Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Causal relations between sentences differ in terms of subjectivity: they can be objective (based on facts) or subjective (based on reasoning). Subjective relations lead to longer reading times than objective relations. Causal connectives differ in the degree to which they encode this subjectivity. The Chinese connectives ‘so’ and ‘so’ specify a high and low degree of subjectivity, respectively, whereas ‘so’ is underspecified for subjectivity. In an eye-tracking experiment we compare the effect of the specificity of these connectives in subjective and objective relations. In objective relations, the specificity of the connective has no effect on reading times. In subjective relations, reading times are shorter in sentences with the specified connective than in sentences with the underspecified connective . These results suggest that readers prefer to interpret a relation as objective. Computing subjective relations requires extra processing time, which is diminished when the connective encodes the subjectivity.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2011) LanguageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics”. R package version 1.4.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. H. , Davidson, D. J. , & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D. , Maechler, M. , & Bolker, B.
    (2012) Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Canestrelli, A. R.
    (2013) Small words, big effects?: Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht: LOT. Available online: www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/325_fulltext.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Canestrelli, A. R. , Mak, W. M. , & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013) Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (1996) Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because . Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Cozijn, R.
    (2000) Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dancygier, B.
    (2009) Causes and consequences: Evidence from Polish, English, and Dutch. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.91–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110224429.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.91 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. De Smet, H. , & Verstraete, J. C.
    (2006) Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Evers-Vermeul, J.
    (2005) The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/110_fulltext.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Evers-Vermeul, J. , Degand, L. , Fagard, B. , & Mortier, L.
    (2011) Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics, 49(2), 445–478. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  15. Evers-Vermeul, J. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2009) The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–854. doi: 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2011) Discovering domains: On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645–1662. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fauconnier, G.
    (1998) Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.251–279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ford, C. E.
    (1993) Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haberlandt, K. F.
    (1982) Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp.239–249). Amsterdam: North-Holland. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keller, R.
    (1995) The epistemic ‘weil’. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp.16–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kintsch, W.
    (1988) Role of knowledge in discourse comprehension. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  23. Knott, A. , & Dale, R.
    (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35–62. doi: 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  24. Knott, A. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135–175. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  25. Koornneef, A. W. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2013) Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169–1206. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076 [Google Scholar]
  26. Koornneef, A. W. , & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006) On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445–465. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, F.
    (2014) Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese: The meaning and use of causal connectives in written discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/365_fulltext.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, F. , Evers-Vermeul, J. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2013) Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin: A corpus-based investigation. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1), 74–119. doi: 10.1075/cld.4.1.03li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.4.1.03li [Google Scholar]
  29. Mak, W. M. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2013) The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1414–1437. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.708423
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.708423 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mann, W. C. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1986) Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57–90. doi: 10.1080/01638538609544632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544632 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, J. R.
    (1992) English texts: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  33. McEnery, T. , & Xiao, R.
    (2004) The Lancaster corpus of Mandarin Chinese. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Millis, K. K. , & Just, M. A.
    (1994) The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–147. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Moeschler, J.
    (1989) Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence and relevance. Argumentation, 3, 321–339. doi: 10.1007/BF00128944
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128944 [Google Scholar]
  36. Murray, J. D.
    (1997) Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  37. Noordman, L. G. M. , & de Blijzer, F.
    (2000) On the processing of causal relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219043.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  38. Noordman, L. G. M. , & Vonk, W.
    (1997) The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp.75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pander Maat, H. , & Degand, L.
    (2001) Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of Speaker Involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 211–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pander Maat, H. , & Sanders, T.
    (2001) Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 247–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pit, M.
    (2003) How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  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.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rutherford, W.
    (1970) Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language, 46(1), 97–115. doi: 10.2307/412410
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412410 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sanders, J. , Sanders, T. J. M. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2012) Responsible subjects and discourse causality: How mental spaces and connectives help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 191–213. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanders, T. J. M. (1997) Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119–147. doi: 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2005) Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague , M. Bras , A. L. Draoulec , & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning SEM-05 (pp.31–46). Toulouse, France: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sanders, T. J. M. , Sanders, J. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.19–59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanders, T. J. M. , & Spooren, W.
    (2009) Causal categories in discourse: Converging evidence from language use. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.205–246). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110224429.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.205 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sanders, T. J. M. , & Spooren, W. P. M.
    (2015) Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1), 53–92. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0034 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sanders, T. J. M. , Spooren, W. P. M. , & Noordman, L. G. M.
    (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1993) Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  54. Shen, J.
    (2003) Compound sentences in three conceptual domains: Acting, knowing, and uttering. Chinese Language, 3, 195–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sperber, D. , Clément, F. , Heintz, C. , Mascaro, O. , Mercier, H. , Origgi, G. , & Wilson, D.
    (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Spooren, W. P. M. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2008) The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2003–2026. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  57. Spooren, W. , Sanders, T. , Huiskes, M. , & Degand, L.
    (2010) Subjectivity and causality: A corpus study of spoken language. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp.256–270). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stukker, N. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2012) Causal connectives in discourse: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stukker, N. , Sanders, T. J. M. , & Verhagen, A.
    (2008) Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1296–1322. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sweetser, E. E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tao, H.
    (2007) Subjectification and the development of special-verb existential/presentative constructions. Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 575–602.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Traugott, E. C.
    (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Lingustic perspectives (pp.31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  63. Traxler, M. J. , Bybee, M. D. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (1997a) Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 481–497. doi: 10.1080/027249897391982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982 [Google Scholar]
  64. Traxler, M. J. , Sanford, A. J. , Aked, J. P. , & Moxey, L. M.
    (1997b) Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. van Dijk, T. A. (1979) Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  66. van Veen, R.
    (2011) The acquisition of causal connectives: The role of parental input and cognitive complexity. Ph.D. dissertation. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/286_fulltext.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Xing, F.
    (2001) Hanyu fuju yanjiu [A study of Chinese complex sentences]. Beijing: Commercial Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Zufferey, S.
    (2012) ‘Car, parce que, puisque’ revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 138–153. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): causal connectives; discourse processing; eye-tracking; subjectivity
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