Subjectivity in Spanish causal connectives

References

1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
   1984 Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
   https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
2. Belova, Olga, Ian King, and Martyna Sliwa
   2008 “Introduction: Polyphony and organization studies: Mikhail Bakhtin and beyond.” Organization Studies29 (4): 493–500. 10.1177/0170840608088696
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608088696 [Google Scholar]
3. Canestrelli, Anneloes, Willem M. Mak and Ted Sanders
   2013 “Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing: How Differences in Subjectivity are Reflected in Eye Movements.” Language and Cognitive processes9: 1394–1413. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
4. Cassany, Daniel
   1996 La cocina de la escritura. Barcelona: Anagrama.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Cresswell, Max
   1985 Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie
   2004 “Les conjonctions de subordination: mots de grammaire ou mots du discours? Le cas de parce que.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique15–16: 51–67.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Degand, Liesbeth
   1996 “Causation in Dutch and French: Interpersonal Aspects.” InFunctional Descriptions: Theory in Practiceed. byRuqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David G. Butt, 207–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.121.08deg
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.121.08deg [Google Scholar]
8. Degand, Liesbeth and Benjamin Fagard
   2012 “Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain: French ‘car’ and ‘parce que’.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (2): 154–168. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009 [Google Scholar]
9. Degand, Liesbeth and Henk Pander Maat
   2003 “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” LOT Occasional Series1:175–199.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fuentes, Catalina
    2009 Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann
    1997 “Two Decades of Structure Building.” Discourse Processes23(3): 265–304. 10.1080/01638539709544994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544994 [Google Scholar]
12. Goethals, Patrick
    2002 Las conjunciones causales explicativas españolas “como”, “ya que”, “pues” y “porque”: un studio semiótico-lingüístico. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Hasegawa, Yoko
    2014 Japanese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hyland, Ken
    2001 “Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes40: 207–226. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(00)00012‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0 [Google Scholar]
16. Hyland, Ken
    2008 “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines.” Language Teaching41: 543–562. 10.1017/S0261444808005235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235 [Google Scholar]
17. Ibáñez, Romualdo and Fernando Moncada
    2017 “El resumen de artículos de investigación científica: variación disciplinar a nivel local y global.” Spanish in Context14: 273–308. 10.1075/sic.14.2.06iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.14.2.06iba [Google Scholar]
18. Ibáñez, Romualdo, Fernando Moncada and Andrea Santana
    2015 “Variación disciplinar en el discurso académico de la Biología y del Derecho: un estudio a partir de las relaciones de coherencia.” Onomazein32: 101–131. 10.7764/onomazein.32.6
    https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.32.6 [Google Scholar]
19. Langacker, Ronald
    1990 “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics1: 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
20. Langacker, Ronald
    2003 “Extreme Subjectification: English Tense and Modals.” InMotivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günther Raddened. byHubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 3–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.05lan [Google Scholar]
21. Levshina, Natalia and Liesbeth Degand
    2017 “Just Because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives.” Dialogues and Discourse8 (1): 132–150.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Li, Fang
    2014 Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese. The Meaning and Use of Causal Connectives in Written Discourse. PhD dissertation. Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.
23. Li, Fang, Ted Sanders and Jaqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2016 “On the Subjectivity of Mandarin Reason Connectives: Robust Profiles or Genre-sensitivity?” InGenre in Language, Discourse and Cognitioned. byNinke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren, and Gerard Steen, 15–50. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Livnat, Zohar
    2010 “Impersonality and Grammatical Metaphors in Scientific Discourse.” The Rhetorical Perspective41: 103–119.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Lopes, Ana
    2009 “Justification: A Coherence Relation.” Pragmatics19 (2): 241–252. 10.1075/prag.19.2.05lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.2.05lop [Google Scholar]
26. Mann, William and Sandra Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text8 (3): 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
27. Martí-Sánchez, Manuel
    2008 Los marcadores en español L/E: conectores discursivos y operadores pragmáticos. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
28. McHugh, Mary
    2012 “Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic.” Biochemia Medica22 (3): 276–282. 10.11613/BM.2012.031
    https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 [Google Scholar]
29. Muñoz-Torres, Juan Ramón
    2007 “Underlying Epistemological Conceptions in Journalism.” Journalism Studies8(2): 224–47. 10.1080/14616700601148838
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700601148838 [Google Scholar]
30. Okamura, Akiko and Philip Shaw
    2014 “Development of Academic Journal Abstracts in Relation to the Demands of Stakeholders”. InAbstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Changeed. byMarina Bondi, and Rosa Lorés-Sanz, 287–318. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Pander Maat, Henk and Ted Sanders
    2001 “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive linguistics12: 247–273.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Pander Maat, Henk and Liesbeth Degand
    2001 “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics12 (3): 211–245.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pit, Mirna
    2003 How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Pit, Mirna
    2007 “Cross-linguistic Analyses of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French.” Languages in contrast7: 53–82. 10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit [Google Scholar]
35. Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA)
    Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA) [online]. Corpus de Referencia del español actual. www.rae.es [AccessedJune, 2017]
    [Google Scholar]
36. Sanders, Ted
    1997 “Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context.” Discourse Processes24(1): 119–147. 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
37. Sanders, Ted and Morton Ann Gernsbacher
    2004 “Accessibility in Text and Discourse Processing.” Discourse Processes37:79–89. 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1 [Google Scholar]
38. Sanders, Ted, and Henk Pander Maat
    2006 “Cohesion and coherence.” InEncyclopedia of language and linguisticsed. byK. Brown, Vol.2, 591–59. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00497‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00497-1 [Google Scholar]
39. Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren
    2007 “Discourse and text structure.” InThe Oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsed. byD. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, 916–943. Oxford: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Sanders, Ted and Wilbert Spooren
    2009 “Causal Categories in Discourse – Converging Evidence from Language Use.” InCausal Categories in Discourse and Cognitioned. byTed Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 205–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.205 [Google Scholar]
41. Sanders, Ted and Ninke Stukker
    2012 “Causal Connectives in Discourse: A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics44(2): 131–137. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
42. Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman
    1993 “Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation.” Cognitive Linguistics4: 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
43. Santana-Covarrubias, Andrea, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen, Wilbert Spooren and Ted Sanders
    2017 “Causality and subjectivity in Spanish connectives.” Discours20: 3–37.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Samraj, Betty
    2008 “A Discourse Analysis of Master’s Theses across Disciplines with a Focus on Introductions.” Journal of English for Specific Purposes7: 55–67. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005 [Google Scholar]
45. Simon, Anne and Liesbeth Degand
    2007 “Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car iet de parce que. [Causality connectors, speaker involvement and prosodic profiles: the case of ‘car iet’ and ‘parce que’].” French Language Studies17 (3): 323–341. 10.1017/S095926950700302X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926950700302X [Google Scholar]
46. Spooren, Wilbert and Ted Sanders
    2008 “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 2003–2026. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
47. Stukker, Ninke, Ted Sanders and Arie Verhagen
    2008 “Causality in Verbs and in Discourse Connectives. Converging Evidence of Cross-level Parallels in Dutch Linguistic Categorizations.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 1296–1322. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
48. Swales, John
    1990 Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
50. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjetification: A reassessment.” InSubjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Topics in English Linguisticsed. byKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
51. van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders
    2015 “Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts.” Discourse Processes, 52(1): 47–76. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237 [Google Scholar]
52. Vásquez, Fernando
    2005 Pregúntele al Ensayista. [Ask the essay writer]. Bogotá: Kimpres.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Wahl-Jorgansen, Karin
    2012 Subjectivity and story-telling in journalism: Examining expressions of affect, judgement and appreciation in Pullitzer Prize-winning stories. Journalism Studies14(3): 305–320. 10.1080/1461670X.2012.713738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.713738 [Google Scholar]
54. Zorraquino, Martín and Lázaro Portolés
    1999 Los marcadores del discurso. InGramática descriptive de la lengua español, ed. byIgnacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 4051–4214. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Zufferey, Sandrine and Bruno Cartoni
    2014 “A Multifactorial Analysis of Explication in Translation.” Target26 (3): 361–384. 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]
56. Zufferey, Sandrine and Pascal Gygax
    2017 “Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-function Mapping in L2. The case of French ‘En Effet’.” Frontiers in Psychology8: 1–11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198 [Google Scholar]
57. Zufferey, Sandrine, Willem Mak, Sara Verbrugge and Ted Sanders
    2017 “Usage and Processing of the French Causal Connectives ‘car’ and ‘parce que’.” Journal of French Language Studies3: 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]