Semantic and Pragmatic relations and their intended effects

Cited by 9 other publications

Canestrelli, Anneloes R., Willem M. Mak & Ted J. M. Sanders

2013. Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28:9 ► pp. 1394 ff.

Dickins, James

2006. Disjuncts. <i>WORD</i> 57:1 ► pp. 27 ff.

Hu, Na, Aoju Chen, Hugo Quené, Ted J. M. Sanders & Federica Biassoni

2023. The role of prosody in interpreting causality in English discourse. PLOS ONE 18:6 ► pp. e0286003 ff.

Ibáñez, Romualdo, Fernando Moncada & Benjamín Cárcamo

2022. Texto escolar y comprensión. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 596 ff.

KLEIBER, GEORGES & HÉLÈNE VASSILIADOU

2009. Sur la relation d'Élaboration: des approches intuitives aux approches formelles. Journal of French Language Studies 19:2 ► pp. 183 ff.

Henk Pander Maat & Liesbeth Degand

2002. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. cogl 12:3 ► pp. 211 ff.

Henk Pander Maat & Ted Sanders

2002. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. cogl 12:3 ► pp. 247 ff.

Tanno, Koji

2022. The role of discourse strategies in the grammaticalization of the Japanese discourse markerdakara. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 ► pp. 592 ff.

WEBBER, B., M. EGG & V. KORDONI

2012. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering 18:4 ► pp. 437 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.