Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 273–298

Chapter 10
Subjectivity and Causality in discourse and cognition

Evidence from corpus analyses, acquisition and processing

| Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University
| Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University
Cognitively oriented linguists have various linguistic resources at their disposal, and therefore need to develop methodological strategies of when to use which method. This chapter illustrates the benefits of using converging evidence. We review research results from several methodologies, including the use of corpus-based, acquisition and processing data, in order to illustrate what kinds of insights this brings at the level of discourse. The results suggest that Causality and Subjectivity are two basic cognitive notions that organize our knowledge of coherence relations. They help us explain the system and use of causal relations and their linguistic expressions in everyday language use, and they account for discourse processing and representation, as well as the acquisition order of connectives.
Keywords: Causality, coherence relations, connectives, converging evidence, corpus-based research, discourse, language acquisition, discourse processing, language use, Subjectivity
Article outline
  • 1.Discourse, coherence and subjectivity
  • 2.Subjectivity in written language use
    • 2.1How Subjectivity defines categories of Dutch causal connectives
    • 2.2How Subjectivity is relevant cross-linguistically
  • 3.Subjectivity in other types of language use
    • 3.1Connectives in corpora of language use
    • 3.2Subjectivity in spoken language
  • 4.Subjectivity in the processing of coherence relations
  • 5.Subjectivity in language development
  • 6.Conclusion and future developments
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.10san
References (108)
References
Andersson, Marta. 2016. “The Architecture of Result Relations: Corpus and Experimental Approaches to Result Coherence Relations in English.” Unpublished PhD diss., Sweden: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Andersson, Marta, and Jennifer Spenader. 2014. “Result and Purpose Relations With and Without so .” Lingua 148: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornillie. 2006. Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asr, Fatimeh T., and Vera Demberg. 2012. “Implicitness of Discourse Relations.” In Proceedings of COLING 2012, 2669–2684. Mumbai, India.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter, and Kathleen Fiess. 1980. “Complex Sentences: Acquisition of Syntactic Connectives and the Semantic Relations They Encode.” Journal of Child Language 7: 235–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes R., Willem M. Mak, and 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “The Influence of Genre on the Processing of Objective and Subjective Causal Relations: Evidence from Eye-tracking.” In Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren, and Gerard Steen, 51–73. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, and Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse Tagging Reference Manual [online: [URL].].
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, and Thomas Meyer. 2013. “Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives by Looking at their Translation: The Translation-spotting Technique.” Dialogue & Discourse 4 (2): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Hebert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan, and Douglas Biber. 2000. “Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 56–73. Oxford/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996. “Intonation and Clause Combining in Discourse: The Case of Because .” Pragmatics 6 (3): 389–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Bernd Kortmann. 2000. Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam, and Maite Taboada. 2013. “Explicit and Implicit Coherence Relations: A Corpus Study.” In Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2001. Form and Function of Causation: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of Causal Constructions in Dutch. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Contrastive Analyses, Translation and Speaker Involvement: The Case of puisque and aangezien .” In Language, Culture and Mind, ed. by Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer, 251–270. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Henk Pander Maat. 2003. “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, ed. by Arie Verhagen, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
de Vries, Jan W. 1971. “Want en omdat.” De Nieuwe Taalgids 64: 414–420.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Katja Hetterle. 2011. “Causal Clauses: A Cross-linguistic Investigation of Their Structure, Meaning, and Use.” In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, ed. by Peter Siemund, 23–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2005. The Development of Dutch Connectives: Change and Acquisition as Windows on Form-Function Relations. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT [online: [URL].].
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Suzanne Bogaerds-Hazenberg, and Ted Sanders. 2016. “Establishing Coherence using Connectives: A Developmental Overview.” In Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Liesbeth Degand, Benjamin Fagard, and Liesbeth Mortier. 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, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek, and Merel C. J. Scholman. 2017. “On Temporality in Discourse Annotation: Theoretical and Practical Considerations.” Dialogue and Discourse 8 (2): 1–20.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, and Ted Sanders. 2009. “The Emergence of Dutch Connectives: How Cumulative Cognitive Complexity Explains the Order of Acquisition.” Journal of Child Language 36: 829–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Discovering Domains: On the Acquisition of Causal Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1645–1662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 2007. “Why Cognitive Linguists Should Care More about Empirical Methods.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Mónica González-Márquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael J. Spivey, 2–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. “Corpora and Experimental Methods: A State-of-the-art Review.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5 (1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gohl, Christine. 2000. “Causal Relations in Spoken Discourse: Asyndetic Constructions as a Means for Giving Reasons.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 83–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2013. “50-something Years of Work on Collocations: What is or should be next…” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (1): 137–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, and Doris Schönefeld. 2005. “Converging Evidence: Bringing together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 16 (4): 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groupe λ-l. 1975. “Car, parce que, puisque.” Revue Romane 10(2): 248–280.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 1993. “ Weil – Man kann es ja wissenschaftlich untersuchen: Diskurspragmatische Aspekte der Wortstellung in Weil-Sätzen.” Linguistische Berichte 143: 37–55.Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet. 2018. Making Sense of Discourse: On Discourse Segmentation and the Linguistic Marking of Coherence Relations. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, and Sandrine Zufferey. 2015. “Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages.” In Proceedings 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11) , 39–45. London, United Kingdom.
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted J. M. Sanders. 2017. “Cognitive Complexity and the Linguistic Marking of Coherence Relations: A Parallel Corpus Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 121: 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huiskes, Mike. 2010. The Role of the Clause for Turn-taking in Dutch Conversations. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT [online: [URL].].
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. “The Epistemic Weil .” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Robert Dale. 1994. “Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 18: 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Ted Sanders. 1998. “The Classification of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair, Ted Sanders, and Jon Oberlander. 2001. “Levels of Representation in Discourse Relations.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 197–209.Google Scholar
Kyratzis, Amy, Jiansheng Guo, and Susan Ervin-Tripp. 1990. “Pragmatic Conventions Influencing Children’s Use of Causal Constructions in Natural Discourse.” In Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Kira Hall, Jean Pierre Koenig, Michael Meacham, Sondra Reinman, and Laurel A. Sutton, 205–214. Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, and Liesbeth Degand. 2016. “Just Because: In Search of Objective Criteria of Subjectivity Expressed by Causal Connectives.” Dialogue & Discourse 8 (1): 132–150.Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2013. “Subjectivity and Result Marking in Mandarin: A Corpus-based Investigation.” Chinese Language and Discourse 4 (1): 74–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fang, Ted Sanders, and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2016. “On the Subjectivity of Mandarin Reason Connectives: Robust Profiles or Genre-sensitivity?” In Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren, and Gerard Steen, 15–49. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Willem M. Mak, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted J. M. Sanders. 2017. “On the Online Effects of Subjectivity Encoded in Causal Connectives.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15: 34–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. “Relational Propositions in Discourse.” Discourse Processes 9: 57–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordman, Leo, and Femke de Blijzer. 2000. “On the Processing of Causal Relations.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 35–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, and Liesbeth Degand. 2001. “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, and Ted Sanders. 2000. “Domains of Use or Subjectivity? The Distribution of Three Dutch Causal Connectives Explained.” In Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 59–81. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 247–273.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate. 1983. “Die Kausalkonjunktionen ‘da’, ‘denn’, und ‘weil’: Drei Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Klassen.” Deutsch als Fremdsprache 20: 332–337.Google Scholar
PDTB Research Group. 2008. “The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual.” In Technical Report IRCS-08-01, Philadelphia, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania [online: [URL].].
Persoon, Ingrid, Ted Sanders, Hugo Quené, and Arie Verhagen. 2010. “Een coördinerende omdat-constructie in gesproken Nederlands? Tekstlinguïstische en prosodische aspecten.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 15: 259–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Determining Subjectivity in Text: The Case of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch.” Discourse Processes 41: 151–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2008. “The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Morocco [online: [URL]].
Redeker, Gisela. 1990. “Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3): 367–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risselada, Rodie, and Wilbert Spooren. 1998. “Introduction: Discourse Markers and Coherence Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 29: 131–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William E. 1970. “Some Observations Concerning Subordinate Clauses in English.” Language 46 (1): 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, José, Ted Sanders, and Eve Sweetser. 2012. “Responsible Subjects and Discourse Causality: How Mental Spaces and Perspective Help Identifying Subjectivity in Dutch Backward Causal Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 1997. “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: On the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context.” Discourse Processes 24: 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Joost Schilperoord, and Wilbert Spooren (eds). 2001. Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, José Sanders, and Eve Sweetser. 2009. “Causality, Cognition and Communication: A Mental Space Analysis of Subjectivity in Causal Connectives.” In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Ted Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 19–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren. 2009a. “Causal Categories in Discourse: Converging Evidence from Language Use.” In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Ted Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 205–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “The Cognition of Discourse Coherence.” In Discourse, Of Course, ed. by Jan Renkema, 197–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Exceptions to Rules: A Qualitative Analysis of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch Naturalistic Discourse.” Text and Talk 33 (3): 377–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren, and Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Eve Sweetser (eds.). 2009. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, and Sally Rice. 1995. “Network Analyses of Prepositional Meaning: Mirroring whose Mind – the Linguist’s or the Language User’s?” Cognitive Linguistics 6: 89–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santana, Andrea, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen, Wilbert Spooren, and Ted Sanders. 2017. “Causality and Subjectivity in Spanish Connectives: Exploring the Use of Automatic Subjectivity Analyses in Various Text Types.” Discours [online: [URL]]. DOI logo
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2001. “Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 54–75. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 1991. “Paratactic Because .” Journal of Pragmatics 16 (4): 323–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholman, Merel C. J. 2019. Coherence Relations in Discourse and Cognition: Comparing Approaches, Annotations, and Interpretations. PhD diss., Saarland University.Google Scholar
Scholman, Merel C. J., and Vera Demberg. 2017. “Examples and Specifications that Prove a Point: Identifying Elaborative and Argumentative Discourse Relations.” Dialogue & Discourse 8 (2): 56–83.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2017. Mastering Corpus Linguistics Methods: A Practical Introduction with Antconc and R. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, and Rodie Risselada. 1997. “Special Issue on Discourse Markers.” Discourse Processes 24: 119–147.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, and Ted Sanders. 2008. “The Acquisition of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, Ted Sanders, Mike Huiskes, and Liesbeth Degand. 2010. “Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language.” In Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, ed. by Sally Rice, and John Newman, 241–255. Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011. “Genre Between the Humanities and the Sciences.” In Bi-directionality in the Cognitive Sciences, ed. by Marcus Callies, Wolfram Keller, and Astrid Lohöfer, 21–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter, and Susan Wright. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke. 2005. Causality Marking across Levels of Language Structure: A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Causal Verbs and Causal Connectives in Dutch. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT [online: [URL]].
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted Sanders. 2012. “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Ted Sanders, and Arie Verhagen. 2008. “Causality in Verbs and in Discourse Connectives. Converging Evidence of Cross-level Parallels in Dutch Linguistic Categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (7): 1296–1322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Categories of Subjectivity in Dutch Causal Connectives: A Usage-based Analysis.” In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Ted Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 119–171. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston. 2000. “Evaluation: An Introduction.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Geoff Thompson and Susan Hunston, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. “Subjectification in Grammaticalization.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Michael D. Bybee, and 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
Traxler, Matthew J., Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked, and Linda M. Moxey. 1997. “Processing Causal and Diagnostic Statements in Discourse.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23 (1): 88–101.Google Scholar
van Veen, Rosie. 2011. The Acquisition of Causal Connectives: The Role of Parental Input and Cognitive Complexity. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT [online: [URL]].
van Veen, Rosie, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted Sanders, and Huub van den Bergh. 2014. “ Why? Because I’m Talking to You! Parental Input and Cognitive Complexity as Determinants of Children’s Connective Acquisition.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, 209–242. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2000. “ Da, denn und weil – Der Kampf der Konjunktionen: Zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich.” In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, ed. by Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop, and Oliver Teuber, 69–81. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wei, Yipu. 2018. Causal Connectives and Perspective Markers in Chinese: The Encoding and Processing of Subjectivity in Discourse. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT [online: [URL]].
Wei, Yipu, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2017. “Perspective Marking and Subjectivity in Coherence Relations: A Collocation Analysis of Chinese Connectives.” In CogLing7, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wei, Yipu, Pim Mak, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2017. “The Role of Linguistic Cues in Constructing Subjectivity: Evidence from the Visual World Paradigm.” In Fourteenth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Tartu, Estonia.Google Scholar
. 2012. “ Car, parce que, puisque revisited: Three Empirical Studies on French Causal Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf, and David Rapp. 2006. “Discourse Comprehension.” In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition, ed. by Matthew Traxler, and Morton A. Gernsbacher, 725–764. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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
Popescu, Cecilia Mihaela
2022. L’expression de la causalité en latin et dans les langues romanes : matrices formelles et gradation intensionnelle. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 67:1 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.