(3). 379–419. 10.1007/s41701‑021‑00104‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00104-5 [Google Scholar]
  44. Haberland, Karl
    1982 Reader expectations in text comprehension. InJean-François Le Ny & Walter Kintsch (eds.), Language and language comprehension, 239–249. Amsterdam: Noth-Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haberlandt, Karl & Bingham, Geoffrey
    1978 Verbs contribute to the coherence of brief narratives: Reading related and unrelated sentence triples. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior17(4). 419–425. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(78)90247‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90247-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
    2012 The semantics of pragmatic expressions. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics, 311–587. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.587
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.587 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoek, Jet, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted Sanders
    2019 Using the cognitive approach to coherence relations for discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse10(2). 1–33. 10.5087/dad.2019.201
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2019.201 [Google Scholar]
  48. Horowitz, Rosalind
    1987 Rhetorical structure in discourse processing. InRosalind Horowitz & Jay S. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language, 117–160. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kaiser, Elsi
    2019 Order of mention in causal sequences: Talking about cause and effect in narratives and warning signs. Discourse Processes56(8). 599–618. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1522913
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1522913 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kitis, Eliza
    2000 Connectives and frame theory: The case of hypotextual antinomial and. Pragmatics & Cognition8(2). 357–409. 10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.8.2.04kit [Google Scholar]
  51. Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher
    1993 Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy16(5). 437–493. 10.1007/BF00986208
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208 [Google Scholar]
  52. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 Française111. 77–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Maat, Henk Pander
    1999 The differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics10(2). 147–184. 10.1515/cogl.1999.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mak, Willem M. & Ted Sanders
    2013 The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes28(9). 1414–1437. 10.1080/01690965.2012.708423
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.708423 [Google Scholar]
  56. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1987 Rhetorical structure theory: Description and construction of text structures. InGerard Kempen (ed.), Natural language generation, 85–95. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3645‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3645-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  57. Meyer, Bonnie J. F.
    1975The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. & Roy O. Freedle
    1984 Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal21(1). 121–143. 10.3102/00028312021001121
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121 [Google Scholar]
  59. Millis, Keith K. & Marcel Adam 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]
  60. Mulder, Gerben
    2008 Understanding causal coherence relations. Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.
  61. Piaget, Jean
    1924Les mécanismes perceptifs. Modèles probabilistes, analyse génétique, relations avec l’intelligence. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2008 The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. InNicoletta Calzolari (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2961–2968. Marrakech: European Language Resources Association. Retrieved fromwww.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
    [Google Scholar]
  63. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team 2010R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved fromhttps://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/r-development-core-team-2010-r-a-language-and-environment-for-sta
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Recio Fernández, Inés María
    2020 The impact of procedural meaning on second language processing: A study on connectives. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg PhD dissertation.
  65. Roze, Charlotte, Laurence Danlos & Philippe Muller
    2012 LEXCONN: A French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours101. 10.4000/discours.8645
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.8645 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sanders, Ted
    2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InProceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (SEM’05) – Connectives, discourse framing and discourse structure: From corpus-based and experimental analyses to discourse theories, 105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sanders, Ted & Leo Noordman
    2000 The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes29(1). 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman
    1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes15(1). 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  69. Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan & Paula J. Scott
    1991 The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes14(1). 27–54. 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
  70. Spelke, Elizabeth
    1995 Initial knowledge: Six suggestions. InJacques Mehler & Susana Franck (eds.), Cognition on cognition, 433–447. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sperber, Dan, David Premack & Ann James Premack
    (eds.) 1996Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Spooren, Wilbert
    1997 The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes24(1). 149–168. 10.1080/01638539709545010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  75. Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann
    2006 Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies8(4). 567–588. 10.1177/1461445606064836
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606064836 [Google Scholar]
  76. Thompson, Ellen, Javier Collado-Isasi, Maria Omana & Amanda Yousuf
    2012 The processing of asymmetric and symmetric sentential conjunction. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS)6(4). 25.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Trabasso, Tom & Paul Van Den Broek
    1985 Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language24(5). 612–630. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90049‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90049-X [Google Scholar]
  78. Van den Broek, Paul
    1990 The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. InDavid A. Balota, G. B. Flores D’Arcais & Keith Rayner (eds.), Comprehension processes in reading, 423–445. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 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]
  80. Vendler, Zeno
    1957 Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review66(2). 143–160. 10.2307/2182371
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1998 Pragmatics and time. InRobyn Carston & Seiji Uchida (eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.03wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.03wil [Google Scholar]
  82. Zeevat, Henk & Katja Jasinskaja
    2007And as an additive particle. InMixel Aurnague, Kepa Korta & Jesus M. Larrazabal (eds.), Language, representation and reasoning: Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka, 315–340. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2014 Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives. The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics621. 121–135. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal M. Gygax
    2016 The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes53(7). 532–555. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839 [Google Scholar]
  85. Zwaan, Rolf A., Mark C. Langston & Arthur C. Graesser
    1995 The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science6(5). 292–297. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.1995.tb00513.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21001.blo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21001.blo
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