Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:36:43.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

Sandrine Zufferey  and
Liesbeth Degand
Sandrine Zufferey
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
Liesbeth Degand
Affiliation:
UCLouvain, Belgium
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Connectives and Discourse Relations , pp. 218 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acheson, D., Wells, J. & MacDonald, M. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–89.Google Scholar
Afantenos, S., Asher, N., Benamara, F., Bras, M., Fabre, C., Ho-Dac, M. et al. (2012). An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organisation: The Annodis Corpus. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul, Turkey, 2727–34.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2008). Comparable and parallel corpora. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M., eds., Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 275–92.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2011). Pragmatic markers. In Zienkowski, J., Ostman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J., eds., Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223–47.Google Scholar
Al-Saif, A. & Markert, K. (2010). The Leeds Arabic Discourse Treebank: Annotating discourse connectives for Arabic. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation – LREC 2010. Valletta, Malta, 2046–53.Google Scholar
Al-Saif, A. & Markert, K. (2011). Modelling discourse relations for Arabic. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Edinburgh, 736–47.Google Scholar
Alsaif, A. (2012). Human and Automatic Annotation of Discourse Relations for Arabic [PhD thesis]. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1999). Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Hasselgård, H. & Oksefjell, S., eds., Out of Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 249–68.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. & Sunberg, R. (2022). Subjectivity (re)visited: A corpus study of English forward causal connectives in different domains of spoken and written language. Discourse Processes, 58(3), 260–92.Google Scholar
Andorno, C., Benazzo, S. & Dimroth, C. (2023). Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages: Crosslinguistic and intralinguistic comparison through task-elicited speech. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22018.andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux mais en français? Lingua, 43(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S., De Jong, J. & Meir, N., eds. (2015). Assessing Multilingual Children: Disentangling Bilingualism from Language Impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artstein, R. & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 555–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Muller, P., Bras, M., Ho-Dac, L., Benamara, F., Afantenos, S. & Vieu, L. (2017). ANNODIS and related projects: Case studies on the annotation of discourse structure. In Ide, N. & Pustejovsky, J., eds., Handbook of Linguistic Annotation (pp. 1241–64). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Paul, S. (2018). Strategic conversations under imperfect information: Epistemic message exchange games. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 27, 343–85.Google Scholar
Asr, F. T. & Demberg, V. (2012a). Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and Its Computational Aspects (ADACA). Mumbai, India, 33–42.Google Scholar
Asr, F. T. & Demberg, V. (2012b). Implicitness of discourse relations. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Mumbai, India, 2669–84.Google Scholar
Asr, F. T. & Demberg, V. (2013). On the information conveyed by discourse markers. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL). Sofia, Bulgaria, 84–93.Google Scholar
Asr, F. T. & Demberg, V. (2020). Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic: Evidence from the study of but and although. Discourse Processes, 57, 376–99.Google Scholar
Azar, M. (1999). Argumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation, 13(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babiniotis, G. (2009). Diachronie et synchronie dynamique. La linguistique, 45(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
Bai, H. & Zhao, H. (2018). Deep enhanced representation for implicit discourse relation recognition. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Santa-Fe, New Mexico, 571–83.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. (2006). A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21(3), 259–74.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 345–61.Google Scholar
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H. (2008). Réflexions sur l’évolution des conjonctions temporelles en français: le cas de premier que. Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre, 59, 33–46. Département de Sciences du langage, Université Paris Ouest.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C., Gili Fivela, B., Miecznikowski, J., Tini Brunozzi, F., Bosco, C. & Garcea, A. (2007). Italian allora, French alors: Functions, convergences and divergences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 9–30.Google Scholar
Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G. & Loxterman, J. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–75.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. & Detges, U., eds. (2014). Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Beijering, K. (2012). Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A Study into the Lexicalization-Grammaticalization-Pragmaticalization Interface. (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 106) Zutphen: Wöhrmann Print Service. Available online: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/345722167 (accessed 14/7/2022).Google Scholar
Benamara Zitoune, F. & Taboada, M. (2015). Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2015). Denver, 147–52.Google Scholar
Benwell, B. (1999). The organisation of knowledge in British university tutorial discourse. Issues, pedagogic discourse strategies and disciplinary identity. Pragmatics, 9(4), 535–65.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. & Hoffmann, T. (2017). Special issue on cognitive approaches to the history of English: Introduction. English Language & Linguistics, 21(2), 193–202.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, Genre, and Style. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. (2010). Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Bril, I., ed., Clause-Hierarchy and Clause-Linking: The Syntax and Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (1999). The pragmatics of and-conjunctions: The non-narrative cases. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 1–21.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115(4), 569–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, M. (2021). Pragmatic markers in native and non-native Englishes: A study into the use of and attitudes to pragmatic markers [PhD thesis]. KULeuven.Google Scholar
Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C. & Degand, L. (2020). What type of subjectivity lies behind French causal connectives? A corpus-based comparative investigation of car and parce que. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 1.Google Scholar
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, 235–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectives. In Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Ramm, W., eds., “Subordination” Versus “Coordination” in Sentence and Text: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2021). The online processing of causal and concessive relations: Comparing native speakers of English and German. Discourse Processes, 58(7), 642–61.Google Scholar
Blything, L., Davies, R. & Cain, K. (2015). Young children’s comprehension of temporal relations in complex sentences: The influence of memory on performance. Child Development, 86(6), 1922–34.Google Scholar
Bolly, C., Crible, L., Degand, L. & Uygur-Distexhe, D. (2017). Towards a model for discourse marker annotation in spoken French: From potential to feature-based discourse markers. In Fedriani, C. & Sanso, A., eds., Discourse Markers, Pragmatic Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 71–98.Google Scholar
Bolly, C. & Degand, L. (2009). Quelle(s) fonction(s) pour donc en français oral? Du connecteur conséquentiel au marqueur de structuration du discours. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 32(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Bolton, K., Nelson, G. & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7, 165–82.Google Scholar
Bosker, H. R., Badaya, E. & Corley, M. (2021). Discourse markers activate their, “like,” Cohort Competitors. Discourse Processes, 58(9), 837–51.Google Scholar
Bouwer, A. (1998). An ITS for Dutch punctuation. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 1452, 224–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. & Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–26.Google Scholar
Braud, C. & Denis, P. (2014). Combining natural and artificial examples to improve implicit discourse relation identification. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Dublin, Ireland, 1694–705.Google Scholar
Braunwald, S. (1997). The development of BECAUSE and SO: Connecting language, thought, and social understanding. In Costermans, J. & Fayol, M., eds., Processing Interclausal Relationships: Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 121–37.Google Scholar
Breul, C. (2007). A relevance-theoretic view on issues in the history of clausal connectives. In Lenker, U. & Meurman-Solin, A., eds., Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 167–92.Google Scholar
Bril, I., ed. (2010). Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bril, I. (2011). AND and WITH conjunctive strategies in some Austronesian languages: Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Language and Linguistics, 12, 239–72.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, B., Glynn, S., Mayer, B. & Penland, M. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51–61.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, 127–43.Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bunt, H., Petukhova, V., Gilmartin, E., Pelachaud, C., Fang, A., Keizer, S. & Prevot, L. (2020). The ISO Standard for Dialogue Act Annotation, Second Edition. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, May 2020, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. & Rashmi, P. (2016). Core concepts for the annotation of discourse relations. Proceedings 12th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantics (ISA-12). Portoroz, Slovenia, 45–54.Google Scholar
Busquets, J., Vieu, L. & Asher, N. (2001). La SDRT: une approche de la cohérence du discours dans la traduction de la sémantique dynamique. Verbum, 13, 73–101.Google Scholar
Cain, K. & Nash, H. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 429–44.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, A., Mak, W. & Sanders, T. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–13.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, A., Mak, W. & Sanders, T. (2016). The influence of genre on the processing of objective and subjective causal relations: Evidence from eye-tracking. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W. & Steen, G., eds., Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 15–74.Google Scholar
Carlier, A., De Mulder, W. & Lamiroy, B. (2012). Introduction: The pace of grammaticalization in a typological perspective. Folia Linguistica, 46(2), 287–302.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. & Marcu, D. (2001). Discourse tagging reference manual. www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Caron, J., Micko, H. & Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 309–23.Google Scholar
Carrió Pastor, M. (2015). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 192–202.Google Scholar
Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S. & Meyer, T. (2013a). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives by looking at their translation. The translation spotting technique. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2), 65–86.Google Scholar
Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S. & Meyer, T. (2013b). Using the Europarl corpus for cross-linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 27, 23–42.Google Scholar
Celle, A. & Huart, R., eds. (2007). Connectives As Discourse Landmarks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cettolo, M., Girardi, C. & Federico, M. (2012). WIT: Web Inventory of Transcribed and Translated Talks. Proceedings of the 16th EAMT Conference. Trento, Italy, 261–68.Google Scholar
Champaud, C. & Bassano, D. (1994). French concessive connectives and argumentation: An experimental study in eight- to ten-year-old children. Journal of Child Language, 21, 415–38.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. & Fagard, B. (2012). En effet en français contemporain: De la confirmation à la justification/explication. Le Français Moderne, 80, 171–97.Google Scholar
Chen, P.-J. (2014). The comparison of intermediate and advanced Chinese learners’ use of English adverbial connectors in academic writing. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 2, 85–92.Google Scholar
Cho, H. Y. & Shin, J. A. (2014). Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean learners’ English writings. English Teaching, 69, 41–59.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Murphy, G. (1983). Audience design in meaning and reference. In LeNy, J. F. & Kintsch, W., eds., Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 287–99.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2003). Teaching and researching writing. System, 31(1), 132–36.Google Scholar
Çokal, D., Zeyrek, D. & Sanders, T. J. M. (2020). Subjectivity and objectivity in Turkish causal connectives? Results from a first corpus study on çünkü and için. In Zeyrek, D. & Özge, U., eds., Discourse Meaning. The View from Turkish. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 223–48.Google Scholar
Combettes, B. (2013). Quelques aspects de la “subordination” en ancien et moyen français. In Debaisieux, J.-M., ed., Analyses linguistiques sur corpus: Subordination et insubordination en français contemporain. Paris: Hermès, 99–139.Google Scholar
Crewe, W. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44, 316–25.Google Scholar
Crible, L. (2018). Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crible, L. (2020). Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat and writing: Do signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations? Discourse Processes, 57(9), 793–807.Google Scholar
Crible, L. (2022). The syntax and semantics of coherence relations: From relative configurations to predictive signals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 27(1), 59–92.Google Scholar
Crible, L., Abuczki, Á., Burkšaitienė, N., Furkó, P., Nedoluzhko, A., Rackevičienė, S., Oleškevičienė, G. V. & Zikánová, Š. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 139–55.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Cuenca, M. (2017). Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for annotation. Dialogue and Discourse, 8(2), 149–66.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2019a). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours, 24, 1–35.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2019b). Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 71–99.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Demberg, V. (2020). When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours, 26, 1–27.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Gabarró-López, S. (2021). Coherence relations across speech and sign language: A comparable corpus study of additive connectives. Languages in Contrast, 21(1), 58–81.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Pickering, M. (2020). Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes, 57, 862–79.Google Scholar
Crible, L., Wetzel, M. & Zufferey, S. (2021). Lexical and structural cues to discourse processing in first and second language. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
Crible, L. & Zufferey, S. (2015). Using a unified taxonomy to annotate discourse markers in speech and writing. Proceedings of the 11th Joint ISO-ACL/SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. London, 14–22.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Kyle, K. & McNamara, D. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16.Google Scholar
Crosson, A. & Lesaux, N. (2013). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students? Journal of Research in Reading, 36(3), 241–60.Google Scholar
Crosson, A., Lesaux, N. & Martiniello, M. (2008). Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 603–25.Google Scholar
Cuenca, M.-J. (2022). Translating discourse markers: Implicitation and explicitation strategies. In Cuenca, M. J. & Degand, L., eds., Translating Discourse Markers: Implicitation and Explicitation Strategies. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 215–46.Google Scholar
Cuenca, M.-J., Postolea, S. & Visconti, J. (2019). Contrastive markers in contrast. Discours, 25, 33p.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2000). The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 60–80.Google Scholar
Danlos, L., Rysová, K., Rysová, M. & Stede, M. (2018). Primary and secondary discourse connectives: Definitions and lexicons. Dialogue and Discourse, 9(1), 50–78.Google Scholar
Daradoumis, T. (1996). Towards a representation of the rhetorical structure of interrupted exchanges. In Adorni, G. & Zock, M., eds., Trends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective. Berlin: Springer, 106–24.Google Scholar
Das, D. & Taboada, M. (2013). Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA) Conference.Google Scholar
Das, D. & Taboada, M. (2018). Signaling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743–70.Google Scholar
Das, D. & Taboada, M. (2019). Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours, 24.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R.-A. & Dressler, U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Carolis, B., Pelachaud, C. & Poggi, I. (2000). Verbal and nonverbal discourse planning. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Workshop on Achieving Human-Like Behaviour in Interactive Animated Agents. Barcelona, Spain, 4p.Google Scholar
De Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D., Nivre, J. & Zeman, D. (2021). Universal dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47(2), 255–308.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (2002). Le fonctionnement de parce que en français parlé: Étude quantitative sur corpus. In Pusch, C. D. & Raible, W., eds., Romanistische Korpuslinguistik – Korpora und gesprochene Sprache, Romance Corpus Linguistics, Corpora and Spoken Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 349–76.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (2016). Toward a global approach to discourse uses of conjunctions in spoken French. Language Sciences, 58, 79–94.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2000). Contextual constraints on causal sequencing in informational texts. Functions of Language, 7(2), 173–201.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2004). Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of puisque and aangezien. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture and Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 251–70.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2009). On describing polysemous discourse markers. What does translation add to the picture? In Slembrouck, S., Taverniers, M. & van Herreweghe, M., eds., From Will to Well: Studies in Linguistics Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. Ghent: Academia Press, 173–84.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2011). Connectieven in de rechterperiferie. Een contrastieve analyse van dus en donc in gesproken taal [Connectives in the right periphery. A contrastive analysis of dus and donc in spoken language]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16(3), 333–48.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2014). “So very fast very fast then”: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Beeching, K. & Detges, U., eds., Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill, 151–78.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2019). Causal relations between discourse and grammar: Because in spoken French and Dutch. In Loureda, O., Recio Fernández, I., Nadal, L. & Cruz, A., eds., Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131–50.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2023). Form and function of discourse markers in spoken French [Keynote speech]. International Conference on Discourse Markers: Theories and Methods. May 26, 2023. https://dmtheoriesmethods.sciencesconf.org/.Google Scholar
Degand, L., Broisson, Z., Crible, L. & Grzech, K. (2022). Cross-linguistic variation in spoken discourse markers: Distribution, functions, and domains. In Peterson, E., Kern, J. & Hiltunen, T., eds., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change: Theory, Innovations, Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 83–104.Google Scholar
Degand, L., Cornillie, B. & Pietrandrea, P. (2013). Discourse markers and modal particles: Two sides of the same coin? Introduction. In Degand, L., Cornillie, B. & Pietrandrea, P., eds., Discourse Markers and Modal Particles Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–18.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Crible, L. (2021). Discourse markers at the peripheries of syntax, intonation and turns. Towards a cognitive-functional unit of segmentation. In Van Olmen, D. & Šinkūnienė, J., eds., Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–48.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2015). Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 16(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language, 18(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, L. & Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain. French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 154–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, L. & Hadermann, P. (2009). Structure narrative et connecteurs temporels en français langue seconde. In Havu, E. et al., eds., La Langue en Contexte. Actes du Colloque Représentations du sens Linguistique IV. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 19–34.Google Scholar
Degand, L., Lefèvre, N. & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1, 39–51.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In Verhagen, A. & van de Weijer, J. M., eds., Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT, 175–99.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 739–57.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Simon, A. C. (2009). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours, 4.Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2011). Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 287–94.Google Scholar
Denturck, K. (2012). Explicitation vs. implicitation: A bidirectional corpus-based analysis of causal connectives in French and Dutch translations. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(2), 211–27.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T., eds., The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 623–47.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43(3).Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 103–20.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2010). On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies. In Stathi, K. et al., eds., Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y., eds. (2011). The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Don, Z. & Sriniwass, S. (2017). Conjunctive adjuncts in undergraduate ESL essays in Malaysia: Frequency and manner of use. Moderna Språk, 111, 99–117.Google Scholar
Dragon, N., Berendes, K., Weinert, S., Heppt, D. & Stanat, P. (2015). Ignorieren grundschulkinder konnektoren? Untersuchung einer bildungssprachlichen komponente. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(4), 803–25.Google Scholar
Drenhaus, H., Demberg, V., Köhne, J. & Delogu, F. (2014). Incremental and predictive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Quebec, Canada, 403–08.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1983). Puisque: Essai de description polyphonique. Revue Romane, 24, 166–85.Google Scholar
Dupont, M. (2021). Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French: From Syntax to Lexis and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dupont, M. & Zufferey, S. (2017). Methodological issues in the use of parallel directional corpora: A case study with English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270–97.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge, and instruction. In Ellis, R. et al., eds., Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 3–30.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–92.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J., Degand, L., Fagard, B. & Mortier, L. (2011). Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics, 49(2), 445–78.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J., Hoek, J. & Scholman, M. (2017). On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–54.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains – on the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1645–62.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Ramm, W., eds. (2008). “Subordination” versus “Coordination” in Sentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fagard, B. & Degand, L. (2010). Cause and subjectivity, a comparative study of French and Italian. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 33(2), 179–93.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 157, 1–16.Google Scholar
Fedriani, C. & Sansó, A. (2017). Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferstl, E. & von Cramon, D. (2001). The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 325–40.Google Scholar
Field, Y. & Yip, L. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23, 15–28.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2006a). Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 1–20). Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., ed. (2006b). Approaches to Discourse Particles. Leiden: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2014). Discourse markers. In Schneider, K. & Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 271–94.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Norde, M. & Perridon, H., eds. (2004). Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. & Schrock, J. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 280–95.Google Scholar
Franken, N. (1996). Pour une nouvelle description de puisque. Revue Romane, 31(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–90.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–52.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2006). On the conceptual-procedural distinction. Style, 40(1–2), 24–32.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320.Google Scholar
French, L. & Brown, A. (1977). Comprehension of before and after in logical and arbitrary sequences. Journal of Child Language, 4, 247–56.Google Scholar
Freywald, U. (2016). Clause integration and verb position in German – Drawing the boundary between subordinating clause linkers and their paratactic homonyms. Linguistische Berichte, 21, 181–220.Google Scholar
Frith, C. (1992). The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Schizophrenia. Hove: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gabarró-López, S. (2019). When the meaning of same is not restricted to likeness: A preliminary study from the perspective of discourse relational devices in two sign languages. Discours, 24.Google Scholar
Gast, V. (2019). An exploratory, corpus-based study of concessive markers in English, German and Spanish: The distribution of although, obwohl and aunque in the Europarl corpus. In Loureda, O. et al., eds., Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 151–92.Google Scholar
Gast, V. & Diessel, H., eds. (2012a). Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gast, V. & Diessel, H. (2012b). The typology of clause linkage: Status quo, challenges, prospects. In Gast, V. & Diessel, H., eds., Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–36.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. In Costermans, J. & Fayol, M., eds., Processing Interclausal Relationships. Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–21.Google Scholar
Geva, E. (1992). The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 731–47.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & Mauri, C. (2008). From cause to contrast: A study in semantic change. In Verhoeven, E. et al. eds., Studies on Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 303–20.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & Mauri, C. (2011). The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In Heine, B. & Heiko, N., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 656–67.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & Mauri, C. (2012). Gradualness and pace in grammaticalization: The case of adversative connectives. Folia Linguistica, 46(2), 483–512.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., Holliman, E. & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. San Francisco, 517–20.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. & Murray, J. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 504–19.Google Scholar
Gonsalez, D., Cáceres, M., Bento-Gaz, A. & Befi-Lopes, D. (2012). The complexity of narrative interferes in the use of conjunctions in children with specific language impairment. Jornal da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 24, 152–56.Google Scholar
Goutsos, D. (2017). A corpus-based approach to functional markers in Greek. Exploring the role of position. In Fedriani, C. & Sansó, A., eds., Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–47.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2014). A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages. Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 58–72.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Gilquin, G. & Meunier, F., eds. (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Hung, J. & Petch-Tyson, S., eds. (2002). Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15, 17–27.Google Scholar
Groupe lambda-L. (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10, 248–80.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
Gülzow, I., Bartlitz, V., Kuehnast, M., Golcher, F. & Bittner, D. (2018). The adversative connectives aber and but in conversational corpora. Journal of Child Language, 45, 1212–26.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (1996). From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3), 323–56.Google Scholar
Ha, M.-J. (2014). A corpus-based study on Korean EFL learners’ use of English logical connectors. International Journal of Contents, 10, 48–52.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In Le Ny, J. F. & Kintsch, W., eds., Language and Language Comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 239–49.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K. & Bingham, G. (1978). Verbs contribute to the coherence of brief narratives: Reading related and unrelated sentence triples. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 419–25.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., eds. (1989). Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall, A. (2007). Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures? Lingua, 117(1), 149–74.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Hallin, A., Garcia, G. & Reuterkiöld, C. (2016). The use of causal language and filled pauses in children with and without autism. Child Development Research, 2016, 8535868.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2004). Connectives as a translation problem. In Kittel, H. et al., eds., An International Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 562–72.Google Scholar
Hamed, M. (2014). Conjunctions in argumentative writing of Libyan tertiary students. English Language Teaching, 7, 108–20.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. (1997). Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 153–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00086-0.Google Scholar
Hansen, M-B. M. (2006). A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Leiden: Brill, 21–41.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication, 32(3), 182–204.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. (2017). Spontaneous Spoken English: An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Coordination. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, volume 2: Complex Constructions. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–51.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. (2020). Corpus-based contrastive studies: Beginnings, developments and directions. Languages in Contrast, 20(2), 184–208.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 237–58.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicature in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics, 18(3), 425–51.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2019). Word-external properties in a typology of Modern English: A comparison with German. English Language and Linguistics, 23(3), 701–27.Google Scholar
Heim, J. M. (2019). Turn-peripheral management of common ground: A study of Swabian gell. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 130–46.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G, Kuteva, T. & Long, H. (2021). The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hesson, A. & Shellgren, M. (2015). Discourse marker like in real time: Characterizing the time-course of sociolinguistic impression formation. American Speech, 90(2), 154–86.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–32.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. (1983). Why is discourse coherent? In Neubauer, F., ed., Coherence in Natural Language Texts. Hamburg: Buske, 29–70.Google Scholar
Hoek, J., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2018). Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 357–86.Google Scholar
Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations. A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121(1), 113–31.Google Scholar
Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2019). Linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(2), 275–309.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hovy, E. & Maier, E. (1994). Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hu, C. & Li, Y. (2015). Discourse connectives in L1 and L2 argumentative writing. Higher Education Studies, 5, 30–41.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., Cárcamo, B. & Marín, V. (2020). Signaling of causal relations in Spanish: Variety, functionality, and specificity. Dialogue & Discourse, 11(1), 40–61.Google Scholar
Ide, N. & Pustejovsky, J. (2017). Handbook of Linguistic Annotation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L. & Mel’čuk, I. (1999). Textual connectors across languages: French en effet vs. Russian v samon dele. RASK, 9(10), 305–47.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. & Pulver, C. (1984). Effects of explicitness, clause order, and reversibility on children’s comprehension of causal relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 399–407.Google Scholar
Izutsu, M. N. (2008). Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 646–75.Google Scholar
Izutsu, M. N. & Izutsu, K. (2014). Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 15(1), 62–92.Google Scholar
Janssens, L., Drooghmans, S. & Schaeken, W. (2015). ‘But’: Do age and working memory influence conventional implicature processing? Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 695–708.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (1998). On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. In Johansson, S. & Oksefjell, S., eds., Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 3–24.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (2007). Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Weissenborn, J. (1984). A developmental cross-linguistic study of adversative connectives: French ‘mais’ and German ‘aber/sondern’. Journal of Child Language, 11, 143–58.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35(4), 852–97.Google Scholar
Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T. & Zwaan, R. (2008). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45(6), 545–79.Google Scholar
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T. & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 323–45.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kanno, Y. (1989). The use of connectives in English academic papers written by Japanese students. In Otsu, Y., ed., MITA Working Papers in Psycholinguistics, 2, 41–51.Google Scholar
Keenan, J., Baillet, S. & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115–26.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1995). The epistemic weil. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 16–30.Google Scholar
Keskes, I., Benamara, F. & Belguith Hadrich, L. (2014). Learning explicit and implicit Arabic discourse relations. Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences, 26(4), 398–416.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S. & Christiansen, M. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–69.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements. Cognitive Development, 21, 93–107.Google Scholar
Kim, S. H. & Sohn, S.-O. (2015). Grammar as an emergent response to interactional needs: A study of final kuntey ‘but’ in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 73–90.Google Scholar
Kleijn, S., Mak, W. & Sanders, T. (2021). Causality, subjectivity and mental spaces: Insights from online discourse processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 35–65.Google Scholar
Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H. & Sanders, T. (2019). Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 56(5–6), 447–64.Google Scholar
Knoepke, J., Richter, T., Isberner, M.-B., Naumann, J., Neeb, Y. & Weinert, S. (2017). Processing of positive-causal and negative-causal coherence relations in primary school children and adults: A test of the cumulative cognitive complexity approach in German. Journal of Child Language, 44(2), 297–328.Google Scholar
Knott, A. & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62.Google Scholar
Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Proceedings of MT Summit 2005. Phuket: Thailand, 79–86.Google Scholar
Köhne, J. & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, 2760–65.Google Scholar
Köhne-Futterer, J., Drenhaus, H., Delogu, F. & Demberg, V. (2013). The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives. Linguistics, 59(2), 417–48.Google Scholar
Kolachina, S., Prasad, R., Sharma, D. & Joshi, A. (2012). Evaluation of discourse relation annotation in the Hindi discourse relation bank. Proceedings of LREC 2012. Istanbul, Turkey, 823–28.Google Scholar
Kong, K. (1998). Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text, 18(1), 103–41.Google Scholar
König, E. (1985). On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua, 66(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
König, E. (1988). Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Hawkins, J., ed., Explaining Language Universals. Oxford & New York: Blackwell, 110–24.Google Scholar
König, E. (2012). Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast, 12(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
König, E. & Siemund, P. (2000). Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relation. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Kortmann, B., eds., Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 341–60.Google Scholar
König, E. & Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: The conventionalizing of conversational implicature. In Hüllen, W. & Schulze, R., eds., Understanding the Lexicon. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1996). Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krezeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kunz, K. & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–88.Google Scholar
Kupersmitt, J. & Armon-Lotem, S. (2019). The linguistic expression of causal relations in picture-based narratives: A comparative study of bilingual and monolingual children with TLD and DLD. First Language, 39(3), 319–43.Google Scholar
Kyratzis, A., Guo, J. & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1990). Pragmatic conventions influencing children’s use of causal constructions in natural discourse. In Hall, K. et al., eds., Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, 205–14.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1, 97–120.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Laippala, V., Kyröläinen, A.-J., Kanerva, J. & Ginter, F. (2021). Dependency profiles in the large-scale analysis of discourse connectives. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 143–75.Google Scholar
Lambda-l, G. (1975). “Car, parce que, puisque”. Revue Romane, 10, 248–80.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (1994). Pragmatic connectives and L2 acquisition: The case of French and Dutch. Pragmatics, 4, 183–201.Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Nedoluzhko, A. & Kunz, K. (2015). Across languages and genres: Creating a universal annotation scheme for textual relations. Proceedings of LAW IX – The 9th Linguistic Annotation Workshop. Denver, 168–77.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5), 437–93.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laviosa, S. (2009). Universals. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G., eds., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 306–10.Google Scholar
Le Draoulec, A. & Bras, M. (2007). Alors as a possible temporal connective in discourse. Cahiers Chronos, 17, 81–94.Google Scholar
Lee, A., Prasad, R., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. (2016). Annotating discourse relations with the PDTB annotator. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Osaka, Japan, 121–25.Google Scholar
Lee, D. & Chen, S. X. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 149–65.Google Scholar
Lee, H.-K. (2002). Towards a new typology of connectives with special reference to conjunction in English and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 851–66.Google Scholar
Lee, K. A. (2013). Korean ESL learners’ use of connectors in English academic writing. English Language Teaching, 25(2), 81–103.Google Scholar
Leedham, M. & Cai, G. (2013). Besides … on the other hand: Using a corpus approach to explore the influence of teaching materials on Chinese students’ use of linking adverbials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 374–89.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–225.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Münich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lenker, U. & Meurman-Solin, A., eds. (2007). Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. & Deevy, P. (2004). Lexical deficits in specific language impairment. In Verhoeven, L. & Van Balkom, H., eds., Classification of Developmental Language Disorders: Theoretical Issues and Clinical Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 209–33.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. & Degand, L. (2017). Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(1), 132–50.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (2006). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Leiden: Brill, 43–60.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (2018). Grammaticalizing connectives in English and discourse information structure. In Hancil, S. et al., eds., New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 135–57.Google Scholar
Li, F., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2013). Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin: A corpus-based investigation. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1), 74–119.Google Scholar
Li, F., Sanders, T. & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2016). On the subjectivity of Mandarin reason connectives: Robust profiles or genre-sensitivity? In Stukker, N., Spooren, W. & Steen, G., eds., Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 15–50.Google Scholar
Liu, D. (2008). Linking adverbials. An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491–518.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parametrization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 291–316.Google Scholar
Lyu, S., Tu, J.-Y. & Lin, C.-J.C. (2020). Processing plausibility in concessive and causal relations: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking. Discourse Processes, 57(4), 320–42.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mak, W. & Sanders, T. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1414–37.Google Scholar
Mak, W., Tribushinina, E. & Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse. An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50, 557–76.Google Scholar
Mak, W., Tribushinina, E., Lomajo, J., Gagarina, N. & Sanders, T. (2017). Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: Distinct profiles. Journal of Child Language, 44, 329–45.Google Scholar
Mann, W. (2005). RST Web Site, from www.sfu.ca/rst.Google Scholar
Mann, W. & Thompson, S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57–90.Google Scholar
Mann, W. & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–81.Google Scholar
Marchal, M., Scholman, M. & Demberg, V. (2021). Semi-automatic discourse annotation in a low-resource language: Developing a connective lexicon for Nigerian Pidgin. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Discourse. Punta-Cana, Dominican Republic, 84–94.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C. (2006). Grammaticalisation et Changement Linguistique. Brussels : De Boeck.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C. (2007). Le principe de surprise annoncée. Discours, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C. (2009). Grammaticalisation et pragmaticalisation des connecteurs de concession en français: cependant, toutefois, pourtant. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LIV, 1–2, 7–20.Google Scholar
Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, 35–53.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (2005) [1955]. Économie des changements phonétiques – Traité de phonologie diachronique. Paris: Maison Neuve Larose [Berne: A. Franckel].Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. & Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 189–221.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. (2002). Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Bybee, J. & Noonan, M., eds., Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 235–319.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P. (2004). Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mauri, C. (2008). Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mauri, C. & Giacalone Ramat, A. (2012). The development of adversative connectives in Italian: Stages and factors at play. Linguistics, 50(2), 191–239.Google Scholar
Mauri, C. & van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–88.Google Scholar
McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. & 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, 1–43.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Jared, D. & Seidenberg, M. (1990). On the roles of frequency and lexical access in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. (1975). The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B., Brandt, D. & Bluth, G. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.Google Scholar
Meyer, B., Young, C. & Bartlett, B. (1989). Memory Improved: Enhanced Reading Comprehension and Memory Across the Life Span Through Strategic Text Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Meyer, T. & Popescu-Belis, A. (2012). Using sense-labeled discourse connectives for statistical machine translation. Proceedings of the Workshop on Hybrid Approaches to Machine Translation (HyTra). Avignon, France, 129–38.Google Scholar
Millis, K. & Just, M. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–47.Google Scholar
Milner, J.-C. (1992). Ordre et Raisons de Langue. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. (2004). Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation. Boston, 9–16.Google Scholar
Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Lee, A. & Joshi, A. (2008). Sense annotation in the Penn Discourse Treebank. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4919, 275–86.Google Scholar
Mírovský, J., Synková, P., Rysová, M. & Poláková, L. (2017). CzeDLex – A lexicon of Czech discourse connectives. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 109, 61–91.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1988). The grammaticization of coordination. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 331–59.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2005). Connecteurs pragmatiques, inferences directionnelles et representations mentales. Cahiers Chronos, 12, 35–50.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–76, 122–38.Google Scholar
Morera, Y., Len, J., Escudero, I. & de Vega, M. (2017). Do causal and concessive connectives guide emotional expectancies in comprehension? A double-task paradigm using emotional icons. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 583–98.Google Scholar
Mortier, L. & Degand, L. (2009). Adversative discourse markers in contrast: The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 338–66.Google Scholar
Muller, C. (1996). Dépendance et intégration syntaxique: Subordination, coordination, connexion. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In Lorch, R. F. & O’Brien, E., eds., Sources of Cohesion in Text Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 107–25.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–36.Google Scholar
Musi, E. (2016). Semantic change from space-time to contrast: The case of Italian adversative connectives. Folia Linguistica, 50(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Nazarenko-Perrin, A. (1992). Causal ambiguity in natural language: Conceptual representation of ‘parce que/because’ and ‘puisque/since’. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Nantes, France, 880–84.Google Scholar
Nippold, M., Schwartz, I. & Undlin, R. (1992). Use and understanding of adverbial conjunctions: A developmental study of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 108–18.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M.-C., Ginter, F., Hajič, J., Manning, C. D., Pyysalo, S., Schuster, S., Tyers, F. & Zeman, D. (2020). Universal Dependencies v2: An Evergrowing Multilingual Treebank Collection. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Marseille, France, 4034–43.Google Scholar
Noordman, L. & de Blijzer, F. (2000). On processing causal relations. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Kortmann, B., eds., Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–55.Google Scholar
Norbury, C., Gemmel, T. & Paul, R. (2014). Pragmatic abilities in narrative production: A cross-disorder comparison. Journal of Child Language, 41, 485–510.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2001). Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences, 23(2), 231–64.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2022). Explorations of Language Transfer. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Oğuz, E. & Özge, D. (2020). A developmental study of Turkish connectives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(2), 339–61.Google Scholar
Oh, S. (2005). A multi-level semantic approach to Korean causal conjunctive suffixes -(e)se and -(u)nikka: A corpus-based analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(4), 469–88.Google Scholar
Ohori, T. (2011). The grammaticalization of subordination. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 636–45.Google Scholar
Onodera, N. O. (2004). Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Onodera, N. & Closs Traugott, E. (2016). Periphery: Diachronic and cross-linguistics approaches. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 163–77.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2008). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Overweg, J., Harman, C. & Hendriks, P. (2018). Temporarily out of order. Temporal perspective taking in language in children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1663.Google Scholar
Ozono, S. & Ito, H. (2003). Logical connectives as catalysts for interactive L2 reading. System, 31, 283–97.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H. & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of Speaker Involvement. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 211–45.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H. & Degand, L. (2005). Connectieven, spreker-betrokkenheid en semantische lagen Hoe daarom en dus zich gedragen in niet-declaratieve omgevingen. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 10(2), 153–85.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H. & Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 247–73.Google Scholar
Park, Y.-Y. (2013). Korean college EFL students’ use of contrastive conjunctions in argumentative writing. English Teaching, 68, 55–77.Google Scholar
Pasch, R., Brausse, U., Breindl, E. & Wassner, U. H. (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Payne, B., Gao, X., Noh, S., Anderson, C. & Stine-Morrow, E. (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), 122–49.Google Scholar
PDTB Research Group (2008). The Penn Discourse TreeBank2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marrakech, Morocco, 2961–68.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. (1986). Semantic and pragmatic uses of ‘but’. Journal of Child Language, 13(3), 583–90.Google Scholar
Pit, M. (2006). Determining subjectivity in text: The case of backward causal Connectives in Dutch. Discourse Processes, 41(2), 151–74.Google Scholar
Pit, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast, 7, 53–82.Google Scholar
Pitler, E. & Nenkova, A. (2009). Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers. Suntec, Singapore, 13–16.Google Scholar
Pitler, E., Raghupathy, M., Mehta, H., Nenkova, A., Lee, A. & Joshi, A. (2008). Easily identifiable discourse relations. Proceedings of COLING. Manchester, 87–90.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2001). Connectives/discourse markers. An overview. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Literaris, VI, 219–43.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2006). A functional approach to the study of discourse markers. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Leiden: Brill, 77–99.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2008). Do discourse markers exist? On the treatment of discourse markers in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(8), 1411–34.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2018). Paths of grammaticalization: Beyond the LP/RP debate. In Pons Bordería, S. & Loureda, Ó., eds., Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. New Issues in the Study of Language Change. Leiden: Brill, 334–83.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marrakesh, Morocco, 2961–68.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. (2014). Reflections on the Penn Discourse Treebank, comparable corpora and complementary annotation. Computational Linguistics, 40(4), 921–50.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Webber, B. & Joshi, A. (2017). The Penn Discourse Treebank: An annotated corpus of discourse relations. In Ide, N. and Pustejovsky, J., eds., Handbook of Linguistic Annotation. Dordrecht: Springer, 1197–217.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Webber, B. & Lee, A. (2018). Discourse annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. Proceedings 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Santa-Fe, 87–97.Google Scholar
Purcell, S. & Liles, B. (1992). Cohesion repairs in the narratives of normal-language and language-disordered school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 354–62.Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, P. & Järvikivi, J. (2012). Children and situation models of multiple events. Developmental Psychology, 48, 521–29.Google Scholar
Ramsey, V. (1987). The functional distribution of preposed and postposed ‘if’ and ‘when’ clauses in written discourse. In Tomlin, R. S., ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 383–408.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. & Moeschler, J. (1998). Pragmatique du discours. De l’interprétation de l’énoncé à l’interprétation du discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Recio Fernández, I. (2020). The Impact of Procedural Meaning on Second Language Processing: A Study on Connectives (Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Heidelberg). https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00028641.Google Scholar
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367–81.Google Scholar
Reese, B., Hunter, J., Asher, N., Denis, P. & Baldridge, J. (2007). Reference manual for the analysis and annotation of rhetorical structure (version 1.0). Technical report. Austin: University of Texas, Departments of Linguistics and Philosophy. www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas-Asher/publication/237563723_Reference_Manual_for_the_Analysis_and_Annotation_of_Rhetorical_Structure_Version_10/links/00b7d5328bd0e1df85000000/Reference-Manual-for-the-Analysis-and-Annotation-of-Rhetorical-Structure-.Google Scholar
Rehbein, I., Scholman, M. & Sanders, T. (2016). Annotating discourse relations in spoken language: A comparison of the PDTB and the CCR frameworks. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Portorož, Slovenia, 1039–46.Google Scholar
Renkema, J. (1996). Cohesion analysis and information flow: The case of “Because” versus “because.” In Cremers, C. & den Dikken, M., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–44.Google Scholar
Rickards, J., Fajen, B., Sullivan, J. & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, notetaking and field-independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508–17.Google Scholar
Robert, S. (1997). From body to argumentation: Grammaticalization as a fractal property of language (the case of Wolof ginnaaw). Proceedings of the 23rd Annual BLS Meeting, Special Session on Syntax and Semantics in African Languages. Berkeley, 116–27.Google Scholar
Rossari, C. (2006). Formal properties of a subset of discourse markers: Connectives. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Leiden: Brill, 299–314.Google Scholar
Roze, C., Danlos, L. & Muller, P. (2012). LEXCONN: A French lexicon of discourse connectives. Discours, 10, 1–15.Google Scholar
Rysová, M., Synková, P., Mírovský, J., Hajičová, E., Nedoluzhko, A., Ocelák, R., Pergler, J., Poláková, L., Scheller, V., Zdeňková, J. & Zikánová, Š. (2016). Prague Discourse Treebank 2.0. Data/software, ÚFAL MFF UK, Prague, Czech Republic, Lindat/Clarin.Google Scholar
Rysová, M. (2017). Discourse connectives: From historical origin to present-day development. In Menzel, K. et al., eds., New Perspectives on Cohesion and Coherence. Implications for Translation. Berlin: Language Science Press, 11–34.Google Scholar
Salameh, S., Estellés, M. & Pons Bordería, S. (2018). Beyond the notion of periphery: An account of polyfunctional discourse markers within the Val.Es.Co. model of discourse segmentation. In Beeching, K. et al., eds., Positioning the Self and Others. Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–25.Google Scholar
Sanders, J., Sanders, T. & Sweetser, E. (2012). Responsible subjects and discourse causality. How mental spaces and perspective help identifying subjectivity in Dutch backward causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 191–213.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning. Biarritz, France, 105–14.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Demberg, V., Hoek, J., Scholman, M., Asr, T., Zufferey, S. & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2021). Unifying dimensions in discourse relations. How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 1–71.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2009). The cognition of discourse coherence. In Renkema, J., ed., Discourse, of Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197–212.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2013). Exceptions to rules: A qualitative analysis of backward causal connectives in Dutch naturalistic discourse. Text & Talk, 33(3), 377–98.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2015). Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1), 53–92.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Vis, K. & Broeder, D. (2012). Project notes on the Dutch project DiscAn. Proceedings of the Eighth Joint ACL – ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
Santana, A., Spooren, W., Nieuwenhuijsen, D. & Sanders, T. (2018). Subjectivity in Spanish discourse: Explicit and implicit causal relations in different contexts. Dialogue and Discourse, 9(1), 163–91.Google Scholar
Saussure, L. de (2011). On some methodological issues in the conceptual/procedural distinction. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A., eds., Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 55–79.Google Scholar
Scheffler, T. (2005). Syntax and semantics of causal denn in German. Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, 215–20.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Körkel, J. & Weinert, F. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high- and low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 306–12.Google Scholar
Scholman, M. & Demberg, V. (2017). Crowdsourcing discourse interpretations: On the influence of context and the reliability of a connective insertion task. Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop. Valencia, Spain, 24–33.Google Scholar
Scholman, M., Demberg, V. & Sanders, T. (2020). Individual differences in expecting coherence relations: Exploring the variability in sensitivity to contextual signals in discourse. Discourse Processes, 57, 884–61.Google Scholar
Scholman, M., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2016). Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation: Towards a reliable categorization of coherence relations. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
Scholman, M., Pyatkin, V., Yung, F., Dagan, I., Tsarfaty, R. & Demberg, V. (2022). Design choices in crowdsourcing discourse relation annotations: The effect of worker selection and training. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marseille, France, 2148–56.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3–4), 227–65.Google Scholar
Schumann, J., Zufferey, S. & Oswald, S. (2021). The linguistic formulation of fallacies matter: The case of causal connectives. Argumentation, 35(3), 361–88.Google Scholar
Schwab, J. & Liu, M. (2020). Lexical and contextual cue effects in discourse expectations: Experimenting with German ‘zwar… aber’ and English ‘true/sure… but’. Dialogue and Discourse, 11, 74–109.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. (2002). Discourse markers and the PA/SN distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 38(1), 43–69.Google Scholar
Segal, E., Duchan, J. & Scott, P. (1991). The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
Shi, J. (2017). A corpus-based study of contrastive/concessive linking adverbials in spoken English of Chinese EFL learners. Studies in Literature and Language, 14, 17–25.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds. (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simon, A.-C. & Degand, L. (2007). Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car et de parce que. Journal of French Language Studies, 17(3), 323–41.Google Scholar
Šliogerienė, J., Valūnaitė, Oleškevičienė G. & Asijavičiūtė, V. (2015). Discourse relational devices of contrast in Lithuanian and English. Edukologija, 23(2), 92–100.Google Scholar
Smith, R. & Frawley, W. (1983). Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text, 3(4), 347–74.Google Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L. & Humbach, N. (2012). Do L1 reading achievement and L1 print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency? Language Learning, 62, 473–505.Google Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N. & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 129–60.Google Scholar
Spenader, J. (2018). Children’s comprehension of contrastive connectives. Journal of Child Language, 45, 610–40.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spooren, W. (1997). The Processing of Underspecified Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149–68.Google Scholar
Spooren, W. & Degand, L. (2010). Coding coherence relations. Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–66.Google Scholar
Spooren, W. & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–26.Google Scholar
Spooren, W., Sanders, T., Huiskes, M. & Degand, L. (2010). Subjectivity and causality: A corpus study of spoken language. In Newman, J. and Rice, S., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 241–55.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. & West, R. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–33.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K., West, R. & Harrison, R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span. The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 811–26.Google Scholar
Stede, M. (2002). DiMLex: A lexical approach to discourse markers. In Lenci, A. & Di Tomaso, V., eds., Exploring the Lexicon – Theory and Computation. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 1–15.Google Scholar
Stede, M. & Heintze, S. (2004). Machine-Assisted rhetorical structure annotation. COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Geneva, Switzerland, 425–31.Google Scholar
Stede, M., Scheffler, T. & Mendes, A. (2019). Connective-Lex: A web-based multilingual lexical resource for connectives. Discours, 24, 1–38.Google Scholar
Stede, M. & Umbach, C. (1998). DIMLex: A lexicon of discourse markers for text generation and understanding. Proceedings of the Joint 36th Meeting of the ACL and the 17th Meeting of COLING, 1238–42.Google Scholar
Steffani, S. & Nippold, M. (1997). Japanese speakers of American English: Competence with connectives in written language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1048–55.Google Scholar
Stukker, N. & Sanders, T. (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 169–90.Google Scholar
Stukker, N., Spooren, W. & Steen, G. (2016). Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. (2009). Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Renkema, J., ed., Discourse, of Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–38.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. & de los Ángeles Gómez-González, M. (2012). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6, 17–41.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. (2006a). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8(3), 423–59.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. & Mann, W. (2006b). Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567–88.Google Scholar
Tanghe, S. (2016). Position and polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of Spanish markers derived from motion verbs. Journal of Pragmatics, 93, 16–31.Google Scholar
Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English – preliminary results. The Department of English: Working Papers in English Linguistics, 5, 116–44.Google Scholar
Tazegül, A. (2015). Use, misuse and overuse of ‘on the other hand’: A corpus study comparing English of native speakers and learners. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 2, 53–66.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trabbasso, T., Secco, T. & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In. Mandl, H., Stein, N. and Trabasso, T., eds., Learning and Comprehension of Text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1986). On the origins of “AND” and “BUT” connectives in English. Studies in Language, 10(1), 137–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Oral presentation at International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII. Manchester. www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction, 5(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (2017). ‘Insubordination’ in the light of the Uniformitarian Principle. English Language & Linguistics, 21(2), 289–310.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (2022). Discourse Structuring Markers in English. A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. & König, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E. & Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–219.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Bybee, M. & Pickering, M. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(3), 481–97.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P. & Moxey, L. M. (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, E., Dubinkina, E. & Sanders, T. (2015). Can connective use differentiate between children with and without SLI? First Language, 35, 3–26.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, E., Mak, W., Andreiushina, E., Dubinkina, E. & Sanders, T. (2015). Connective use in the narratives of bilingual children and monolingual children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 98–113.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. & Chang, C. (2008). ‘But I first. and then he kept picking’: Narrative skill in Mandarin-speaking children with language impairment. Narrative Inquiry, 18, 349–77.Google Scholar
Tskhovrebova, E., Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2022). Individual variations in the mastery of connectives from teenage years to adulthood. Language Learning, 72(2), 412–55.Google Scholar
Tskhovrebova, E., Zufferey, S. & Tribushinina, E. (2022). French-speaking teenagers’ mastery of connectives: The role of vocabulary size and exposure to print. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(5), 1141–63.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273–90.Google Scholar
Uçar, S. & Yükselir, C. (2017). A corpus-based study on the use of the logical connector ‘thus’ in the academic writing of Turkish EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 64–72.Google Scholar
Urgelles-Coll, M. (2010). The Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Uygur-Distexhe, D. & Degand, L. (2015). C bien alors. Contraintes communicatives sur la périphérie droite en conversations spontanées. Le cas du face-à-face, du chat et du SMS. Cahiers de lexicologie, 106(1), 171–87.Google Scholar
Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė, G., Karaciejūtė, V., Gulbinskienė, D. & Annamalai, N. (2022). Lithuanian discourse markers in parallel corpus for teaching translation awareness. Pedagogika, 145(1), 117–34.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, L., Segers, E. & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Online processing of causal relations in beginning first and second language readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 59–67.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, D. & Šinkūnienė, D. (2021). Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Smith, B. (2022). Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
Van Veen, R. (2011). The Acquisition of Causal Connectives. The Role of Parental Input and Cognitive Complexity. Amsterdam: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Van Veen, R., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T. & Van den Bergh, H. (2009). Parental input and connective acquisition in German: A growth-curve analysis. First Language, 29, 267–89.Google Scholar
Van Veen, R., Evers-Vermeul, J., Sanders, T. & Van den Bergh, H. (2013). The influence of input on connective acquisition: A growth curve analysis of English because and German weil. Journal of Child Language, 40(5), 1003–31.Google Scholar
Véronis, J. & Guimier, E. (2006). Le traitement des nouvelles formes de communication écrite. In Sabah, G., ed., Compréhension des langues et interaction (pp. 227–48). Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Véronis, J. & Langlais, P. (2000). Evaluation of parallel text alignment systems: The arcade project. In Véronis, J., ed., Parallel Text Processing. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 369–88.Google Scholar
Versley, Y. (2010). Discovery of ambiguous and unambiguous discourse connectives via annotation projection. Proceedings of Workshop on Annotation and Exploitation of Parallel Corpora. Tartu, Estonia, 83–92.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C. (2004). Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics, 42(4), 819–53.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C. (2007). Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. (2005). The journey of non-standard discourse markers in Quebec French: Networks based on exemplification. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6(2), 188–210.Google Scholar
Visapää, L., Kalliokoski, J. & Sorva, H., eds. (2014). Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, Typological and Discourse Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Volodina, A. & Weinert, S. (2020). Comprehension of connectives. Development across primary school age and influencing factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(814), 1–15.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2006). The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles (Vol. 1, pp. 61–67). Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Xiao, R. & Dai, G. (2014). Lexical and grammatical properties of translational Chinese: Translation universal hypotheses reevaluated from the Chinese perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 11–55.Google Scholar
Wang, Y.-F. & Tsai, P.-H. (2007). Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1775–815.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 347–61.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Webber, B., Joshi, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A. & Forbes, K. (2006). A short introduction to the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 32(9).Google Scholar
Webber, B., Prasad, R., Lee, A. & Joshi, A. (2019). The Penn Discourse Treebank 3.0 Annotation Manual. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2019T05/PDTB3-Annotation-Manual.pdfGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Weinreich, U. et al., eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–195.Google Scholar
Wen-hui, S. & Pao-chuan, T. (2015). Narrative coherence of Mandarin-speaking children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: An investigation into causal relations. First Language, 35(3), 189–212.Google Scholar
Wetzel, M., Crible, L. & Zufferey, S. (2022). Processing clause-internal discourse relations in a second language. A case study of specifications in German and French. Journal of Second Language Studies. Published online ahead of print.Google Scholar
Wetzel, M., Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2020). Second language acquisition and the mastery of discourse connectives: Assessing the factors that hinder L2-learners from mastering French connectives. Languages, 5(3), 35.Google Scholar
Wetzel, M., Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2022). How robust is discourse processing for native readers? The role of connectives and the coherence relations they convey. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(13), 822151.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2011). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M. & Ahern, A., eds., Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 3–31.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Xiang, M. & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–72.Google Scholar
Xiao, R. & Dai, G. (2014). Lexical and grammatical properties of translational Chinese: Translation universal hypotheses reevaluated from the Chinese perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 11–55.Google Scholar
Xiao, H., Li, F., Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2021). Suǒyǐ ‘so’, they are different: An integrated subjectivity account of Mandarin RESULT connectives in conversation, microblog and newspaper discourse. Linguistics, 59(4), 1103–42.Google Scholar
Xu, X., Chen, Q., Panther, K.-U. & Wu, Y. (2018). Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 387–409.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Malt, B. & Srinivasan, M. (2017). Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium. Cognitive Psychology, 96, 41–53.Google Scholar
Yang, W. & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23, 31–48.Google Scholar
Yoon, J.-W. & Yoo, I. W. (2011). An error analysis of English conjunctive adjuncts in Korean college students’ writing. English Teaching, 66(1), 225–44.Google Scholar
Zafar, S. & Meenakshi, K. (2012). Individual learner differences and second language acquisition: A review. Journal of Language and Teaching Research, 3(4), 639–46.Google Scholar
Zamel, V. (1984). Teaching those missing links in writing. In McKay, S., ed., Composing in a Second Language. Cambridge: Newbury House, 110–22.Google Scholar
Zeyrek, D. (2014). On the distribution of the contrastive-concessive discourse connectives ama ‘but/yet’ and fakat ‘but’ in written Turkish. In Suihkonen, P. & Whaley, L. J., eds., On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–74.Google Scholar
Zeyrek, D., Demirşahin, I. & Sevdik Çallı, A. (2013). Turkish Discourse Bank: Porting a discourse annotation style to a morphologically rich language. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2), 174–84.Google Scholar
Zeyrek, D., Mendes, A., Grishina, Y., Kurfalı, M., Gibbon, S. & Ogrodniczuk, M. (2020). TED Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB): A parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB style. Language Resources and Evaluation, 54(2), 587–613.Google Scholar
Zhang, R. (2014). Overuse and underuse of English concluding connectives: A corpus study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5, 121–26.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. & Xue, N. (2012). PDTB-style discourse annotation of Chinese text. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ACL. Jeju Island, Korea, 69–77.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. & Xue, N. (2015). The Chinese Discourse TreeBank: A Chinese Corpus Annotated with Discourse Relations. Language Resources and Evaluation, 49(2), 397–431.Google Scholar
Zikánová, S., Mladová, L., Mírovský, J. & Jínová, P. (2010). Typical cases of annotators’ disagreement in discourse annotations in Prague dependency treebank. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Valetta, Malta, 2002–06.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2010). Lexical Pragmatics and Theory of Mind. The Acquisition of Connectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2012). ‘Car, parce que, puisque’ revisited: Three experiments on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(2), 138–53.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2014). Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives: The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics, 62(1), 121–35.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2016). Discourse connectives across languages. Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 264–79.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (to appear). Discourse markers in a contrastive perspective. In Mosegaard-Hansen, M.-B. & Visconti, J., eds., Manual of Discourse Markers in Romance Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Cartoni, B. (2012). English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 232–50.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Cartoni, B. (2014). A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target, 26(3), 361–84.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Degand, L. (2017). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 399–422.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Degand, L. (forthcoming). Connectives in French. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1–9.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2016). The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes, 53(7), 532–55.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2020a). “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, 184–200.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2020b). Do teenagers know how to use connectives from the written mode? Lingua, 234, 102779, 1–12.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P., eds., (2023). The Routledge Handbook of Experimental Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Mak, W., 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, 389–411.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Mak, W. & Sanders, T. (2015). A cross-linguistic perspective on the acquisition of causal connectives and relations. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(1), 22–39.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Verbrugge, S. & Sanders, T. (2018). Usage and processing of the French causal connectives ‘car’ and ‘parce que’. Journal of French Language Studies, 28(1), 85–112.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. & Rapp, D. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In Traxler, M. & Gernbacher, M., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics. London: Academic Press, 725–64.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Sandrine Zufferey, University of Bern, Switzerland, Liesbeth Degand, UCLouvain, Belgium
  • Book: Connectives and Discourse Relations
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966573.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Sandrine Zufferey, University of Bern, Switzerland, Liesbeth Degand, UCLouvain, Belgium
  • Book: Connectives and Discourse Relations
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966573.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Sandrine Zufferey, University of Bern, Switzerland, Liesbeth Degand, UCLouvain, Belgium
  • Book: Connectives and Discourse Relations
  • Online publication: 22 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966573.012
Available formats
×