Cover not available

In:Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 253–270

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 9
Processing implicit and explicit causality in Spanish

 | *EAN University
 | **Heidelberg University
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.09nad
Abstract
As a basic discourse relation, causality can be made explicit by means of an argumentative connective, but it can also be implicitly expressed. In the latter case, experimental evidence shows that causality is highly predictable in discourse and can be easily inferred. Therefore, the question arises as to the actual contribution of causal connectives to utterance processing. We addressed this issue in an eye tracking reading experiment, and compared how the presence or absence of the Spanish causal connective por tanto affects processing in its role as procedural guide. The results suggest that making the connective explicit in a consecutive relation already inferable from the meaning of the lexical expressions in the utterances slows down processing. In this sense, the nature of connectives as procedural guides (Relevance Theory, see Blakemore 1987) might be nuanced, since the extent to which a connective determines processing varies depending on the type of discourse relation at issue.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Implicit versus explicit causality
    • 2.1Discourse and argumentative contents
    • 2.2Por tanto as a causal connective
  • 3.Processing study
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Dependent variables
    • 3.3Participants, apparatus and procedure
    • 3.4Experiment design
    • 3.5Statistical treatment
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Total reading time
    • 4.2First-pass reading time
    • 4.3Second-pass reading time
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (46)
References
Almela, Ramón, Pascual Cantos, Álvaro Sánchez, Ramón Sarmiento, and Moisés Almela. 2005. Frecuencias del español. Diccionario y estudios léxicos y morfológicos. Madrid: Universitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1994. La argumentación en la lengua. Translated by Julia Sevilla and Marta Tordesillas. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh A., and Vera Demberg. 2012. Implicitness of Discourse Relations. Paper presented at the COLING, Mumbai.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brehm-Jurish, Eva. 2005. “Connective Ties in Discourse: Three ERP-Studies on Causal, Temporal and Concessives Connective Ties, and their Influence on Language Processing.” PhD diss., University of Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio, Salvador Pons, and José Portolés (dirs.), “Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español (DPDE)”, Accessed August 16th, 2017 [online: [URL]].
Carbonell Olivares, María Soledad. 2005. “Estudio semántico-pragmático de las relaciones de contraste y sus marcas en lengua inglesa.” PhD diss., Universitat de València.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Lisbeth, Lefèvre, Nathalie, and Bestgen, Yves. 1999. “The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension.” Document Design 1(1): 39–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domínguez García, Noemí. 2007. Conectores discursivos en textos argumentativos breves. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner, Vera Demberg, Judith Köhne, and Francesca Delogu. 2014. Incremental and predictive discourse processing based on causal and concessive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), Quebec: 403–409.
Escandell Vidal, María Victoria. 2005. La comunicación. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal Vidal, María Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2011. “On the rigidity of procedural meaning.” In Procedural Meaning, ed. by María Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 81–102. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahrmeir, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang, and Brian Marx. 2013. Regression. Models, Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce, and Monica Malamud-Makowski. 1996. “English and Spanish Contrastive Discourse Markers.” Language Sciences, 18(3–4): 863–881. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, and Sandrine Zufferey. 2015. “Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages.” Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), London.
Hyönä, Jukka, Robert Lorch, and Mike Rinck. 2003. “Eye Movement Measures to Study Global Text Processing.” In The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, ed. by Jukka Hyönä, Ralph Radach, and Heiner Deubel, 313–334. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 1999. “The Relevance of Argumentation Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 41–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A., and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87: 329–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köhne, Judith, and Vera Demberg. 2013. “The Time-course of Processing Discourse Connectives.” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), Berlin: 2760–2766.
Leonetti, Manuel, and Escandell Vidal, María Victoria. 2004. “Semántica conceptual / Semántica procedimental”. In Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General, vol. II, ed. by Milka Villayandre Llamazares, 1727–1738. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loureda, Óscar, and Esperanza Acín. 2010. “Cuestiones candentes en torno a los marcadores del discurso en español”. In Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, ed. by Óscar Loureda, and Esperanza Acín, 7–60. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loureda, Óscar, Laura Nadal, and Inés Recio Fernández. 2016. “Partículas discursivas y cognición. Por tanto y la conexión argumentativa.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 67(1): 240–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., and Ted Sanders. 2012. “The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28(9): 1414–1437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M.ª Antonia, and José Portolés. 1999. “Los marcadores del discurso.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, directed by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, vol. 3, 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millis, Keith K., and Marcel Just. 1994. “The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language 33(1): 128–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 1989. “Pragmatic Connectives, Argumentative Coherence and Relevance”. Argumentation 3: 321–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques, and Anne Reboul. 1994. Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murillo, Silvia. 2010. “Los marcadores del discurso y su semántica.” In Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, ed. by Óscar Loureda, and Esperanza Acín, 241–280. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, John D. 1997. “Connectives and Narrative Text: The Role of Continuity.” Memory & Cognition, 25(2): 227–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nadal, Laura. In Press. Lingüística experimental y contraargumentación: un estudio del conector sin embargo en español. Peter Lang.
Nadal, Laura, Adriana Cruz, Inés Recio, and Óscar Loureda. 2016. “El significado procedimental y las partículas discursivas del español: una aproximación experimental.” Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 49(S1): 52–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Mathew J. Traxler, and Mathew W. Crocker. 2000. “Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Likelihood.” Journal of Memory and Language, 43: 447–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portolés, José. 2001 [1998]. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Pragmática para hispanistas. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124(3): 372–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recio, Inés, Laura Nadal, and Óscar Loureda. 2018. ”On Argumentative Relations in Spanish: Experimental Evidence on the Grammaticalization of Cause-consequence Discourse Markers.” In Discourse Markers in Grammaticalization and Constructionalization: new Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda, 384–409. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichle, Erik D., Keith Rayner, and Alexander Pollatsek. 2003. “The E-Z Reader Model of Eye-Movement Control in Reading: Comparisons to other Models.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26: 445–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Relations and their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. New York/Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. “Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse.” In Proceedings/Acts SEM-05, First International Symposium on the exploration and modeling of meaning, ed. by Michel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec and Laure Vieu, 105–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., and Leo Noordman. 2000. “The Role of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing.” Discourse Processes 29(1): 37–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15: 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 2009. “Experimentation.” In Cognition and Pragmatics, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 157–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2015. “Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts”. Discourse Processes 52(1). 47–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunino, Gabriela. 2014. “Cognitive Perspectives On Discourse Processing: Causality and Counter-Causality.” Signos Lingüísticos 10: 154–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zunino, Gabriela, Valeria Abusamra, and Alexander Raiter. 2011. “Articulación entre conocimiento del mundo y conocimiento lingüístico en la comprensión de relaciones causales y contracausales: el papel de las partículas conectivas”. Forma y Función 25: 15–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue