“Roger Broke His Tooth. However, He Went to the Dentist”: Why Some Readers Struggle to Evaluate Wrong (and Right) Uses of Connectives

References

• Acheson, D., Wells, J., & MacDonald, M. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D., & Menkl, E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 226–243. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M. (2007). “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Some simple SPSS solutions to a complex problem (Version 2.0). London: Royal Holloway, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Nash, H. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. doi:10.1037/a0022824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A., Mak, W., & Sanders, T. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements. Journal of Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3
   Google Scholar
• Crible, L., & Cuenca, M. (2017). Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for annotation. Dialogue and Discourse, 8(2), 149–166.
   Google Scholar
• Crosson, A., Lesaux, N., & Martiniello, M. (2008). Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 603–625. doi:10.1017/S0142716408080260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCoster, J., Iselin, A.-M. R., & Gallucci, M. (2009). A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization. Psychological Methods, 14, 349–366. doi:10.1037/a0016956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36, 829–854. doi:10.1017/S0305000908009227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15, 19–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Kamhi, A., & Hinton, L. (2001). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 37–49. doi:10.1097/00011363-200020030-00006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. (2017). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35–62. doi:10.1080/01638539409544883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P., & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R. (2014). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
   Google Scholar
• McClure, E., & Geva, E. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 411–432. doi:10.1080/01638538309544575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morera, Y., León, J., Escudero, I., & de Vega, M. (2017). Do causal and concessive connectives guide emotional expectancies in comprehension? A double-task paradigm using emotional icons. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 583–598. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nippold, M., Schwartz, I., & Undlin, R. (1992). Use and understanding of adverbial conjunctions: A developmental study of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 108–118.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Öttl, A., & Behne, D. M. (2017). Assessing the formation of experience-based gender expectations in an implicit learning scenario. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1485. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Roze, C., Danlos, L., & Muller, P. (2012). LEXCONN: A French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours, 10, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Presented at the Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp. 105–114), Biarritz, France.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Demberg, V., Hoek, J., Scholman, M., Asr, T., Zufferey, S., & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2018). Unifying dimensions in discourse relations. How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Published online ahead of print. doi:10.1515/cllt-2016-0078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–36. doi:10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Graesser, A. C. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 99–108. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4202_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K., & West, R. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. doi:10.2307/747605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K., West, R., & Harrison, R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span. The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 811–826. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P., & Moxey, L. M. (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, X., Chen, Q., Panther, K.-U., & Wu, Y. (2018). Influence of causal and concessive conjunctions of pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 387–409. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1272088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2017). Processing explicit and implicit discourse relations in a second language. Frontiers in Psychology: Language, 8, 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research, 31(3), 389–411. doi:10.1177/0267658315573349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar