When a causal assumption is not satisfied by reality: differential brain responses to concessive and causal relations during sentence comprehension

References

• Baggio, G., Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98, 159–168. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhardt, P. (2007). The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport, 18, 1851–1854. doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1a999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron, J. (1988). Conjunction and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 309–323. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozijn, R., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentence. Discourse Processes, 48, 475–500. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, Z., & Tao, F. (2008). The conjunction distributional patterns of Chinese causal complex sentences and the relator principle. Studies of the Chinese Language ( in Chinese), 326, 410–422.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. doi:10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hald, L. A., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., & Hagoort, P. (2007). The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400. Brain Research, 1146, 210–218. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, A. H., Jansma, B. M., Lammers, M., & Münte, T. F. (2008). Interplay of meaning, syntax and working memory during pronoun resolution investigated by ERPs. Brain Research, 1230, 177–191. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iten, C. (1998). The meaning of although: A relevance theoretic account. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 81–108.
   Google Scholar
• Izutsu, M. N. (2008). Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 646–675. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, X. M., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. L. (2013a). Even a rich man can afford that expensive house: ERP responses to construction-based pragmatic constraints during sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1857–1866. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, X. M., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. L. (2013b). Is it over-respectful or disrespectful? Differential patterns of brain activity in perceiving pragmatic violation of social status information during utterance comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2210–2223. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2012, March). Incremental and predictive discourse processing based on causal and concessive discourse markers: A visual world study. Abstract presented at the 25th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
   Google Scholar
• König, E., & Siemund, P. (2000). Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast (pp. 341–360). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (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, 445–465. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1230–1246. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, F. (2009). Causality in on-line discourse processing: What eye-tracking reveals about the role of causal relations and connectives ( MA thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., & Zhou, X. (2010). Who is ziji? ERP responses to the Chinese reflexive pronoun during sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1331, 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oudega, M. H. (2011). How default is causality-by-default? ( MA thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse constraining? Comparing the effects of discourse message and scenario fit on the discourse-dependent N400 effect. Brain Research, 1153, 166–177. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu, L., Swaab, T. Y., Chen, H. C., & Wang, S. (2012). The role of gender information in pronoun resolution: Evidence from Chinese. PLoS One, 7, e36156. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings/acts SEM- 05, First international symposium on the exploration and modeling of meaning (pp. 105–114).
   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, 37–60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M., & Gómez-González, M. Á. (2012). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6, 17–41. doi:10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.17
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. (1983). Thematic processing in sentences and texts. Cognition, 13, 223–261. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90023-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 481–497. doi:10.1080/027249897391982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhagen, A. (2000). Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast (pp. 361–380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, C. L., Perfetti, C. A., & Schmalhofer, F. (2007). Event-related potential indicators of text integration across sentence boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 55–89. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y. (2012). A syntax-semantics interface study of causal connectives. Journal of Foreign Languages ( in Chinese), 35(3), 42–50.
   Google Scholar