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