Cover not available
Article published In:
Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains: Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches
Edited by Matthias Klumm, Anita Fetzer and Evelien Keizer
[Functions of Language 30:1] 2023
► pp. 110–135

Adjustment, mismatches and accommodation of procedural and conceptual meaning

Experimental evidence around connectives

ORCID logo | Heidelberg University
ORCID logo | Heidelberg University
| Heidelberg University
This contribution aims to set out the effects of discourse marking on processing. On the basis of examples from Spanish, we try to show the principles governing the interplay between the procedural meaning of discourse markers (connectives) and the conceptual meaning of the discourse segments linked by them. To determine these principles, two types of experiments were performed: one comparing marked and unmarked utterances, and a second one comparing utterances that activate mental representations that pragmatically match or clash with the instruction encoded by the connective. Evidence shows that (a) discourse marking by means of a connective generates a new route for accessing information; (b) procedural meaning is a definitory feature of connectives; (c) the procedural meaning of connectives introduces asymmetry and rigidity into discourse as to conceptual meanings; (d) in mismatches between the assumption activated by the instructions of a connective and mind-stored assumptions, accommodation processes may take place, which are effortful but seek to guarantee the retrieval of cognitive effects from the utterance.
Keywords: discourse processing, eye-tracking, discourse markers, causality, counter-argumentation, addition
Article outline
  • 1.Procedural meaning, connectives and the construction of discourse
  • 2.Continuous and discontinuous discourse relations: Causal, additive and counter-argumentative connectives in Spanish
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Materials and design
    • 3.2Eye movement measures
    • 3.3Participants
    • 3.4Apparatus and procedure
    • 3.5Data preparation and outlier handling
    • 3.6Statistical treatment
  • 4.The impact of marking discourse: Results and discussion
  • 5.Managing mismatches in argumentative relations: Results and discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22020.rec
References (77)
References
Arunachalam, Sudha. 2013. Experimental methods for linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(4). 221–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg. 2012. Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In Eva 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
Baayen, Rolf, Douglas Davidson & Douglas Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subject and items. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–541. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1989. Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but . Linguistics and Philosophy 12(1). 15–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 1161. 1670–1687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio, Salvador Pons & José Portolés. 2008. Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español. ([URL]; last access: 12/08/2022).
Canestrelli, Anneloes, Willem Mak & Ted Sanders. 2013. Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(9). 1394–1413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrol, Garrit & Kathy Conklin. 2004. Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research 7(5). 1–11.Google Scholar
Conklin, Kathy, Ana Pellicer-Sánchez & Gareth Carrol. 2018. Eye-tracking. A guide for applied linguistic research. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuello, Carlos. 2022. Psycholinguistic correlates of grammaticalization of discourse markers: Analysis of a consecutive subparadigm through eye-tracking. Heidelberg/Valencia: Universität Heidelberg/Universitat de València PhD Thesis.
Cunnings, Ian. 2012. An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research 28(3). 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, Carmen. 2011. On the status of procedural meaning in natural language. In María Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 33–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vega, Manuel. 2005. El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva 171. 85–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Ted Sanders. 2002. The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing 15(7–8). 739–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 1998. On classifying connectives and coherence relations. In Manfred Stede, Leo Wanner & Eduard Hovy (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, 29–35. Montréal: Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria & Manuel Leonetti. 2011. On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In María Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 81–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern (eds.). 2011. Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria. 2017. Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 79–95. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern. 2020. Pragmática. Madrid: AKAL.Google Scholar
Fahrmeier, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang & Brian Marx. 2013. Regression. models, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Garrido, Joaquín. 2007. Relaciones de discurso. Pandora: Revue d’Etudes Hispaniques 71. 305–332.Google Scholar
Guillén, Diego. 2021. Experimental analysis of the processing schemas of counter-argumentation and anaphoric substitution signaled by the Spanish connective a pesar de ello . Heidelberg: Heidelberg University PhD Thesis.
Haberlandt, Karl. 1982. Reader expectations in text comprehension. In Jean-Francois Le Ny & Walter Kintsch (eds.), Language and comprehension, 239–250. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoek, Jet & Sandrine Zufferey. 2015. Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In Harry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), 39–45. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka & Joost van de Weijer. 2011. Eye-tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleijn, Suzanne, Henk Pander Maat & Ted Sanders. 2019. Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes 56(5–6). 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köhne, Judith & Vera Demberg. 2013. The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In Markus Knauff, Michael Pauen, Natalie Sebanz & Ipke Wachsmuth (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2760–2765. Berlin: the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Brockhoff & Rune Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0–32. ([URL]; last access: 12/08/2022).
Leonetti, Manuel & María Victoria Escandell-Vidal. 2004. Conceptual semantics/procedural semantics. In Milka Villayandre Llamazares (ed.), Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General: León 5–8 March 2002, 1727–1738. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
. 2012. El significado procedimental: Rutas hacia una idea. In José Luis Mendívil Giró & María del Carmen Horno Chéliz (eds.), La sabiduría de Mnemósine. Ensayos de historia de la lingüística ofrecidos a José Francisco Val Álvaro, 157–167. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Loureda, Óscar & Esperanza Acín Villa (eds.). 2010. Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Loureda, Óscar, Adriana Cruz, Inés Recio & Martha Rudka. 2021. Comunicación, partículas discursivas y pragmática experimental. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia & José Portolés. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. III1, 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle, Eileen Kintsch, Nancy Songer & Walter Kintsch. 1996. Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 141. 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millis, Keith & Marcel Just. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 33(1). 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moncada, Fernando. 2018. Interaction between connectives and previous knowledge in the processing of causal coherence. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 761. 179–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montolío, Estrella. 2001. Conectores de la lengua escrita. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Murillo, Silvia. 2010. Los marcadores del discurso y su semántica. In Óscar Loureda & Esperanza Acín (eds.), Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, 241–280. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition 25(2). 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nadal, Laurai. 2019. Lingüística experimental y contraargumentación: Un estudio del conector del español sin embargo. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narváez, Elisa. 2019. Causality and its processing paths: An experimental study of Spanish por tanto . Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg PhD Thesis.
Nicolle, Steve. 2015. Diachronic change in procedural semantic content. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 321. 133–148.Google Scholar
Noordman, Leo & Wietske Vonk. 1998. Discourse comprehension. In Angela Friederici (ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective, 229–262. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Liesbeth Degand. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 211–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin & Matthew Traxler. 2009. Parsing and incremental understanding during reading. In Matthew Crocker, Martin Pickering, & Charles Clifton (eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing, 238–258. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin, Matthew Traxler & Matthew Crocker. 2000. Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 43(3). 447–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 1998. Conexión y conectores: Estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Valencia: Universitat de València PhD Thesis.
Portolés, José, Eugenia Sáinz & Silvia Murillo. 2020. Partículas discursivas e instrucciones de procesamiento. In María Victoria Escandell-Vidal, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 284–303.Google Scholar
Portolés, José. 2001[1998]. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing ([URL]).
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124(3). 372–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(8). 1457–1506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recio Fernández, Inés. 2020. The impact of procedural meaning in L2-processing: A study on connectives. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg PhD Thesis.
Reichle, Erik, Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek. 2003. The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Science 26(4). 445–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Esther & Belén Soria. 2020. The conceptual adjustment of lexical meaning. In María Victoria Escandell-Vidal, José Amenós & Aoife Ahern (eds.), 125–145.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Michel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar
Segal, Erwin, Duchan, Judith & Paula J. Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 141, 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thome, Sarah. 2018. Additive Konnektoren mit argumentativer Funktion. Eine experimentelle Studie zu sp. además und it. inoltre. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg master thesis.
Traxler, Matthew, Michael Bybee & Martin Pickering. 1997. Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50(3). 481–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted Sanders. 2015. Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes 52(1). 47–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, Daniela Mertzen, Lena Jäger & Andrew Gelman. 2018. The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. Journal of Memory and Language 1031. 151–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 901. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2017. Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. University of Bristol: Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Ming & Gina Kuperberg. 2015. Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(6). 648–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Xiaodong, Qingrong Chen, Klaus-Uwe Panther & Yicheng Wu. 2017. Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes 55(4). 387–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zunino, Gabriela, Valeria Abusamra & Alejandro Raiter. 2012. Causalidad: Relación entre conocimiento del mundo y conocimiento lingüístico. Pragmalingüística 201. 200–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zunino, Gabriela. 2014. Cognitive perspectives on discourse processing: Causality and counter-causality. Signos Lingüísticos 101. 154–171.Google Scholar
. 2016. Comprensión y producción de causalidad y contracausalidad: Distinciones en función del proceso subyacente y efectos de la escolarización formal. Onomázein 341. 132–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar