Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 299–318

Chapter 11
Subjectivity of English connectives

A corpus and experimental investigation of result forward causality signals in written language

 | Stockholm University
The current study sets out to investigate naturally produced English causal relations from the point of view of conceptual and linguistic features that contribute to their intended interpretations as Volitional or Non-volitional result. These features include two discourse connectives: as a result and for this reason and the extent of the overlap between the semantic information they encode and the relation type they mark.
The paper reports on a mixed-method approach combining a corpus investigation of result in the British National Corpus (BNC) and two opinion-asking experiments conducted via the crowdsourcing marketplace – Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). The findings demonstrate that despite their functional flexibility across different causal categories, English resultative connectives show tendencies significant to mark specific coherence relations. The converging methodology proves that expert linguistic intuitions are shared by ordinary language users and their notion of differences between causal event types.
Keywords: causal relations, crowdsourcing, discourse connectives, subjectivity, volition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Corpus study
    • 2.1Material and methods
      • 2.1.1Coding for result relation types
    • 2.2Results
  • 3.Experimental study
    • 3.1Sentence completion task for obtaining stereotypical instances of Volitional and Non-volitional result
    • 3.2Experiment 1: Testing the effect of an SoC and the connective presence on the relation identification
      • 3.2.1Method
      • 3.2.2Results
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.11and
References (29)
References
Andersson, Marta. 2016. “The Architecture of Result Relations. Corpus and Experimental Approaches to Result Coherence Relations in English.” Unpublished PhD diss., Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Andersson, Marta, and Jennifer Spenader. 2014. “Result and Purpose Relations With and Without so.” Lingua 148: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. (1955[1962]) 1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1989. “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9: 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callison-Burch, Chris, and Mark Dredze. 2010. “Creating speech and language data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Proceedings of the NAACL HT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Association for Computational Linguistics. Los Angeles. 1–12.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Henk Pander Maat. 2003. “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, ed. by Arie Verhagen, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasinskaja, Ekaterina. 2009. “Pragmatics and Prosody of Implicit Discourse Relations.” Unpublished Phd. diss., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Ted Sanders. 1998. “The Classification of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, Fang. 2014. “Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese. The Meaning and Use of Causal Connectives in Written Discourse.” Unpublished PhD diss., University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao, and Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, and Liesbeth Degand. 2001. “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, and Ted Sanders. 2001. “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 247–273.Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sanders, José, Ted J. M. Sanders, and Eve Sweetser. 2012. “Responsible subjects and discourse causality. How mental spaces and perspective help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., and Wilbert P. M. Spooren. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Scholman, Merel, and Vera Demberg. 2017. “Crowdsourcing discourse interpretations: On the influence of context and the reliability of the connective insertion task.” In Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, Valencia, Spain: 24–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert. 1997. “The processing of underspecified coherence relations.” Discourse Processes. 24(1): 149–168.Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted J. M. Sanders 2009. “Another(’s) Perspective on Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: a Usage-based Analysis of Volitional Causal Relations.” Discourse, Linearization and Segmentation in Discourse (Special issue) 4: 1–33.Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted J. M. Sanders 2012. “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2006. “Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 38(4): 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked, and Linda M. Moxey. 1997. “Processing Causal and Diagnostic Statements in Discourse.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23 (1): 88–101.Google Scholar
Trnavac, Radoslava, and Maite Taboada. 2012. “The Contribution of Nonveridical Rhetorical Relations to Evaluation in Discourse.” Language Sciences 34: 301–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Anja. 2009. Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin/New York: Mounton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, and Bruno Cartoni. 2012. “English and French Causal Connectives in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast 12(2): 232–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Crible, Ludivine
2022. Studying Discourse from Corpus and Experimental Data: Bridging the Methodological Gap. Discours :30 DOI logo
Xiao, Hongling, Roeland W. N. M. van Hout, Ted J. M. Sanders & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
2021. A cognitive account of subjectivity put to the test: using an insertion task to investigate Mandarin result connectives. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 671 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 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.