Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.34–57

On the online effects of subjectivity encoded in causal connectives

 | Beijing International Studies University
 | Utrecht University
 | Utrecht University
 | Utrecht University
Causal relations between sentences differ in terms of subjectivity: they can be objective (based on facts) or subjective (based on reasoning). Subjective relations lead to longer reading times than objective relations. Causal connectives differ in the degree to which they encode this subjectivity. The Chinese connectives kejian ‘so’ and yin’er ‘so’ specify a high and low degree of subjectivity, respectively, whereas suoyi ‘so’ is underspecified for subjectivity. In an eye-tracking experiment we compare the effect of the specificity of these connectives in subjective and objective relations. In objective relations, the specificity of the connective has no effect on reading times. In subjective relations, reading times are shorter in sentences with the specified connective kejian than in sentences with the underspecified connective suoyi. These results suggest that readers prefer to interpret a relation as objective. Computing subjective relations requires extra processing time, which is diminished when the connective encodes the subjectivity.
Keywords: causal connectives, subjectivity, discourse processing, eye-tracking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Causal coherence relations and subjectivity
    • 1.2Causal connectives and subjectivity in discourse processing
  • 2.Current study: Connective selection and hypotheses
    • 2.1Kejian, suoyi, and yin’er
    • 2.2Hypotheses
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials and design
      • Preparing test items
      • The selection of test items
      • Creating the stimuli
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Critical regions and measures
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1First-pass reading
    • 4.2Total fixation duration
  • 5.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.02li
References (69)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). LanguageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics”. R package version 1.4.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.Google Scholar
Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text: Building mental structures to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641–674). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, A. R. (2013). Small words, big effects?: Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht: LOT. Available online: [URL].
Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because . Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2009). Causes and consequences: Evidence from Polish, English, and Dutch. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 91–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch (pp. 175–199). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J. C. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: [URL].
Evers-Vermeul, J., Degand, L., Fagard, B., & Mortier, L. (2011). Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics, 49(2), 445–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Discovering domains: On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645–1662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1998). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 251–279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haberlandt, K. F. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 239–249). Amsterdam: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1995). The epistemic ‘weil’. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 16–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). Role of knowledge in discourse comprehension. Psychological Review, 951, 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 181, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. J. M. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169–1206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, A. W., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 445–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, F. (2014). Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese: The meaning and use of causal connectives in written discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: [URL].
Li, F., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin: A corpus-based investigation. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1), 74–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1414–1437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 91, 57–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1992). English texts: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2004). The Lancaster corpus of Mandarin Chinese. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J. (1989). Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence and relevance. Argumentation, 31, 321–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordman, L. G. M., & de Blijzer, F. (2000). On the processing of causal relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of Speaker Involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 247–273.Google Scholar
Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movements in reading: Psycholinguistic studies. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 57–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 222–272). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1970). Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language, 46(1), 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, J., Sanders, T. J. M., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Responsible subjects and discourse causality: How mental spaces and connectives help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 241, 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. L. Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning SEM-05 (pp. 31–46). Toulouse, France: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 19–59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., & Spooren, W. (2009). Causal categories in discourse: Converging evidence from language use. In T. J. M. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 205–246). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., & Spooren, W. P. M. (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
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, J. (2003). Compound sentences in three conceptual domains: Acting, knowing, and uttering. Chinese Language, 31, 195–204.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W. P. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, 2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W., Sanders, T., Huiskes, M., & Degand, L. (2010). Subjectivity and causality: A corpus study of spoken language. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 256–270). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2012). Causal connectives in discourse: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 131–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, N., Sanders, T. J. M., & Verhagen, A. (2008). Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, 1296–1322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, H. (2007). Subjectification and the development of special-verb existential/presentative constructions. Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 575–602.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Lingustic perspectives (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997a). 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
Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P., & Moxey, L. M. (1997b). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 447–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Veen, R. (2011). The acquisition of causal connectives: The role of parental input and cognitive complexity. Ph.D. dissertation. Utrecht: LOT. Available online: [URL].
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xing, F. (2001). Hanyu fuju yanjiu [A study of Chinese complex sentences]. Beijing: Commercial Publishing House.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2012). ‘Car, parce que, puisque’ revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Hu, Na, Aoju Chen, Hugo Quené, Ted J. M. Sanders & Federica Biassoni
2023. The role of prosody in interpreting causality in English discourse. PLOS ONE 18:6 ► pp. e0286003 ff. DOI logo
Savinova, Elena, Ted Sanders & Pim Mak
2023. A multi-method approach to estimating subjectivity of causal connectives: The case of ‘poetomu’ and ‘tak chto’ in Russian. Lingua 288 ► pp. 103524 ff. DOI logo
Ibáñez, Romualdo, Fernando Moncada & Benjamín Cárcamo
2022. Texto escolar y comprensión. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 596 ff. DOI logo
Santana Covarrubias, Andrea, Romualdo Ibáñez Orellana, Fernando Moncada Nahuelquín & Juan Zamora Osorio
2021. Causal connective expressions in textbooks written in Spanish: A comparative study of four primary school subjects. Journal of Pragmatics 182 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Yipu, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted M. Sanders & Willem M. Mak
2021. The Role of Connectives and Stance Markers in the Processing of Subjective Causal Relations. Discourse Processes 58:8 ► pp. 766 ff. DOI logo
Sanders, Ted J.M. & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
2019. Chapter 10. Subjectivity and Causality in discourse and cognition. In Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 305], ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Yipu, Willem M. Mak, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J.M. Sanders
2019. Causal connectives as indicators of source information: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Acta Psychologica 198 ► pp. 102866 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.