Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:15:29.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stepping back to look ahead: neuter encapsulation and referent extension in counter-argumentative and causal relations in Spanish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2019

GIOVANNI PARODI Open the ORCID record for GIOVANNI PARODI [Opens in a new window] ,
CRISTOBAL JULIO ,
LAURA NADAL ,
ADRIANA CRUZ  and
GINA BURDILES
GIOVANNI PARODI
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
CRISTOBAL JULIO
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
LAURA NADAL
Affiliation:
EAN University
ADRIANA CRUZ
Affiliation:
Heidelberg University
GINA BURDILES
Affiliation:
Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In discourse comprehension, if all goes well, people tend to create a rich and coherent mental representation of the events described in the text. To do so, referential and relational coherence must be established in order to construct a connected discourse. The objective of this follow-up eye-tracking study (N = 72) is to explore the existence of an interaction effect between two factors: (a) the extension of the referent (short and long antecedent), and (b) the semantic relation (counter-argumentative a pesar de, and causal por), when processing the neuter pronoun ello in texts written in Spanish. No previous study has systematically compared the on-line processing of texts in which different extensions of the encapsulated anaphoric antecedent by the neuter pronoun ello (‘this’ or ‘it’ in English) are presented in diverse marked semantic relations (causal and counter-argumentative). Based on three eye-tracking measures, we found distinctive patterns of reading behavior when anaphoric neuter reference and semantic relations must be processed conjointly in order to construct a coherent mental representation. The main findings show that reading longer and more complex antecedents encapsulated by the neutral pronouns ello exerts more cognitive effort in late processing (Look Back measure), particularly when simultaneously and in the same discourse construction there is an explicitly marked counter-argumentative semantic relation. Implications for theories of referential and relational coherence are discussed.

Keywords

cause-effect relationcounter-argumentative relationencapsulationneuter pronoun elloeye-tracking
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 431 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We are extremely grateful to Dr Alonso Ortega for providing expert assistance in methodology and statistics for this paper. We are also grateful to Language and Cognition’s reviewers and editor for particularly useful comments, which have helped improve the paper. This research was funded by FONDECYT N° 1170623 (National Commission of Scientific Research and Technology).

References

references

Ackerman, B. (1986). Referential and causal coherence in the story comprehension of children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 41(2), 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariasi, N. & Mason, L. (2014). From covert processes to overt outcomes of refutation text reading: the interplay of science text structure and working memory capacity through eye fixation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12, 493–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 64, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1991). The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: the case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23, 217–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R., Davidson, D. & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-39. Online <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html>.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint: arXiv:1406.5823.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1989). Denial and contrast: a relevance theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(1), 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1997). Non-truth conditional meaning. Linguistische Berichte 8, 92–102.Google Scholar
Borreguero, M. (2006). Naturaleza y función de los encapsuladores en los textos informativamente densos: la noticia periodística [Nature and function of encapsulators in informatively dense texts: newspaper news]. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 13, 73–95.Google Scholar
Brehm-Jurish, E. (2005). Connective ties in discourse: three ERP-Studies on causal, temporal and concessive connective ties, and their influence on language processing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D. & Tanenhaus, M. (2005). Beyond salience: interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 292–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. & Just, M. (1977). Reading comprehension as eyes see it. In Just, M. & Carpenter, P. (eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 109–139). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17(1/2), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2004). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition 7 , 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çokal, D., Sturt, P. & Ferreira, F. (2018). Processing of it and this in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes 55(3), 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1996). ‘Antecedentless’ anaphors: Deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics 32, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, discourse, and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics 40(6), 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domínguez García, N. (2007). Conectores discursivos en textos argumentativos breves [Discourse connectors in argumentative short texts]. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Drenhaus, H., Demberg, V., Köhne, J. & Delogu, F. (2014). Incremental and predictive discourse processing based on causal and concessive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Québec City: QC.Google Scholar
Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. & Rayner, K. (1990). Eye movements and anaphor resolution: effects of antecedent typicality and distance. Language and Speech 33 , 103–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32 , 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, K. & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: eye movement and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(1), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ersan, E. & Akman, V. (1994). Focusing for pronoun resolution in English discourse: an implementation (Technical Report BU-CEIS-94-29). Ankara: Department of Computer Engineering and Information Science, Bilkent University.Google Scholar
Escandell, V. & Leonetti, M. (2000). Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental [Functional categories and procedural semantics]. In Oliver, J., Corrales, J., Izquierdo, M., García, D., Corbella, D., Gómez, J., Martínez, M. & Cortés, F. (Coords.), Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad [A hundred years of semantic research: from Michel Bréal to the present] (pp. 363–378). Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Escandell, V. & Leonetti, M. (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In Escandell, V. & Leonetti, M. (eds.), Procedural meaning (pp. 81–102). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, O. (1999). El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombre átonos y tónicos [The personal pronoun. Forms and distributions. Atonic and tonic pronouns]. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española [Descripitive grammar of Spanish] (pp. 1209–1273). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Figueras, C. (2002). La jerarquía de accesibilidad de las expresiones referenciales en español [The accessibility hierarchy of reference expressions in Spanish]. Revista Española de Lingüística 32, 53–96.Google Scholar
Francis, N. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Fuentes, C. (2009). Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español [Dictionary of connectors and operators in Spanish]. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Fukumura, K. & van Gompel, R. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science 36, 1289–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Ruiz, R. (2009). Algunas notas en torno a un mecanismo de cohesión textual: La anáfora conceptual [Some notes on a textual cohesion mechanism: Conceptual anaphora]. In Penas, M. & González, R. (eds.), Estudios sobre el texto. Nuevos enfoques y propuestas [Studies on text. New approaches and proposals] (pp. 247–278). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101(3), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, L. & de Hoop, H. (2015). Introduction: the flexibility of pronoun reference in context. Journal of Pragmatics 88, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, K., Nystrom, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H. & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. & Kaakinen, J. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(1), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In Hyönä, J., Radach, R. & Deubel, H. (eds.), The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. & Jegerski, J. (2014). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennison, S. (2003). Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennison, S., Fernandez, E. & Bowers, J. (2009). Processing differences for anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns: implications for theories of referential processing. Discourse Processes 46, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennison, S. & Trofe, J. (2003). Comprehending pronouns: a role for word-specific gender stereotype information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(3), 355–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köhne, J. & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci) 35(35), 2760–2765.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. & Sanders, T. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: the influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(8), 1169–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llamas, C. (2010). Interpretación del discurso ajeno: la anáfora conceptual metafórica en la noticia periodística [Interpretation of someone else’s discourse: the metaphorical conceptual anaphora in the news story]. Revista de Investigación Lingüística 13 , 107–126.Google Scholar
López Samaniego, A. (2011). La categorización de entidades del discurso en la escritura profesional [The categorization of discourse entities in professional writing]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
López Samaniego, A. & Taranilla, R. (2014). Mecanismos de cohesión I. El mantenimiento referencial [Cohesion mechanisms I. Reference maintenance]. In Montolío, E. (Dir.), Manual de escritura académica y profesional [Academic and professional writing handbook] (pp. 377–441). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Loureda, Ó. & Acín, E. (eds.) (2010). La investigación sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy [Research on discourse markers in Spanish today]. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Loureda, Ó., Cruz, A. Rudka, M., Nadal, L., Recio, I. & Borreguero, M. (2015). Focus particles in information processing: an experimental study on pragmatic scales with Spanish incluso. Linguistik Online 71(2), 129–152.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. (2004). Un modelo conciso de cohesión en el texto y coherencia en la comprensión [A concise model of cohesion in the text and coherence in comprehension]. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 37(56), 41–58.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. & Portolés, J. (1999). Los marcadores del discurso [Discourse markers]. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española [Descripitive grammar of Spanish], Vol. 3 (pp. –4213). Madrid: Espasa.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), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkila-Erdmann, M., Penttinen, M., Anto, E. & Olkinuora, E. (2008). Constructing mental models during learning from science text. In Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P. & Spector, J. (eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 62–77). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Montolío, E. (2001). Conectores de la lengua escrita [Written discourse connectors]. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Montolío, E. (2013). Construcciones conectivas que encapsulan. [A pesar de + SN] y la escritura experta [Connective constructions that encapsulate. [A pesar de + SN] and expert writing]. Aispi 2, 115–132.Google Scholar
Montolío, E. (2014). Mecanismos de cohesión II. Los conectores [Cohesion mechanisims II. Connectors]. In Montolío, E. (Dir.), Manual de escritura académica y profesional [Academic and professional writing handbook] (pp. 9–92). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Morera, Y., León, 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), 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo, S. (2010). Los marcadores del discurso y su semántica [Discourse markers and semantics]. In Loureda, Ó. & Acín, E. (eds.), La investigación sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy [Research on discourse markers in Spanish today] (pp. 241–280). Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: the role of continuity. Memory & Cognition 25(2), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadal, L., Cruz, A., Recio, I. & Loureda, Ó. (2016). El significado procedimental y las partículas discursivas del español: Una aproximación experimental [The procedural meaning and the discourse particles of Spanish: an experimental approach]. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 49, 52–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, G. (2014). Comprensión de textos escritos. Teoría de la Comunicabilidad [Written text comprehension: the Communicability Theory]. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA:Google Scholar
Parodi, G. & Burdiles, G. (2016). Encapsulación y tipos de coherencia referencial y relacional: el pronombre “ello” como mecanismo encapsulador en el discurso escrito de la economía [Encapsulation and types of referential and relational coherence: the pronoun ello as an encapsulator mechanism in the written discourse of Economics]. Onomázein 33(1), 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, G. & Burdiles, G. (2019). Los pronombres neutros ‘esto’, ‘eso’ y ‘aquello’ como mecanismos encapsuladores en el discurso de la economía: coherencia referencial y relacional [The pronouns ‘esto’, ‘eso’, and ‘aquello’ as encapsulation mechanisms in Economics discourse: referential and relational coherence]. Spanish in Context 16(1), 104–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, G., Julio, C., Nadal, L., Burdiles, G. & Cruz, A. (2018a). Always look back: eye movements as a reflection of anaphoric encapsulation in Spanish while reading the neuter pronoun ello. Journal of Pragmatics 132, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, G., Julio, C. & Recio, I. (2018b). When words and graphs move the eyes: the processing of multimodal causal relations . Journal of Eye Movements Research 11(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. & Crocker, M. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 43(3), 447–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, S. & Loureda, Ó. (eds.) (2018) Beyond grammaticalization and discourse markers: new issues in the study of language change. Leiden & Boston: BRILL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portolés, J. (2001). Marcadores del discurso [Discourse markers]. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Portolés, J. (2004). Pragmática para hispanistas [Pragmatics for Hispanists]. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Prandi, M. (2004). The building blocks of meaning. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <www.R-project.org>..>Google Scholar
RAE (2005). Diccionario panhispánico de dudas [Panhispanic dictionary of doubts]. Bogotá: Santillana.Google Scholar
RAE & ASALE (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española [New grammar of the Spanish language]. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
RAE & ASALE (2010). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual [New grammar of the Spanish language: handbook]. Buenos Aires: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & Sereno, S. (1994). Eye movements in reading: psycholinguistic studies. In Gernsbacher, M. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 57–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 80, 473–479.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Chace, K., Slattery, T. & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 10(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Pollastek, A., Ashby, J. & Clifton, Ch. (2012). The psychology of reading. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Recio, I., Nadal, L. & Loureda, Ó. (2018). On argumentative relations in Spanish: experimental evidence on the grammaticalization of cause–consequence discourse markers. In Pons, S. & Loureda, Ó. (eds.), Beyond grammaticalization and discourse markers: new issues in the study of language change (pp. 384–418). Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Reichle, E., Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Science 26(4), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1), 53–94.Google Scholar
Rudolph, E. (1996). Contrast: adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. New York & Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysová, M. & Rysová, K. (2018). Primary and secondary discourse connectives: constraints and preferences. Journal of Pragmatics 130, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Aurnague, M., Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A. & Vieu, L. (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp. 105–114). Toulouse: Université de Toulouse le Mi-rail.Google Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 151, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 42, 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, S. & Garrod, T. (1981). Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 12(5/6), 519–534.Google Scholar
Santos Río, L. (2003). Diccionario de partículas [Particle dictionary]. Salamanca: Luso-Española de Ediciones.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: from corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltman, H. (2015). Experimental design and analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1993). Written discourse structure. In Sinclair, J., Hoey, M. & Fox, G. (eds.), Techniques of description: spoken and written discourse (pp. 6–31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1994). Trust the text. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 12–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spooren, W. & Sander, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: on cognitive complexity in discourse . Journal of Pragmatics 40, 2003–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48(3), 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2013). Syntactic constrains on referential processing. In van Gompel, R. (ed.), Sentence processing (pp. 136–159). London & New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tadros, A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository texts. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69–82). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. (2013). Sentence processing. London & New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp. 230–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulaica, I. (2009). Demonstratives and the rhetorical structure of discourse. Sintagma 51, 53–69.Google Scholar
Zulaica, I. & Gutiérrez, J. (2009). Hacia una semántica computacional de las anáforas demostrativas [Towards a computational semantics of demonstrative anaphors]. Linguamática 1, 81–90.Google Scholar
Zunino, G. (2014). Procesamiento psicolingüístico de relaciones semánticas: causalidad y Contracausalidad [Psycholinguistic processing of semantic relationships: causality and counter-clausality]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Zunino, G. (2016). Comprensión y producción de causalidad y contracausalidad: distinciones en función del proceso subyacente y efectos de la escolarización formal [Comprehension and production of causality and counter-causality: distinctions according to the underlying process and effects of formal schooling]. Onomázein 34, 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zunino, G. (2017). Procesamiento de causalidad y contracausalidad: interacciones entre estructura sintáctica y conocimiento del mundo en la comprensión de relaciones semánticas [Causality and counter-causality processing: interactions between syntactic structure and world knowledge in the comprehension of semantic relations]. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 50(95), 472–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zunino, G., Abusamra, V. & Raiter, A. (2012). Articulación entre conocimiento del mundo y conocimiento lingüístico en la comprensión de relaciones causales y contracausales. El papel de las partículas conectivas [Articulation between knowledge of the world and linguistic knowledge in the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relationships: the role of connective particles]. Forma y Función 25(1), 15–34.Google Scholar