Article published in:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 27:2 (2020) ► pp. 313338


The role of non-connective discourse cues and their interaction with connectives


Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg
2012Measuring 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.
[ p. 336 ]
Baayen, Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, & Douglas M. Bates
2008Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic constraints on relevance. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Michael Stevens
2018Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition 1(1). 9. 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Kate & Hannah Nash
2011The influence of connective on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(2). 429–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Katy
2014Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua 150. 78–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine
In press. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations: From relative configurations to predictive signals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
2020Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat and writing: How signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations. Discourse Processes 57(9). 793–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
2020When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours 26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Martin J. Pickering
2020Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes 57(10). 862–879. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2018Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours 26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Ted J. M. Sanders
2002The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15. 739–757. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted J. M. Sanders
2009The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 36. 829–854. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grisot, Cristina
2018Cohesion, coherence and temporal reference from an experimental corpus pragmatics perspective. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak
2019Temporal connectives and verbal tenses as processing instructions. Pragmatics and Cognition 24(3). 404–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John
2001A 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.
2006A 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
[ p. 337 ]
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
2017Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 113–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics and Cognition 25(2). 275–309.Google Scholar
Kitis, Eliza
2000Connectives and frame theory: The case of hypotextual antinomial ‘and’. Pragmatics and Cognition 8(2). 357–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
1994Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18. 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger
2007Speakers 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
1990Approches dérivationnelles et procédurales des opérateurs et connecteurs temporels: Les exemples de et et de enfin . Cahiers de Linguistique Française 11. 77–104.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
1988Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8. 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Millis, Keith K. & Marcel A. Just
1994The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 128–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murray, John
1997Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 25(2). 227–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk
1999The 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
2008The 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
2018Discourse 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
2016Lingoturk: Managing crowdsourced tasks for psycholinguistics. Proc. of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, Hannah, Joseph Tyler & Katy Carlson
2017Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa 2(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo Noordman
2000The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29. 37–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman
1993Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 338 ]
Spooren, Wilbert
1997The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes 24. 149–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew, Michael Bybee & Martin J. Pickering
1997Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A(3). 481–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Silfhout, Gerineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
2015Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes 52(1). 47–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Liesbeth Degand
2013Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2). 399–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar