In this paper, we aim to enhance our understanding about the processing of implicit and explicit temporal
chronological relations by investigating the roles of temporal connectives and verbal tenses, separately and in interaction. In
particular, we investigate how two temporal connectives (ensuite and puis, both meaning ‘then’)
and two verbal tenses expressing past time (the simple and compound past) act as processing instructions for chronological
relations in French. Theoretical studies have suggested that the simple past encodes the instruction to relate events
sequentially, unlike the more flexible compound past, which does not. Using an online experiment with a self-paced reading task,
we show that these temporal connectives facilitate the processing of chronological relations when they are expressed with both
verbal tenses, and that no significant difference is found between the two verbal tenses, nor between the two connectives. By
means of an offline experiment with an evaluation task, we find, contrary to previous studies, that comprehenders prefer
chronological relations to be overtly marked rather than implicitly expressed, and prefer to use the connective
puis in particular. Furthermore, comprehenders prefer it when these relations are expressed using the
compound past, rather than the simple past. Instead of using the continuity hypothesis (Segal et al. 1991, Murray 1997) to explain the processing of
temporal relations, we conclude that a more accurate explanation considers a cluster of factors including linguistic knowledge
(connectives, tenses, grammatical and lexical aspect) and world knowledge.
Aménos-Pons, José. 2011. Cross-linguistic variation in procedural expressions: Semantics and pragmatics. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 235–266. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg. 2012. Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING, 2669–2684. Mumbai.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane. 1988. ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Ruth Kempson (ed.), Mental representation: The interface between language and reality, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blochowiak, Joanna. 2014. A theoretical approach to the quest for understanding: Semantics and pragmatics of “whys” and “becauses”. Genève: Université de Genève dissertation.
Blochowiak, Joanna, & Thomas Castelain. 2018. How logical is natural language conjunction? An experimental investigation of the French conjunction ‘et’. In Pierre Saint Germier (ed.), Language, evolution and mind: Essays in honour of Anne Reboul, 97–126. London: Tributes Collection, College Publications.
Bras, Myriam, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu. 2001. French adverbial puis between temporal structure and discourse structure. In Myriam Bras & Laure Vieu (eds.), Semantic and pragmatic issues in discourse and dialogue: Experimenting with current theories, 109–146. CRiSPI: Elsevier.
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1922. La pensée et la langue: Méthode, principes et plan d’une théorie nouvelle du langage appliquée au français. Paris: Masson.
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). 1394–1413.
Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cozijn, Reinier, Leo G. M. Noordman & Wietske Vonk. 2011. Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes 48(7). 475–500.
Dowty, David R.1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics?Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1). 37–61.
Ferretti, Todd R., Hannah Rohde, Andrew Kehler & Melanie Crutchley. 2009. Verb aspect, event structure, and coreferential processing. Journal of Memory and Language 61(2). 191–205.
Field, Andy. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
Frank, Austin F. & T. Florian Jaeger. 2008. Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 301. 939–944.
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2006. English then and Norwegian da/så compared: A relevance-theoretic account. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(1). 45–93.
Gosselin, Laurent. 2007. Les séquences de connecteurs temporels: Ordre et informativité des constituants. Cahiers Chronos 181. 47–68.
Grevisse, Maurice. 1980. Le bon usage, 11th ed. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.
Grisot, Cristina. 2015. Temporal reference: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Converging evidence from English and Romance. Geneva: University of Geneva dissertation.
Grisot, Cristina. 2018. Cohesion, coherence and temporal reference from an experimental corpus pragmatics perspective. Cham: Springer. Open Access: [URL].
Grisot, Cristina & Jacques Moeschler. 2014. How do empirical methods interact with theoretical pragmatics? The conceptual and procedural contents of the English Simple Past and its translation into French. In Jésus Romero-Trillo (ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms, 7–33. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Haberlandt, Karl. 1982. Reader expectations in text comprehension. In Jean-François Le Ny & Walter Kintsch (eds.), Language and language comprehension, 239–249. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1995. Puis in spoken French: From time adjunct to additive conjunct?Journal of French Language Studies 5(1). 31–56.
Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1). 63–82.
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2017. Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 1211. 113–131.
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23–62.
Kamp, Hans. 1979. Events, instants and temporal reference. In Rainer Bauerle, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Semantics from different points of view, 376–418. Amsterdam: Springer.
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Amsterdam: Springer.
Kamp, Hans & Christian Rohrer. 1983. Tense in texts. In Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 250–269. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kozlowska, Monika. 1996. Ensuite et l’ordre temporel. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 181. 243–274.
Kozlowska, Monica. 1998. Bornage, télicité et ordre temporel. In Jacques Moeschler, Jacques Jayez, Jean-Marc Luscher, Louis de Saussure, & Bertrand Sthioul (eds.), Le temps des événements, 221–244. Paris: Kimé.
Le Draoulec, Anne & Myriam Bras. 2006. Quelques candidats au statut de connecteur temporel. Cahiers de Grammaire 301. 219–237.
Levinson, Stephen C.2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Magliano, Joseph P. & Michelle C. Schleich. 2000. Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes 29(2). 83–112.
Mak, Willem M. & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2013. The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(9). 1414–1437.
Millis, Keith K. & Marcel A. Just. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 33(1). 128–147.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2000a. Le modèle des inférences directionnelles. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 221. 57–100.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2000b. L’ordre temporel est-il naturel? In Jacques Moeschler & Marie-José Béguelin (eds.), Référence temporelle et nominale, 71–105. Bern: Peter Lang.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2002. Economy and pragmatic optimality: The case of directional inferences. Generative Grammar Geneva 31. 1–20.
Moeschler, Jacques, Jacques Jayez, Monika Kozlowska, Jean-Marc Luscher, Louis de Saussure & Bertrand Sthioul. 1998. Le temps des événements: Pragmatique de la référence temporelle. Paris: Kimé.
Mozuraitis, Mindaugas, Craig G. Chambers & Meredyth Daneman. 2013. Younger and older adults’ use of verb aspect and world knowledge in the online interpretation of discourse. Discourse Processes 50(1). 1–22.
Murray, John D.1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition 25(2). 227–236.
Nicolle, Steve. 1998. A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1). 1–35.
Noveck, Ira A. & Anne Reboul. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(11). 425–431.
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 601–609.
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie L. Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation. Marrakech.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Reyle, Uwe. 1998. A note on enumerations and the semantics of “puis” and “alors”. Cahiers de Grammaire 231. 67–79.
Robert. 2016. Le Grand Robert de la langue française [Online version]. [URL] (Accessed 10 October, 2017).
Rohde, Hannah, Roger Levy & Andrew Kehler. 2011. Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition 118(3). 339–358.
Sanders, Ted. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning, 105–114.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman. 2000. The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1). 37–60.
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35.
Saussure, Louis de. 2003. Temps et pertinence: Éléments de pragmatique cognitive du temps. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.
Saussure, Louis de. 2007. L’étrange cas de puis en usages discursif et argumentatif. Cahiers Chronos 191. 261–275.
Saussure de, Louis. 2011. On some methodological issues in the conceptual/procedural distinction. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 55–79. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Schneider, Walter, Amy Eschman & Anthony Zuccolotto. 2012. E-Prime 2.0 Reference Guide Manual. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan & Paula J. Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 14(1). 27–54.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Squartini, Mario & Pier Marco Bertinetto. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 403–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Silfhout, Gerdineke van, 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.
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1998. Pragmatics and time. In Robyn Carston & Seiji Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2014. Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives. The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics 621. 121–135.
Scholman, Merel C.J., Vera Demberg & Ted J.M. Sanders
2022. Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations. Discours :30
Crible, Ludivine
2021. Negation Cancels Discourse-Level Processing Differences: Evidence from Reading Times in Concession and Result Relations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:6 ► pp. 1283 ff.
2021. Lexical and Structural Cues to Discourse Processing in First and Second Language. Frontiers in Psychology 12
Grisot, Cristina
2021. Experimentally assessing the roles of grammatical aspect, lexical aspect and coreference patterns for the inference of temporal relations in English. Journal of Pragmatics 184 ► pp. 122 ff.
Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak
2021. Temporal Relations at the Sentence and Text Genre Level: The Role of Linguistic Cueing and Non-linguistic Biases—An Annotation Study of a Bilingual Corpus. Corpus Pragmatics 5:3 ► pp. 379 ff.
2020. When Do We Leave Discourse Relations Underspecified? The Effect of Formality and Relation Type. Discours :26
Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering
2020. Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes 57:10 ► pp. 862 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 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.