Individual differences in expecting coherence relations: Exploring the variability in sensitivity to contextual signals in discourse

References

• Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afflerbach, P. (2015). Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, M., & Spenader, J. (2014). Result and Purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua, 148, 1–27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2007). The lme4 package. R Package Version 2. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (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. 51–73). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(92)90018-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornish, F. (2009). “Text” and “discourse” as context. Working Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar (WP-FDG-82): The London Papers I, 2009 (pp. 97–115).
   Google Scholar
• Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). RST signalling corpus: A corpus of signals of coherence relations. Language Resources and Evaluation, 52(1), 149–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-017-9383-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drenhaus, H., Demberg, V., Köhne, J., & Delogu, F. (2014). Incremental and predictive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. In Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society (CogSci) (pp. 403–408). Québec City, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748008401161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L., Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2006). Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci) (pp. 697–702). Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1131310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freed, E. M., Hamilton, S. T., & Long, D. L. (2017). Comprehension in proficient readers: The nature of individual variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2005). Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, S., Pape, D., Petrone, C., & Perrier, P. (2015). Individual differences in speech production and perception (Vol. 3). Peter Lang Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, K. L., Foster, J. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Measuring working memory capacity on the web with the online working memory lab (the OWL). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek, J. (2018). Making sense of discourse: On discourse segmentation and the linguistic marking of coherence relations (Volume 509) [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University]. LOT Dissertation Series.
   Google Scholar
• Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. (2018). The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(2), 276–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, A. N., Fraundorf, S. H., Lee, E.-K., & Watson, D. G. (2018). Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader-text interactions? Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamalski, J., Sanders, T. J. M., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2017). Evaluating an expectation-driven question-under-discussion model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 219–238.https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci) (pp. 2760–2765). Berlin, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. (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, 54(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascarides, A., Asher, N., & Oberlander, J. (1992). Inferring discourse relations in context. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 1–8). Delaware, US.
   Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.708423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Chang, S. L., & Gould, O. N. (2008). Revisiting print exposure: Exploring differential links to vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00371.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). Communicating quantities: A review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3<237::AID-ACP641>3.0.CO;2-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, J., & Cardie, C. (2012). Improving implicit discourse relation recognition through feature set optimization. In Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue (SIGDIAL) (pp. 108–112). Seoul, South Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2009). Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1390–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00166.x
   Google Scholar
• Payne, B. R., Gao, X., Noh, S. R., Anderson, C. J., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2012). The effects of print exposure on sentence processing and memory in older adults: Evidence for efficiency and reserve. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.628376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrin, A. (2018, September 25). Nearly one-in-five Americans now listen to audiobooks. Retrieved ofrm https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/08/nearly-one-in-five-americans-now-listen-to-audiobooks/
   Google Scholar
• Pitler, E., Louis, A., & Nenkova, A. (2009). Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP (pp. 683–691). Suntec, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A. K., Robaldo, L., & Webber, B. (2007). The Penn discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual [Computer software manual].
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition, 133(3), 667–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M. S., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scales, A. M., & Rhee, O. (2001). Adult reading habits and patterns. Reading Psychology, 22(3), 175–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/027027101753170610
   Google Scholar
• Scholman, M. C. J., & Demberg, V. (2017). Crowdsourcing discourse interpretations: On the influence of context and the reliability of a connective insertion task. In Proceedings of the 11th linguistic annotation workshop (LAW) (pp. 24–33). Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Scholman, M. C. J., 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scribner, S. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, R., O’Connor, B., Jurafsky, D., & Ng, A. Y. (2008). Cheap and fast—but is it good? Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 254–263). Honolulu, Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Song, L. (2010). The role of context in discourse analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 876–879. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.876-879
   Google Scholar
• Spooren, W. P. M. S., & 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., & McDonald, S. (2000). Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(3), 225–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Long, D. L., Tooley, K. M., Johns, C. L., Zirnstein, M., & Jonathan, E. (2012). Individual differences in eye-movements during reading: Working memory and speed-of-processing effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(1), 1–16.https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.5.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upadhyay, S. S. N., Houghton, K. J., & Klin, C. M. (2019). Is “few” always less than expected?: The influence of story context on readers’ interpretation of natural language quantifiers. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 708–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1557006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. (2014). Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students’ processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von der Malsburg, T., & Vasishth, S. (2013). Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1545–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.728232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters, G. S., Caplan, D., & Hildebrandt, N. (1987). Working memory and written sentence comprehension. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance xii: The psychology of reading (pp. 531–555). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Whitney, P., Ritchie, B. G., & Clark, M. B. (1991). Working-memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar