Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 27:2 (2020) ► pp.313338
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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Michael Stevens. 2018. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition 1(1). 91. 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Katy. 2014. Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua 1501. 78–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine. In press. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations: From relative configurations to predictive signals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg. 2020. When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours 261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering. 2020. Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes 57(10). 862–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2018. Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours 261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grisot, Cristina. 2018. Cohesion, coherence and temporal reference from an experimental corpus pragmatics perspective. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak. 2019. Temporal connectives and verbal tenses as processing instructions. Pragmatics and Cognition 24(3). 404–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics and Cognition 25(2). 275–309.Google Scholar
Kitis, Eliza. 2000. Connectives and frame theory: The case of hypotextual antinomial ‘and’. Pragmatics and Cognition 8(2). 357–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 181. 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millis, Keith K. & Marcel A. Just. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 331. 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 25(2). 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk. 1999. The differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics 10(2). 147–184.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohde, Hannah, Joseph Tyler & Katy Carlson. 2017. Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo Noordman. 2000. The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 291. 37–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. 1993. Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert. 1997. The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes 241. 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand. 2013. Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2). 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar