The role of non-connective discourse cues and their interaction with connectives
The disambiguation and processing of coherence relations is often investigated with a focus on explicit
connectives, such as but or so. Other, non-connective cues from the context also facilitate
discourse inferences, although their precise disambiguating role and interaction with connectives have been largely overlooked in
the psycholinguistic literature so far. This study reports on two crowdsourcing experiments that test the role of contextual cues
(parallelism, antonyms, resultative verbs) in the disambiguation of contrast and consequence relations. We compare the effect of
contextual cues in conceptually different relations, and with connectives that differ in their semantic precision. Using offline
tasks, our results show that contextual cues significantly help disambiguating contrast and consequence relations in the absence
of connectives. However, when connectives are present in the context, the effect of cues only holds if the connective is
acceptable in the target relation. Overall, our study suggests that cues are decisive on their own, but only secondary in the
presence of connectives. These results call for further investigation of the complex interplay between connective types,
contextual cues, relation types and other linguistic and cognitive factors.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Processing coherence relations and their cues
- 2.1Coherence relations
- 2.2Discourse connectives
- 2.3Other cues
- 2.4Predictions
- 3.Experiments
- 3.1Norming study: Continuation selection task
- 3.1.1Materials and procedure
- 3.1.2Participants
- 3.1.3Results
- 3.1.4Discussion
- 3.2Experiment 1: Connective insertion task
- 3.2.1Materials and procedure
- 3.2.2Participants
- 3.2.3Results
- 3.2.4Discussion
- 3.3Experiment 2: Forced choice task
- 3.3.1Materials and procedures
- 3.3.2Participants
- 3.3.3Results
- 3.3.4Discussion
- 4.General discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (39)
References
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.
Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg. 2016.
But
vs. although under the microscope. Poster
at
CogSci
2016, Philadelphia,
USA.
Baayen, Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects
modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and
Language 591. 390–412.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic
constraints on relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.
Brysbaert, Marc & Michael Stevens. 2018. Power
analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of
Cognition 1(1). 91. 1–20.
Cain, Kate & Hannah Nash. 2011. The
influence of connective on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of
Educational
Psychology 103(2). 429–441.
Carlson, Katy. 2014. Predicting
contrasts in sentences with and without focus
marking. Lingua 1501. 78–91.
Crible, Ludivine. In
press. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations: From relative configurations to
predictive signals. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics.
Crible, Ludivine. 2020. Weak
and strong discourse markers in speech, chat and writing: How signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit
relations. Discourse
Processes 57(9). 793–807.
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg. 2020. When
do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation
type. Discours 261.
Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering. 2020. Compensating
for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive
relations. Discourse
Processes 57(10). 862–879.
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2018. Signalling
of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse
Processes 55(8). 743–770.
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2019. Multiple
signals of coherence relations. Discours 261.
Degand, Liesbeth & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2002. The
impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal 151. 739–757.
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2009. The
emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of
acquisition. Journal of Child
Language 361. 829–854.
Grisot, Cristina. 2018. Cohesion,
coherence and temporal reference from an experimental corpus pragmatics
perspective. Cham: Springer.
Hale, John. 2001. A
probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic
model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American
Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language
Technologies, 1–8. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 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.
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.
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2019. The
linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal
elements. Pragmatics and
Cognition 25(2). 275–309.
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale. 1994. Using
linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse
Processes 181. 35–62.
Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger. 2007. Speakers
optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Bernhard Schölkopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances
in neural information processing systems
(NIPS), 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luscher, Jean-Marc & Jacques Moeschler. 1990. Approches
dérivationnelles et procédurales des opérateurs et connecteurs temporels: Les exemples de et et de
enfin
. Cahiers de Linguistique
Française 111. 77–104.
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical
structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary
Journal for the Study of
Discourse 81. 243–281.
Millis, Keith K. & Marcel A. Just. 1994. The
influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and
Language 331. 128–147.
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives
and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and
Cognition 25(2). 227–236.
Pander Maat, Henk. 1999. The
differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive
Linguistics 10(2). 147–184.
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2008. The
Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Paper presented at the 6th
International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech,
Morocco.
Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber & Alan Lee. 2018. Discourse
annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. In Harry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings
of the 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic
Annotation, 87–97. Santa Fe, NM: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Pusse, Florian, Sayeed Asad & Vera Demberg. 2016. Lingoturk:
Managing crowdsourced tasks for psycholinguistics. Proc. of the North American Chapter of the
Association for Computational Linguistics.
Rohde, Hannah, Joseph Tyler & Katy Carlson. 2017. Form
and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal
inferences. Glossa 2(1).
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo Noordman. 2000. The
role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse
Processes 291. 37–60.
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. 1993. Coherence
relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive
Linguistics 4(2). 93–133.
Spooren, Wilbert. 1997. The
processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse
Processes 241. 149–168.
Traxler, Matthew, Michael Bybee & Martin J. Pickering. 1997. Influence
of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental
interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 50A(3). 481–497.
Van Silfhout, Gerineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2015. Connectives
as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository
texts. Discourse
Processes 52(1). 47–76.
Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand. 2013. Annotating
the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 13(2). 399–422.