References
- Asr, F., & Demberg, V. (2012). Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In E. Hajičová, L. Poláková, & J. Mírovský (Eds.), Proceedings of the COLING workshop on advances in discourse analysis and its computational aspects (ADACA) (pp. 33–42). Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W12-4703
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824
- Canestrelli, A., Mak, P., & Sanders, T. (2016). The influence of genre on the processing of objective and subjective causal relations: Evidence from eye-tracking. In N. Stukker, W. Spooren, & G. Steen (Eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition (pp. 51–74). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110469639-004
- Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010523
- Clark, H. (2002). Speaking in time. Speech Communication, 36(1–2), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(01)00022-X
- Crible, L. (2017). Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French. Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 242–269. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
- Crible, L., & Degand, L. (2019). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours, 24. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9997
- Cuenca, M. J., & Crible, L. (2019). Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.001
- Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
- Das, D., Taboada, M., & McFetridge, P. (2015). RST signalling corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2015T10
- Degand, L., & van Bergen, G. (2018). Discourse markers as turn-transition devices: Evidence from speech and instant messaging. Discourse Processes, 55(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1198136
- Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2005). Elusive connectives. A case study on the explicitness dimension of discourse coherence. Linguistics, 43(1), 17–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.17
- Frank, A., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633
- Goldstein-Stewart, J., Goodwin, K. A., Sabin, R. E., & Winder, R. K. (2008). Creating and using a correlated corpora to glean communicative commonalities. In Proceedings of the International conference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2008. Marrakech, Morocco: European Language Resources Association. http:/www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/771_paper.pdf
- Harrell, F. (2015). RMS: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 4.3-1. https://hbiostat.org/R/rms
- Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
- Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2019). The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(2), 275–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
- Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H. L. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2019). Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 56(5–6), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257
- Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883
- Kunz, K., & Laphinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347
- Levshina, N., & Degand, L. (2017). Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.105
- Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) (pp. 849–856). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.5555/2976456.2976563
- Louwerse, M. M., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1
- Mak, P., Tribushinina, E., & Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse: An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.841075
- Marcu, D. (2000). The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: A surface based approach. Computational Linguistics, 26 (3), 395–448. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J00-3005.
- Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
- Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114
- Péry-Woodley, M.-P., Ho-Dac, L.-M., Rebeyrolle, J., Tanguy, L., & Fabre, C. (2017). A corpus-driven approach to discourse organisation: From cues to complex markers. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(1), 66–105. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.103
- Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The penn discourse treebank 2.0 [Paper presented]. 6th International conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrackech, Morocco. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
- Prasad, R., Webber, B., & Lee, A. (2018). Discourse annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th joint ACL-ISO workshop on interoperable semantic annotation (pp. 87–97). Santa Fe, NM: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W18-4710
- Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
- Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
- Scholman, M., Rohde, H., & Demberg, V. (2017). “On the one hand” as a cue to anticipate upcoming discourse structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.010
- Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010
- Spooren, W., & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.009
- Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(4), 567–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
- Webber, B., Prasad, R., & Lee, A. (2019a). Ambiguity in explicit discourse connectives. In S. Dobnik, S. Chatzikyriakidis, & V. Demberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International conference on computational semantics (IWCS 2019) – Long papers (pp. 134–141). Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-0411
- Webber, B., Prasad, R., & Lee, A. (2019b). The penn discourse treebank 3.0 annotation manual. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2019T05/
- Yung, F., Duh, K., Komura, T., & Matsumoto, Y. (2017). A psycholinguistic model for the marking of discourse relations. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(1), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.104
- Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley.
- Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2017). Processing connectives with a complex form-function mapping in L2: The case of French “en effet”. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198
- Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2020). “Roger broke his tooth. However, He went to the dentist”: Why some readers struggle to evaluate wrong (and right) uses of connectives. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1607446
- Zufferey, S., Mak, P., 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315573349