References
- Asr, F., & Demberg, V. (2016). But vs. although under the microscope. Poster at CogSci 2016, Philadelphia, USA. https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2016/
- Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- Biber, D. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (1st ed.). Longman.
- Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning. The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456
- Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7(2), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900002610
- Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskill, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9414
- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
- 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. 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
- Charles, W. G., Reed, M. A., & Derryberry, D. (1994). Conceptual and associative processing in antonymy and synonymy. Applied Psycholniguistics, 10(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400065929
- Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045186
- Crible, L. (2020). Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat and writing: Do signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations? Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778
- 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
- Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6
- Enochson, K., & Culbertson, J. (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS One, 10(3), e0116946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116946
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227
- Fraser, B. (1998). Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 301–326). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57
- Frazier, L., Taft, L., Clifton, C., Roeper, T., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198303
- Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366
- Green, P., & MacLeod, C. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
- Grisot, C., & Blochowiak, J. (2019). Temporal connectives and verbal tenses as processing instructions. Pragmatics and Cognition, 24(3), 404–440. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17009.gri
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
- Herrmann, D. J., Chaffin, R. J. S., Conti, G., Peters, D., & Robbins, P. H. (1979). Comprehension of antonymy and the generality of categorization models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.585
- 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
- Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425
- Kehler, A. (1996). Coherence and the coordinate structure constraint. In J. Johnson, M. L. Juge, & J. L. Moxley (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society, February 16 –19,1996. General Session and Parasession on the role of learnability in grammatical theory (pp. 220–231). Berkeley Linguistics Society.
- 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
- Knoeferle, P. (2014). Conjunction meaning can modulate parallelism facilitation: Eye-tracking evidence from German clausal coordination. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.002
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
- Lakoff, R. T. (1971). If’s, and’s, but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 114–149). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- 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
- 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. Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114
- Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
- Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427
- Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_3
- Poirier, J., Walenski, M., & Shapiro, L. (2012). The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(6), 868–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.601623
- 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). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W18-4710
- Sabourin, L. (1998). The interaction of suffixation with synonymy and antonymy [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Alberta.
- 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
- Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800
- 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
- Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2691
- Sturt, P., Keller, F., & Dubey, A. (2010). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001
- Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8
- Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90049-X
- Traxler, M., Bybee, M., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982
- Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.19.3.528
- Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
- Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(2), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416296
- 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
- Xu, X., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2015). When a causal assumption is not satisfied by reality: Differential brain responses to concessive and causal relations during sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 704–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1005636
- Zhang, C., Bernolet, S., & Hartsuiker, R. (2019). The effect of discourse continuity on structural priming. Paper at DETEC 2019. https://www.leibniz-zas.de/fileadmin/Archiv2019/mitarbeiter/solstad/zhang_etal.pdf
- Zufferey, S., & Degand, L. (2013). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0022
- Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2016). The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes, 53(7), 532–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
- 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, 1198. 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