Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2022) ► pp.206–234

Processing clause-internal discourse relations in a second language

A case study of specifications in German and French

| University of Bern, Switzerland
| University of Louvain, Belgium
| University of Bern, Switzerland
Coherence relations are expressed differently across languages, often leading to language learners misusing discourse connectives. We argue that the ability to detect these errors crucially depends on the coherence relation under scrutiny, as errors may remain unnoticed when the relation is clause-internal and marked with a highly optional connective. We focus, therefore, on specifications, a relation that German-speaking learners sometimes struggle to correctly indicate when writing in French. We assessed whether non-native readers detect this error and show preferences for either explicit or implicit marking of specifications. Findings show that non-native speakers were generally able to detect the error in a sentence-evaluation task but did not react to it in a self-paced-reading task, contrary to native speakers. They also judged implicit specifications as more correct than explicitly marked specifications. We conclude that non-native speakers do not always benefit from connectives during text processing, especially when they are highly optional.
Keywords: discourse coherence, specifications, connectives, online processing, offline judgment task
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research background
  • 3.Current study
    • 3.1Experiment 1: Sentence Evaluation Task
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Results
        • Lextale scores
      • 3.1.5Discussion
    • 3.2Experiment 2: Self-paced reading task
      • 3.2.1Participants
      • 3.2.2Materials
      • 3.2.3Procedure
      • 3.2.4Results
        • Native speakers
          • Segment 3
          • Segment 4
          • Segment 5
        • Non-native speakers
          • Segment 3, 4, 5
        • Lextale Scores
      • 3.2.5Discussion
    • 3.3General discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21032.wet
References (58)
References
Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger. (Ed.), Learner English on Computer, (pp.80–93). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asr, F. T., & Demberg, V. (2012a). Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING 2012 : Technical Papers (pp. 2669-2684). Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
(2012b). Measuring the Strength of Linguistic Cues for Discourse Relations. In 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 33-42). Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. ArXiv:1406.5823 [Stat]. Retrieved from [URL]
Blakemore, D. (1993). The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature, 2 (2), 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7 (2), 165–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bras, M., Draoulec, A. L., & Asher, N. (2009). A Formal Analysis of the French Temporal Connective alors . Oslo Studies in Language, 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2013). Lextale_FR a fast, free, and efficient test to measure language proficiency in French. Psychologica Belgica, 53 (1), 23–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, J. (2020). Online processing and offline judgments of L2-English articles. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (12), 564–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44 (4), 316–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., Wetzel, M., & Zufferey, S. (2021). Lexical and structural cues to discourse processing in first and second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students? Journal of Research in Reading, 36 (3), 241–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. -J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (7), 1069–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal Negro, S., & Fiorentini, I. (2014). Reformulation in bilingual speech: Italian cioè in German and Ladin. Journal of Pragmatics, 74 1, 94–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, D. (2014). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse [Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby]. Institutional Repository SFU. Retrieved from [URL]
Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). RST Signalling Corpus: A corpus of signals of coherence relations. Language Resources and Evaluation, 52(1), 149–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and writing, 15 (7), 739–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., & Hadermann, P. (2009). Structure narrative et connecteurs temporels en français langue seconde. In Représentations du sens linguistique IV (Vol. 781, pp. 19–34). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Del Saz Rubio, M., & Fraser, B. (2003). Reformulation in English. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from [URL]
Ellis, R. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Modelling Learning Difficulty and Second Language Proficiency: The Differential Contributions of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (3), 431–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, Y., & Yip, O. Y. L. M. (1992). A Comparison of Internal Conjunctive Cohesion in the English Essay Writing of Cantonese Speakers and Native Speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23 (1), 15–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2018). An R Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15 (1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haastrup, K. (1989). The learner as word processor. In: Nation, I. S., & Carter, R. (Eds.). Vocabulary acquisition (pp.34–46). Amsterdam: AILA Review.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hartnett. (1986). Static and dynamic cohesion: Signals of thinking in writing. Functional Approaches to Writing. Research Perspectives, London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2013). The TenTen Corpus Family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL 2013 . Lancaster, 2013. p. 125–127. Retrieved from [URL]
Janke, V., & Kolokonte, M. (2015). False cognates: The effect of mismatch in morphological complexity on a backward lexical translation task. Second Language Research, 31 (2), 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2013). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies. Milton Park: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2021). Studies of Bilingual Processing Presented to Kenneth I. Forster. Special Issue. Journal of Second Language Studies 4 (2). 200–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanno, Y. (1989). The Use of Connectives in English Academic Papers Written by Japanese Students. MITA Working Papers in Psycholinguistics,Volume2, Volume 2. Retrieved from [URL]
Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2019). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In MT summit, 51, 79–86.Google Scholar
Komsta, L., & Novomestky, F. (2015). Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R package version, 14 1. Retrieved from [URL]
Lamiroy, B. (1994). Pragmatic connectives and L2 acquisition: The case of French and Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 4 (2), 183–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2018). Package ‘lsmeans’. The American Statistician, 34 (4), 216–221.s. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyu, S., Tu, J. -Y., & Lin, C. -J. C. (2020). Processing Plausibility in Concessive and Causal Relations: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Eye-Tracking. Discourse Processes, 57 (4), 320–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1994). Logical connectives and local coherence. In: R. F. Lorch & E. 1. O’Brien. (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 107–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008, May). The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08) (pp. 2961-2968). Retrieved from [URL]
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51 (1), 195–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning (pp. 105–114). Toulouse: University of Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Scholman, M. C. J., Demberg, V., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2020). Individual differences in expecting coherence relations: Exploring the variability in sensitivity to contextual signals in discourse. Discourse Processes, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, M., & Umbach, C. (1998, August). DiMLex: A lexicon of discourse markers for text generation and understanding. In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 2 1 (pp. 1238–1242). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English–preliminary results. The Department of English: Working Papers in English Linguistics, 5 1, 116–144. Retrieved from [URL]
Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(4), 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Bosch, L. J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Online processing of causal relations in beginning first and second language readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 61 1, 59–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, M., Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2020). Second Language Acquisition and the Mastery of Discourse Connectives: Assessing the Factors That Hinder L2-Learners from Mastering French Connectives. Languages, 5 (3), 35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, X., Chen, Q., Panther, K.-U., & Wu, Y. (2018). 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
Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. M. (2017). Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-Function Mapping in L2: The Case of French “En Effet.” Frontiers in Psychology, 8 1, 1198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research, 31 (3), 389–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2020). “Roger Broke His Tooth. <However> , He Went to the Dentist”: Why Some Readers Struggle to Evaluate Wrong (and Right) Uses of Connectives. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 184–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wetzel, Mathis, Ekaterina Tskhovrebova, Pascal M. Gygax & Sandrine Zufferey
2023. Pragmatic and syntactic constraints on French causal connectives: An evaluation of native and non-native speakers’ sensitivity. Journal of Pragmatics 209 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Lei, Ying Xiong & Qi Chen
2023. The role of linguistic and cognitive skills in reading Chinese as a second language: A path analysis modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.