Small words, big effects?
Subjective versus objective causal connectives
in discourse processing
Published by
LOT
Trans 10
3512 JK Utrecht
The Netherlands
phone: +31 30 253 6006
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.lotschool.nl
Cover illustration: ‘Planet Utrecht’ by Anneloes Canestrelli
ISBN: 978-94-6093-105-5
NUR 616
Copyright © 2013: Anneloes Canestrelli. All rights reserved.
Small words, big effects?
Subjective versus objective causal connectives
in discourse processing
Kleine woorden, grote effecten?
De invloed van subjectieve versus objectieve causale connectieven op de
verwerking van discourse
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit Utrecht
op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. G.J. van der Zwaan,
ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties
in het openbaar te verdedigen
op vrijdag 19 april 2013
des middags te 4.15 uur
door
Anneloes Romana Canestrelli
geboren op 27 augustus 1982 te Arnhem
Promotor:
Prof.dr. T.J.M. Sanders
Co-promotor:
Dr. W.M.Mak
Dit proefschrift werd mede mogelijk gemaakt door de financiële steun van
de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), door
middel van Vici-grant 277-70-003, toegekend aan Ted Sanders.
Table of contents
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
Chapter 2
Causal connectives as processing instructions
21
Chapter 3
Causal connectives in discourse processing:
How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements
43
Chapter 4
65
Processing subjective causal relations:
The role of contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement
Chapter 5
On the processing complexity of subjective causal relations:
From reasoning to speaker involvement
95
Chapter 6
Conclusion
129
References
153
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
167
169
175
193
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
205
Kleine woorden, grote effecten? De invloed van subjectieve versus
objectieve causale connectieven op de verwerking van discourse
Acknowledgments
219
Curriculum Vitae
221
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Discourse coherence
Language is a uniquely human ability that is mainly used for
communication. We use it, among other things, to bond with each other (how
are you?), explain ourselves (I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed), convince
others (Tosh.0 is the best show ever), or motivate people to perform an action
(close the window, I’m freezing). In order for communication to fulfill these
purposes, however, we need to be able to establish coherence between the
pieces of communicated information. Without coherence, it becomes very
difficult, and maybe even impossible, to understand each other. The
following conversation, taken from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, illustrates
how easily these things can go wrong.
[Brian is running from the Romans and pretends to be a prophet]
BRIAN:
Yes. Consider the lilies...
ELSIE:
Consider the lilies?
BRIAN:
Uh, well, the birds, then.
EDDIE:
What birds?
BRIAN:
Any birds.
EDDIE:
Why?
BRIAN:
Well, have they got jobs?
ARTHUR:
Who?
BRIAN:
The birds.
EDDIE:
Have the birds got jobs?!
FRANK:
What's the matter with him?
ARTHUR:
He says the birds are scrounging.
BRIAN:
Oh, uhh, no, the point is the birds. They do all right. Don't
they?
FRANK:
Well, good luck to 'em.
EDDIE:
Yeah. They're very pretty.
BRIAN:
Okay, and you're much more important than they are, right?
So, what are you worrying about? There you are. See?
EDDIE:
I'm worrying about what you have got against birds.
BRIAN:
I haven't got anything against the birds. Consider the lilies.
ARTHUR:
He's having a go at the flowers now.
In this dialogue, Brian is trying to explain that people should not worry
about being unemployed. After all, God takes care of the birds, so it follows
that they should also be all right. However, this message does not come
across because Brian’s audience fails to establish coherence at several levels
2|Chapter 1
of discourse representation. Brian starts off by saying “consider the birds”, in
which he is referring to birds in general. Eddie, however, misinterprets “the
birds” as referring to a specific set of birds in the discourse. Indeed, definite
nouns can be used to refer to uniquely identifiable discourse referents
(Givòn, 1978), however, this is not the case in Brian’s story. As a result,
Eddie is confused (What birds?). And while Brian continues to talk about
birds by asking “have they got jobs?”, Arthur fails to establish the relation
between the pronoun “they” and the previously mentioned birds. Pronouns
are devices that establish relations with entities in the discourse context; as
such they allow speakers and listeners to establish discourse coherence.
When faced with a pronoun in a text or conversation, we automatically start
looking for the antecedent to which it relates. Clearly, Arthur is not able to
do so, which is why he has no idea what Brian is talking about (Who?). Both
examples are instances of referential coherence (or incoherence in these
cases), which is about the relations between linguistic units and the
discourse entities to which they refer.
Crucially, Brian’s audience also fails to establish coherence at higher
levels of discourse representation. First, they fail to understand how exactly
the different clauses are related, as they do not get the contrastive relation
between “the birds don’t have jobs” and “the birds are doing alright”. In
addition, they are fully oblivious to the underlying message that Brian is
trying to convey. The listeners have to infer that Brian uses the birds as an
example to point out that people should not worry about their lives. But in
order to get this message, we need to be able to follow Brian’s reasoning; that
one thing follows from the other. The audience, however, fails to do so, which
is why they do not get why Brian is fussing about birds in the first place.
What these examples illustrate, is that discourse comprehension is often
only in part about what we explicitly tell each other. In everyday
communication, we constantly need to infer all kinds of information in order
to establish a coherent picture. This process of adding information is referred
to as inferencing (Singer, 1990; Haviland & Clark, 1974), and is driven by
world knowledge and expectations on the basis of the discourse context.
There are many different types of inferences that people make, such as
referential inferences, as described above, elaborative inferences, which
elaborate on the discourse so far, and bridging inferences, which establish
the relations between discourse segments.
Even though there are many specific conditions under which readers
generate inferences (e.g., Balota, Flores d'Arcais, & Rayner, 1990; Graesser
& Bower, 1990; Noordman, Vonk, & Kempff, 1992; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992;
Singer, Graesser, & Trabasso, 1994; Vonk & Noordman, 1990), causal
bridging inferences, or causal knowledge-based inferences (Millis, Golding, &
Barker, 1995, p.30), are claimed to be essential for text comprehension (e.g.
Black & Bower, 1980; Graesser & Clark, 1985; Keenan, Baillet, &
Introduction|3
Brown,1984; Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985 ). And there is experimental
evidence that such inferences are generated online during comprehension
(e.g. Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Keenan et al., 1984; Meyers,
Shinjo, & Duffy, 1987). An example of a causal bridging inference is provided
in (1). First the reader has to infer that my neighbor fell, which is not
explicitly stated in this discourse. In addition, the reader needs to infer that
the fall was the actual cause of the broken arm.
(1)
(2)
My neighbor broke his arm. He tripped over his shoelace.
My neighbor broke his arm because he tripped over his shoelace.
Even if the causal relation is made explicit, as in (2), the reader still has
to generate these inferences in order to fully understand the relation
between the two clauses. Such relations are known as coherence relations (cf.
Hobbs, 1979; Kehler, 2002; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992) or
rhetorical relations (Mann & Thompson, 1988; Taboada & Mann, 2006). In
the current dissertation we are mainly interested in this type of coherence.
More specifically, we will focus on causal relations that are established
between two clauses. A defining characteristic of coherence relations is that
the interpretation of the combined segments provides more information than
the sum of the segments taken in isolation (Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman,
1992, 1993). Examples (1) and (2) illustrate a causal coherence relation.
Other types of coherence relations are additive (3a), and adversative (3b)
relations.
(3)
a. My bike got stolen and I just dropped my cell phone in the toilet.
b. He wasn’t that good looking, but I went out with him anyway.
These relations can, but need not, be made explicit by linguistic
markers such as connectives. Connectives are single word items, or fixed
word combinations, that are used to link two clauses, and belong to the
grammatical class of conjunctions (because, and, however) or adverbial
expressions (hence) (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2006). Other signals that help
establish coherence are lexical cue phrases and signaling phrases (for that
reason, in addition, on the other hand). Although these different markers
vary with respect to the grammatical categories to which they belong, they
all have a very similar function when it comes to establishing discourse
coherence; they provide explicit information about the relation between two
or more clauses. Note that these relations are not limited to consecutive
clauses (4).
4|Chapter 1
(4)
Neil Armstrong, that spaceman, he went to the moon, but he ain’t been back. So
It can’t have been that good.1
Since the presence of a coherence marker is not a prerequisite for
establishing coherence relations (compare (1) and (2)), the dominant view on
coherence phenomena is that the connectedness of discourse is a property of
the cognitive representation of the discourse, rather than of the discourse
itself (Graesser, McNamara & Louwerse, 2003; Sanders et al., 1992). At the
same time, coherence markers have been demonstrated to help readers
construct the representation of the unfolding discourse. Causal connectives
have been found to increase causal inference generation (Caron, Micko, and
Thüring, 1988; Millis, Golding and Barker, 1995)2. In addition, results from
online processing studies and studies on text representation reveal that
language users benefit from the presence of a coherence marker. Coherence
markers are therefore conceived as explicit processing instructions3 that tell
readers how one part of a text is to be related to another (e.g. Britton, 1994;
Gernsbacher, 1997; Murray, 1995; Sanders & Spooren, 2007). In this
dissertation we will focus on the effects of such instructions on online
processing.
1.2 Coherence markers and representation
In order to better understand the function of coherence markers in online
processing, we will first discuss the effects that these markers have on text
comprehension.
1.2.1 Coherence markers improve text comprehension
A number of studies have shown that overt markers of coherence relations
improve the mental representation of a text. Some of these studies focus on
the markers of coherence relations only, whereas so-called mixed signal
studies also include other types of signals, such astopic headings, summaries,
and importance cues such as ‘an essential point is’. Such signals help identify
the main points of a text and are therefore also assumed to contribute to the
construction of its representation. A general finding is that the presence of
coherence markers leads to better recall performance (e.g. Lorch & Lorch,
1986), more complete summaries (Hyönä & Lorch, 2004), faster and more
accurate responses to comprehension questions (Degand & Sanders, 2002;
Adapted quote from Karl Pilkington.
Other studies found that causal connectives did not increase inference
generation (Maury & Teisserenc, 2005; Millis, Graesser, & Haberlandt, 1993)
3 Note that the term processing instructions is used to refer to the
information provided about the discourse structure and not about the syntactic
analysis of the input.
1
2
Introduction|5
Millis & Just, 1994), faster responses on verification tasks (Sanders &
Noordman, 2000), better performance in sorting tasks (McNamara, Kintsch,
Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; Sanders, Land, & Mulder, 2007) and a higher
overall quality of recalled information (Loman & Mayer, 1983; Meyer,
Brandt, & Bluth, 1980). The work by Degand and Sanders (2002) is one
example of a study that focuses on the markers of coherence relations only.
The authors tested the effects of Dutch causal connectives (want, omdat,
doordat, which can all be translated by because), and cue phrases (the reason
was, a consequence of this was) on the comprehension of expository texts in
both L1 and L2 of Dutch- versus French-speaking readers. For both groups,
overt marking was found to lead to higher accuracy on comprehension
questions. Interestingly, these questions did not only concern the causal
relations but other aspects of the text as well.
Other studies, however, report mixed results about the effects of
coherence markers on text representation. For example, Spyridakis and
Standal (1987) conducted an experiment in which they tested the effects of
different types of signals such as connectives, preview sentences, and
headings, on the comprehension of technical expository passages. The
authors found only a limited effect of marking on text comprehension as
measured by inference scores and recall measures. Post-hoc analyses
revealed that coherence markers increased text comprehension only for
difficult texts. Some studies report no recall advantage for sentence pairs
linked by a connective (Golding, Millis, Hausel, & Sego, 1995; Murray, 1995)
or cue phrase (Sanders & Noordman, 2000), while others report superior
cued recall performance for causal but not for additive connectives (Caron,
Micko, & Thüring, 1988; Maury & Teisserenc, 2005; Millis, Golding, &
Barker, 1995; Millis & Magliano, 1999). Millis, Graesser, and Haberlandt
(1993) even report worse recall performance for expository texts with
coherence markers (temporal, causal, and intentional) compared to the
unmarked condition.
A number of factors could explain these diverging results (see also
Degand & Sanders, 2002; Sanders & Noordman, 2000, for more details). For
example, it could be related to the differences between various types of
coherence markers (additive, contrastive, causal) and signals of discourse
structure, the operationalization of text comprehension (free recall versus
comprehension questions), or reader characteristics.
An example of the latter type is that readers with a high degree of
knowledge about a given text topic do not benefit from textual signals in the
way that low-knowledge readers do (but see Roebben & Bestgen, 2006).
McNamara and Kintsch (1996), McNamara et al. (1996) and Kamalski,
Lentz, Sanders, and Zwaan (2008) found that high-knowledge readers benefit
more from an implicit version of a text. For these readers, explicit marking of
local and global coherence results in an inferior representation of the text.
6|Chapter 1
Similar results are reported in studies on topic headings. More advanced
readers do not seem to benefit from headings as much, presumably because
they already apply systematic topic-processing strategies and do not rely on
the instructions provided by these signals (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980;
Sanchez, Lorch, & Lorch, 2001). Also, other factors such as readers’ goals
(Noordman, Vonk, & Kempff, 1992) verbal ability (Meyer, Young, & Bartlett,
1989) and text genre (Kamalski et al., 2008) modulate the possible
facilitation effects associated with markers of discourse structure.
1.2.2 Levels of representation
So far, we have discussed the various effects of coherence markers on the
discourse representation. However, when talking about such representation,
discourse psychologists generally agree that it is not a one-dimensional
concept. Instead, there is a consensus that a text can be represented at three
different levels of representation: a surface form of the text (surface code), a
network of idea units, or propositions, mentioned in the text (textbase), and a
mental model of the situation (situation model) (Fletcher, 1994; Fletcher &
Chrysler, 1990; Graesser, Millis, & Zwaan, 1997; Kintsch, 1998; Zwaan &
Radvansky, 1998). The main difference between the textbase and situation
model level is that the latter also includes inferences (cf. Kintsch, 1998). The
causal structure of a text is assumed to be one of the major dimensions of the
situation model (Graesser et al., 1997; Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). However,
given that causal relations can be explicitly marked by coherence markers,
discourse researchers have wondered at which level of representation such
relations should be represented. Noordman and Vonk (1998) argue that
coherence relations that are marked by explicit coherence markers are
represented at both the text base and situation model level of representation.
Mulder and Sanders (2012), however, found no evidence for a separate
textbased representation of causal relations that are explicitly marked by a
connective.
In their Dutch experiment, participants read non-volitional causal
relations that were marked by a causal connective, such as (5a), that served
as a model sentence. Afterwards they were presented with relations that
varied at the surface code level (5b), the text base level (5c), or at the level of
the situation model (5d), and they were asked to judge whether they had
read that particular sentence.
(5)
a. Bashir moest in het ziekenhuis worden opgenomen, omdat zijn hartklachten
ernstig waren toegenomen.
Bashir had to be hospitalized because his heart problems had increased severely.
b. Bashir moest in het ziekenhuis worden opgenomen, doordat zijn hartklachten
ernstig waren toegenomen.
Introduction|7
Bashir had to be hospitalized [because – paraphrase] his heart problems had
increased severely.
c. Bashir moest in het ziekenhuis worden opgenomen, nadat zijn hartklachten
ernstig waren toegenomen.
Bashir had to be hospitalized after his heart problems had increased severely.
d. Bashir moest in het ziekenhuis worden opgenomen, en zijn hartklachten
waren ernstig toegenomen.
Bashir had to be hospitalized and his heart problems had increased severely.
As in the model sentence (5a), (5b) expresses a backward causal
relation, yet it is marked by a different causal connective that can be used to
express the same relation. Therefore, this condition only differs from the
model with respect to its surface code. In (5c), the relation is marked by the
temporal connective after, and thus differs from the model at both the
surface code and the text base level of representation. Because temporal
relations systematically allow for a causal relation between two events, the
situation model is still compatible with the model sentence. Finally,
condition (5d) differs from the model at all levels of representation. The
additive connective also allows for a causal interpretation, however it only
allows for a forward causal relation in which the cause precedes the effect,
which is not compatible with the situation model representation of the model
sentence.
The results revealed that participants could not distinguish between
causal relations that differ with respect to the surface code of the causal
connective, or its textbase representation. Only the changes at the level of
the situation model were detected. These results suggest that explicit causal
relations are represented at the situation model only. Given that causal
relations do not require overt coherence markers, it seems obvious that these
relations are not simply a property of the superficial surface code level of
representation of a text. Whether they are represented at the situation model
only, or – in specific cases – also at the textbase level, is not the focus of this
dissertation. Our main concern is the influence of coherence markers on
discourse processing. We will, however, return to this issue in the final
chapter, where we will relate our findings to the discussion on the
representation of coherence relations.
1.3 Coherence markers and online discourse processing
The studies discussed in the previous section illustrate that in many cases
the presence of coherence markers affects the cognitive representation of a
text, as measured after reading. Another question is how these effects relate
to the dynamic process of on-line discourse processing. Are coherence
markers to be conceived as cues that guide online processing? Or do they
affect the representation of a text only after it has been processed, even
during the retrieval of that representation?
8|Chapter 1
1.3.1 Processing studies
A growing number of experimental studies have investigated the effects of
coherence markers on online processing. By now, it has become evident that
such markers indeed have an immediate influence on the interpretation of
the unfolding sentence (e.g. Kehler, Kertz, Rohde & Elman, 2008; Koornneef
& Sanders, to appear). In a typical experimental set-up, sentence pairs are
presented with and without a coherence marker, and reading times for the
second sentence are compared. The methods that have been used vary from
self-paced reading, in which sentences are cut up in segments and
participants pace through a text by pressing a button, to eye-tracking, in
which participants’ eye-movements are registered while they read the text.
Some studies have looked at the reading times of the entire second clause,
whereas others have analyzed shorter text segments in order to be more
precise about the locus of effects. Many of these studies have reported faster
processing times for information preceded by a coherence marker (Cozijn,
Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Kamalski et al., 2008; Millis,
Golding, & Barker, 1995; Millis & Just, 1994; Noordman & Vonk, 1997;
Sanders & Noordman, 2000).
In a classical study, Haberlandt (1982) manipulated short narratives in
which target sentences were embedded that were either causal or contrastive
continuations of the story (see (6) for an example of the adversative
condition). This target sentence was preceded by an appropriate causal
(therefore, so) or adversative (however, but) connective, and reading times
were compared to implicit versions of the texts.
(6)
The jet had just taken off. The left engine caught fire. The passengers were
terrified. They thought the plane would crash. However, the pilot made a safe
landing.
It was found that the final clause was read faster when it was preceded
by a connective. This effect was strongest at the first words of the second
clause (the pilot). Haberlandt concluded that connectives facilitate reading
comprehension because they make the semantic relation between two
clauses explicit (p. 243). Such speeding up effects are not limited to
connectives per se; similar effects have been observed when coherence
relations are marked by means of signaling devices such as the problem is
and another aspect might be (Sanders & Noordman, 2000). Furthermore,
while most experiments focus on high skilled readers, recent experiments by
Cain and Nash (2011) illustrate that the presence of coherence markers also
leads to faster reading times in young readers of 8 and 10 years old.
A general issue that arises from these studies concerns the time course
of effects. In addition to an initial speeding up effect, some studies also report
longer processing times at the final words of a relation marked by a causal
Introduction|9
connective (Cozijn, 2000; Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Millis & Just,
1994). (We will discuss these effects, and their interpretation, in more detail
in Chapter 2). Other studies have investigated the effects of different types of
connectives. These studies report a processing facilitation for backward, but
not for forward causal connectives (because versus so) (Maury & Teisserenc,
2005), or for adversative, but not for additive or forward causal connectives
(Golding, Millis, Hauselt, & Sego, 1995; Murray, 1995, 1997). For example, in
two self-paced reading experiments, Murray (1995) tested the different
effects of additive, forward causal and adversative connectives on the
processing of two sentence narratives as in (7).
(7)
a. Additive
Rudy and Tom avoided each other on the bus to the amusement park.
Moreover / Furthermore / Also / And
They didn’t speak to one another for the rest of the day.
b. Causal
Rudy and Tom fought with each other on the bus to the amusement park.
Therefore / So / Thus / Consequently
They didn’t speak to one another for the rest of the day.
c. Adversative
Rudy and Tom laughed with each other on the bus to the amusement park.
Yet / Nevertheless / However / But
They didn’t speak to one another for the rest of the day.
Murray reported faster processing times for the second clause of the
adversative relation when it was marked by an adversative connective
compared to the implicit version. Causal and additive connectives, however,
did not lead to such facilitation effects. Golding et al. (1995) obtained similar
results. Yet, Murray’s study immediately illustrates why it is difficult to
draw clear conclusions about the processing effects of different connectives.
One problem that arises in many experiments concerns the materials. In a
typical set-up, the processing of unmarked relations is compared to marked
versions of the same relations. The idea is that, by doing so, researchers are
able to measure reading times and eye-movements in response to identical
target information in both conditions. However, too often those conditions
are not truly comparable, because the relation expressed by the connective is
different from the implicit relation. For example, the facilitation effect of
adversative connectives in Murray’s design is easily explained by a
confounding factor. Without the adversative connective it is very difficult to
establish any coherence relation between the two segments (7c). Indeed, the
mean reading times for the implicit version of these relations is much higher
compared to the other conditions. It is, therefore, not surprising that the
adversative connective leads to the largest processing benefit. In addition,
using various types of additive, causal or adversative connectives in a single
10|Chapter 1
design, as in Murray’s study, may also be problematic because there may be
other differences between those connectives, with respect to their semanticpragmatic properties (Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998; Martin,
1992) that could influence the processing data. For instance, so is different
from consequently because it allows for relations that have different
conceptual orders (Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000). The connectives
consequently and so can both be used to express causal relations that are
based on a real-world order of causes and effects, such as (8): the effect
presented in the second discourse segment (from now on referred to as S2) is
derived from the cause presented in the first discourse segment (from now on
referred to as S1).
(8)
John worked hard, consequently / so he passed the exam.
So, however, can also be used in causal relations in which this
conceptual order is inversed, and the cause is derived from the effect. In (9)
for example, passing an exam is taken as indication of hard work.
(9)
John passed the exam, so he worked hard.
This means that the connective so is less specific with respect to the
conceptual order of events of the relation it marks. Since it is unclear
whether such differences affect online processing, it is unwise to pool reading
times over different types of connectives, even if they belong to the same
class (causal, additive or adversative).
A more practical limitation of the on-line study of coherence markers is
the way in which reading times are measured. Some studies report total
reading times for the entire second clause (Golding et al., 1995; Murray,
1995, 1997), whereas others cut up the second sentence in order to be more
precise about the time course of effects (Cozijn, 2000; Cozijn, Noordman, &
Vonk, 2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Maury & Teisserenc, 2005; Millis & Just,
1994; Sanders & Noordman, 2000). If causal (and possibly also other)
connectives lead to an initial speeding up effect, and to a slow down at the
end of the relation, analyzing total reading times for the entire second clause
will probably not reveal any effects. Nevertheless, it is likely that not all
connectives affect on-line processing in the same way. For example, the
presence of an adversative connective is often a prerequisite for establishing
any relation between two clauses. See, for example, the adversative relation
used by Haberlandt (1982), here repeated in (10).
(10) The jet had just taken off. The left engine caught fire. The passengers were
terrified. They thought the plane would crash. The pilot made a safe landing.
Introduction|11
Without the adversative connective it is very difficult to establish any
relation between S1 and S2. Therefore it makes sense that readers benefit
more from the presence of an adversative connective compared to connectives
that can be omitted more easily, such as additive connectives. Clearly, more
research is required in order to fully understand the mechanisms underlying
the processing of different types of coherence markers. The current
dissertation provides new information about such mechanisms, as we focus
on subtle semantic-pragmatic differences between causal connectives, and
how these affect online processing.
1.3.2 Theoretical explanations of processing effects
The observation that connectives speed up the processing of the immediately
following words is generally interpreted as reflecting cognitive processes
related to integration. Integration refers to the construction of the two text
segments into a single representation. There are, however, different ways in
which this process is characterized and how it could be reflected in online
processing.
One explanation is that connectives function as cues that signal to the
reader that the default discourse interpretation has to be overwritten.
Murray (1997), for example, proposes an explanation in terms of the
“principle of continuity” (Segal, Duchan, & Scott, 1991, p.32). According to
this principle, readers by default assume that continuity is maintained,
hence interpreting subsequent sentences in a continuous fashion. If
continuity is violated, it should be marked in some way (Bestgen &
Costermans, 1994). This hypothesis is supported by experimental evidence
that shows that unmarked discontinuous discourses lead to longer processing
times compared to continuous discourses. Crucially, this difference in
processing time is canceled out by explicit markers of discontinuity (Bestgen
& Vonk, 2000). Murray proposes that certain logical connectives serve as
explicit markers for discontinuity. Adversative connectives, such as however,
signal discontinuity because they indicate that the anticipated causal
relation did not occur. Backward causal connectives, such as because, also
signal discontinuity because they mark a nonlinear order of events, that is
effect-cause instead of cause-effect. The presence of these markers is
therefore assumed to lead to a larger processing benefit compared to markers
that signal continuity, because the unmarked relations are more difficult.
This account is compatible with Murray’s findings that adversative
connectives lead to a larger processing benefit compared to additive and
(forward) causal connectives, as becomes apparent from the total reading
times of S2.
Note, however, that effects of discontinuity (in implicit relations) are
likely to arise towards the end of the second sentence when the proposition is
available anyway. After all, readers can only know whether a sentence
12|Chapter 1
follows the discourse in a continuous fashion when they know the
propositional content of that sentence. Because Murray measured total
reading times of the entire second clause, his data shed insufficient light on
the immediate processing effects of the different connectives.
Another theoretical explanation for the processing facilitation effect of
coherence markers is that the presence of these markers limits the range of
possible interpretations. Having read S1, the reader does not need to take
into account all the possible relations that could be constructed between two
text segments, which reduces the processing load. This interpretation dates
back at least to Hirsch (1977, p.128) who proposes that connectives
contribute to the integration of successive clauses by “forecasting” the
relation between them. He suggests that because connectives reduce
uncertainty (about the relation between two clauses), they are assumed to
speed up the processing of clauses. Similar accounts surface in Britton,
Glynn, Meyer, and Penland (1982), who argue that the presence of a
connective reduces the number of inferences the reader must make, in
Haberlandt (1982) and in Murray (1995).
Haberlandt (1982) proposes that connectives facilitate reading processes
because they guide the reader’s expectations about the coherence relation
between S1 and S2. In the absence of a connective, readers have to make
“compensatory inferences” (p.243) which increases the processing load.
According to Murray (1995), the meaning of a connective limits the range of
possible relations that can be constructed between the two clauses.
Combined with the first clause, a connective activates an “expectancy of the
content of the post-connective sentence” (p.120). The more constraining the
connective meaning, the larger the processing benefit. This explanation fits
Murray’s findings, as discussed earlier, that adversative connectives (which
are highly constraining) lead to a larger processing facilitation than other
types of connectives.
Proposals such as the ones we just described assume that connectives
lead to faster processing times because they reduce the generation of
irrelevant interpretations. However, it might just as well be the case that
these faster processing times are not caused by the fact that connectives
reduce the number of possible interpretations, but by the fact that a single
representation is constructed, which is facilitated by the presence of the
connective. This type of explanation surfaces in studies that focus on the
actual integration process (Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Millis & Just,
1994). Cozijn et al. for example, argue that because a connective makes the
exact type of coherence relation between two text segments explicit, readers
can immediately start to integrate the second clause into the sentence
representation.
Introduction|13
So far, this section provided an overview of the different explanations
that have been proposed to account for the immediate processing facilitation
effect associated with connectives. What these approaches have in common is
that the meaning of a connective is assumed to facilitate the interpretation of
the relation between two pieces of text. As such, connectives are considered
to contribute to the integration of these two pieces into a single
representation. That connectives indeed have a special integrative function is
corroborated by recent neurolinguistic evidence that suggests that
connectives trigger specific cognitive processes related to interclausal
integration (Brehm, 2005). Therefore, connectives can be conceived as
processing instructions. Not only do they have an important function in the
construction of the syntactic structure, for example by marking coordinate or
subordinate clauses, they also provide discourse information about the
relations between two text segments. In this dissertation we will further
investigate the nature of such instructions. To be more specific, we will
investigate whether these instructions also convey information about the
specific subtype of causal relation the connective marks.
1.4 Causality and subjectivity in discourse processing
The studies described in the previous sections provide an overview of the
research concerned with coherence markers, as well as some issues that are
relevant in the study of discourse processing and comprehension. So far, we
have seen that there is substantial evidence that (at least certain types of)
connectives and cue phrases speed up the processing of the subsequent
information. However, these processing data alone do not tell us anything
about how such effects should be interpreted. In combination with the results
from comprehension studies discussed in section 2.1, we can conclude that
despite these faster reading times, the presence of coherence markers does
not lead to an inferior representation of information. If anything, they
actually improve text comprehension.
Taken together, these studies provide valuable insights in the
processing and representation of coherence markers: such markers facilitate
the construction of a coherent representation, which leads to faster
processing times and a stronger representation of the text. However, we also
saw that not all studies report the same benefits for all coherence markers.
As such, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions that generalize over all
signals and relations. The fact that mixed signal studies manipulate many
different types of signals at the same time is problematic. For example,
causal, additive, and temporal connectives are manipulated in addition to all
kinds of other structural signals. Moreover, it is difficult to compare results
across studies because experiments differ with respect to their materials and
the methods that were used, as discussed in section 3.1. It is not surprising
then that these studies report diverging results. In the current dissertation
14|Chapter 1
we will therefore focus on one specific type of coherence relation and its
markers: causal relations and causal connectives.
Among the various types of coherence relations, causality has a special
status. Causality is a fundamental cognitive principle that plays an
important role in the construction of a coherent representation (Graesser,
Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Singer, Graesser, & Trabasso, 1994). Indeed,
experimental studies suggest a processing and representational advantage
for causal compared to other types of coherence relations (see Chapter 2). In
this dissertation, however, we will not focus on causality in general, but on
various subtypes of causal relations that systematically differ from each
other.
Studies of coherence relations have identified a distinction between
subjective and objective causal relations. Objective causal relations express
causality between events in the real world (11a), whereas subjective causal
relations express the relations between the speaker’s conclusions on the
basis of events in the world (11b) (see Chapter 2 for more details). Note that
this distinction is not limited to so-called backward causal relations, but also
surfaces in so-called forward causal relations (12a and b). The difference
between forward and backward causal relations concerns the order of events
as they are presented in the text. Forward causal relations have a linear
order between events in which causes precede effects. Starting from a basic
causal operation in which tripping leads to breaking something, in the
sequence S1 connective S2, S1 corresponds to the antecedent (P) and S2
corresponds to the consequent. In backward causal relations, this order is
reversed and effects precede causes in the text; S1 corresponds to Q, and S2
corresponds to P (Sanders et al.,1992).
(11) a. My neighbour broke his arm because he tripped over his shoelace.
b. My neighbour was being an idiot again because he tripped over his shoelace
and broke his arm.
(12) a. My neighbour tripped over his shoelace. As a result he broke his arm.
b. My neighbour tripped over his shoelace and broke his arm so he was being an
idiot again.
The English connective because can be used to express both subjective
and objective causal relations, as example (9) illustrates (e.g. CouperKuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993; Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998;
Sweetser, 1990). However, for some languages, such as Dutch, it has been
observed that these various relations are systematically expressed by
different connectives. Linguistic studies of connectives in language use have
therefore investigated whether there is a direct relation between these
connectives and the different types of causal relations they typically express.
With respect to Dutch backward causal relations, the connective want is a
Introduction|15
prototypical marker of subjective causal relations, whereas omdat is a
prototypical marker of objective causal relations (Degand & Pander Maat,
2003; Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005). Similarly,
in forward causal relations dus typically expresses subjective relations,
whereas daarom is typically used in objective relations (Pander Maat &
Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Stukker, 2005;
Verhagen, 2005), see Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the differences between the Dutch causal connectives
daarom versus dus and omdat versus want. P and Q stand for antecedent and
consequent respectively. S1 corresponds to the first discourse segment and S2
corresponds to the second discourse segment.
Volitional Objective
Subjective
Direction
Daarom (that’s why)
Dus (so)
Forward: S1=P, S2=Q
Omdat (because)
Want (because/since)
Backward: S1=Q, S2=P
The central question in this dissertation is whether the difference
between subjective and objective causal connectives is relevant in online
processing. Or, in other words, assuming that causal connectives are
processing instructions, do these instructions include specific information
about the exact type of causal relation that needs to be constructed? The
reason why this information may be relevant is that subjective causal
relations are assumed to be more complex than objective causal relations
(Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Sanders et al., 1992; Traxler, Sanford, Aked,
& Moxey, 1997). Evidence in favor of this hypothesis comes from processing
studies in Dutch and English which reveal that readers need more time to
process subjective (13b) compared to objective (13a) causal relations
(Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler,
Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997).
(13) a. My neighbor went to the hospital because he tripped over his shoelace and
broke his arm.
b. My neighbour was being an idiot again because he tripped over his shoelace
and broke his arm.
We investigate this issue in the nine eye-tracking experiments
presented throughout this dissertation. Eye-tracking allows for a precise
registration of the reader’s eye-movements when reading a text, and is able
to capture early cognitive processes (such as lexical access) as well as later
cognitive processes (such as reanalysis). As a result, this method is
particularly suitable for studying the effects of causal connectives on the
16|Chapter 1
dynamic process of discourse comprehension. At the beginning of this section
we have underlined the importance of combining online processing data with
offline representation data. The current dissertation, however, will mainly
focus on online processing data. The main reason why we did not include
offline representation tasks is that such tasks reveal the purpose of the
experiment and can therefore change the participant’s reading strategies.
Note, however, that the processing effects described in this dissertation are
not interpreted in isolation. Combined with insights from corpus-based
studies and earlier processing data, our results provide valuable information
about the cognitive processes involved in the processing of different types of
causal connectives. The main issues and research questions addressed in this
dissertation will be discussed in the following section.
1.5 Chapter overview and research questions
In Chapter 2 we first present a theoretical background after which we
explore whether the notion of subjectivity could play a role in the processing
of causal connectives. We start out by focusing on the Dutch causal
connective want. Even though want is most frequently used in subjective
causal relations, this connective can be used in all relational contexts in
which because occurs. We investigate whether this means that want and
because are actually very similar with respect to their semantic-pragmatic
properties. If so, they should also have the same effect on the processing of
subjective and objective causal relations, which gives rise to the following
research question:
RQ1
Is the Dutch connective want comparable to English because with
respect to its processing instructions?
This question is tested in an eye-tracking experiment in which we use a
Dutch version of the items from Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997). In the
English experiment it was found that subjective causals with because led to
longer processing times compared to objective causals with because. This
effect arose right before the end of the second clause. We find that when
want is used to mark both subjective and objective causal relations in Dutch,
there are no processing differences between these two types of causal
relations. This outcome suggests that want and because have in fact a
different influence on the processing of causal relations.
In Chapter 3 we investigate whether this difference could be related to
the degree of subjectivity that is encoded in want. We present three eyetracking experiments in which we use the materials from Chapter 2. But
instead of using want in both conditions, we use the prototypically objective
connective omdat to mark the objective relations. The main research
question in this chapter is:
Introduction|17
RQ2
Is the distinction between subjective and objective causal
connectives, as distinguished in corpus-based studies on the
semantic-pragmatic characteristics of connectives, relevant in
online processing? And if so, what is the time course of this effect?
Results reveal that subjective causal relations with want lead to longer
processing times compared to objective causal relations with omdat.
However, where in English this effect arises just before the end of the second
clause, in our Dutch experiment, it surfaces immediate at and after the
connective want (Experiment 1). In addition, when the reader is explicitly
cued about the status of S1 as a claim or conclusion by means of the mental
state predicate according to John, the delay in processing times for
subjective compared to objective causal relations is canceled out (Experiment
2). These results show that the source of the processing difference between
want and omdat is similar to the source of the processing difference between
English subjective and objective causal relations (Traxler, Sandford, Aked, &
Moxey, 1997), and not a result of lexical differences between want and
omdat. We therefore propose that the longer processing times induced by
want are related to the representation of S1 as someone’s reasoning, be it
from the speaker, author, or any third person character in the discourse,
rather than an actual event in the world.
In a third experiment we observe that the processing pattern of want
versus omdat is unrelated to the actual content of the combined text
segments. In addition, this experiment shows that readers are garden pathed
when omdat is used to mark a relation that is incompatible with an objective
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE interpretation. On the basis of these results we
conclude that the Dutch connectives want and omdat provide instructions
about the type of causal relation that needs to be constructed: want instructs
the reader to construct a subjective relation whereas omdat instructs the
reader to construct an objective relation. Crucially, these instructions
immediately affect online processing.
In Chapter 4 we investigate the processing complexity of subjective
causal relations from a mental space perspective. The difference between
subjective and objective causal relations has been characterized in terms of
different mental space configurations (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009,
2012). In this chapter we investigate how this difference could explain the
online processing complexity of subjective causal relations. The central
question in this chapter is:
RQ3
Is the processing complexity of subjectivity related to processes
involved in the setup of the mental space of the thinking subject?
18|Chapter 1
We present two eye-tracking experiments in which we manipulated oneparagraph long news texts with embedded subjective and objective causal
relations marked by want and omdat respectively. Subjective contexts are
created by adding space builders in the form of evaluative adverbs and
adjectives, such as terribly, horrible and luckily, to the context preceding the
causal relations. These markers reveal that the author of the text is
emotionally involved in the matters under discussion. An offline judgment
task shows that readers recognise the author’s involvement in the texts,
which shows that our manipulation of subjectivity is successful. In addition,
the eye-movement data reveal that the presence of evaluative markers
increases the processing times of subsequent information. However, these
markers have no influence on the processing asymmetry between want and
omdat. Taken together, the results suggest that the asymmetry between
want and omdat is not explained by the necessity of setting up a new mental
space.
In Experiment 2 we place the same non-sentence modifying evaluative
adverbs within S1 of the causal relations. Again, we find no effect of space
builders on the processing difference between want and omdat. These results
suggest that markers of subjectivity that do not modify the status of S1 as a
whole as subjective do not have the ability to cancel out the processing
complexity of subjective causal relations. We propose that the processing
complexity of subjective causal relations may be explained by the placement
of S1 as a whole within the mental space of the relevant thinking subject be
it the speaker or author, or any third person character whose reasoning is
presented.
In Chapter 5 we focus on why this operation should lead to longer
processing times. But first we verify whether the processing effects reported
in Chapters 3 and 4 can be explained in terms of a reanalysis of S1 as a claim
or conclusion, as proposed by Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey (1997), or
whether its processing and representation is inherently complex.
RQ4
Is the processing complexity of subjective compared to objective
causal relations caused by a reanalysis of S1 as a claim?
Experiment 1 reveals that the same processing asymmetry surfaces
with forward subjective and objective causal connectives (dus versus
daarom). Given that in forward subjective relations with dus the claim
follows the connective, the complexity of subjective causal relations cannot be
explained by a reanalysis of already processed information as a claim. Next
we investigate what does explain the inherent complexity of subjective causal
relations and connectives:
Introduction|19
RQ5
Can we distinguish between reasoning and speaker involvement in
order to explain the inherent processing complexity of subjective
compared to objective causal relations?
In Experiment 2 we investigate whether the inherent complexity of
subjective causal relations is related to reasoning processes. In order to test
this, we compare the processing of dus to the inferential evidential adverb
blijkbaar, which also marks reasoning. We find that blijkbaar does not lead
to a a disadvantage in processing times compared to daarom, as reported for
dus.
In Experiment 3 we explore whether the processing difference between
dus and blijkbaar could be related to differences in terms of speaker
involvement by including the epistemic modal adverb waarschijnlijk. We
propose that dus encodes a high degree of speaker involvement whereas
blijkbaar encodes a low degree of speaker involvement. Waarschijnlijk takes
up an intermediate position. The online processing data parallel this division
along the lines of speaker involvement.
In Chapter 6 we summarize the main findings from each chapter. We
return to issues raised in this first chapter, propose suggestions for future
research and discuss the implications of our results for the study of discourse
processing.
1.6 Reading guide
The chapters of this dissertation are written as individual papers; Chapter 3
has already been accepted for publication in the international journal
Language and Cognitive Processes (Canestrelli, Mak, & Sanders, 2012).
Parts of the introduction and Chapter 2 have been published as a chapter in
Handbook of Cognitive Pragmatics (Sanders & Canestrelli, 2012). Other
chapters will soon be submitted to other journals4. As a result there is some
overlap in the method sections and the literature overviews provided in
several chapters. The advantage to the reader is that each chapter can be
read on its own.
4 Preliminary versions of various chapters have been presented at
conferences such as Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing
(Barcelona, 2009), Society for Text & Discourse (Rotterdam, 2009; Chicago,
2010), and Multidisciplinary perspectives on Signalling Text Organisation
(Moissac, 2010).
Chapter 2
Causal connectives as processing instructions
2.1 Introduction
Discourse comprehension relies on the ability to construct a mental
representation of the communicated information. A crucial property of this
representation is that it is coherent (e.g. Gernsbacher & Givòn, 1995). One
form of coherence is relational coherence, which is concerned with the
relations between two or more discourse segments such as sentences or
clauses. These relations are known as coherence relations (cf. Hobbs, 1979;
Kehler, 2002; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992) or rhetorical relations
(Mann & Thompson, 1988; Taboada & Mann, 2006). Among the different
types of coherence relations, causal relations have a special status. Causality
is a fundamental cognitive principle that plays an important role in human
reasoning and perception, and it is central to the construction of a coherent
discourse representation (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Singer,
Graesser, & Trabasso, 1994). Moreover, causally related events in short
narratives are recalled more easily (Black & Bern, 1981; Bradshaw &
Anderson, 1982; Sanders & Noordman, 2000; Trabasso & Sperry, 1985;
Trabasso & Van den Broek, 1985) and processed faster (Haberlandt &
Bingham, 1978; Keenan, Baillet, & Brown, 1984; Meyers, Shinjo, & Duffy,
1987; Sanders & Noordman, 2000) than non-causally related events. These
findings illustrate that causal relations are encoded faster and retrieved
better compared to other types of coherence relations, which suggests a
strong processing and representational advantage. If causality is such a
fundamental concept, it may be expected that the linguistic markers of
causality also play an important role in the processing and representation of
a text.
Even though explicit linguistic marking is not a prerequisite to
establish a causal relation, see example (1a), causal relations can be made
explicit by linguistic markers such as connectives (so, because, therefore) (1b)
and lexical cue phrases (for that reason, that’s why).
(1)
a. My sister stole my shoes. I’m going to kill her!
b. My sister stole my shoes so I’m going to kill her!
As such, causal connectives and cue phrases serve as explicit cues that
help readers and listeners to construct causal coherence in their mental
representations. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 1, language users benefit
from the presence of such devices. This becomes apparent from more
accurate responses to comprehension questions (Millis & Just, 1994),
superior recall performance (Caron, Micko, & Thuring, 1988; Millis, Golding,
& Barker, 1995), and faster processing times of subsequent information (e.g.
22|Chapter 2
Haberlandt, 1982; Millis & Just, 1994). These findings have contributed to
the assumption that causal connectives provide processing instructions to
readers about the discourse structure that needs to be constructed (e.g.
Britton, 1994; Gernsbacher, 1997; Sanders & Spooren, 2007). In this chapter
we will focus on the type of information encoded in such instructions, and
how that affects online discourse processing.
2.2 Processing causal connectives
Over the past decades, a number of experimental studies have reported that
causal connectives (placed in between two clauses) speed up the processing of
the first words of the second clause (Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011;
Haberlandt, 1982; Millis, Golding, & Barker, 1995; Millis & Just, 1994;
Noordman & Vonk, 1997). In addition, some studies have also reported
longer processing times of the final words of causal relations marked by a
causal connective (Millis & Just, 1994; Cozijn, 2000; Cozijn et al., 2011)1.
These findings reveal that causal connectives affect the way in which causal
relations are processed. There are, however, different levels at which this
influence plays a role.
First, causal connectives are assumed to serve a segmentation function
(Noordman & Vonk, 1997). Connectives are function words that signal the
construction of a new clause (Kimball, 1973). In addition, connectives cue
that this new clause is a coordinate clause or a subordinate clause.
Therefore, from a syntactic point of view, causal connectives guide language
processing because they provide explicit information about the syntactic
structure that needs to be constructed, which influences the parsing process
(Clark & Clark, 1977; Haberlandt, 1984).
In addition to this syntactic information, causal connectives also provide
information about the discourse structure; they signal that a causal relation
exists between two text segments. In Chapter 1 we already reflected on how
this type of information could lead to the observed processing facilitation
effect. In this chapter we will focus on explanations in terms of interclausal
integration processes. The exact interpretation of the processing effects,
however, depends on the assumed function of causal connectives in
processing, and the processing mechanisms underlying the construction of
interclausal relations in general. This will be discussed first.
A general division can be made between researchers who assume that
interclausal integration is an incremental process that occurs as soon as
possible (Cozijn et al., 2011; Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997), and those
who argue that interclausal integration does not occur before the end of the
1 Other studies could not replicate this processing pattern (De Leeuw, Mak,
& Sanders, 2008; Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders, & Zwaan, 2008; Maury &
Teisserenc, 2005).
Causal connectives as processing instructions|23
second clause (Just & Carpenter, 1980; Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978; Millis &
Just, 1994).
Just and Carpenter (1980) specify a processing model on the basis of
immediacy principles; it assumes that the interpretation of information
occurs as soon as possible. With respect to the construction of interclausal
relations, however, the authors argue that this occurs at the end of the
second clause, during sentence wrap up. Millis and Just (1994) picked up on
these ideas and further investigated how connectives influence processing
mechanisms by developing the Connective Integration Model. According to
this model, the integration of two clauses linked by a connective occurs after
the reader has built a representation of the second clause. At this point in
the sentence readers are assumed to reactivate the first clause of the
relation, this process is captured in the Reactivation Hypothesis. Because the
interclausal integration process is assumed to be cognitively demanding, the
processing times at the end of the second clause are expected to increase.
Millis and Just tested the Connective Integration Model in a word-by-word
self-paced reading experiment involving causal relations marked by because
(2). Reactivation of S1 was tested by measuring probe recognition times to
the verb in the first clause, which was presented at the end of the second
clause.
(2)
The elderly parents toasted their only daughter at the party [because] Jill had
finally passed the exams at the prestigious university.
Probe: toasted
Millis and Just report that the presence of the connective leads to
greater accuracy on comprehension questions, shorter answering times and
faster probe recognition times. The probe recognition data were interpreted
as a reflection of the reactivation of S1 induced by the connective. In
addition, compared to the implicit version, the authors report faster reading
times of the words following the connective, excluding the final word. This
final word produced longer reading times when the connective was present
compared to an implicit version of the relation, which was interpreted as a
reflection of interclausal integration. The initial speeding up effect was
explained by stating that in the presence of a connective, readers wait until
the end of the second sentence to integrate the two clauses. Without a
connective, readers may attempt to construct a meaningful relation between
the two clauses, which is cognitively demanding without the help of a
connective (Millis & Just, 1994, p.129).
Cozijn (2000) and Cozijn et al. (2011), however, argue that interclausal
integration starts as soon as the connective is processed. Cozijn (2000)
studied the different functions of the Dutch connective omdat (because) in a
series of eye-tracking experiments. The materials consisted of short
24|Chapter 2
expository texts with four introductory sentences followed by a target
sentence (3) that was presented either with or without the connective omdat.
(3)
On his way to work he experienced a long delay, [because] there was a large
traffic jam on the highway.
Similar to the results reported by Millis and Just, Cozijn found that the
presence of omdat speeds up the processing of the first two text segments of
the second clause, but slows down the processing of the final words of the
second clause. Following Noordman and Vonk (1997), Cozijn (2000) assumes
that causal connectives have an integration function. They facilitate the
immediate integration of two text segments because they explicitly indicate
how the current sentence is to be integrated with the previous one.
Therefore, causal connectives initially speed up the processing of the second
clause of a causal relation. In addition, Cozijn argues that causal connectives
trigger the inference of extra-textual information, also referred to as the
‘inference function’, which, according to Cozijn, explains the processing slow
down at the final words of the relation.
More recently, these functions have been further specified by Cozijn,
Noordman, and Vonk (2011). They propose that causal connectives such as
because trigger distinct cognitive processes that surface at different positions
in the sentence. First, causal connectives trigger the “propositional
integration” of two clauses, which is described as “the process by which the
comprehender establishes the type of relation […] that exists between the
two propositions expressed by the two clauses” (p.476). Propositional
integration takes place as soon as the reader processes the connective. In
addition, when processing a causal relation, the reader has to derive the
underlying causal relation (if P then Q) and match it to his or her world
knowledge by either checking or adding knowledge. This process is referred
to as ‘world knowledge inference’.
In a self-paced reading experiment (with the same materials as used by
Cozijn (2000)) Cozijn et al. replicated Cozijn’s (2000) online results: an
immediate speeding up effect and a slow down at the end of a causal relation
with because. In addition, the authors presented inferential statements
regarding the causal relations after each sentence. For example, the
verification statement that followed example (4) was “A traffic jam leads to a
delay”. The verification times to these statements were faster when readers
had read a text including the connective because. Cozijn et al. therefore
concluded that inferences on the basis of the causal relation are made online
and are more accessible when a connective is present.
The studies described above provide some evidence that the discourse
information encoded in backward causal connectives immediately affects
online processing. Other studies have investigated whether these effects
Causal connectives as processing instructions|25
generalize to forward causal connectives (Murray, 1995, 1997) and to noncausal connectives, such as adversative and additive connectives (Golding,
Millis, Hauselt, & Sego, 1995; Maury & Teisserenc, 2007; Murray, 1995,
1997). However, as discussed in Chapter 1, the differences between the
various studies with respect to the manipulated materials and the length of
the analyzed text segments (words, clauses, or sentences) make it difficult to
draw any clear conclusions about the generalizability of the effects.
Taken together, experimental data show that the information about the
causal structure of a discourse relation encoded in causal connectives affects
online processing. However, causality is not a simple one-dimensional
category; there are different types of causal relations. More importantly,
these different types of causal relations are assumed to differ with respect to
their cognitive complexity, which becomes evident from acquisition patterns
and online processing studies.
2.3 Subjectivity and processing
The class of causal coherence relations has been subcategorized into causal
relations that express (observable) real-world causation (4a) versus those
that do not (4b).
(4)
a. My neighbor broke his arm because he tripped over his shoelace and fell.
b. My neighbor was being an idiot because he tripped over his shoelace and fell.
Note, that this distinction is not limited to backward causal relations; it also
applies to forward causality (5).
(5)
a. My neighbor tripped over his shoelace. As a result he broke his arm.
b. My neighbor tripped over his shoelace so he was being an idiot again.
The distinction between these types of causal relations has been
described in various theoretical frameworks. As such, different terms have
been used to describe the phenomenon (see Stukker & Sanders, 2012, for a
recent overview). For example, speech act theorists distinguish between
‘propositional’ or ‘semantic’ (4a and 5a) versus ‘illocutionary’ and ‘pragmatic’
(4b and 5b) relations (De Vries, 1971; Le Groupe Lambda- λ, 1975; Sanders,
Spooren, & Noordman, 1992; Van Belle, 1989; Van Dijk, 1979), whereas
systemic functional grammar accounts speak of ‘ideational’ or ‘internal’ (4b
and 5b) versus ‘interpersonal’ and ‘external’ (4a and 5a) relations (Degand,
2001; Haliday & Hasan, 1976; Martin, 1992).
Within cognitive linguistics, a three-way division between causal
relations has been proposed by Sweetser (1990). On the basis of the different
ways in which the connective because is used, Sweetser argues that causal
connectives can be interpreted in three ‘domains of use’: the content,
26|Chapter 2
epistemic, and speech act domains. Content relations, such as (4a) and (5a)
are constructed in the observable world, whereas epistemic relations (4b and
5b) hold between a premise and a conclusion in the speaker’s mind. The third
domain, speech act relations, consists of relations such as (6), in which the
second clause functions as the reason for uttering the speech act in the first
clause.
(6)
Hurry up! Because SpongeBob is about to start.
More recently, text and discourse theorists have described these
different interpretations in terms of the degree of speaker involvement, or,
following Langacker (1990), subjectivity (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003;
Pander Maat & Degand 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders 2001; Verhagen,
2005). Subjectivity roughly corresponds to ‘expression of the self’ (Lyons,
1995), and arises when “properties of the speaker’s self (such as cognition,
emotion, attitudes, intentions) become part of the overall meaning of the
utterance” (Pit, 2007, p.58). Representing subjectivity therefore involves the
speaker’s self as a reference point.
On the basis of Pander Maat and Sanders (2000), Sanders and Spooren
(submitted) characterize a causal relation as subjective when its
interpretation requires a so-called Subject of Consciousness (SoC). This SoC
is the animate entity, which can be the speaker, author, or a character in the
discourse, “whose intentionality is conceptualized as the ultimate source of
reasoning, evaluating, describing or acting ‘in the real-world’ ” (p.7). When
this SoC is evaluating, reasoning, or concluding, the causal relation is
considered to be subjective. Non-volitional causal relations such as (7a) are
considered to be objective because they do not involve human intentions and
therefore do not have an SoC. In volitional causal relations such as (7b), in
which human intentions do play a role, the SoC is my neighbor, who decides
to go to the hospital because he broke his arm. Here the SoC is performing a
deliberate action, therefore this relation is also characterized as objective
because the SoC is not performing a mental operation. Relations such as (7c)
and (7d) are considered to be subjective, because here we are dealing with
SoCs who are performing mental operations. In (7c) the SoC is the speaker,
or author, whereas in (7d) this SoC is Mary.
(7)
a. The cup broke because it fell off the table.
b. My neighbor went to the hospital because he broke his arm.
c. My neighbor is an idiot because he tripped over his shoelace and fell.
d. Mary thinks my neighbor is an idiot because he tripped over his shoelace and
fell.
Causal connectives as processing instructions|27
According to Pander Maat and Sanders (2000), the difference between
subjective and objective causal relations can also be characterized by the
distance between the SoC and the current speaker. Volitional objective
causal relations such as (7b) involve a certain distance between the SoC and
the current speaker, while the SoC in subjective causal relations is often
identical to the current speaker (7c).
Even though subjective relations can involve third person SoCs (7d),
first person evaluations (7c) have been considered to be more subjective than
third person evaluations (7d) because the first person perspective is closer to
the communicative “here and now” (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2012;
Traugott, 1989, 1995). In the current study we focus on what these different
perspectives have in common; they all involve a thinking subject who is
reasoning or concluding, thereby taking responsibility for the causal relation
expressed. In most cases this subject is the speaker or author (7c), but it can
also be a third person character in the discourse (7d). For the sake of brevity
we will refer to the speaker in our discussions on subjectivity and speaker
involvement, unless it is of particular relevance to specify the thinking
subject whose reasoning we are dealing with.
Note that the notion of subjectivity also shows up in research in the
domain of modals and (modal) evidentials (e.g. Garrett, 2001; Koring, 2012;
Palmer, 1990; Papafragou, 2006). These studies may deviate on the precise
definitions of subjectivity that are used, nevertheless there is a clear parallel
in the way in which these theories characterize subjectivity, and the notion
of subjectivity as speaker involvement adopted in cognitive linguistic theories.
Discussing these studies in more detail is beyond the scope of the present
study.
It has been argued that subjective causal relations are more complex
than objective causal relations (Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Sanders et al.,
1992; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997). Indeed, understanding
subjective causal relations requires a meta-representation of others’ beliefs
and conclusions (e.g. Oversteegen, 2005). Therefore, the processes underlying
the comprehension of subjective causal relations have been related to Theory
of Mind abilities (Sperber, 1997; Zufferey, 2010). Objective causal relations,
on the other hand, do not require such meta-representation but simply relate
two events in the physical world, and as such they may be easier to process.
Data from acquisition studies and psycholinguistic experiments confirm that
the difference between subjective and objective causality may have cognitive
relevance.
For instance, corpora of Dutch and English child language data show
that subjective causal relations appear later than objective relations in both
English and Dutch childlanguage (Evers-Vermeul & Sanders, 2011; Van
Veen, 2011), suggesting that the former category can be considered as being
28|Chapter 2
more complex. This difference in complexity is paralleled by on-line
processing data with adults. Studying on-line text processing in a self-paced
reading experiment, Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997) found that
subjective causal relations (8b) induced longer reading times of the second
clause, compared to objective causal relations (8a).
(8)
a. Rick almost died from shock because a poisonous snake bit him on the leg.
b. Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous snake bit him on the
leg.
Note that in order to be able to measure the effects of subjective versus
objective causal relations, the second clause of the relation has to contain
exactly the same words in both conditions. As a result, the authors varied the
content of the first clauses of the relations in order to be able to express
either a subjective or an objective causal relation. An eye-tracking study by
Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) demonstrated that the locus of the
processing effect reported in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey is around
the main verb; it surfaced at the words bit him in example (8). Further
experiments by Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey revealed that the delay in
processing times for subjective causal relations is eliminated when the first
clause of the relation contains explicit cues of subjectivity in the form of
mental state predicates (John thinks), epistemic adverbs (maybe, perhaps)
and modal verbs (may) (9).
(9)
[John thinks / Maybe] Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous
snake bit him on the leg.
According to Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997), the longer
processing times for English subjective compared to objective causal
relations are caused by the fact that it has not been made clear that the first
clause is a psychological event. They argue that the default interpretation of
the first clause of a causal relation is an objective interpretation of the state
of affairs in the world. Therefore, the processing effects associated with
subjective causal relations surface because “the text does not signal that a
less preferred [subjective] interpretation should be adopted” (p.89).
Different results were obtained in a Dutch self–paced reading
experiment by Noordman and De Blijzer (2000). The authors report longer
reading times for the second clause of subjective (10b) compared to objective
(10a) causal relations, even if the first clause of the subjective relation
contains modal elements, which are markers of subjectivity (zal wel (must
have) in (10b)).
(10) a. Het meisje is nat geworden, omdat ze in de rivier is gesprongen.
Causal connectives as processing instructions|29
The girl got wet, because she jumped in the river.
b. Het meisje zal wel nat zijn geworden, want ze is in de rivier gesprongen.
The girl must have got wet, because she jumped in the river.
Noordman and De Blijzer propose that the comprehension of causal
relations requires a match between the causal relation and a model of the
world. Objective causal relations directly reflect real-world causality.
Subjective relations, however, are more complex because they reflect realworld causality in a less direct fashion. Rather, these relations involve a line
of reasoning on the basis of real-world causality. The reader has to check the
possibility of that underlying causal relation in the world.
Considering the experimental materials used in this study, one may
question whether the longer reading times for subjective relations could also
be attributed to the plausibility of those relations. For example, in relations
such as (10b) the phrase zal wel (must have) is inserted in the first clause,
which introduces uncertainty about the effect (Oversteegen, 2005). However,
because it is inevitable that a person gets soaked from jumping into a river,
the use of zal wel leads to a rather strange interpretation, as if it could also
be possible to stay dry in such a situation. Thus, while Traxler, Sanford,
Aked, and Moxey (1997) introduced epistemic markers that facilitate the
interpretation of the subjective relation, the manipulation by Noordman and
De Blijzer may have made these relations more difficult.
The materials used by Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997) may
also raise questions about the plausibility of the relations. Indeed, one could
argue that the subjective relations in this study are also less plausible than
the objective relations. Note, however, that this cannot fully explain the
results. Markers of subjectivity within S1 (such as possibly, John thinks) do
not affect the plausibility of the subjective relation because the underlying
reasoning is still the same, yet these markers do cancel out the disadvantage
in processing time.
In sum, experimental data from English and Dutch suggest that the
distinction between subjective and objective causal relations affects online
processing. Yet, it is unclear whether the distinction between subjective and
objective causal connectives, which surfaces in many languages of the world,
also affects online discourse processing. To our knowledge, there is only one
previous study by Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders and Zwaan (2008) that
specifically investigated the effects of various subjective and objective
connectives and cue phrases on the processing of English subjective and
objective causal relations. The authors report a tendency for a speeding-up
effect at the entire clause following the objective markers compared to
implicit objective relations. The subjective condition produced an interaction
effect between segment and marker. Kamalski et al. concluded that
subjective markers initially speed up the processing of subjective causal
30|Chapter 2
relations, but slow down the processing of the final words of the relation. One
complication to this study, however, is that the categorization of subjective
versus objective coherence markers in the materials is not based on actual
language use. Therefore, it is unclear whether the two groups of subjective
and objective markers manipulated by Kamalski et al. truly reflect these two
categories. More importantly, the materials included connectives as
linguistic markers that occur in both subjective and objective conditions.
Ascribing the observed effects to the degree of subjectivity of the coherence
markers is therefore difficult.
2.4 Subjective versus objective causal connectives:
From usage patterns to online processing
In recent years, a vast amount of (cross-) linguistic corpus research has been
conducted to verify whether the distinction between subjective and objective
causal relations is reflected in the lexicon of causal connectives (e.g. Stukker,
Sanders, and Verhagen, 2009). An important question that arises from the
literature is whether causal connectives themselves encode subjectivity, or
whether this is purely a property of the relation between the combined
segments. In English, for example, the connective because is used to express
all sorts of backward causal relations and does not distinguish between
subjective and objective relations (e.g. Couper- Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993;
Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990). This means
that the connective itself does not contribute to either a subjective or
objective interpretation; this can only be derived by the linguistic
characteristics of the text segments.
In many languages of the world, however, the distinction between
subjective and objective causal relations seems to be reflected in the
distribution of forward and backward causal connectives and cue phrases
(see Stukker & Sanders, 2012, for an overview). Table 1 provides a summary
of the different connectives in the various languages. In French, for example,
parce que is typically used to mark backward objective relations whereas car
and puisque are considered to be its subjective counterparts (e.g. Anscombre
& Ducrot, 1983; Le Groupe Lambda- λ, 1975; Zufferey, 2011). In forward
causal relations, the markers donc and dès lors typically occur in subjective
relations, while c’est pourquoi and de ce fait are prototypical markers of
objective relations (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003). In Dutch backward
causal relations the connective omdat is most frequently used in volitional
objective causal relations and doordat is typically used in non-volitional
causal relations. The connectives want and aangezien are considered to be
prototypical markers of subjective relations (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003;
Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009; submitted; Verhagen, 2005). With
respect to forward connectives, the Dutch connective daardoor typically
marks non-volitional objective causal relations, daarom is a prototypical
Causal connectives as processing instructions|31
marker of volitional objective causal relations, and dus is typically used in
subjective relations (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders,
2000, 2001; Stukker, 2005; Verhagen, 2005). Similarly, the German
connectives weil and denn are associated with objective and subjective
relations respectively (Pasch, 1983, in Stukker & Sanders, 2012).
Interestingly, comparable distinctions show up in Latin (Bolkestein, 1991;
Kroon, 1998), Portuguese (Lopes, 2009) and Mandarin Chinese (Li, EversVermeul, & Sanders, submitted; Xing, 2001 in Li et al., submitted).
Table 1. Summary of subjective and objective causal connectives in French,
German, and Dutch, analyzed in the literature.
Direction
French
Subjective
Objective
Backward
car; puisque
parce que
Forward
donc; dès lors
c’est pourquoi; de ce fait
German
Backward
denn
weil
Dutch
Backward
want; aangezien
omdat; doordat
dus
daarom; daardoor
Foward
These observations illustrate that in many languages of the world causal
connectives specialize in specific subjective versus objective subtypes of
causal relations. In this dissertation we will investigate whether such
frequency data tell us something about the way in which causal connectives
are processed. Frequency effects are a sensitive topic because these effects
can be interpreted from two opposing perspectives. From one perspective,
frequency effects are driven by the internalized structure of the language
system. For example, the relation between frequency and comprehension
complexity has been explained in terms of a preference to produce easier
structures to more complex structures (e.g. Gibson, Schütze, &
Salomon, 1996; Stevenson & Merlo, 1997). Others, however, argue that it
works exactly the other way around in that frequency determines the way in
which the language system is organized (Bybee, 2007). With respect to
comprehension complexity, frequency is assumed to determine the ease of
understanding (see Ellis, 2002, for an overview; Jurafsky, 1996; Seidenberg
& MacDonald, 1999; Mitchell et al., 1995; Tabor, Juliano, & Tanenhaus,
1997). Here, we will not investigate the directionality of frequency effects,
but focus on the question of whether there is a relation between connective
usage patterns on the one hand, and online processing on the other.
32|Chapter 2
With respect to our ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ causal connectives, there
are two ways in which their usage patterns could be reflected in online
processing and representation. These connectives may trigger the
representation of both subjective and objective relations, of which the one
that happens to be the most frequently used relation is dominant. This
representation is therefore easiest to activate and harder to let go when the
alternative applies. Alternatively, it could be the case that each causal
connective triggers only one discourse representation, which is either
subjective or objective, that corresponds to their prototypical usage.
Slightly problematic for this latter account is the fact that causal
connectives are sometimes also used to mark non-prototypical relations.
Researchers have recognized that there is no black-and-white distinction
between subjective and objective connectives on the basis of their usage
patterns. See, for example, Table 2 in which the results from different
corpus-based studies on want and omdat are summarized.
The way in which the profiles of these connectives are established is by
first stripping the causal relations of their connectives. Next the degree of
subjectivity of the relation is determined by means of a paraphrase test.
Subjective relations can be paraphrased by “the fact that P causes S’s claim /
advice / conclusion that Q” (Sanders, 1997) or “this leads to the following
conclusion” (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001). Objective causals are
paraphrased by “The fact that P causes the fact that Q” (Sanders, 1997), “this
has the following consequence”, or “this was the reason to perform the
following act” (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001).
Table 2 shows that, on average, want occurs most frequently in
subjective relations whereas omdat is used most frequently in objective
relations. However, this distinction is not that clear-cut in all studies. For
example, on the basis of Degand and Pander Maat (2003) it seems that
omdat does not really differentiate between objective and subjective relations
(52% versus 48%), and the results from the chat conversations in Sanders
and Spooren (submitted) indicate that want is often used to mark objective
relations (40%).
One explanation for this phenomenon is provided by Stukker and
Sanders (2012) who interpret usage patterns in terms of the cognitive
structures associated with human categorization. The authors conducted a
meta-analysis concerning prototypicality characteristics in corpus data on
French, German, and Dutch causal connectives. Results revealed that every
instantiation of non-prototypical connective usage systematically contains
characteristics that correspond to the connective’s more prototypical
relational context. Thus, subjective relations with omdat are still considered
more objective than subjective relations with want and vice versa.
Causal connectives as processing instructions|33
Table 2. Distribution of want and omdat in subjective and objective causal
relations, given in percentages of the analyzed occurrences.
Want
Omdat
Subjective
Objective
Subjective
Objective
68
32
8
82
Pit (2003)
Newspaper texts
80
20
42
58
Degand & Pander Maat (2003)
Newspaper texts
84
16
48
52
Sanders & Spooren (submitted)
Spontaneous conversations (CGN)
59
40
10
89
Sanders & Spooren (submitted)
Newspaper texts (D-COI, 2006)
61
39
5
95
Sanders & Spooren (submitted)
65
Chat conversations (VU Chat corpus)
35
5
95
Average
30
20
79
Pit (2003)
Narrative text
70
Irrespective of their non-prototypical occurrences, there are clear
differences between want and omdat. Want can be used in all relational
contexts in which because occurs, that is, in subjective (11b) and objective
(11a) causal relations. Omdat, on the other hand, cannot be used in
subjective relations that involve abductive reasoning (11b). In these
relations, a real-world effect (Karl left immediately) is taken as an argument
to support the speaker’s conclusion about the cause (Karl was annoyed)
(Pander Maat & Degand, 2001). This relation cannot possibly be expressed
by the connective omdat, which leads to a reversed interpretation (This
impossibility is expressed by the symbol # which indicates that the
connective is not able to express the intended relation). The fact that Karl
left immediately is interpreted as the cause of Karl’s annoyance, which does
not make much sense2.
(11) a. Karl was upset, because Ricky made him swim with sharks.
Karl was boos, want Ricky heeft hem met haaien laten zwemmen.
Karl was boos, omdat Ricky hem met haaien heeft laten zwemmen.
b. Karl was annoyed, because he left immediately.
Karl was geïrriteerd, want hij is meteen weer vertrokken.
#Karl was geïrriteerd, omdat hij meteen weer is vertrokken.
2 Note that this could make sense if the pronoun he refers to some other
discourse entity.
34|Chapter 2
There are two ways to interpret the fact that want can be used to
express all kinds of causal relations. Similar to because, want could be
underspecified and allow for both subjective and objective causal relations.
Alternatively, want may encode that a relation is subjective and therefore
forces a subjective interpretation in any causal relation. As such, want
provides processing instructions that cue the interpretation of S1 as a
conclusion or claim.
One way to verify whether want is similar to because with respect to its
processing instructions is by testing whether want has the same effect on the
processing of subjective versus objective causal relations. However, in order
to compare the processing effects of these two connectives we need to have
data from comparable experiments in the two languages. We therefore
created a Dutch version of the experiment by Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering
(1997), as discussed in section 2.3, and used want in both subjective and
objective causal relations. In order to be able to compare the two experiments
we stayed close to the original materials, in which S1 varies in order to
express either a subjective or an objective causal relation, and S2 is the same
in both conditions. We are aware of the fact that these items could be
improved with respect to the plausibility of the relations. However, as will
become evident in Chapter 3, differences in plausibility cannot explain the
results reported in the current study.
Recall that Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering found that subjective causal
relations (12b) led to longer processing times at the words bit him compared
to objective causals (12a).
(12) a. Rick almost died from shock because a poisonous snake bit him on the leg.
b. Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous snake bit him on the
leg.
The time course of this effect is compatible with the idea that because is
ambiguous between subjective and objective relations. After all, if this
connective does not provide any cues about the type of causal relation it
marks, it makes sense that effects of subjectivity arise at the moment in
which the subjective relation can be established from the propositional
content of the two clauses. If want is also underspecified with respect to the
type of causal relation it marks, this connective should lead to the same
processing pattern as observed in English with because. We therefore expect
a processing delay for subjective compared to objective relations, which
surfaces at the main verb. At this point in the sentence, the propositional
content allows readers to construct either a subjective or an objective causal
relation.
Causal connectives as processing instructions|35
2.5. Experiment
2.5.1 Participants
21 Undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in the
experiment (19 female, mean age 22.0 age range 19–27 years). All
participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for their
participation.
2.5.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of 24 sets of sentences as in (13) which are Dutch
versions of the English objective (a) and subjective (b) items as used by
Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) (see Appendix 1 for more examples).
Both relations are marked by the connective want.
(13) a. Hanneke was buiten adem, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
The 24 sets were divided over two lists, according to a Latin square
design, so that each list contained only one version of a set. In addition, 72
unrelated filler items were inserted in each list. Line breaks were placed
right after the first clause and before the connective. We made sure that the
regions of interest, in the clause following the connective, were not situated
at the end of the first line or at the beginning of the second line. This is
important because the so-called return sweep, jumping to the next line,
causes noise in the eye movements (see Cozijn, 2000, for more details).
Verification statements were randomly divided over the stimuli and
appeared after 25% of the items. Participants were informed to respond to
these statements by pressing the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button on the button box.
2.5.3 Apparatus and Procedure
An SMI Eyelink I head-mounted eye-tracker was used, controled by FEP
software (Veenker, 2006), with which both eyes were sampled at 250 Hz. The
Eyelink I eye-tracker has a tracking range of 30 degrees horizontally and 20
degrees vertically, with a gaze position accuracy of 0.5 to 1.0 degrees. Gaze
positions are corrected for head movements by an optical head-tracking
camera on the headset, and four reflectors on the subject monitor. All
participants were individually tested in a testing booth at the University.
Before the experiment started, participants were informed about the
36|Chapter 2
procedure. First the experimenter adjusted the headband and made sure the
participant was comfortably seated. Participants were asked not to move
their heads or blink excessively during the experiment. Each experiment
started with a calibration procedure during which subjects had to follow a
small circle on the screen moving through nine positions, followed by a
similar validation procedure. This procedure was repeated before each block.
The experiment started with a practice trial of 5 items. Drift corrections were
performed before each sentence.
2.5.4 Data clean-up
We used the fixation analysis program Fixation (Cozijn, 1994) to check the
assignment of fixations to the words in the texts. This is necessary because
fixations can sometimes land at the borders of the text. These fixations were
manually assigned to the words in question. Also, head movements and poor
calibrations can lead to shifted fixation patterns. These cases were corrected
by moving the entire pattern in a vertical direction (but never horizontally).
In most cases, the assignment of fixations to the text was unproblematic.
Ambiguous cases were discarded from the analyses
2.5.5 Eye-tracking measures
Several eye-tracking measures have been developed to capture the dynamics
of reading processes. Because these measures are highly correlated it is
impossible to pinpoint the cognitive processes that these individual measures
reflect. However, a general division can be made between so-called “early”
measures, and “late” measures. Early measures, such as first fixation
duration and first pass reading times, measure the first view of a word or
region and are often associated with cognitive processes related to word
recognition and lexical access. Late measures, such as regression path
duration and total time, take rereading and regressions into account and are
often associated with processes of integration and reanalysis. In order to
obtain a meaningful reading pattern, it is essential to examine different
measures rather than a single measure of processing time (Rayner, 1998). In
the present study we analyzed the following measures: first fixation
duration, first pass reading times, regression path duration and total reading
time.
First fixation duration is the duration of the first fixation on a word or
region, and reflects the immediate processing difficulties a reader has when
viewing that region for the first time. This measure is especially suitable
when the region of interest is short, or when the researcher wants to capture
spillover effects from the previous region (Clifton, Straub, & Rayner, 2007).
First pass reading times (Inhoff & Radach, 1998; Rayner, 1998) is what
Rayner and Duffy (1986) call gaze duration for single words and consists of
all fixations within a region (including saccades) before moving into a
Causal connectives as processing instructions|37
forward or a backward direction. Regression path duration (Konieczny,
Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997) consists of all fixations on a region
before passing on in a forward direction, including rereading of previous
material. This measure is also referred to as total-pass reading time
(Kennedy, Murray, Jennings, & Reid, 1989), go-past reading time (Clifton,
Bock & Rado, 2000) and cumulative region reading time (Mitchell, Brysbaert,
Grondelaers, & Swanepoel, 2000). Total reading time is the Total time spent
at a region. This measure captures the time required for reanalysis when a
piece of information is not completely processed during the first reading
(Rayner & Sereno, 1994).
2.5.6 Results
Example (14) illustrates how the items were divided into regions. Region 1 is
the connective, Region 3 consists of the main verb and Region 2 comprises all
the information in between Region 1 and 3 (in most cases a noun phrase and
an auxiliary). Region 4 consists of the final words of the relation.
(14) |Want 1| ze was vier trappen 2 | afgerend 3| om de post te halen 4|
|Because 1 | she was four stairs 2 | ran down 3 | to the mail get 4 |
Correct answers to the verification statements were given in 84% of the
trials. Blinks were extracted from the data. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition were excluded from the analysis. Following these criteria we
removed 1.2% of the data (171 cases). Means are reported in Table 2.
We performed Linear Mixed Effects Regression analyses (LMER)
(Baayen, 2008) on the data, with subjects and items as crossed random
effects and Relation (subjective versus objective), as fixed effect. Eyemovement data typically have a lot of missing values, especially if the
regions of interest are short. However, multilevel analyses such as LMER
are robust against missing data (Quené & van den Bergh, 2004). An
additional advantage of this technique over traditional ANOVA is the fact
that it deals with item and subject variability in a single model (See Quené &
van den Bergh, 2004, for more details). Log-transformations were performed
on the data in order to meet the normality requirements of linear modeling.
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling was used to estimate p values
(Baayen, 2008).
Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) reported longer reading times in
subjective compared to objective causal relations at the text region
containing the main verb (Region 3). In our study, however, no significant
effect of Relation surfaced at this region in any of the measures (first fixation
duration: ß=0.00, SE=0.03, p(MCMC)>0.05; first pass reading times: ß=0.05,
SE=0.04, p(MCMC)>0.05; regression path duration: ß=0.04, SE=0.05,
38|Chapter 2
p(MCMC)>0.05; total reading time: ß=-0.02, SE=0.05, p(MCMC)>0.05). No
effects were observed in any of the other regions.
Table 2. Mean first fixation duration (FF), first pass reading times (FP),
regression path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) per Region and
Relation (subjective versus objective). Standard deviations are given in
parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FF
Objective
Subjective
198(66)
220(114)
195(63)
195(79)
217(67)
217(69)
247(103)
270(160)
FP
Objective
Subjective
238(113)
235(118)
520(332)
536(424)
327(174)
350(203)
608(428)
543(353)
RP
Objective
Subjective
238(113)
278(307)
733(360)
768(412)
388(231)
418(304)
1583(1245)
1590(1400)
TT
Objective
Subjective
250(128)
239(125)
864(434)
880(486)
491(315)
483(311)
766(482)
681(407)
2.6 Discussion
Causal connectives are assumed to play an important role in the processing
and representation of causal relations. These markers provide explicit
information about the causal relation between two text-segments, which
otherwise has to be inferred on the basis of the discourse context. Indeed,
experimental evidence shows that the presence of a causal connective leads
to a faster processing of at least the first part of the immediately following
clause (Haberlandt, 1982; Millis, Golding, & Barker, 1995; Millis & Just,
1994; Noordman & Vonk, 1997), more accurate responses to comprehension
questions (Millis & Just, 1994) and superior recall performance (Caron,
Micko, & Thuring, 1988; Millis, Golding, & Barker, 1995). These studies,
however, are limited to objective causal relations.
To the best of our knowledge, no other studies have investigated
whether causal connectives also provide information about the exact type of
causal relation they mark: whether they mark a subjective or an objective
causal relation. This idea stems from the observation that in many
languages of the world, the distinction between subjective and objective
causal relations seems to be reflected in the lexicon of causal connectives. In
addition, it has been observed that subjective causal relations are acquired
later (Evers-Vermeul & Sanders, 2011; Van Veen, 2011) and processed
slower (Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997;
Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997) compared to objective causal
Causal connectives as processing instructions|39
relations. This suggests that the distinction between these two types of
causal relations is cognitively real. As such, it is to be expected that the
difference between objective and subjective connectives is reflected in online
processing.
In this chapter, we focused on the Dutch backward causal connectives
want and omdat. These connectives are both translated by because, however,
where because can be used to mark both subjective and objective causal
relations (e.g. Couper- Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993; Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott
& Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990), the Dutch connectives want and omdat
specialize in one or the other. Various corpus-based studies on the semanticpragmatic profiles of Dutch causal connectives have revealed that want is
most frequently used in subjective relations, but omdat occurs most
frequently in objective relations (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003;
Sanders & Spooren, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005). This chapter provides a
first attempt to investigate this issue from a processing perspective.
On the basis of the frequency data provided by corpus research, it could
be argued that want and omdat will results in different processing and
representation patterns. However, the differences between the semantic
profiles of want and omdat are not clear-cut: both connectives are also used
in non-prototypical relations. This observation could be potentially
problematic for the claim that these two connectives are markers of different
cognitive categories. At the same time, there are clear differences between
the two connectives: similar to because, want can be used in all types of
causal relations. Omdat, however, cannot be used in a subtype of subjective
relations (15).
(15) Karl was annoyed, because he left immediately.
Karl was geïrriteerd, want hij is meteen weer vertrokken.
#Karl was geïrriteerd, omdat hij meteen weer is vertrokken.
This observation could in principle mean that want is underspecified
with respect to the type of causal relation it marks, and is therefore similar
to because. We hypothesized that if want and because are similar with
respect to their processing instructions, they should also have the same effect
on the processing of subjective versus objective causal relations. This
hypothesis was tested in a Dutch version of the eye-tracking experiment
reported in Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997). Traxler, Bybee, and
Pickering found longer processing times for subjective causal relations (16b)
compared to objective causals (16a) at the words bit him.
(16) a. Rick almost died from shock because a poisonous snake bit him on the leg.
b. Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous snake bit him on the
leg.
40|Chapter 2
The position of this effect is fully compatible with the assumption that
because does not provide information about the degree of subjectivity of the
causal relation it marks. Language users can therefore only derive this
information from the propositional content, which explains why the effects of
subjectivity arise relatively late in the second sentence. If want is similar to
because, want should lead to a similar processing pattern in Dutch subjective
versus objective causal relations. This effect was expected to arise at the
moment in which the relation could be established from the content, which is
Region 3 in our experiment.
Our results, however, did not reveal any processing differences between
subjective and objective relations at all. Does this mean that our experiment
is flawed, or is it possible that the properties of the connective want were
responsible for this null effect? In what follows we will discuss three possible
explanations for this outcome.
One possibility is that want makes objective relations more difficult
because the degree of subjectivity of the connective does not match the
degree of subjectivity of the relation. According to Pander Maat and Degand
(2001) causal connectives encode a degree of subjectivity that contributes to
the degree of subjectivity of the relation. However, they argue that these two
must concord: a connective is inappropriate if its degree of subjectivity is too
high or too low for the level of subjectivity expressed by the relation (p.230).
Therefore, want may have increased the overall complexity of the objective
relations in our experiment. Given that the match between the relation and
the connective can only be evaluated when the reader is able to construct the
causal relations, the position of this effect coincides with the position where
we expected to find the processing effects of subjective causal relations. This
may explain why we did not observe longer processing times in subjective
compared to objective causal relations.
A second explanation may be that we did not replicate the processing
asymmetry between subjective and objective causal relations because want
facilitates the subjective interpretation. Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey
(1997) (Experiment 2) found no processing difference between subjective and
objective causal relations when the first clauses of both relations contain
explicit cues of subjectivity in the form of epistemic modal adverbs (maybe,
possibly) (17). They explained this finding by stating that mental space
builders that introduce possibility facilitate the construction of the subjective
interpretation (p.93). Possibly, want also functions as such a space builder
that facilitates the construction of a subjective relation.
(17) [Maybe] Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous snake bit him
on the leg.
Causal connectives as processing instructions|41
As a third option we would like to propose that want may encode
semantic-pragmatic information, corresponding to its usage pattern, which
triggers a subjective interpretation of any causal relation. This would mean
that the construction of the subjective relation arises before the propositional
content of S2 is processed, and occurs irrespective of the underlying relation
between S1 and S2 without a connective. Example (18a), for example,
contains an objective causal relation that is left implicit. In this example, the
second clause provides the cause of the situation in S1: the fact that Ricky
wants Karl to go bungee jumping leads to the situation that Karl is afraid.
(18) a. Karl is bang. Hij moet gaan bungeejumpen van Ricky.
Karl is afraid. Ricky wants him to go bungee jumping.
b. Karl is bang want hij moet gaan bungeejumpen van Ricky.
Karl is afraid because Ricky wants him to go bungee jumping.
The use of want in this relation (18b), however, could have the effect of
turning the preceding clause into the speaker’s conclusion about a situation.
As such, want could function as a trigger for the construction of a subjective
causal relation, leading to an interpretation of S1 as “Karl is probably
afraid”. Therefore, the objective relations in our experiment may have been
processed as subjective relations. If the construction of a subjective relation
is indeed cognitively demanding, it may be the case that want leads to a
processing slowdown as soon as the connective is processed. But because this
connective was used in both types of relations, we did not observe any effects
in our experiment.
On the basis of the experiment presented in this chapter it is impossible
to distinguish between these three explanations. Our findings, however, do
suggest that the Dutch connective want and the English connective because
do not encode the same information about the discourse structure. In
Chapter 3 we will further investigate this issue by using the Dutch
connectives in their prototypical relation: want in subjective causal relations
and omdat in objective causal relations. If our first explanation holds, and
want makes objective relations more difficult, using the connectives in their
prototypical relation should lead to a replication of the results reported in
Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997). If, following our second explanation,
want facilitates the processing of subjective causal relations, we may expect
to find no processing difference between subjective and objective causal
relations marked by want and omdat respectively. If, however, our third
suggestion holds and want triggers the representation of a subjective
relation, we may expect an earlier effect of subjectivity compared to Traxler,
Bybee, and Pickering.
Chapter 3
Causal connectives in discourse processing:
How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eyemovements1
3.1 Introduction
Understanding discourse is not simply a matter of understanding the content
of the clauses involved. In order to achieve successful comprehension,
language users also need to be able to understand the relations between
these clauses. Such coherence relations (Hobbs, 1979; Mann & Thompson,
1988; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992) can be of an additive, causal,
temporal, or adversative nature. The present study focuses on causal
coherence relations, which can be made explicit by coherence markers such
as connectives, cue phrases (that’s why) and signaling phrases (The problem
is… A solution might be…). It is generally assumed that causal connectives
provide crucial information about the discourse representation; they signal
that a causal relation is to be established between two text segments. These
markers are therefore assumed to provide processing instructions, which
specify the enfolding discourse structure (e.g. Britton, 1994; Gernsbacher,
1997; Sanders & Spooren, 2007). Indeed, much experimental work has been
conducted in order to investigate the online processing effects associated
with causal connectives. A central point of interest has been the time course
of such effects.
As discussed in Chapter 2, a general finding in many studies is that the
presence of a causal connective leads to an immediate processing facilitation
compared to implicit relations (Cozijn, 2000; Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk,
2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Maury & Teisserenc, 2005; Millis & Just, 1994). In
addition, some studies have also reported longer processing times at the final
words of causal relations if they are marked by causal connectives (Cozijn,
2000; Cozijn et al., 2011; Millis & Just, 1994). As discussed in Chapter 2,
these effects have been explained in diverging ways, depending on the
function ascribed to connectives. According to Millis and Just’s Delayed
Integration Hypothesis, causal connectives instruct the reader to delay the
integration of two clauses until the second clause is processed. Cozijn et al.
(2011), on the other hand, argue that connectives facilitate the immediate
integration of two clauses, hence explaining the immediate speeding up
effect. Even though the differences with respect to the time course of these
1 An almost identical version of this chapter will appear as Canestrelli, A.
R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T.J.M. (To appear). Causal connectives in discourse
processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements.
Language and Cognitive Processes. DOI:10.1080/01690965.2012.685885.
44|Chapter 3
effects is not the focus of the present study, the results presented in this
chapter contribute to this discussion by shedding more light on the function
of causal connectives during processing.
On the basis of the empirical data so far it can be concluded that
information about the discourse structure encoded in causal connectives
plays a significant role during online processing. Crucially, this information
consists of different components. First, causal connectives inform readers
that a causal relation needs to be established between two text segments. In
addition, they specify the temporal order of events. Forward connectives,
such as therefore, indicate a linear order between events in which causes
precede effects. In case of backward causal connectives, such as because, the
linear order of events is interrupted and effects precede causes in the text. In
the present chapter we investigate whether a third source of information,
namely subjectivity, could also play a role in the processing of causal
connectives.
3.2 Causal connectives and subjective versus objective causal
relations
Languages differ with respect to the amount of information encoded in
causal connectives. In English, for example, the connective because is used to
express all sorts of backward causal relations and does not distinguish
between relations that express real-world causation (1b) versus those that
involve subjective reasoning (1a) (e.g. Couper- Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993;
Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990). Note that we
use the term of backward causation to describe the order of events as they
are presented in the text, that is: effect precedes cause, or conclusion/ claim
precedes argument.
(1)
a. Peter must be sick because he looks pale.
b. The cup broke because it fell off the table
The distinction between these types of causal relations is also referred
to as ‘objective’ versus ‘subjective’ (e.g., Degand & Pander Maat, 2003;
Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2001), ‘semantic’
versus ‘pragmatic’ (Van Dijk, 1979; Sanders et al., 1992), ‘internal’ versus
‘external’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), or ‘content’ versus ‘epistemic’ relations
(Sweetser, 1990). In this study we will refer to these relations as objective
and subjective causal relations.
One crucial difference between these two subtypes of causal relations is
that subjective relations involve mental states (Knott, 2001) whereas the
states of affairs in objective relations are presented as facts in the world. In
subjective relations such as (1a), the first clause is a claim, conclusion, or
belief on behalf of the speaker, based on the real-world state in the second
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|45
clause (Peter looking pale). Therefore, the speaker is responsible for
constructing the causal relation, and reference to the speaker is required in
order to understand this type of relations. In objective causal relations, such
as (1b), the speaker is not involved in the construction of the causal relation,
but is merely reporting the situation in S1 and S2 as being causally related
in the real world (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000).
A general assumption in the literature on subjective causality, and
epistemic modality in general, is that it requires a meta-representation of
others’ beliefs and conclusions (e.g. Oversteegen, 2005). Therefore, the
processes underlying the comprehension of subjective causal relations have
been related to Theory of Mind abilities (Sperber, 1997; Zufferey, 2010). In
addition, epistemic modality is assumed to involve an assessment of “the
probability of a state of affairs from the speaker’s point of view” (Jaszczolt,
2003). Such considerations have led to the idea that subjective causal
relations are more complex than objective causal relations (Noordman & De
Blijzer, 2000; Sanders et al., 1992; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997).
The difference in cognitive complexity between these types of relations
becomes apparent in language acquisition and online processing in adults.
Corpora of Dutch and English child language data show that subjective
causal relations appear later than objective relations in English, French, and
Dutch children (Evers-Vermeul & Sanders, 2011; Spooren & Sanders, 2008;
Van Veen, 2011; Zufferey, 2010) suggesting that the former category is more
complex. Studying online text processing in English, Traxler, Bybee, and
Pickering (1997) found that subjective causal relations (such as2b) produced
longer reading times compared to objective causal relations (2a) 2 . This
difference surfaced at the moment that readers were able to construct the
causal relation from the content, at the words didn’t score in the example.
(2)
a. The goalkeeper won the game because the other team didn’t score any goals.
b. The goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team didn’t
score any goals.
As pointed out at the beginning of this section, the connective because is
underspecified with respect to the type of causal relation it signals.
Therefore, the processing instructions provided by this connective may be no
more specific than relating S2 to S1 in some sort of causal relation. In order
to arrive at a subjective interpretation of a relation marked by this general
connective, readers have to rely entirely on the content, world knowledge and
other linguistic cues of subjectivity.
2 Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) use the terms diagnostic and causal
relations.
46|Chapter 3
In many languages of the world, however, the distinction between
subjective and objective causal relations seems to be reflected in the
distribution of causal connectives (See Stukker & Sanders, 2012, for an
overview). In French, the connective parce que is typically used to mark
objective relations while car and puisque are considered to be markers of
subjective relations (e.g. Anscombre & Ducrot, 1983; Le Groupe Lambda- λ,
1975; Zufferey, 2011). In Dutch, the connective omdat is most frequently
used in objective relations whereas want is considered to be a prototypical
marker of subjective relations (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003;
Sanders & Spooren, 2009; Verhagen, 2005). Similarly, the German
connectives weil and denn are typically associated with objective and
subjective relations respectively (Pasch, 1983). Interestingly, similar
distinctions show up in Latin (Bolkestein, 1991; Kroon, 1998), Portuguese
(Lopes, 2009) and Mandarin Chinese (Xing, 2001).
These observations illustrate that, in many languages, causal
connectives specialize in specific subtypes of causal relations. It is feasible
that knowledge of such usage patterns is helpful during reading (Murray,
1997). In fact, in usage based approaches usage patterns are related to the
cognitive representation that language users form of a given construction.
The more frequent a token or grammatical construction is, the stronger its
cognitive representation, a process also referred to as entrenchment (Bybee,
2007). Although several studies have investigated the processing effects
associated with causal (and non-causal) connectives, so far it is unknown
whether the distinction between subjective and more objective causal
connectives also plays a role in the processing and representation of causal
relations. In the present study we investigate whether language users make
use of this type of information during online discourse processing and, if so,
when this information becomes available. We focus on the Dutch causal
connectives want and omdat, although the distinction is expected to be
relevant in all languages that display a similar distribution.
3.3 Want versus omdat
Want and omdat are connectives that mark backward causal relations and
can both be translated by because (see example 3). Both connectives are
highly frequent in Dutch; their log frequency based on the Celex corpus of
written Dutch (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Gulikers, 1995) is 4.5 and 4.6 (per
million words) respectively. Yet, these connectives differ with respect to their
syntactic properties. Want is a coordinating connective, whereas omdat
introduces a subordinate clause. In Dutch, this syntactic difference is
reflected in the word order in the embedded clause: in Dutch coordinate
clauses the finite verb is in second position (3a) while subordinate clauses
are verb final (3b).
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|47
(3)
a. Peter zal wel ziek zijn want hij ziet bleek.
[Peter must ill be because he looks pale.]
Peter must be ill because he looks pale.
b. Peter blijft thuis omdat hij ziek is.
[Peter stays home because he ill is.]
Peter stays at home because he is ill.
We will not go into this syntactic difference but focus on the semanticpragmatic differences between want and omdat. Although there is no blackand-white distinction between these two connectives, want occurs most
frequently in subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations, whereas omdat is
most frequently used in objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations
(Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009). As
discussed in Chapter 2, the general conclusion based on corpus studies on
these two connectives is that they have clear preferences for a specific type of
relation. Indeed, omdat and want cannot simply be interchanged without
altering the causal relation expressed. For example, (4a) is a diagnostic
subjective relation in which the first clause consists of a claim regarding the
cause of the situation in the second clause. In other words, the low
temperature in the house is taken as evidence for the claim that the heating
must be broken. However, the relation gets a different interpretation if the
connective omdat is used. The use of omdat in (4b) changes the relation from
CLAIM-ARGUMENT into CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE. As a result, the cold
temperature is interpreted as the real-world cause of the broken heating,
which could make sense in case of frozen pipes.
(4)
a. De verwarming is kapot want het is koud in huis.
The heating is broken because the house is cold.
b. De verwarming is kapot omdat het koud is in huis.
The heating is broken because the house is cold.
At the same time, it is less clear whether objective relations change by
altering the connective. In (5a), the fact that Marc is ill leads to the situation
that he stays at home. Here, omdat can be replaced by the connective want
without changing the relation entirely. However, as we have discussed in
Chapter 2, want does allow for an additional interpretation in which the fact
that Marc is ill leads to the conclusion that he stays at home.
(5)
a. Marc blijft thuis omdat hij ziek is.
Marc stays at home because he is ill.
b. Marc blijft thuis want hij is ziek.
Marc stays at home because he is ill.
48|Chapter 3
Since causal connectives provide crucial information about the discourse
structure, we propose that their processing instructions go beyond simply
marking that a causal relation exists between two text segments. Given the
fact that want and omdat are prototypical markers of subjective and
objective relations respectively, we hypothesize that this subtle information
is encoded in their processing instructions and guides language users when
processing a causal relation. This implies that want actually induces a
subjective representation where omdat triggers an objective interpretation.
In order to test the effect of the Dutch connectives on discourse processing,
we started out with an eye-tracking experiment involving a Dutch
translation of the materials used by Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997),
as used in Chapter 2. An additional difference between want and omdat is
that omdat is a subordinating connective whereas want introduces a
coordinated clause. In Experiment 2 we investigate whether this syntactic
difference independently affects online discourse processing.
The main research question in this study is whether the information
about the discourse structure that want and omdat provide is used by the
reader to establish the relation between two pieces of text. We know from the
English results by Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering that there is a delay in
reading times in subjective relations as soon as the relation can be
established from the content of the second clause. If the discourse
information provided by want and omdat is not used immediately by the
reader, we expect the same result in Dutch as in English: a delay in reading
times in subjective relations in the text region where the relation between S1
and S2 can be established from the content. In our materials that would be
at the main verb. If, however, the discourse information encoded in the
connectives is put to use immediately, the effect may occur earlier, at or
directly after the connective.
3.4 Experiment 1
3.4.1 Participants
Twenty-one undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in
the experiment (20 female, mean age 23.7 age range 18–45 years). All
participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for their
participation.
3.4.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of 24 sets of sentences as used in Chapter 2, which
are Dutch versions of the English objective (6a) and subjective (6b) items as
used by Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (see Appendix 2 for more examples).
The objective condition is marked by omdat and the subjective condition is
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|49
marked by want. Although the position of the verb varied across conditions,
all text regions that were used in the analysis contained the same words.
(6)
a. Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail
get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
The 24 sets were divided over two lists, according to a Latin square
design, so that each list contained only one version of a set. In addition, 72
filler items were inserted in each list. Line breaks were placed right after the
first clause and before the connective. We made sure that the regions of
interest, in the clause following the connective, were not situated at the end
of the first line or at the beginning of the second line. This is important
because the so-called return sweep, jumping to the next line, causes noise in
the eye movement data (Rayner, 1998). Verification statements were
randomly divided over the stimuli and appeared after 25% of the items.
Participants were informed to respond to these statements by pressing the
‘yes’ or ‘no’ button on the button box.
3.4.3 Apparatus and Procedure
A Sensomotoric Instruments (SMI) Eyelink I head-mounted eye-tracker was
used, controled by FEP software (Veenker, 2006), with which both eyes were
sampled at 250 Hz. The Eyelink I eye-tracker has a tracking range of 30
degrees horizontally and 20 degrees vertically, with a gaze position accuracy
of 0.5 to 1.0 degrees. Gaze positions are corrected for head movements by an
optical head-tracking camera on the headset, and four reflectors on the
subject monitor. All participants were individually tested in a testing booth
at the University. Before the experiment started, participants were informed
about the procedure and were asked to read the instructions carefully. First
the experimenter adjusted the headband and made sure the participant was
comfortably seated. Participants were asked not to move their heads or blink
excessively during the experiment. Each experiment started with a
calibration procedure during which subjects had to follow a small circle on
the screen moving through nine positions, followed by a similar validation
procedure. This procedure was repeated before each block. The experiment
started with a practice trial of five items. Drift corrections were performed
before each sentence.
50|Chapter 3
3.4.4 Results
Example (7) illustrates how the items were divided into regions. Region 1 is
the connective, Region 3 consists of the main verb and Region 2 contains all
the information in between Region 1 and 3 (in most cases a noun phrase plus
an auxiliary). Region 4 consists of the final words of the sentence.
(7)
| Want / omdat 1 | ze was vier trappen 2 | afgerend 3 | om de post te
halen 4 |
| Because 1 | she was four stairs 2 | ran down 3 | to the mail get 4 |
Correct answers to the verification statements were given in 85% of the
trials. Blinks and missing observations, due to skipped regions, were
extracted from the data. All observations that were two standard deviations
above or below item and subject mean for each position and condition (75
cases) were excluded from the analysis. Following these criteria we removed
1% of the data. We computed the following measures: first fixation duration,
first pass reading times, regression path duration and total reading time.
First fixation duration is the duration of the first fixation on a region. First
pass reading times is what Rayner and Duffy (1986) call gaze duration for
single words and consists of all fixations within a region (including saccades)
before moving into a forward or a backward direction. Regression path
duration (Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997) consists of all
fixations on a region before passing on in a forward direction, including
rereading of previous material. Total reading time is the Total time spent at
a region. Means are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Mean first fixation duration (FF), first pass reading times (FP),
regression path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) per condition and
region in Experiment 1. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FF
omdat
want
197 (56)
189 (43)
175 (43)
177 (45)
203 (56)
195 (51)
210 (66)
212 (69)
FP
omdat
want
207 (63)
197 (46)
396 (228)
502 (311)
289 (159)
273 (139)
526 (431)
488 (415)
RP
omdat
want
210 (65)
197 (46)
553 (334)
619 (331)
328 (184)
329 (219)
1204 (736)
1261 (804)
TT
omdat
want
225 (118)
225 (100)
643 (431)
714 (412)
418 (254)
413 (309)
647 (458)
603 (444)
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|51
We performed Linear Mixed Effects Regression analyses (LMER)
(Baayen, 2008) on the data, with subjects and items as crossed random
effects and Relation (subjective vs. objective), as fixed effect. This technique
has several advantages over traditional ANOVA, such as its ability to handle
missing data and the fact that it deals with item and subject variability in a
single model (See Quené & van den Bergh, 2004, for more details). Before the
analysis, log-transformations were performed on the data in order to meet
the normality requirements of linear modeling3. Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) sampling was used to estimate the p values (Baayen, 2008).
At Region 2, the words directly following the connective, we observed
longer first pass reading times in subjective causal relations compared to
objective relations (ß=0.231, SE=0.058, t=3.95, p(MCMC)<.01). The same
pattern of result surfaced in regression path duration (ß=0.108, SE=0.042,
t=2.56, p(MCMC)<.05) and total time (ß=0.155, SE=0.043, t=3.61
p(MCMC)<.01). None of the other regions produced significant effects.
3.4.5 Discussion
The results indicate that, as in English, Dutch objective causal relations with
omdat are associated with shorter processing times compared to subjective
causal relations with want. However, in Dutch this effect arises earlier
compared to English. Namely, on the first segment following the connective,
before the main verb is processed. Recall that Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering
(1997) observed a processing difference between English subjective and
objective relations with because in the prefinal region, didn’t score in
example (2a) here repeated in (8).
(8)
The goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team didn’t score
any goals.
Note that in English this is the first position in the sentence at which
all the necessary information is available to readers to establish the causal
relation. The effects in our experiment with Dutch causal relations arise at
the region immediately following the connective. At this point in the
sentence it is not at all clear what the precise causal relation will be. This
implies that the cognitive processes responsible for the longer processing
times for subjective relations in our experiment are activated by the
connective, rather than related to the actual content of the relation. These
results suggest that the subtle semantic-pragmatic information about the
subtype of causal relation that causal connectives mark immediately affects
3
The untransformed data produced similar results in all experiments.
52|Chapter 3
online processing. This would mean that omdat provides processing
instructions that trigger the representation of an objective causal relation
between S1 and S2. Want, on the other hand, should immediately trigger the
construction of a subjective causal relation. However, these hypotheses
crucially rely on the assumption that the immediate processing difference
between want and omdat is the result of the same cognitive operations as
reflected in the processing difference between subjective and objective
relations in English. A way to verify this assumption is by further
investigating the source of both effects.
A series of self-paced reading experiments have demonstrated that the
delay in processing times for English subjective compared to objective
causals can be overcome by introducing epistemic markers, such as John
thinks and perhaps (9) (Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997). These
markers make clear that the first clause is to be taken as a belief or
possibility, and thus explicitly mark the information as being subjective.
(9)
John thinks the goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team
didn’t score any goals.
These findings illustrate that if the reader is already aware that a
relation is subjective, the content of that relation no longer induces any
processing difficulties. This suggests that it may be the construction of the
subjective representation that is responsible for the longer processing time in
subjective compared to objective causal relations. Recall that subjective
causal relations are assumed to involve a meta-representation of others’
beliefs or conclusions (e.g. Knott, 2001; Oversteegen, 2005; Zufferey, 2010).
In English subjective causal relations with because that lack other markers
of subjectivity, this meta-representation is triggered at the moment the
relation can be established from the content. We propose that, being a
prototypical marker of subjective relations, the connective want by itself
triggers this meta-representation and that it is in fact the construction of
this representation that increases the cognitive load.
If the immediate processing difference between want and omdat indeed
reflects the same processes as the observed processing difference between
English subjective and objective causals, this effect should also be canceled
out by epistemic markers preceding the connective want. We therefore
conducted a second experiment in which we added a subjective condition
with want containing epistemic markers in the first clause. An additional
advantage of this experimental setup is that it allows us to assess whether
the syntactic difference between want and omdat independently affects
online processing. Recall that want is a coordinating connective, whereas
omdat introduces a subordinate clause. In Dutch, this syntactic difference is
reflected in the word order in the embedded clause: in Dutch coordinate
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|53
clauses the verb precedes the object. In a subordinate clause this order is
inversed. Adding epistemic markers to S1 affects the interpretation of that
clause, yet it does not influence the syntactic structure of the embedded
clause. Therefore, the sentences in these two conditions have the same word
order.
3.4 Experiment 2
3.5.1 Participants
Forty undergraduate students from Utrecht University, none of which
participated in Experiment 1, took part in the experiment (31 female, mean
age 21.6 age range 16–50 years). All participants were native speakers of
Dutch and were paid for their participation.
3.5.2 Materials and design
The materials, design and procedure were the same as in Experiment 1. The
only difference between the two studies is that we added a subjective
condition marked by volgens (according to) followed by a proper name in the
first clause (10c) (see Appendix 2 for more examples). This adverbial
construction explicitly signals that the information in S1 is someone’s
conclusion or belief. The proper name always mismatched the protagonist in
the relation with respect to its gender, in order to avoid pronoun ambiguities.
(10) a. Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail
get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
c. Volgens Peter had Hanneke haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de
post te halen.
[According to Peter Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down
to the mail get.]
According to Peter, Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to
get the mail.
3.5.3 Results
The data were treated as in Experiment 1. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition (110 cases) were excluded from the analysis. Following these
criteria we removed 0.8% of the data. Correct answers to the verification
statements were given in 91% of the trials. Regions were defined as in
54|Chapter 3
Experiment 1, see example (7). Again, we analyzed the log-transformations
of the following measures: first fixation duration, first pass reading times,
regression path duration and total time. Means are reported in table 2.
Table 2. Mean first fixation duration (FF), first pass reading times (FP), regression
path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) by Condition and Region in
Experiment 2. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FF
Omdat
Want
According to +
want
200 (49)
205 (45)
192 (63)
187 (56)
199 (57)
184 (56)
210 (68)
200 (61)
200 (59)
239 (109)
235 (122)
240 (113)
FP
Omdat
Want
According to +
want
234 (86)
227 (73)
232 (86)
418 (282)
483 (295)
442 (332)
321 (173)
296 (155)
301 (168)
590 (460)
564 (446)
517 (418)
RP
Omdat
Want
According to +
want
239 (103)
238 (97)
232 (86)
568 (308)
611 (328)
675 (455)
364 (220)
384 (329)
384 (277)
1352 (1122)
1413 (1235)
1460 (1366)
TT
Omdat
Want
According to +
want
243 (135)
277 (190)
220 (108)
640 (385)
664 (371)
637 (422)
413 (239)
433 (284)
420 (254)
696 (473)
683 (480)
655 (465)
At Region 2, the words immediately after the connective, first fixation
duration was longer in subjective relations without epistemic markers
compared to both objective relations (ß=0.059, SE=0.029, t=2.07,
p(MCMC)<.05) and subjective relations that are marked by the ‘according to’
phrases (ß=0.073, SE=0.029, t=2.56, p(MCMC)<.01). There was no processing
difference between objective and marked subjective relations (ß=-0.014,
SE=0.029, t=0.49, p(MCMC)>.05). First pass reading times produced a
similar pattern of results in the same region. Subjective relations without
epistemic markers produced longer fixation times compared to objective
relations (ß=0.169, SE=0.097, t=1.7, p(MCMC)<.05, one tailed) however, the
difference with subjective relations that contained epistemic markers did not
reach significance (ß=0.139, SE=0.097, t=1.43, p(MCMC)>.05). There was no
difference between objective relations and marked subjective relations
(ß=0.030, SE=0.097, t=0.31, p(MCMC)>.05).
Total time produced significant differences at Region 1, which is the
connective. This measure was shorter in the subjective condition (want)
containing epistemic markers compared to the unmarked subjective (want)
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|55
(ß=-0.179, SE=0.053, t=3.38, p(MCMC)<.01) and objective (omdat) condition
(ß=-0.120, SE=0.050, t=2.44 p(MCMC)<.05). There was no significant
difference between objective and unmarked subjective relations (ß=0.059,
SE=0.051, t=1.14, p(MCMC)>.05).
No other significant effects surfaced from the analyses.
3.5.4 Discussion
In Experiment 2 we observed the same effect as in Experiment 1. Want in
subjective relations without epistemic markers leads to longer processing
times compared to omdat relations. This effect surfaced at the same position
in the sentence as observed in Experiment 1, at the words immediately
following the connectives. Conversely, if want is preceded by epistemic
markers in S1, we observe no processing differences between omdat and
want relations in any of the measures.
These findings demonstrate that the processing difference between
want and omdat reflects the same processes as the observed difference
between subjective and objective causals in English. Both effects are
canceled out by the presence of epistemic markers in the first clause of the
relation. These markers inform the reader that the information in the first
clause is someone’s belief, claim or conclusion, rather than an objective
description of the state of affairs in the real world. It is this status that we
believe lies at the heart of the processing effects associated with want and
subjective relations in general.
We propose that subjective connectives such as want, in addition to
being a causal marker, trigger the representation of S1 as a mental state,
and that it is the construction of this representation that increases the
cognitive load. Indeed, the fact that the presence of epistemic markers such
as ‘according to X’ cancels out the effect at the connective want indicates that
these elements have a shared function. If the first clause of a subjective
causal relation already triggers a subjective representation, no differences
between want and omdat arise because the relevant operation has already
been executed before the connectives are processed.
The effects in total time reveal that the presence of epistemic markers
also facilitates the processing of the connective want during its second
reading. This measure captures the time required for reanalysis when a
piece of information is not completely processed during the first reading
(Rayner & Sereno, 1994). When readers arrive at the end of the causal
relation, they need to spend more time at the connective want in the
unmarked compared to the marked condition.
The results from Experiment 2 allow us to exclude an alternative
explanation for the results from Experiment 1 in terms of syntactic and
lexical differences between want and omdat. Given that want is a
56|Chapter 3
coordinating connective whereas omdat is a subordinating connective, the
delay in processing times for want compared to omdat relations in
Experiment 1 could also be interpreted as a reflection of this structural
difference. Since the addition of epistemic markers in the first clause of a
want relation eliminates the processing difference between want and omdat,
it can be concluded that the syntactic differences between want and omdat
have no independent effect on processing. After all, the addition of epistemic
markers does not alter the syntactic structure of the embedded clause: both
conditions with (11b), and without (11a) the ‘according to’ phrase in S1
involve coordinate clauses.
(11) a. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Volgens Peter had Hanneke haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de
post te halen.
[According to Peter Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down
to the mail get.]
According to Peter, Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to
get the mail.
In Experiments 1 and 2 we tested the effects of want and omdat in their
typical context. To further assess the validity of the claim that these
connectives function as an immediate signal of either a subjective or an
objective relation, we conducted a third experiment in which the connectives
are placed in an atypical relation: want in objective relations and omdat in
subjective relations. Note that this has a different effect for objective and
subjective relations. In objective relations such as (12a), the use of want
leads to a subjective interpretation; S1 is interpreted as a claim. This should
immediately slow the reader down, but should not cause further problems
because any objective information can in principle be presented as subjective.
In subjective relations, on the other hand, the use of omdat should initially
be no problem, because the reader is instructed to create a
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation between the two clauses. However,
towards the end of the relation, readers should experience severe problems
when they try to interpret the relation as objective because this
interpretation doesn’t make much sense. In example (12b) omdat forces the
reader to interpret the second clause as the cause of the situation presented
in the first clause: the fact that Hanneke ran down the stairs causes her to
be in a hurry. Obviously, this results in a very implausible causal relation.
Therefore, this should lead to a processing delay towards the end of the
relation where the reader will try to make sense of the CONSEQUENCECAUSE interpretation.
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|57
(12) a. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. #Hanneke had haast, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail get.]
#Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
A second purpose of Experiment 3 is to assess whether the processing
difference between want and omdat replicates. This effect is smaller in
Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1. Given that the presence of
epistemic markers in the design is the only difference between the two
experiments, this may have affected the magnitude of the effect. The
presence of epistemic markers in a subset of the items may have facilitated
the construction of a subjective relation in other items. However, the
difference could also be caused by the fact that the effect is simply not as
strong as we claim it to be. In Experiment 3 we therefore tested whether the
same immediate asymmetry between want and omdat arises if we
systematically vary the relations in which they are placed. In both subjective
and objective relations, want should immediately induce longer processing
times compared to omdat. Therefore a main effect of connective is expected to
arise at the region following the connective. However, if omdat forces an
objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE interpretation, this should cause
problems in our subjective relations at the moment the reader has a
complete representation of the relation, because it makes no sense. We
therefore expect to find longer processing times at the end of subjective
relations with omdat compared to the other conditions.
3.6 Experiment 3
3.6.1 Participants
Thirty-eight undergraduate students from Utrecht University, none of which
took part in Experiment 1 or 2, participated in the experiment (35 female,
mean age 22 age range 18–29 years). All participants were native speakers of
Dutch and were paid for their participation.
3.6.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of the same items as in Experiment 1, but we added
16 new items to obtain a total of 10 items per condition (see Appendix 2 for
examples). The difference with the first experiment is that we presented both
types of relations with both connectives resulting in 4 conditions. As in
Experiment 1, conditions (a) and (b) are objective relations with omdat (13a)
and subjective relations with want (13b) respectively. In the other two
58|Chapter 3
conditions we swapped the connectives to create objective relations with
want (13c) and subjective relations with omdat (13d).
(13) a. Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail
get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
c. Hanneke was buiten adem, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
d. #Hanneke had haast, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
The 40 sets were divided over four lists, according to a Latin square
design, so that each list contained only one version of a set. In addition, 60
filler items were inserted in each list. The rest of the procedure was the same
as in Experiment 1.
3.6.3 Results
The data were treated as in Experiment 1. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition (201 cases) were excluded from the analysis. Following these
criteria we removed 0.8% of the data. Correct answers to the verification
statements were given in 85% of the trials. We analyzed the same regions as
in Experiment 1, defined in example (7). Again, we analyzed the logtransformations of the measures: first fixation duration, first pass reading
times, regression path duration and total time. Means are reported in table 3.
We performed LMER analyses on the data, with subjects and items as
crossed random effects. We modeled the fixed effect of Relation (subjective
vs. objective), Connective (want vs. omdat) and the interaction between these
factors.
At Region 1, the connective, the results revealed a main effect of
Connective. Omdat was processed faster compared to want in first fixation
duration (ß=-0.042, SE=0.020, t=2.05, p(MCMC)<0.05), first pass reading
times (ß=-0.057, SE=0.020, t=2.78, p(MCMC)<0.01) and regression path
duration (ß=-0.085, SE=0.023, t=3.67, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|59
The same region also produced a main effect of Relation in first fixation
duration (ß=0.051, SE=0.019, t= 2.62, p(MCMC)<0.01) and first pass reading
times (ß=0.046, SE=0.019, t= 2.39, p(MCMC)<0.05). The connective was
processed faster after a subjective first clause compared to an objective first
clause.
Table 3. Mean first fixation duration (FF), first pass reading times (FP),
regression path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) by Relation (objective
vs. subjective) and Connective (want vs. omdat) per Region in Experiment 3.
Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
FF
Objective
Subjective
FP
Objective
Subjective
RP
Objective
Subjective
TT
Objective
Subjective
1
2
3
4
Omdat
Want
Omdat
Want
235 (66)
248 (71)
224 (66)
238 (81)
212 (56)
220 (64)
211 (65)
217 (75)
220 (62)
215 (63)
220 (65)
218 (62)
249 (104)
243 (89)
258 (113)
260 (106)
Omdat
Want
Omdat
Want
241 (68)
255 (73)
227 (70)
251 (92)
411 (265)
432 (284)
418 (279)
440 (266)
363 (208)
336 (196)
363 (200)
357 (204)
496 (351)
494 (329)
500 (332)
513 (339)
Omdat
Want
Omdat
Want
241 (68)
263 (107)
233 (84)
278 (173)
484 (296)
530 (352)
502 (295)
537 (301)
420 (292)
384 (237)
436 (278)
408 (243)
1084 (869)
1090 (789)
1271 (944)
1069 (728)
Omdat
Want
Omdat
Want
257 (104)
258 (110)
276 (142)
268 (135)
564 (365)
593 (396)
608 (389)
623 (414)
484 (310)
453 (275)
534 (356)
481 (293)
595 (399)
596 (404)
643 (401)
600 (361)
As in Experiment 1, we observed a main effect of connective at Region 2,
the words following the connective. This region was processed faster if it
followed omdat compared to want in first fixation duration (ß=-0.024,
SE=0.014, t=1.71, p(MCMC)<0.05 (one-tailed)), first pass reading times (ß=0.057, SE=0.027, t=2.12, p(MCMC)<0.05) and regression path duration (ß=0.079, SE=0.023, t=3.44, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Region 4, the final words of the second clause, produced a main effect of
Relation in first fixation duration (ß=-0.042, SE=0.019, t= 2.20,
p(MCMC)<0.05). Objective relations led to shorter first fixation durations
compared to subjective relations. In regression path duration, this region
produced a significant interaction between Connective and Relation (ß=0.145, SE=0.061, t=2.38, p(MCMC)<0.05). Post-hoc comparisons revealed
that subjective relations with omdat led to increased processing times
compared to the same relation with want (ß=0.117, SE=0.043, t=2.74,
60|Chapter 3
p(MCMC)<0.01). However, the connective made no difference in objective
relations (ß=-0.024, SE=0.042, t=0.58, p(MCMC)>0.05).
In total time we observed significant effects of Relation at regions 2, 3
and 4 (ß=-0.064, SE=0.024, t=2.64, p(MCMC)<0.01; ß=-0.057, SE=0.024,
t=2.36, p(MCMC)<0.05; ß=-0.059, SE=0.023, t=2.57, p(MCMC)<0.05
respectively). These regions were processed faster in objective compared to
subjective relations. In addition, a main effect of Connective surfaced in
region 3 (ß=0.055, SE=0.024, t= 2.30, p(MCMC)<0.05). The total reading
time of this region was longer in omdat relations compared to want relations.
3.6.4 Discussion
The results of Experiment 3 confirm that the connectives want and omdat
function as signals for the construction of a subjective and objective relation
respectively. We observed longer processing times for want compared to
omdat, irrespective of the exact type of causal relation in which the two
connectives were presented. As in the first two experiments we observed this
asymmetry at the words immediately following the connective, but on top of
that, the effect also surfaced at the connective itself. These results illustrate
that want triggers the same cognitive processes irrespective of the content of
the preceding clause.
More importantly, the results also demonstrate that omdat triggers the
construction of an objective relation. As we hypothesized, the use of omdat in
subjective relations leads to an initial facilitation effect compared to want,
but induces problems at the end of S2 when the causal coherence relation
can be fully established. At this point, readers find out that an objective
interpretation makes no sense and they need more time to reread the
relation, which increases the reading times. On the basis of these results we
cannot tell whether readers eventually come up with a subjective
representation of the relation, or whether they just end up with a nonsense
relation. Either way, the results indicate that the connective initially leads
into the wrong direction, resulting in serious processing difficulties at the
final region of the second clause.
The results in total time indicate that when readers have arrived at the
end of the causal relation, it takes more time to reanalyze subjective
relations compared to objective relations. This could be interpreted as a
reflection of the overall complexity of the subjective relations involved.
3.7 General Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the nature of the
processing instructions provided by causal connectives. It is generally
assumed that these markers provide important information about the
unfolding discourse structure, as they signal that a causal relation is to be
established between two pieces of text. However, it seems that causal
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|61
connectives do more than that. In various languages of the world the
distinction between subjective and objective causal relations seems to be
reflected in the usage pattern of causal connectives. We set out to assess
whether such semantic-pragmatic distinctions play a role in online
processing. Crucially, we were interested in the time course of such effects.
As a case in point, we focused on the Dutch causal connectives omdat and
want, which are considered to be prototypical markers of objective and
subjective relations respectively (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003;
Sanders & Spooren, 2009; Stukker & Sanders, 2012). We hypothesized that
knowledge of these usage patterns helps language users during reading.
Therefore, subjective connectives such as want are expected to induce a
subjective representation whereas objective connectives such as omdat
should trigger an objective representation. The three experiments presented
in this chapter support this hypothesis and provide new insights into the
function of causal connectives in processing.
Our data reveal that the processing asymmetry between subjective and
objective causal relations, as observed in English, is affected by the semantic
properties of the Dutch connectives want and omdat. Recall that Traxler,
Bybee, and Pickering (1997) observed longer processing times in subjective
compared to objective relations at the main verb of the second clause. Given
the fact that because is used in both types of relations, this is the earliest
possible position at which the causal relation can be fully constructed from
the content in their materials. In Dutch, this difference in processing times
appears directly after the connective want is processed, or even at the
connective itself (Experiment 3). At this point in the sentence the reader does
not have the necessary information about the content of S2 to establish the
coherence relation. Experiment 2 showed that the delay in processing times
associated with want is related to a subjective interpretation of S1. If this
interpretation is already marked by linguistic cues of subjectivity in the first
clause, the delay at want disappears. These results show that the connective
want by itself functions as a trigger for a subjective interpretation, and that
this immediately affects online processing.
Experiment 3 demonstrated that this effect arises independently of the
information in the clauses involved. In both subjective and objective
relations, want leads to an immediate processing slowdown compared to
omdat. This implies that the cognitive operations responsible for these
effects are induced by the properties of the connectives rather than the
propositional content of the text segments. Coming back to issues raised in
Chapter 2, these results reveal that the processing effects induced by want
cannot be explained in terms of the plausibility of the underlying causal
relation. Furthermore, the incompatibility of omdat in subjective relations,
which resulted in an increase in processing times in regression path duration
at the end of S2, reveals how omdat influences the processing of causal
62|Chapter 3
relations. This connective forces an objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE
reading, which is infelicitous in our subjective relations and therefore results
in a discourse garden path effect.
The position of the effects of subjectivity in our Dutch experiments
differs from the English results. However, we would like to emphasize that
we seem to be dealing with similar cognitive processes that simply surface at
different positions in the text. Recall that in both languages, the processing
asymmetry between subjective and objective relations disappears if the first
clause of the subjective relation is explicitly marked for its subjectivity. The
main difference between the two languages is that the information encoded
in the connectives differs. These findings suggest that the effects in both
studies are related to subjectivity. Moreover, the observation that the use of
epistemic markers in the first clause of subjective relations cancels out the
early processing asymmetry between want and omdat also provides more
information about the cognitive processes responsible for the effect. This
result illustrates that the slowdown in unmarked subjective causals with
want is not caused by syntactic or lexical differences between want and
omdat, but must be related to the modification of the information in the first
clause, which is exactly what epistemic markers do.
Taken together, the data from the three experiments demonstrate that
causal connectives are not just general devices that mark causal relations
between text segments. Our findings suggest that causal connectives
contribute to the immediate construction of a causal relation between two
clauses (Cozijn, 2000; Cozijn et al. 2011) rather than delaying this process
until the end of the second clause (Millis & Just, 1994), as discussed in the
introduction of this chapter. Moreover, causal connectives provide
information about rather subtle semantic-pragmatic distinctions between
types of causal relations, corresponding to their usage patterns, which
immediately influence online processing. Objective connectives, such as
omdat, trigger the representation of an objective causal relation. Causal
connectives that are typically associated with subjective relations, such as
want, trigger the representation of someone’s belief or opinion, be it from the
author, speaker or any other person whose reasoning is presented in the
discourse. As a result, it functions as a cue to readers that the information is
to be interpreted as a mental state and not as a fact or event in the world.
Future research will have to establish whether the processing pattern
observed in Dutch is generalizable to other languages that have equally
specialized connectives.
Different theoretical explanations could explain the observed
disadvantage in processing times for subjective connectives, and subjective
causal relations in general. In what follows, we discuss two theories from
diverging frameworks.
Differences in subjectivity reflected in eye-movements|63
From a linguistic perspective, it could be argued that subjective
relations are more complex than objective relations, simply because they
contain more information at the propositional level. Subjective relations
possibly require the representation of an additional proposition concerning
the validity or truthfulness of S1, which could be described in terms of an ‘X
thinks / says’ component (De Smet & Verstraete, 2006; Ross, 1970;
Rutherford, 1970. If the context preceding a connective expressing a
subjective relation does not already trigger such a proposition, as is the case
in the unmarked subjective relations in our experiment, encountering a
connective such as want may trigger the construction of such a proposition.
In case of underspecified connectives, such as because, this representation
has to be established from the content of the relation. If however, the
additional information is already marked in S1, the second clause is
processed smoothly. A similar explanation is put forward in Traxler,
Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997), who propose that the processing difficulty
observed in subjective causal relations is caused by the fact that it has not
been made clear that S1 needs to be interpreted as a psychological event (as
opposed to an objective interpretation of the state of affairs in the real
world). As a result, S1 needs to be reanalyzed as such. The authors therefore
treat the effects of subjectivity along the lines of the garden path effects
associated with reduced relatives and reduced complements (Ferreira &
Henderson, 1990; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994; Trueswell,
Tanenhaus, & Kello, 1993).
A different way to account for the processing effects is by relying on
discourse theories on perspective. Subjective causal relations differ from
objective relations in that they involve a change in perspective, because the
interpretation of the claim or conclusion has to be related to the speaker’s
point of view or mental space (Fauconnier, 1994; Sanders, Sanders, &
Sweetser, 2009, 2011). Theories such as the Deictic Shift Perspective (Segal
& Duchan, 1997; Segal, Duchan, & Scott, 1991) predict that such perspective
changes induce processing difficulties. According to this theory, readers
experience a narrative world by following the perspective in the story.
Crucial to this theory is the ‘Principle of continuity’, which assumes a
general bias to process information in a continuous fashion. Changes in the
discourse structure are associated with a processing cost; therefore this
principle has been adopted to account for the processing effects that have
been observed with topic shifts and temporal discontinuity (Bestgen &
Costermans 1994; Bestgen & Vonk, 2000; Zwaan, 1996). Even though it is
debatable whether sentence pairs constitute a narrative, all subjective
relations that do not contain subjectivity markers in S1 involve a perspective
change. In the absence of other markers of subjectivity, the first clauses of
these relations are presented as objective observations of events taking place
in the world. However, the connective want makes clear that the reader has
64|Chapter 3
to shift that perspective to the subjective perspective of the speaker, which
could explain the processing difficulty associated with this connective.
Indeed, subjective connectives such as want are claimed to function as
perspective markers (Verhagen, 2005). In relations with more general
connectives such as because, perspective shifts are marked by the
propositional content of the second clause, at the moment the reader has all
the necessary information to establish the subjective relation. If the first
clause of a subjective relation already marks the speaker’s perspective, by
markers such as perhaps, or the subjective perspective of the protagonist, as
in the ‘according to’ condition in Experiment 2, continuity is maintained.
On the basis of the empirical data so far we cannot yet determine which
of these theories most adequately accounts for the disadvantage in
processing time for subjective causal relations. Whether it consists of a local
reanalysis of the proposition in the first clause, or whether it is related to the
maintenance of perspective, could be tested in an experimental setup with
larger contexts. Following the perspective approach, a contextual
manipulation of perspective should eliminate a perspective shift at
encountering a subjective connective such as want. If such a manipulation
cancels out the processing difficulty at want, this would provide evidence for
the Deictic Shift Perspective. A propositional account, on the other hand,
predicts that this manipulation would not solve the problem because a
manipulation of perspective in the context does not explicitly mark the first
clause of the relation as a mental state. In any case, both explanations have
one thing in common which is essential for any theory on the processing and
representation of subjective causal connectives and subjective relations in
general. These relations require the representation of additional information
related to reasoning processes. The experimental data on English and Dutch
show that this representation can be established either by epistemic
markers, such as maybe and John thinks, or by subjective connectives such
as want. Further research is required to assess what this representation
consists of and how it relates to general cognition.
Chapter 4
Processing subjective causal relations:
The role of contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker
involvement.
4.1 Introduction
Language is used for communication. In order for communication to be
successful, it is not enough to process the individual pieces of information in
the linguistic input. It is a widely shared assumption that establishing the
relations between those pieces is an essential part of communication.
Crucially, language comprehension also involves an evaluation of whether
the conveyed information corresponds to our world knowledge: whether that
information is true, false, possible or plausible (Johnson–Laird, 1983;
Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000). Therefore, language users need to be able to
distinguish between utterances that describe actual events or situations in
the real world, and utterances that convey someone else’s belief, opinion, or
evaluation of these events. Say, for example, you are watching a soccer game
in a bar and you overhear a heated discussion in which someone yells (1):
(1)
That referee needs to go look for a new job!
Given the circumstances in which this utterance is produced, it is pretty
unlikely that you will believe that the discussion is about a referee that is
actually looking for a new job. Instead, the discourse and other non verbal
cues (shouting, hand gestures, angry faces) will probably lead to the
interpretation that the sentence “That referee needs to go look for a new job”
is not to be interpreted literally, but conveys the speaker’s (negative) opinion
about this referee. In that case, the utterance could most likely continue as
in (2):
(2)
It was clearly offside.
Even though in this example the correct interpretation seems rather
obvious, under different circumstances it is possible to continue the sentence
as in (3):
(3)
His contract will not be extended.
What these examples illustrate is that in everyday communication,
language users need to be able to distinguish between these different
interpretations; between clauses that express factual situations in the real
world, and those that convey another person’s opinion, belief or conclusion
66|Chapter 4
about those situations. At first glance, this seems like a simple task to
perform. And of course, information about some person we do not know or
care about may not need to be evaluated with great care. Indeed, we
probably do not go about verifying the status of every utterance we hear. Yet,
this does not mean that the processes underlying these decisions are
executed without any effort or ambiguity. As the causal continuations in (2)
and (3) illustrate, the status of the sentence in (1) can vary as a function of
these continuations. In combination with (2), we are dealing with a CLAIMARGUMENT relation, whereas the continuation in (3) results in a
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation.
As we have seen in Chapters 2 and 3, the distinction between these
types of relations is also referred to as subjective versus objective relations
(e.g., Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander
Maat & Sanders, 2001). Other labels that have been used to describe these
relations are semantic versus pragmatic (Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman,
1992; Van Dijk, 1979) internal versus external (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), or
content versus epistemic relations (Sweetser, 1990). In objective causal
relations, the speaker is describing the situation in S1 and S2 as being
causally related in the real world (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000), the
speaker is ‘just reporting’ (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2012, p.6).
Subjective relations, on the other hand, involve reasoning. The speaker is
presenting a conclusion or a claim on the basis of some evidence in the real
world.
On the basis of the conceptual difference between these two types of
causal relations, subjective causal relations are claimed to be more complex
than objective causal relations (Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Sanders,
Spooren, & Noordman, 1992; Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler,
Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997). Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) found
that subjective causal relations (4b) lead to longer processing times
compared to objective causal relations (4a). This effect appeared at the words
didn’t score in the example below, which is the position in the sentence
where the reader can infer the type of causal relation from the content.
(4)
a. The goalkeeper won the game because the other team didn’t score any goals.
b. The goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team didn’t
score any goals.
In English, both subjective and objective backward causal relations can
be expressed by because (e.g. Couper-Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993; Knott &
Dale, 1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990), this connective can
therefore not be used as a cue to establish the exact type of causal relation.
In Dutch, however, these types of relations are typically expressed by two
different causal connectives: want is a prototypical marker of subjective
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|67
CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations (5b) whereas omdat is a prototypical marker
of objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations (5a) (Degand & Pander
Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009; submitted; Verhagen,
2005).
(5)
a. Die scheidsrechter moet ander werk gaan zoeken omdat zijn contract niet
wordt verlengd.
That referee needs to go look for a new job omdat his contract will not be
extended.
b. Die scheidsrechter moet ander werk gaan zoeken want het was duidelijk
buitenspel.
That referee needs to go look for a new job want it was clearly offside.
The results presented in Chapter 3 reveal that the Dutch connectives
want and omdat provide immediate instructions about the type of causal
relation they mark. In a set of eye-tracking experiments involving Dutch
objective (6a) and subjective (6b) causal relations, we demonstrated that the
subjective connective want induces longer processing times compared to the
more objective connective omdat.
(6)
a. Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail
get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
This effect arose at the connective itself and at the first words
immediately following it. At this point in the sentence, readers do not yet
have enough information to construct the causal relation from the content,
which shows that the effect is caused by the semantic-pragmatic properties
of the connectives. We proposed that omdat triggers the representation of an
objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation, whereas want triggers the
representation of a subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation. If this
hypothesis is on the right track, it is expected that readers experience
difficulties when the connective leads into the wrong direction. This is
confirmed by the results from Experiment 3 in Chapter 3. When both
connectives are placed in a subjective relation that does not allow for a
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE interpretation such as (7), omdat leads to longer
processing times at the end of the second clause.
(7)
#Hanneke had haast, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te halen.
68|Chapter 4
[Hanneke was in a hurry, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail get.]
#Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
Even though the position of the effect differs in the two languages, the
effects associated with subjective causal relations in English and Dutch
reflect similar cognitive processes. In both languages, a disadvantage in
processing time arises at the point where it becomes clear that S1 represents
someone’s reasoning rather than an objective consequence. In English, this
information is derived by the propositional content of the second clause,
which makes clear that the relation is subjective. In Dutch, this information
is cued by the connective want. That these effects reflect similar cognitive
processes in both languages can be derived from the fact that both effects are
canceled out when the first clause of the causal relation contains explicit
cues about the status of S1 as a claim. In a set of clause-by-clause self-paced
reading experiments, Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997) show that
the delay in processing times for subjective compared to objective causal
relations disappears if the first clause of the subjective causal relation is
marked by modal expressions such as perhaps and maybe, or the mental
state predicate John thinks (8). These markers make clear that the first
clause is to be taken as someone’s belief, claim, or conclusion, and thus
explicitly mark the information as being subjective.
(8)
John thinks the goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team
didn’t score any goals.
Similar results were obtained in Experiment 2 in Chapter 3. We found
that the immediate disadvantage in processing time for want compared to
omdat is canceled out if the first clause of the relation is preceded by the
mental state predicate according to Peter (9).
(9)
Volgens Peter had Hanneke haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de
post te halen.
[According to Peter Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down
to the mail get.]
According to Peter, Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to
get the mail.
These experiments reveal that when readers are explicitly cued about
the status of S1 as a claim or conclusion, the delay in processing time for
subjective compared to objective causal relations in both English and Dutch
is canceled out. This shows that the relative complexity of these relations has
to be related to the representation of S1 as someone’s reasoning, rather than
an actual event in the world. Furthermore, these studies illustrate that the
construction of this representation, as triggered by subjective connectives
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|69
such as want, comes at a processing cost. However, when the construction of
this representation is already explicitly cued in the first clause of the causal
relation, the rest of the subjective relation is processed smoothly.
Up to now, we have discussed CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations. However,
language users encounter claims in many different kinds of linguistic
contexts. The fundamental question is how do language users recognize the
special status of a sentence as a claim? And what are the mechanisms
underlying the processing of subjective causal relations?
As discussed in Chapter 2, the difference between objective and
subjective causal relations has been described in terms of speaker
involvement. Speaker involvement is defined as the degree to which a
thinking subject, which can be the speaker, author, or any person whose
reasoning is presented, is involved in the construal of the causal relation
(Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000; Pit, 2003;
Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2009), thereby taking responsibility for the
presented information.
In the current study, we will explore whether contextual cues of speaker
involvement affect the processing asymmetry between subjective and
objective causal relations in Dutch, as marked by want and omdat
respectively. To be more specific, the question is: does a text have to make
explicit that a given sentence is someone’s claim, to overcome the
disadvantage in processing time for subjective compared to objective causal
relations? Or do contextual cues that imply that the text is written from the
author’s perspective, in which he or she might be claiming things, have the
same effect? In other words, do we need to know that someone is claiming, or
does S1 have to be explicitly marked as a claim?
4.2 Subjectivity from a mental space perspective
Examples (1) to (3) suggest that in everyday communication the
representation of claims and beliefs can be easily derived from the (nonlinguistic) context. Indeed, there are global means to mark the speaker’s
subjective involvement in a discourse, for example, by an argumentative
context that makes clear that the presented information is to be interpreted
from the speaker’s point of view. It is, however, unclear whether linguistic
contextual cues of speaker involvement also cancel out the disadvantage in
processing time for subjective over objective causal relations as marked by
want and omdat.
A cognitive theoretical framework that might provide insights in this
matter is Mental Spaces Theory (MST) (Fauconnier, 1994). Mental spaces
are conceived as conceptual spaces in which information bound to time,
space, and person is represented relative to the here and now. As such “They
organize the processes that take place behind the scenes as we think and
talk” (Fauconnier, 1998, p.151). According to MST, language users build, and
70|Chapter 4
constantly update, a network of mental spaces when they communicate.
Within this theory, a special function has been ascribed to linguistic signals
that set up the construction of specific mental spaces, so-called space
builders. For example, in Fauconnier’s (1998) example in (10), the expression
Max thought functions as a space builder because it sets up the mental space
that represents Max’s thoughts.
(10) Max thought the winner received $100.
Subjective connectives such as want have also been proposed to function
as space builders; they trigger the setup of the mental space of the relevant
thinking subject, be it the speaker, author, or a third person character in a
story, in which the causal relation can be interpreted (Sanders, Sanders, &
Sweetser, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005). Even though MST is not developed to
make specific predictions about online discourse processing, this theory could
be used to formulate hypotheses about the processing effects associated with
subjective causal relations. On the basis of MST it could be argued that the
cognitive complexity of representing someone’s reasoning is related to the
construction of the relevant mental space for interpretation. If this operation
explains the longer processing times for subjective compared to objective
causal relations, it follows that this effect should be canceled out if the
context preceding the causal relation contains (linguistic) elements that
already provide the required mental space for interpretation.
Indeed, contextual cues of speaker involvement have been shown to
influence the offline interpretation of causal relations. Sanders (1997)
embedded causal relations that were ambiguous between a subjective and an
objective interpretation in either an argumentative or a descriptive version
of a text. Participants were asked to choose the best fitting paraphrase of the
relation from a list. The results revealed that the interpretation of
ambiguous causal relations is affected by context type. Descriptive texts lead
to more objective interpretations while argumentative texts lead to more
subjective interpretations. These results illustrate that an argumentative
context can guide the offline interpretation of ambiguous causal relations
without a causal connective. The remaining question is whether this type of
information prepares the reader for the representation of claims in the
upcoming text in such a way that it facilitates the online processing of
CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations.
One way to answer that question is by manipulating evaluative
markers in the context preceding want and omdat relations. Evaluation is
referred to as “the broad cover term for the expression of the speaker or
writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the
entities or propositions that he or she is talking about” (Thompson &
Hunston, 2000, p.5), similar to the notion of stance (Biber & Finegan, 1988).
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|71
In this study we particularly focus on evaluative adverbs and adjectives such
as terribly, fantastic and ridiculous in written text. Such expressions make
clear that the author is emotionally involved in the matter under discussion.
Therefore, these markers are expected to function as cues to the reader that
the text is to be interpreted from the author’s perspective; they inform the
reader that someone is claiming. Yet, they do not provide explicit cues for the
interpretation of specific clauses in the text as being claims or conclusions, as
part of a chain of reasoning.
If the representation of claims as marked by want is related to the
construction of the required mental space for interpretation, the processing
of this connective should be sensitive to the presence of space builders in the
discourse context. Therefore, the processing asymmetry between want and
omdat, as reported in Chapter 3, should be smaller, or even canceled out, if
the preceding context already provides information about the author’s
involvement in the text. Neutral contexts, without such markers, should lead
to a replication of the processing asymmetry between these two connectives.
4.3 Experiment 1
4.3.1 Participants
39 Undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in the
experiment (35 female, mean age 22.3 age range 18–35 years). All
participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for their
participation.
4.3.2 Materials and design
We created 36 sets of adapted news items on various topics, which were all
approximately one paragraph long. Two factors were manipulated: Context
(neutral versus subjective) and Relation (want versus omdat relations). All
omdat relations are CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations such as (11b). All
want relations are CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations in which the second clause
cannot be interpreted as the cause of the situation in the first clause (11a)
(see Appendix 3 for more examples). Both want and omdat relations have the
same first clause, which means that this first sentence is in principle
ambiguous between a claim (followed by an argument) and a consequence
(followed by a cause).
Because want is a coordinating connective and omdat a subordinating
connective, there is a difference in the word order of the embedded clauses.
In Dutch coordinate clauses the finite verb is in second position while
subordinate clauses require verb final word order. However, we designed the
items in such a way that the first words following the connective were the
same in both want and omdat relations. This allows us to make a comparison
between want and omdat relations directly after the connectives are
72|Chapter 4
processed, which is the position where we observed the processing difference
between want and omdat in Chapter 3. After this segment, the content of the
want and omdat relations starts to diverge, expressing either a
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE or CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation. Therefore, the
processing times of the rest of the want and omdat relations cannot be
directly compared, since they contain different words. Care was taken that
both types of relations fit into the global discourse structure to create natural
texts in all conditions.
(11) a. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag want slechts de helft haalt een
voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is low want only half of them pass the maths and
language tests.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag omdat slechts de helft van de
onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is low omdat only half of the teaching hours are
dedicated to maths and language.
Subjective contexts were created by adding evaluative adverbs (such as
horribly, amazingly), adjectives (ridiculous, stupid, fantastic) and discourseoriented adverbs (of course, really) to the title and the text preceding the
causal relation. These markers reveal the emotional involvement of the
author with respect to the content, which informs the reader that the text is
to be interpreted from the author’s point of view. In that respect, our
subjective contexts resemble letters to the editors of newspapers (Pounds,
2005). The final sentence of the text was the same in both contexts. An
example of an experimental item is given in (12).
(12) a. Verbeteringen in het onderwijs
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar meer \ aandacht besteden
aan het niveau van de studenten. In plaats \ van 8 uur wordt er dan 14 uur per week
uitgetrokken voor \ reken- en taalvakken. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is \
laag want slechts de helft haalt een voldoende voor rekenen \ en taal. De minister
van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in
een schooljaar.
Education improvements
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will pay more attention to
their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number of teaching
hours dedicated to maths and languages from 8 to 14 hours a week. The students'
current skill level is low WANT only half of them pass the maths and language tests.
The minister of education pleads for stricter admission requirements and additional
exams throughout the school year.
b. Verbeteringen in het onderwijs
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar meer \ aandacht besteden
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|73
aan het niveau van de studenten. In plaats \ van 8 uur wordt er dan 14 uur per week
uitgetrokken voor \ reken- en taalvakken. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is \
laag omdat slechts de helft van de onderwijsuren wordt besteed \ aan rekenen en
taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer
toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Education improvements
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will pay more attention to
their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number of teaching
hours dedicated to maths and languages from 8 to 14 hours a week. The students'
current skill level is low OMDAT only half of the teaching hours are dedicated to
maths and language. The minister of education pleads for stricter admission
requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
c. Pabo moet echt beter!
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk \ meer
aandacht besteden aan het niveau van \ de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er
dan maar liefst 14 uur per \ week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. Het
huidige niveau van de \ studenten is laag want slechts de helft haalt een voldoende \
voor rekenen en taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere \
toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Teachers Training Colleges must improve!
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will finally pay more
attention to their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number
of teaching hours dedicated to maths and languages from as many as 8 to 14 hours a
week. The students' current skill level is ridiculously low WANT only half of them
pass the maths and language tests. The minister of education pleads for stricter
admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
d. Pabo moet echt beter!
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk \ meer
aandacht besteden aan het niveau van \ de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er
dan maar liefst 14 uur per \ week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. Het
huidige niveau van de \ studenten is laag omdat slechts de helft van de
onderwijsuren wordt \ besteed aan rekenen en taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit
voor \ strengere toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Teachers Training Colleges must improve!
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will finally pay more
attention to their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number
of teaching hours dedicated to maths and languages from as many as 8 to 14 hours a
week. The students' current skill level is ridiculously low OMDAT only half of the
teaching hours are dedicated to maths and language. The minister of education pleads
for stricter admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
Line breaks are indicated by a backslash in example (12). We made sure
that the connective was never at the end or beginning of a line. Because the
majority of the causal relations were too long to fit on a single line, we placed
the final words of the causal relation on the subsequent line. There was
74|Chapter 4
considerable variance with respect to the layout of the texts. However, length
differences between the target line, containing the second clause of the
causal relation, and the lines preceding and following it were kept to a
minimum to avoid effects due to systematic differences in visual
presentation. 54 Filler news items were added to the materials. These items
covered a range of topics and had the same length as the test items but
contained no causal relations.
4.3.3 Pretest
An offline judgment test was performed to check whether our manipulation
of speaker involvement was successful. Two lists were created, containing
either the subjective or the neutral version of a text. Each text was cut off
after the first clause of the causal relation, directly before the connective, so
that the degree of subjectivity of the connective could not influence the
judgments. 19 Students of Utrecht University participated in the judgment
task. These participants did not take part in any of the other experiments in
this study. Because it is difficult, and maybe even impossible, to judge the
degree of speaker involvement, we asked our participants to judge the
persuasive and the informative intent of the author on a 7-point Likert scale.
We reasoned that if readers are sensitive to the presence of evaluative
markers in the subjective texts as an indication of the author’s point of view
on the matter under discussion, these texts should score higher on
persuasive intent than the neutral variants.
The judgments were analyzed using Linear Mixed Effects Regressions
(LMER) analyses (Baayen, 2008), with subjects and items as crossed random
effects and Condition (subjective versus neutral) as fixed factor. Markov
Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling was used to estimate p values
(Baayen, 2008). The results indicate that the context influenced readers’
perception of the author’s intentions. Subjective contexts received a higher
score on persuasive intent compared to neutral contexts (4.32 (1.88) versus
2.77 (1.65) respectively) (ß=1.57, SE=0.11, t=13.71, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Neutral contexts received a higher score on informative intent compared to
subjective contexts (6.07 (1.02) versus 5.31 (1.46) respectively) (ß=0.78,
SE=0.07, t=10.42, p(MCMC)<0.001). These results indicate that readers are
sensitive to our manipulation of speaker involvement.
4.3.4 Apparatus and procedure
Eye movements were recorded with a desktop-mounted EyeLink 1000 eyetracker, controled by FEP software (Veenker, 2006), which samples the right
eye at 500Hz. The system has an eye position tracking range of 32 degrees
horizontally and 25 degrees vertically, with a gaze position accuracy of 0.5
degrees. The materials were presented on a 19-inch computer screen at a
viewing distance of approximately 60 centimeters. Before the experiment
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|75
started, participants were informed about the procedure and the
experimenter made sure the participant was comfortably seated. All
participants were informed that the experiment consisted of newspaper texts
and they were asked not to move their heads or blink excessively during the
experiment. Each experiment started with a thirteen-point calibration
procedure followed by a validation procedure, which was repeated before
each block. The experiment started with a practice trial of 3 items.
4.3.5 Results
Example (13) illustrates how the items were divided into regions. Again, line
breaks are indicated by a backslash. The title and the text preceding the
causal relation will not be discussed because these parts of the text contain
more words in subjective compared to neutral contexts. Region 1 consists of
the first part of S1 and Region 2 contains the rest of S1 after the line break.
Region 3 is the connective and Region 4 comprises the target region, in most
cases the subject of S2 or a prepositional phrase. Region 5 is the point from
which want and omdat relations start to diverge and contains the main verb.
Region 6 is the final region of the target line and region 7 contains the last
words of the causal relation on the next line. The final region comprises the
last sentence of the text.
(13) |Het huidige niveau van de studenten is 1 |\
|laag 2 |want 3 |slechts de helft 4 |haalt een voldoende 5 |
|voor rekenen 6 |\ |en taal. 7 | De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor
strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een
schooljaar. 8 |
|The students' current skill level is 1 | \
|low 2 |want 3 |only half 4 | passes 5 |for math 6 |\
|and language. 7 |The minister of education pleads for stricter \
admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school
year. 8 |
All observations that were two standard deviations above or below item
and subject mean for each position and condition (387 cases) were excluded
from the analysis. Following these criteria we removed 0.8% of the data. We
computed the following measures: first pass reading times, right-bounded
time, regression path duration, and total reading time. First pass reading
times is what Rayner and Duffy (1986) call gaze duration for single words
and consists of all fixations within a region (including saccades) before
moving into a forward or a backward direction. Right-bounded time (or total
gaze duration) sums all fixations within a region before moving on
progressively. This measure consists of first pass reading times, including
additional fixations that follow regressive eye-movements. Regression path
76|Chapter 4
duration (Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997) consists of all
fixations on a region before passing on in a forward direction, including
rereading of previous material. Total reading time is the Total time spent at
a region. This measure includes the time required for reanalysis when a
piece of information is not completely processed during the first reading
(Rayner & Sereno, 1994). Means are reported in Table 1.
We performed Linear Mixed Effects Regression analyses (LMER)
(Baayen, 2008) on the data, with subjects and items as crossed random
effects and Relation (want vs. omdat), Context (subjective vs. neutral) and
the interaction between these two as fixed effects. Eye-tracking data
typically have a lot of missing values, especially if the regions of interest are
short. However, multilevel analyses such as LMER are robust against
missing data (Quené & van den Bergh, 2004). Log-transformations were
performed on the data in order to meet the normality requirements of linear
modeling. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling was used to
estimate p values (Baayen, 2008).
If the processing asymmetry between want and omdat, as observed in
Chapter 3, is related to processes involved in the construction of the mental
space of the thinking subject, this effect should be canceled out by evaluative
markers that already trigger this mental space in the context preceding the
relations. In that case we expect an interaction effect between Relation and
Context at the words following the connective (Region 4). This region should
be processed faster after omdat compared to want in neutral contexts. In
subjective contexts, however, this difference is expected to be smaller, or
even canceled out.
Main effect Relation (want vs. omdat)
Want leads to longer processing times compared to omdat at several
positions in the sentence. At the connective (Region 3) this effect surfaced in
regression path duration (ß=0.072, SE=0.030, t=2.40, p(MCMC)<0.05)
At the words immediately following the connective (Region 4) we
observed this effect in first pass reading times (ß=0.067, SE=0.023, t=2.97,
p(MCMC)<0.01) regression path duration (ß=0.077, SE=0.024, t=3.13,
p(MCMC)<0.001), right-bounded time (ß=0.065, SE=0.022, t=2.97,
p(MCMC)<0.01) and total time (ß= 0.070, SE=0.025, t=2.81, p(MCMC)<0.01).
At Region 8, the final sentence of the text, this effect surfaced in rightbounded time (ß=0.055, SE=0.012, t=4.40, p(MCMC)<0.001), regression path
duration (ß=0.040, SE=0.014, t=2.78, p(MCMC)<0.01) and total time (ß=
0.055, SE=0.012, t=4.40, p(MCMC)<0.001).
At Region 7, the final words of the target sentence, we observed a main
effect of Relation in the opposite direction. Want lead to faster processing
times compared to omdat in first pass reading times (ß=-0.076, SE=0.021,
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|77
t=3.57, p(MCMC)<0.001), right-bounded time (ß=-0.069, SE=0.022, t=3.17,
p(MCMC)<0.01), regression path duration (ß=-0.06194, SE=0.025, t=2.45,
p(MCMC)<0.05)
and
total
time
(ß=-0.086,
SE=0.022,
t=3.84,
p(MCMC)<0.001. However, because this region contains different words in
the two types of relations, this effect is not interpretable.
Main effects of Context (subjective vs. neutral)
Main effects of Context surfaced at the first part of S1 (Region 1). Subjective
contexts produced longer fixation times compared to neutral contexts in
right-bounded time (ß=0.040, SE=0.017, t=2.32, p(MCMC)<0.05), regression
path duration (ß=0.049, SE=0.019, t=2.57, p(MCMC)<0.05), and total time
(ß=0.055, SE=0.018, t=2.97, p(MCMC)<0.01).
At Region 7, the final words of the relations, we observed the opposite
effect. This region was processed faster in subjective contexts compared to
neutral contexts in first pass reading times (ß=-0.052, SE=0.021, t=2.46,
p(MCMC)<0.05), right-bounded time (ß=-0.051, SE=0.021, t=2.37,
p(MCMC)<0.05) and total time (ß=-0.045, SE=0.022, t=2.03, p(MCMC)<0.05).
Region 8, the final sentence of the text, produced the same effect as
observed in Region 1. Subjective contexts produced longer fixation times
compared to neutral contexts in right-bounded time (ß=0.032, SE=0.012,
t=2.54, p(MCMC)<0.05), regression path duration (ß=0.031, SE=0.014,
t=2.15, p(MCMC)<0.05) and total time (ß=0.032, SE=0.012, t=2.54,
p(MCMC)<0.05).
Interaction Relation * Context
At Region 6 we observed a significant interaction between Relation and
Context in first pass reading times (ß=-0.095, SE=0.047, t=2.04,
p(MCMC)<0.05). The end of the target line in omdat relations was read
faster in neutral contexts compared to subjective contexts (ß=-0.066,
SE=0.032, t=2.02, p(MCMC)<0.05). In want relations, however, there was no
difference between the two contexts (ß=-0.026, SE=0.030, t=0.86).
TT
RP
RB
FP
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
1040
1045
want
1027
want
omdat
1023
1038
omdat
1039
want
1033
omdat
1019
want
986
want
omdat
984
994
omdat
990
want
908
omdat
884
want
908
omdat
924
want
395
398
386
394
387
384
369
399
377
380
367
390
371
374
364
385
S1
S1
omdat
2
1
292
270
275
276
303
270
307
281
249
235
253
246
237
227
237
233
Omdat
Want
3
456
400
415
382
437
383
397
368
377
348
360
328
333
313
333
300
5
526
526
518
487
462
470
461
440
442
449
447
420
415
421
423
401
Spillover
Region
Target
4
413
414
410
395
429
429
425
407
381
391
393
372
354
355
366
337
530
594
584
617
610
632
628
659
520
562
562
591
504
557
549
577
relation
line
7
End of
End of
6
3654
3362
3468
3233
4080
3770
3810
3616
3654
3362
3468
3233
3070
2723
2819
2705
sentence
Final
8
Table 1. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression path duration (RP) and
total reading time (TT) by Context (subjective vs. neutral) and Relation (want vs. omdat) per
Region in Experiment 1.
78|Chapter 4
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|79
4.3.6 Discussion
In Experiment 1 we manipulated evaluative adverbs and adjectives
(ridiculous, horribly, fantastic etc.) which all make clear that the author is
emotionally involved in the matter under discussion. Therefore these
markers should function as signals to the reader that the information is
presented from the author’s point of view, even before the causal relation is
processed. The results of Experiment 1 reveal that this manipulation has no
effect on the processing of want versus omdat. We replicated the
disadvantage in processing time for want compared to omdat at the words
following the connective, as reported in Chapter 3, in both subjective and
neutral contexts. Up to this point in our test items, both types of relations
contain exactly the same words (except for the connective). This confirms
that the effect is induced by the connective itself rather than the content of
the relations. In addition, the same asymmetry already arises at the
connective, which provides further evidence for the claim that we are dealing
with processes induced by an inherent difference between want and omdat.
These results demonstrate that the asymmetry between want and omdat is
not limited to sentences in isolation, but also surfaces in larger contexts.
Crucially, there was no interaction between Context and Relation at
this point in the relation. The presence of evaluative markers in the context
preceding the causal relation had no influence on the immediate processing
asymmetry between want and omdat. Providing the author’s perspective by
means of these markers is clearly not enough to overcome the processing
difficulty that arises at want, which suggests that this effect is not related to
the construction of mental spaces, or a general notion of speaker involvement.
But did subjectivity of the context have no effect at all? After all, the
offline tests of our materials did reveal that readers are sensitive to our
manipulation of speaker involvement. Subjective contexts received a higher
score on persuasive intent, but a lower score on informative intent compared
to neutral contexts. In addition, the online results show that this
manipulation affects readers’ overall processing strategies. Adding an
argumentative flavor to the context preceding the causal relation slows down
the processing of subsequent information. Region 1, comprising the main
part of S1, contains the same words in all conditions but produces longer
reading times if placed in subjective contexts compared to neutral contexts. A
similar pattern arises in total reading time at the final sentence of the text,
which is also the same in subjective and neutral contexts. This measure
captures the time required for reanalysis when a piece of information is not
completely processed during the first reading (Rayner & Sereno, 1994). Thus,
readers spent more time rereading the final sentence in subjective compared
to neutral texts. In the general discussion we will consider this effect in more
detail. For now it suffices to know that our manipulation of speaker
involvement was not too subtle to be noticed.
80|Chapter 4
The opposite effect surfaced at Region 7, which comprises the final
words of the relation. This region was processed faster in subjective
compared to neutral texts. Given that region 7 is associated with substantial
length differences, varying from 1 to over 4 words, it is difficult to interpret
any effect that surfaces at this region. Even though we did not observe any
significant interactions at this position, on the basis of the mean reading
times in Table 1 it may be the case that the want relations are mainly
responsible for this effect. These relations led to faster processing times in
subjective contexts compared to all other conditions. The mean reading times
in omdat relations in subjective contexts, however, are not faster than the
mean reading times for want and omdat relations in neutral contexts. This
suggests that at this point in the sentence the match between the context
and the relation influences the processing of want relations. At the previous
region, the end of the target line, a similar pattern surfaced in omdat
relations. This region did produce a significant interaction between Context
and Relation in first pass reading times. Neutral contexts led to faster
processing times in omdat relations compared to subjective contexts. These
results suggest that neutral contexts facilitate the processing of omdat
relations at Region 6, whereas subjective contexts facilitate the processing of
want relations at Region 7. These effects could be interpreted as a reflection
of wrap-up effects that surface at different positions in the text, depending
on the type of relation (e.g. Just & Carpenter 1980; Kennedy, Murray,
Jennings, & Reid, 1989; Rayner, Kambe, & Duffy, 2000). And indeed, as
noted before, want- and omdat-relations contain different words in S2.
However, since we were not anticipating any wrap-up effects, the items were
not designed to capture them. As a result, the final regions of the relations
were not controled for their length, distribution of information, and the way
in which they have been segmented. Therefore, before we can draw any
conclusions about these patterns, we need to reduce the differences between
want- and omdat- relations to test whether they replicate.
Interestingly, the type of relation also influenced the processing of the
final sentence of the text. This region produced longer total reading times
after want relations compared to omdat relations. This indicates that,
compared to objective relations, readers engage in additional cognitive
processes immediately after a subjective relation is completed. Not only do
readers experience immediate processing difficulties when they are faced
with a CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation, they also need more time to evaluate
that relation after it is processed.
Overall, the results from Experiment 1 reveal that there is no indication
that the longer processing times for want compared to omdat can be
explained by the necessity of setting up the mental space of the thinking
subject. It is not enough to know that the text is presented from the author’s
point of view to overcome the disadvantage in processing time for want
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|81
compared to omdat. This suggests that language users need more explicit
cues about the status of a sentence as a claim. But how specific must these
cues be?
The results reported in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997), and
our results from Experiment 2 in Chapter 3 demonstrate that modal
sentence adverbs such as perhaps and mental state predicates such as John
thinks and according to John in S1 cancel out the processing difference
between subjective and objective causal relations. In addition to being local
cues of subjectivity, these markers have scope over the entire sentence. In
(14) the phrase Volgens Jan modifies the entire clause that follows as
something that Jan claims.
(14) [Volgens Jan [is het huidige niveau van de studenten laag] ] want [Y]
[According to Jan [the students' current skill level is low] ] because [Y]
Therefore, there may be two ways in which the status of S1 as a claim
could be derived. Readers either rely on reference to the relevant thinking
subject within S1, or on explicit markers that modify S1 as a whole as
someone’s reasoning. A way to disentangle these factors is by testing how
evaluative adjectives and adverbs as non-sentence modifiers within S1 affect
the processing of subjective causal relations. As discussed in the
introduction, these markers inform the reader that the author is emotionally
committed to the content of the proposition, and therefore make clear that
the utterance is to be interpreted from the author’s perspective. Rather than
explicitly marking S1 as a claim, they make S1 argumentative. Indeed,
evaluative adverbs such as ridiculously in (15) do not affect the status of the
entire sentence; they only have scope over a subpart. Note that evaluative
adverbs can be used as sentence modifiers (see 16). In the present study,
however, we only manipulate adverbs as non-sentence modifiers.
(15) Het huidige niveau van de studenten is [belachelijk [laag]].
The students' current skill level is [ridiculously [low]]
(16) Het is belachelijk [dat het huidige niveau van de studenten laag is].
It is ridiculous [that the students' current skill level is low].
If language users can derive the status of S1 as a claim by markers of
speaker involvement within that sentence, we expect that the presence of
evaluative markers within S1 cancels out the processing difference between
want and omdat. If, however, this status can only be derived by linguistic
devices that modify S1 as a whole, we expect that the presence of evaluative
markers within S1 will not cancel out the disadvantage in processing time
for want.
82|Chapter 4
A second issue that needs to be resolved is to verify whether the
interaction effect between Context and Relation that surfaced towards the
end of the causal relations is valid. We tentatively interpreted this pattern as
a match/mismatch effect between Relation and Context that is spread out
over two consecutive regions. However, as explained before, we did not
design appropriate items to be able to measure such effects. We therefore
need to reduce the differences between want and omdat relations with
respect to their length and distribution of information to test whether it
replicates.
4.4 Experiment 2
4.4.1 Participants
39 Undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in the
experiment (34 female, mean age 22,4 age range 18–28 years). These
participants did not take part in any of the other experiments in this study.
All participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for their
participation.
4.4.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of the 36 items from Experiment 1, which were
slightly adapted (see Appendix 3). The conditions in the neutral contexts (17
a and b) are the same as in Experiment 1. We manipulated the subjective
conditions by adding evaluative markers to the first clause of want and
omdat relations (See example (17c) and (17d) respectively). In addition, we
adjusted a subset of the items to reduce the length differences between want
and omdat relations. Line breaks in the target line were placed earlier
compared to Experiment 1, at a point in the sentence where there would not
yet be enough information available to construct the causal relation (see
example 17 for an illustration of the visual presentation). In doing so, we
tried to avoid wrap-up effects triggered by the line break (Kennedy et al.,
1989) so that we would be able to capture these effects at the final region on
the next line. The rest of the design and procedure were the same as in
Experiment 1.
(17) a. Verbeteringen in het onderwijs
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar meer \ aandacht besteden
aan het niveau \ van de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er dan 14 uur per \
week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. Het huidige niveau van de \ studenten
is laag want slechts de helft haalt een voldoende \ voor rekenen en taal. De minister
van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in
een schooljaar.
Education improvements
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|83
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will pay more attention to
their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number of teaching
hours dedicated to maths and languages from 8 to 14 hours a week. The students'
current skill level is low WANT only half of them pass the maths and language tests.
The minister of education pleads for stricter admission requirements and additional
exams throughout the school year.
b. Verbeteringen in het onderwijs
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar meer \ aandacht besteden
aan het \ niveau van de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er dan 14 uur \ per
week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. Het huidige niveau van de \ studenten
is laag omdat slechts de helft van de onderwijsuren wordt \ besteed aan rekenen en
taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer
toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Education improvements
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will pay more attention to
their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number of teaching
hours dedicated to maths and languages from 8 to 14 hours a week. The students'
current skill level is low OMDAT only half of the teaching hours are dedicated to
maths and language. The minister of education pleads for stricter admission
requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
c. Pabo moet echt beter!
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk \ meer
aandacht besteden aan het niveau van \ de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er
dan maar liefst 14 uur per \ week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. \ Het
huidige niveau van de \ studenten is belachelijk laag want slechts de helft haalt
een voldoende \ voor rekenen en taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere
\ toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Teachers Training Colleges must improve!
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will finally pay more
attention to their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number
of teaching hours dedicated to maths and languages from as many as 8 to 14 hours a
week. The students' current skill level is ridiculously low WANT only half of them
pass the maths and language tests. The minister of education pleads for stricter
admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
d. Pabo moet echt beter!
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk \ meer
aandacht besteden aan het niveau van \ de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er
dan maar liefst 14 uur per \ week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken. Het
huidige niveau van de \ studenten is belachelijk laag omdat slechts de helft van de
onderwijsuren wordt \ besteed aan rekenen en taal. De minister van Onderwijs pleit
voor strengere \toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een schooljaar.
Teachers Training Colleges must improve!
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will finally pay more
attention to their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the number
of teaching hours dedicated to maths and languages from as many as 8 to 14 hours a
84|Chapter 4
week. The students' current skill level is ridiculously low OMDAT only half of the
teaching hours are dedicated to maths and language. The minister of education pleads
for stricter admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school year.
4.4.3 Pretest
Because the items were slightly adapted, we again performed an offline
judgment task to verify the success of the manipulation of speaker
involvement. 19 Students of Utrecht University participated in this task.
These participants did not take part in any of the other experiments in this
study. They were asked to judge the persuasive and the informative intent of
the author on a 7-point Likert scale. The results replicate the findings of the
judgment task in Experiment 1. Subjective texts received a higher score on
persuasive intent compared to neutral texts (5.19 (1.60) versus 3.06 (1.79)
respectively) (ß=2.14, SE=0.12, t=17.67, p(MCMC)<0.001). Neutral texts
received a higher score on informative intent compared to subjective texts
(5.98 (1.20) versus 4.67 (1.44) respectively) (ß=1.32, SE=0.09, t=14.70,
p(MCMC)<0.001). These results indicate that, as in Experiment 1, readers
are sensitive to our manipulation of speaker involvement.
4.4.4 Results
The data were treated as in Experiment 1. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition (348 cases) were excluded from the analysis. Following these
criteria we removed 0.9% of the data. Again, we analyzed the logtransformations of the measures: first pass reading times, right-bounded
time, regression path duration, and total reading time. Means are reported in
Table 2.
As in Experiment 1, we will not discuss the title and the text preceding
the causal relation because these parts of the text contain more words in
subjective compared to neutral contexts. There were some slight changes
with respect to the segmentation of the items. Therefore, not all regions are
directly comparable to Experiment 1. Example (18) illustrates how the texts
were divided into regions. Again, line breaks are indicated by a backslash.
Because the position of the evaluative markers in S1 varied, we had to
analyze this sentence as one text region. Regions 2 and 3 consist of the
connective and the target region respectively and are the same as in
Experiment 1. Region 4 is the final region of the target line and is the point
from which want and omdat relations start to diverge. This region is shorter
compared to Experiment 1 because we wanted to avoid early wrap-up effects
triggered by the line break (Kennedy et al. 1989). Region 5 consists of the
final words of the relation and is longer compared to Experiment 1. Region 6
is the final sentence of the text, which is the same in all conditions.
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|85
(18) |Het huidige niveau van de \ studenten is
belachelijk laag 1|want 2 |slechts de helft 3 | haalt een voldoende 4|\
|voor rekenen en taal. 5 |De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor
strengere \ toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten in een
schooljaar. 6|
|The students' current skill level \
is ridiculously low 1 |want 2 |only half 3 | passes 4| \
|for math and language. 5| The minister of education pleads for stricter
\ admission requirements and additional exams throughout the school
year. 6|
There were no significant interactions between Context and Relation.
Below we will discuss the main effects of these two factors throughout the
text.
Main effects Relation
Region 3, the words following the connective, was processed faster when it
followed omdat than when it followed want. This effect surfaced in first pass
reading times (ß=0.047, SE=0.024, t=1.99, p(MCMC)<0.05), total time
(ß=0.062, SE=0.027, t=2.31, p(MCMC)<0.05), and marginally in rightbounded time (ß=0.044, SE=0.023, t=1.95, p(MCMC)=0.05) and regression
path duration (ß=0.048, SE=0.025, t=1.89, p(MCMC)=0.06).
Main effects Context
At Region 1, the first clause of the causal relation, we observed main effects
of context. This region was processed slower in subjective compared to
neutral contexts. This effect appeared in first pass reading times (ß=0.182,
SE=0.026, t=7.08, p(MCMC)<0.001), right-bounded time (ß=0.225, SE=0.016,
t=14.36, p(MCMC)<0.001), regression path duration (ß=0.228, SE=0.017,
t=13.52, p(MCMC)<0.001) and total time (ß=0.228, SE=0.018, t=12.88,
p(MCMC)<0.001).Note, that we manipulated the presence of evaluative
markers in this region, which therefore contains more words in subjective
compared to neutral contexts. As a result, the main effects of context at this
position are difficult to interpret.
The same effects surfaced at Region 3, the words following the
connective in right-bounded time (ß=0.051, SE=0.022, t=2.29,
p(MCMC)<0.05), regression path duration (ß=0.061, SE=0.025, t=2.43,
p(MCMC)<0.02) and total time (ß=0.067, SE=0.027, t=2.52, p(MCMC)<0.05).
And at Region 6, the final sentence of the text in regression path duration
(ß=0.034, SE=0.017, t=1.95, p(MCMC)<0.05 (one–tailed)).
TT
RP
RB
FP
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
Subjective
Neutral
1857
1826
want
1444
want
omdat
1446
1689
want
omdat
1743
1358
omdat
1368
want
1642
want
omdat
1689
1323
want
omdat
1336
1524
omdat
1556
want
1258
want
omdat
1269
omdat
289
266
283
253
260
268
258
243
238
236
233
231
236
229
227
229
Omdat
2
Want
1
S1
3
472
452
456
411
446
431
420
400
403
387
384
368
370
352
353
334
Target
Region
483
473
485
488
450
449
466
456
428
426
434
438
413
408
394
420
853
825
835
822
936
871
884
841
822
772
793
778
774
748
776
756
relation
line
5
End of
End of
4
3312
3251
3254
3219
3839
3656
3647
3674
3312
3251
3254
3219
3074
2990
2944
3005
sentence
Final
6
Table 2. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression path duration
(RP) and total reading time (TT) by Context (subjective vs neutral) and Relation (want vs.
omdat) per Region in Experiment 2.
86|Chapter 4
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|87
4.4.5 Discussion
On the basis of Experiment 1 we concluded that the delay in processing
times for want compared to omdat seemed unrelated to the setup of the
mental space of the thinking subject. It is not enough to know that the
author is giving his personal opinion to overcome the processing difficulty
associated with claims as marked by want. These results suggest that
readers need more specific cues to derive the status of S1 as a claim. The
purpose of Experiment 2 was to verify how specific these cues need to be. We
know that explicit signals, such as John thinks and perhaps, that modify the
status of S1 as a whole, cancel out the processing difficulty for subjective
compared to objective causal relations. In Experiment 2 we tested whether
this can also be achieved by non-sentence modifying markers of subjectivity
within S1. We therefore manipulated evaluative adverbs and adjectives such
as ridiculously, fantastic, and horrible in the first clause of the causal
relation. As illustrated in (16) here repeated in (19), these markers convey
the author’s emotional involvement, yet they do not modify the entire
sentence. If used as in (19) they only modify a subpart of S1.
(19) Het huidige niveau van de studenten is [belachelijk [laag]]
The students' current skill level is [ridiculously [low]]
We hypothesized that if language users can derive the status of a
sentence as a claim by the presence of these markers within that sentence,
the disadvantage in processing time for want over omdat should be canceled
out.
If, however, this status can only be derived by linguistic devices that
have the ability to modify the entire sentence as a claim, we expect that the
presence of evaluative markers within S1 will not affect the processing
asymmetry between want and omdat.
The results replicate the findings of Experiment 1. We observed longer
processing times for want compared to omdat at the words immediately
following the connectives in both subjective and neutral contexts. Again,
there was no sign of an interaction at this point in the sentence. The
manipulation of evaluative markers in the first clause of the causal relation
had no influence on the processing of want and omdat. These results suggest
that readers cannot derive the status of S1 as a claim by the presence of the
author’s evaluation within that sentence. Rather, this information needs to
be explicitly cued by markers that modify S1 as a whole, such as modal
sentence adverbs (perhaps) and mental state predicates (John thinks).
Similar to the results of Experiment 1, Experiment 2 produced main
effects of Context. Evaluative adverbs and adjectives in the context and the
first clause of the causal relation led to longer processing times of the words
88|Chapter 4
following the connective region and the final sentence of the text. In the
general discussion we will discuss these effects in more detail.
There was no indication of a context-by-relation match/mismatch effect
during end of sentence processing. The final region of want and omdat
relations was not processed differently in subjective compared to neutral
contexts. This indicates that the interaction effect observed in Experiment 1
cannot be interpreted as a reflection of the match between Context and the
type of relation. We therefore conclude that this effect must have been
caused by differences between the conditions with respect to the
segmentation of the sentences and their distribution of information.
4.5 General Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to further investigate the relative
processing difficulty associated with CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations, as
reported for English (Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997) and Dutch (Chapter
3) On the basis of previous research, we argued that this effect is related to
the representation of the first clause of a CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation as a
claim or conclusion, as opposed to a real-world description of causes and
effects in an objective causal relation. In order to get a better understanding
of the cognitive processes involved, we investigated how language users
recognize the special status of sentences as claims. In Experiment 1, we
assessed whether this representation could be derived from contextual cues
of speaker involvement, or mental space builders.
Mental Spaces Theory (MST) (Fauconnier, 1994) is a cognitive linguistic
framework that has been used to describe a variety of linguistic phenomena,
among which the distinction between subjective and objective causal
relations (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005).
According to this framework, language users build, and constantly update, a
network of mental spaces when they communicate. These mental spaces are
conceived as conceptual spaces in which information bound to time, space,
and person is represented relative to the here and now. Within MST it is
assumed that certain linguistic signals, such as connectives, function as
space builders. Relevant to our discussion here is that mental space
configurations can differ in their overall complexity. In fact, Sanders,
Sanders and Sweetser (2009, 2012), argue that the mental space
configuration of a subjective causal relation is more complex than the
configuration of an objective relation because the latter involves conclusions
within the mental space of a thinking subject, be it the speaker, author, or a
character in the discourse whose reasoning is presented.
Even though MST was not developed as a processing theory, we applied
these insights to the processing effects associated with subjective causal
relations. We hypothesized that these effects could be related to the
construction of the relevant mental space for interpretation. If this operation
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|89
underlies the processing difficulty for claims as marked by want, we
hypothesized that this difficulty should be canceled out if the context
preceding the causal relation contains space builders that already provide
the required mental space for interpretation.
We set out to verify this hypothesis by testing CLAIM-ARGUMENT
relations with want and CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations with omdat in
contexts with and without contextual cues of speaker involvement. Speaker
involvement was manipulated by means of evaluative adverbs and adjectives,
such as terribly, fantastic and ridiculous, in the context preceding the causal
relations. These markers express the author’s emotional stance towards the
matter under discussion (Thompson & Hunston, 2000) and therefore function
as cues to the reader that the text is to be interpreted from the author’s
perspective. The eye-tracking data from Experiment 1 revealed that this
information has no influence on the processing of want. In line with the
results presented in Chapter 3, we observed an immediate disadvantage in
processing time for want compared to omdat in both subjective and neutral
texts. This effect surfaced at the connective and the first text region
following the connective. These results suggest that it is not enough to know
that someone is giving his personal opinion to overcome the processing
difficulty associated with CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations. Therefore, it seems
that the processing asymmetry between subjective and objective causal
relations cannot be explained in terms of the construction of additional
mental spaces.
Note, that these results cannot be explained by the fact that implicit
reference to the author by means of evaluative markers is too implicit to
trigger the construction of the author’s mental space. Previous experiments
demonstrated that explicit third person perspective markers, such as John
thinks or According to John, cancel out the processing difficulty in the second
clause of subjective causal relations. However, Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and
Moxey (1997) also report the same effect for epistemic modal adverbs, such
as probably and maybe, which also implicitly refer to the speaker or author.
These results show that explicit reference to a third person concluder is not a
prerequisite to cancel out the processing difficulty of subjective causal
relations.
A limitation to the application of MST as a theory for online discourse
processing is that within MST the relative complexity of mental spaces
configurations concerns their overall configuration; it lacks a specification of
the cognitive processes underlying the incremental construction of these
configurations. Or, simply put, it doesn’t specify when it gets difficult and
why. As a working hypothesis, we proposed that the complexity of subjective
causal relations is related to the construction of the relevant mental space
for interpretation. We hypothesized that once a mental space is called into
existence, it can be used freely for the interpretation of linguistic input. Our
90|Chapter 4
data suggest that this is not the case. Mental space builders in the context
preceding a want relation do not cancel out the processing asymmetry
between want and omdat.
However, on the basis of MST it remains unclear whether the relative
complexity of a specific configuration should be described in terms of the setup of the different mental spaces, the maintenance of different spaces, or to
the fact that certain utterances need to be mapped onto certain spaces. It
may in fact be the case that it is not the construction of mental spaces that
leads to the processing effects associated with subjective causal relations, but
the mapping of information onto the mental space of the thinking subject.
Even if the author’s perspective is clearly “visible” in a given discourse, it
would not make sense to interpret everything he or she utters as a claim or
conclusion because argumentative text can also contain objective
descriptions of the world. Nevertheless, the activation of a mental space may
lead to a more careful evaluation of how to interpret the following utterances
in a discourse, that is, as claims or not.
Indeed, the results from the Experiments presented in this chapter
reveal that the presence of mental space builders in the context leads to
different reading strategies. In both experiments, the presence of evaluative
markers in the contexts led to longer processing times of subsequent text
regions compared to neutral contexts. In Experiment 1 this effect surfaced at
the first part of S1 and at the final sentence of the text. Similar effects
surfaced in Experiment 2. Recall that these regions contain exactly the same
information in subjective and neutral contexts, which means that these
effects can only be caused by the presence of evaluative markers in the
preceding text. These results illustrate that readers take more time to
interpret information that is preceded by markers of subjectivity.
If we take higher order processes into account, one could argue that
these context effects are related to genre expectations. Such expectations are
assumed to guide the cognitive activities involved in text comprehension
processes as well as the ways in which readers represent discourse
information in memory (see Zwaan & Rapp, 2006 for an overview; Steen,
2011; Zwaan, 1994). These expectations are set by experience, text specific
tasks and goals, but could also be cued by implicit information such as the
evaluative markers in our texts. These markers may have affected the
overall processing strategies because the presence of the author’s perspective
is unexpected in the news genre. However appealing this explanation might
be, it does not provide a straightforward explanation for our results. First, it
is unclear why a shift in genre expectations should lead to an increase in
processing times that surfaces later on in the text. Second, the presence of
evaluative markers is not uncommon in certain types of newspapers. As
such, an explanation for the context effects obtained in the experiments 1
and 2 may not be the most plausible explanation.
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|91
Returning to the central question of this chapter, how do readers know
when a given utterance is to be interpreted as a claim and mapped onto a
specific mental space? We proposed that the connective want functions as a
signal to place S1 within the mental space of the thinking subject. On the
basis of the results from Experiment 1 we argued that readers need
relatively specific cues about the status of a sentence as a claim to do so.
Experiment 2 provides further information about how specific these cues
need to be. Previous experiments in Dutch (Chapter 3) and English (Traxler,
Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997) revealed that the disadvantage in processing
time for subjective compared to objective causal relations is canceled out if
the first clause of the relation contains mental state predicates, such as
according to John, or modal sentence adverbs, such as perhaps. These
markers can be conceived as local markers of subjectivity because they
inform the reader about the perspective from which the utterance is
produced. In addition, they modify the entire sentence as a claim that
belongs to the person whose reasoning is presented. In Experiment 2 we
verified which of these properties is related to the processing of claims by
testing whether the processing difficulty for subjective over objective causal
relations can be overcome by non-sentence modifying markers of subjectivity
within S1. In a design similar to Experiment 1, we manipulated evaluative
adjectives and non-sentence modifying adverbs within the first clause of the
relations, such as ridiculously in (15) and (19), here repeated in (20). These
markers provide the author’s opinion about the states of affairs and therefore
add an argumentative flavor to the sentence. However, as example (20)
illustrates, these markers do not modify the sentence as a whole but only a
subpart.
(20) Het huidige niveau van de studenten is [belachelijk [laag]]
The students' current skill level is [ridiculously [low]]
The results from Experiment 2 reveal that the presence of these
markers does not facilitate the processing of subjective causal relations. As
in Experiment 1, we observed an immediate disadvantage in processing time
for want over omdat in relations with and without local markers of
subjectivity. Making the first clause of a causal relation argumentative does
not contribute to the representation of S1 as a claim.
On the basis of these results we propose that want modifies the status
of S1 as a whole as a claim or conclusion. Unlike the evaluative adjectives
and non-sentence adverbs manipulated in the present study, mental state
predicates such as according to John and modal sentence adverbs such as
perhaps have scope over the entire sentence. They therefore cue the
representation of claims before the connective is processed, which explains
why they cancel out the disadvantage in processing times for subjective
92|Chapter 4
causal relations. In terms of our MST explanation, these phrases already cue
the mapping of S1 onto the mental space of the thinking subject, and this
operation is already performed when encountering want.
What these markers share with the evaluative markers in the present
study is that they modify pieces of information as relying on a specific
discourse referent for their interpretation. The results from the present
study suggest that the level at which they operate is crucial for the
processing of subjective causal relations. For example, the evaluative adverb
ridiculously in (20) provides a subjective evaluation of the adjective low.
Therefore, only a subpart of the sentence, the evaluation of the adjective, is
clearly marked as subjective. The truthfulness of the rest of the sentence is
not at stake. Conversely, modal sentence adverbs such as waarschijnlijk,
(probably) in (21) do affect the status of the entire sentence. What is at stake
is the truthfulness of the entire clause following waarschijnlijk. This
distinction is reminiscent of the distinction between ‘shields’ and
‘approximators’ proposed by Prince, Frader, and Bosk (1982). The former are
conceived as local markers of the speaker’s evaluation whereas the latter are
described as global markers that modify the status of entire propositions.
(21) Waarschijnlijk [is het huidige niveau van de studenten laag]
Probably [the students' current skill level is low]
One could question whether there are other (contextual) manipulations of
subjectivity that could facilitate the mapping of S1 onto the mental space of
the thinking subject, which would reduce the effects of want versus omdat.
We chose to use markers of evaluation because this allowed us to minimally
alter the neutral contexts, which is desirable when you monitor and compare
eye-movements across conditions. Yet, there may be different (and possibly
stronger) ways to provide the relevant perspective that could prepare the
reader for a CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation. Examples (1)–(3) at the
beginning of this chapter suggest that the communicative context can cue the
required interpretation. Future research will have to establish whether such
information does eliminate the processing difficulty of subjective compared to
objective causal relations. Nevertheless, the data presented in this chapter
indicate that manipulating evaluative adverbs and adjectives is an effective
way to provide the perspective of the thinking subject. The offline judgment
tasks presented in both Experiments 1 and 2 show that readers are sensitive
to this manipulation. Subjective contexts received higher scores on
persuasive intent compared to neutral texts. Moreover, the online data
revealed that this information also influences online processing.
Taken together, our results reveal that signals of evaluation, either in
the context preceding a want relation or within S1 of a want relation, do not
facilitate the construction of a CLAIM-ARGUMENT relation. These markers
Contextual versus linguistic signals of speaker involvement|93
indicate that the text is to be interpreted from the author’s point of view, but
apparently, want signals something else. Our results suggest that the
cognitive processes underlying the processing difficulty of subjective
compared to objective causal relations, as marked by want and omdat, is
related to a modification of S1 as a whole as a conclusion or claim. Subjective
relations, marked by want, require an interpretation of the entire first clause
within the mental space of the thinking subject. Even in the presence of the
relevant perspective in the context and in the first clause of the relation, this
operation still has to be executed at encountering want. There are, however,
different ways to explain why this operation should cause processing
difficulties in CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations.
So far, it is unclear whether this effect is caused by the fact that the
information in S1 needs to be reanalyzed as a claim or conclusion (or copied
from one mental space to the other), or whether this is the result of
inherently complex operations. Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997)
propose that the processing difficulty observed in diagnostic causal relations
is caused by the fact that it has not been made clear that the first clause of
the relation is a psychological event. They argue that the default
interpretation of the first clause of a causal relation is an objective
interpretation of the state of affairs in the world. Therefore the processing
effects associated with diagnostic causal relations surface because “the text
does not signal that a less preferred [subjective] interpretation should be
adopted” (p. 89). Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey thus treat these effects
along the lines of the garden path effects associated with reduced relatives
and reduced complements (Ferreira & Henderson, 1990; Trueswell,
Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Kello, 1993).
A straightforward way to verify this explanation is by looking at
forward causal relations. In Dutch, a similar distinction between subjective
and objective connectives exists in the forward causal connectives dus and
daarom. Similar to want, dus is considered to be a subjective connective
whereas daarom is considered to be a more objective connective (Pander
Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Stukker,
Sanders & Verhagen, 2009; Verhagen, 2005). However, in forward subjective
relations there can be no reanalysis of the conclusion triggered by the
connective because the conclusion follows the connective. If dus and daarom
lead to a similar processing asymmetry as want versus omdat, this would
support the idea that subjective relations are inherently more complex than
objective relations.
This inherent complexity of subjective causal relations could be related
to the fact that claims and conclusions convey information that is not
necessarily true. In fact, the reason why people provide arguments to
support claims is to convince their interlocutors of the truth of those claims.
Overt marking of the status of information as a claim may therefore lead to a
94|Chapter 4
more careful evaluation of those claims, or epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al.,
2010). Epistemic vigilance is assumed to be a cognitive mechanism involved
in the assessment of truthfulness of information and is associated with a
processing cost. With respect to coherence marking, it has already been
proposed that subjective coherence markers trigger similar processes as
becomes apparent in measures of persuasion (Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders, &
Zwaan, 2008). Further research will have to establish whether the
processing effects reported in this chapter can be related to these
mechanisms.
Chapter 5
On the processing complexity of subjective causal
relations:
From reasoning to speaker involvement
5.1 Introduction
The distinction between subjective and objective causal relations, which
surfaces in many languages of the world, has been well studied from a textlinguistic and discourse theoretical perspective. The majority of these studies
focus on the exact classification of the different relations, and on the question
of whether or not the distinction is also represented in the lexicon of
coherence markers (as discussed in Chapter 2). On the basis of
psycholinguistic insights, subjective causal relations are claimed to be more
complex than objective causal relations (Chapter 2-3; Noordman & De
Blijzer, 2000; Sanders & Spooren, 2009). Indeed, corpora of Dutch and
English child language data show that subjective causal relations appear
later than objective causals (Evers-Vermeul & Sanders, 2011; Spooren &
Sanders, 2008), and there are some processing studies that also point into
that direction.
Eye-tracking studies by Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) revealed
that subjective causal relations such as (1b) lead to longer processing times
compared to objective causal relations (1a).
(1)
a. The goalkeeper won the game because the other team didn’t score any goals.
b. The goalkeeper knew how to play the game because the other team
didn’t score any goals.
The eye-tracking experiments presented in Chapters 3 and 4 also
revealed a processing slowdown in Dutch subjective compared to objective
causal relations. In these experiments, the subjective relations are marked
by the prototypically subjective connective want, whereas the objective
relations are marked by the prototypically objective connective omdat. An
important difference between English and Dutch is that the Dutch causal
connectives want and omdat provide cues for the construction of subjective
and objective relations respectively, whereas because is underspecified in
this respect. As reported in Chapter 3, the effects in Dutch arise immediately
after the subjective connective want is processed, whereas the English effect
surfaces later on in the sentence when the relation can be inferred from the
content.
Interestingly, the effects in both languages are canceled out when the
first clause of the causal relation is preceded by mental state predicates
(according to John or John thinks) (Chapter 3; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, &
96|Chapter 5
Moxey, 1997) or modal sentence adverbs (maybe, possibly) (Traxler, Sanford,
Aked, & Moxey, 1997). Thus, explicitly marking the status of S1 as a claim
eliminates the longer processing times in subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT
compared to objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations. The experiments
presented in Chapter 4 revealed that this canceling out effect cannot be
achieved by evaluative adverbs and adjectives (ridiculously, terrible, luckily),
which introduce the author’s perspective, placed in the context preceding the
causal relation and within the first clause of the relation (2).
(2)
Pabo moet echt beter!
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk meer
aandacht besteden aan het niveau van de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt
er dan maar liefst 14 uur per week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken.
Teachers Training Colleges must improve!
Starting next year, the Dutch Teacher Training colleges will finally pay more
attention to their students’ maths and language skills. They will increase the
number of teaching hours dedicated to maths and languages from as many as 8
to 14 hours a week.
a. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag want slechts de helft
haalt een voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is ridiculously low want only half of them pass
the maths and language tests.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag omdat slechts de helft
van de onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is ridiculously low omdat only half of the
teaching hours are dedicated to maths and language.
These results suggest that markers of subjectivity that only modify a
subpart of S1, rather than S1 as a whole, do not have the same effect on the
processing of want as mental state predicates (volgens Jan) and modal
sentence adverbs (possibly) do. This led to the conclusion that the processing
delay in reading times for want, and for subjective relations in general, has
to be related to a modification of the asserted information in S1 as a whole as
a claim or conclusion. Hence, in Chapter 4, we proposed that want adds
information that modifies the status of the entire clause preceding the
connective as a conclusion or claim. There are at least two explanations for
why the processing of conclusions could be a complex operation.
First, given that conclusions are products of reasoning, it may be the
case that the cognitive complexity associated with subjective causality is
related to this underlying process. Reasoning can be defined as a “simulation
of the world fleshed out with our knowledge” (Johnson-Laird, 2010, p.1). It
involves the construction of a set of possible mental models compatible with
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|97
a given situation in the world, on the basis of which a conclusion is derived.
It may therefore be the case that subjective causal relations invite the
reader, or listener, to follow the underlying steps of reasoning, which
increases the processing load.
Second, conclusions as part of subjective relations entail speaker
involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000,
2001; Pit, 2003). These relations involve a thinking subject who takes
responsibility for the conclusion; it therefore needs to be interpreted within
the mental world of that thinking subject (as proposed in Chapter 4). As
discussed in Chapter 2, the thinking subject can be the speaker, author, or a
character in the discourse whose reasoning is presented. In our discussions
of subjectivity and speaker involvement we will by default refer to this
thinking subject as ‘the speaker’, unless it is of particular relevance to
specify the exact thinking subject whose reasoning we are dealing with.
It could be that the operation of assigning information to the mental
world of the speaker is in itself demanding. Also, the fact that the
representations of different realities (the real world versus the speaker’s
mental world) have to be maintained simultaneously could increase the
cognitive load. In addition, it may be the case that because the conclusion is
linked to the internal world of the speaker, the reliability of that conclusion
is at stake depending on the reliability of the speaker. For example, the
claim in (3) is more credible when it is produced by the weatherman than by
an umbrella salesman.
(3)
I think it will rain today.
Therefore, information bound to specific mental spaces may require a
more careful evaluation on behalf of the reader, or listener. This hypothesis
is compatible with the results from Experiment 1 in Chapter 4. We observed
that want relations increase the processing times of the sentence following
the relation, which was interpreted in terms of more careful evaluation.
However, given that the studies described above involve backward relations1,
subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT versus objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE,
it is unclear whether the longer processing times for subjective compared to
objective causal relations arise because subjective relations are inherently
more complex, or because the reader has to reanalyze the information in S1
as a claim or conclusion rather than a description of the world.
This explanation is put forward in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey
(1997) who propose that the processing difficulty observed in English
Noordman and De Blijzer (2000) did include forward subjective relations
in their study. However, various factors were manipulated at the same time,
which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about individual factors.
1
98|Chapter 5
subjective compared to objective causal relations is caused by the fact that it
has not been made clear that the first clause is a psychological event. They
argue that the default interpretation of the first clause of a causal relation is
an objective interpretation of the state of affairs in the world. Therefore, the
processing effects associated with subjective causal relations surface because
“the text does not signal that a less preferred [subjective] interpretation
should be adopted” (p.89). Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey thus treat
these effects along the lines of the garden path effects associated with
reduced relatives and reduced complements (Ferreira & Henderson, 1990;
Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Kello,
1993). A straightforward way to verify this explanation is by investigating
how forward subjective connectives affect the processing of causal relations.
From a cognitive perspective, forward and backward causal relations
are assumed to be shaped by the same conceptual notions (Sanders, Sanders,
& Sweetser, 2012) that do not change when the order of presentation is
changed. In backward subjective relations (4a) the claim precedes the
argument, whereas in forward subjective relations (4b) the argument
precedes the claim or conclusion.
(4)
a. Lisa heeft te veel geshopt deze maand want ze kan niet meer pinnen.
Lisa has been shopping too much this month because her bank account is empty.
b. Lisa kan niet meer pinnen dus heeft ze te veel geshopt deze maand.
Lisa’s bank account is empty so she has been shopping too much this month.
In (4b), dus signals that the following clause is to be interpreted as a
conclusion. Therefore, in this type of subjective relations there can be no
reanalysis of the already processed information as a claim because the claim
follows the connective dus.
5.2 Dus and daarom versus want and omdat
Similarly to the distinction between want and omdat, speakers of Dutch
distinguish between the connectives dus and daarom to express forward
subjective and objective causal relations (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001;
Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Stukker, 2005; Verhagen, 2005) (see
Table 1.).
Similar to omdat, daarom is a prototypical marker of objective CAUSECONSEQUENCE relations such as (5a). The fact that Peter has not eaten
anything all day leads to the situation (or his action) that he orders a pizza.
Comparable to want, dus is generally described as a subjective connective
that marks subjective ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations such as (5b). The fact
that Peter filled his plate for the second time leads to the speaker’s
conclusion that he must have been very hungry.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|99
Table 1. Summary of the differences between the Dutch causal connectives
daarom versus dus and omdat versus want. P and Q stand for antecedent and
consequent respectively. S1 corresponds to the first discourse segment and S2
corresponds to the second discourse segment.
Volitional Objective
Subjective
Direction
Daarom (that’s why)
Dus (so)
Forward: S1=P, S2=Q
Omdat (because)
Want (because/since)
Backward: S1=Q, S2=P
(5)
a. Peter had de hele dag niks gegeten, daarom bestelde hij een pizza.
Peter hadn’t eaten anything all day, that’s why he ordered a pizza.
b. Peter schepte voor de tweede keer op, dus had hij veel honger2.
Peter filled his plate for the second time, so he was very hungry.
The connectives daarom and dus are highly frequent in Dutch. Their log
frequency based on the Celex corpus of written Dutch (Baayen, Piepenbrock,
& Gulikers, 1995) is 4.1 and 4.5 (per million words) respectively. While want
and dus are considered to have similar semantic-pragmatic properties
(Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005), they differ with
respect to the direction in which they operate (Sanders, Spooren, &
Noordman, 1992). In CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations marked by want, the
clause preceding the connective contains the asserted information, which is
justified by the information in the second clause (6a). In ARGUMENTCLAIM relations marked by dus, the asserted information is presented in
the clause following the connective, which consists of a conclusion based on
the premise in the first clause (6b).
2
In the experiments described in this study we used dus in its adverbial
position in the syntactic structure, as in (a), in which it triggers the inversion of
the finite verb, because this allowed us to compare dus and daarom with the
same word order. When dus functions as a complementizer, as in (b), this
inversion does not apply.
1.
2.
Peter schepte voor de tweede keer op, dus had hij veel honger.
[Peter filled his plate for the second time, so had he a lot of hunger.]
Peter filled his plate for the second time, so he was very hungry.
Peter schepte voor de tweede keer op, dus hij had veel honger.
[Peter filled his plate for the second time, so he had a lot of hunger.]
Peter filled his plate for the second time, so he was very hungry.
Even though dus allows for these two different forms, this difference has no
effect on the type of relation marked by this connective (Evers-Vermeul, 2005;
2010). Although Verhagen (2005, p.199) suggests that there may be a difference
in the relative degree of subjectivity between these two versions, both versions
are considered to be subjective.
100|Chapter 5
(6)
a. Peter had veel honger, want hij schepte voor de tweede keer op.
Peter was very hungry, because he filled his plate for the second time.
b. Peter schepte voor de tweede keer op, dus had hij veel honger.
Peter filled his plate for the second time, so he was very hungry.
Similarly, in CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations marked by omdat (7a),
the clause preceding the connective conveys the consequence of the situation
described in the second clause. This order is reversed in CAUSECONSEQUENCE relations marked by daarom (7b).
(7)
a. Peter schepte voor de tweede keer op, omdat hij veel honger had.
Peter filled his plate for the second time, because he was very hungry.
b. Peter had veel honger, daarom schepte hij voor de tweede keer op.
Peter was very hungry, that’s why he filled his plate for the second time.
Example (6) illustrates that similar processes are induced by dus and
want, yet want modifies the status of S1 whereas dus modifies S2. This
means that in forward subjective relations there can be no reanalysis of the
conclusion triggered by the connective, because the conclusion follows the
connective. If the delay in processing times for CLAIM-ARGUMENT
relations marked by want is related to a reanalysis of S1 as a claim, forward
subjective relations, as marked by dus, should not cause processing
difficulties compared to objective relations marked by daarom. If, on the
other hand, subjective relations are inherently more complex than objective
relations, we should observe a similar processing asymmetry between dus
and daarom as has been reported for want versus omdat.
5.3 Experiment 1
5.3.1 Participants
Forty undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in the
experiment (20 female, mean age 23.7 age range 18–45 years). All
participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for their
participation.
5.3.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of 20 sets of forward causal relations marked by
either dus (8a) or daarom (8b) (see Appendix 4 for more examples).
(8)
a. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Dus zit hij al uren te studeren.
Tim has a test tomorrow. So he has been studying for hours.
b. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Daarom zit hij al uren te studeren.
Tim has a test tomorrow. That’s why he has been studying for hours.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|101
80 Filler items were added to the materials. These filler items consisted
of the 40 sets of items that are reported in Experiment 2, and 40 unrelated
sentence pairs. The sentences were divided over two lists according to a
Latin square design, so that each list contained only one version of an item.
The items were presented in four blocks of stimuli. Line breaks were placed
before the word preceding the connective. We did this to make sure that the
regions of interest were not situated at the beginning or end of a line.
Verification statements were randomly divided over the stimuli and
appeared after 25% of the items. Participants were informed to respond to
these statements by pressing the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button on the button box.
5.3.3 Apparatus and procedure
Eye movements were recorded with a desktop-mounted EyeLink 1000 eyetracker, which samples the right eye at 500Hz. The system has an eye
position tracking range of 32 degrees horizontally and 25 degrees vertically,
with a gaze position accuracy of 0.5 degrees. The materials were presented
on a 19-inch computer screen at a viewing distance of approximately 60
centimeters. All participants were individually tested in a testing booth at
the University. Before the experiment started, participants were informed
about the procedure and the experimenter made sure that they were
comfortably seated. Participants were asked not to move their heads or blink
excessively during the experiment. Each experiment started with a thirteenpoint calibration procedure followed by a validation procedure, which was
repeated before each block. The experiment started with a practice trial of 5
items.
5.3.4 Results
The critical sentence, starting with the connectives dus or daarom, was
divided into 4 regions for analysis, see example (9). Region 1 contains the
connective. Region 2 consists of the two subsequent words, in most cases an
auxiliary and the subject. Region 4 comprises the final words of the sentence
and contains the key information to construct the causal relation. And
Region 3 consists of all the words in between regions 2 and 4.
(9)
| Dus / Daarom 1| zit hij 2 | al uren 3| te studeren 4 |
| So / that’s why 1| sits he 2 | for hours 3| to study 4 |
Correct answers to the verification statements were given in 93% of the
trials. Blinks were extracted from the data. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition were excluded from the analysis. Following these criteria we
removed 1.1% of the data (162 cases). We analyzed the following measures:
first pass reading times, right-bounded time, regression path duration, and
102|Chapter 5
total reading time. First pass reading times is what Rayner and Duffy (1986)
call gaze duration for single words, and consists of all fixations within a
region (including saccades) before moving into a forward or a backward
direction. Right-bounded time (or total gaze duration) sums all fixations
within a region before moving on progressively. This measure consists of first
pass reading times, including fixations that follow regressions. Regression
path duration (Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997) consists of
all fixations on a region before passing on in a forward direction, including
rereading of previous material. Total reading time is the Total time spent at
a region. This measure includes the time required for reanalysis when a
piece of information is not completely processed during the first reading
(Rayner & Sereno, 1994). Means are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression
path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) by Condition and Region in
Experiment 1. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FP
dus
daarom
229 (88)
225 (100))
293 (175)
238 (111)
346 (178)
340 (161)
470 (338)
474 (294)
RB
dus
daarom
242 (104)
231 (106)
305 (189)
249 (131)
369 (187)
364 (181)
545 (319)
543 (318)
RP
dus
daarom
313 (257)
244 (142)
320 (237)
254 (144)
411 (224)
395 (311)
915 (545)
888 (553)
TT
dus
daarom
267 (170)
251 (142)
388 (224)
320 (193)
450 (222)
446 (218)
545 (319)
543 (218)
We performed Linear Mixed Effects Regression analyses (LMER)
(Baayen, 2008) on the data, with subjects and items as crossed random
effects and Connective (dus versus daarom) as fixed effect. Eye-movement
data typically have a lot of missing values, especially if the regions of
interest are short. However, multilevel analyses such as LMER are robust
against missing data (Quené & van den Bergh, 2004). These analyses were
performed on the log-transformed data in order to meet the normality
requirements of linear modeling. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
sampling was used to estimate p values (Baayen, 2008). The results at
Region 1, containing either dus or daarom, will not be discussed because the
length difference between these two connectives makes any effects difficult to
interpret.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|103
We observed longer processing times for dus compared to daarom at
Region 2, the words following the connective. This effect surfaced in first
pass reading times (ß=0.164, SE=0.029, t=5.65, p(MCMC)<0.001), rightbounded time (ß=0.168, SE=0.030, t=5.64, p(MCMC)<0.001), regression path
duration (ß=0.174, SE=0.032, t=5.50, p(MCMC)<0.001) and total time
(ß=0.198, SE=0.037, t=5.36, p(MCMC)<0.001). No significant effects were
observed in any of the other regions.
5.3.5 Discussion
Experiment 1 reveals that dus leads to longer processing times of the
immediately following text region compared to daarom. These results
suggest that the forward connectives dus and daarom produce a similar
processing pattern as the backward connectives want and omdat, reported in
Chapters 3 and 4. Therefore, the longer processing times for subjective
compared to objective relations reported in previous studies (Chapter 3-4;
Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997)
cannot be explained in terms of a reanalysis of the already processed
information as a claim or conclusion, as proposed by Traxler, Sanford, Aked,
and Moxey (1997). Instead, we propose that the cognitive operations involved
in the representation of subjective causal relations are inherently complex.
Under this assumption, it is to be expected that processing effects surface at
the moment at which the representation of the subjective relation is
constructed. Therefore, linguistic devices that trigger this subjective
representation, such as dus and want, are expected to immediately induce
longer processing times compared to markers that do not, such as omdat and
daarom.
We argue that daarom provides immediate processing instructions that
lead to the construction of a volitional CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE relation. If
this is the case, it is expected that daarom causes processing difficulties
when the content of the text segments is not compatible with this
interpretation. Take, for example, the ARGUMENT-CLAIM relation with
dus in (10a): the fact that Peter ordered two pizzas leads to the speaker’s
conclusion that he must have been hungry.
(10) a. Peter bestelde 2 pizza’s, dus had hij grote honger.
Peter ordered 2 pizzas, so he was very hungry.
b. #Peter bestelde 2 pizza’s, daarom had hij grote honger.
#Peter ordered 2 pizzas, that’s why he was very hungry.
If daarom is used to mark the same relation (10b), the interpretation
changes into an objective CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE relation: the fact that
Peter ordered two pizzas leads to the situation that he is hungry, an
interpretation that makes no sense (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser 2009,
104|Chapter 5
p.38). If the connective daarom triggers the immediate construction of a
CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE
interpretation
while
dus
triggers
an
ARGUMENT-CLAIM relation, we expect an initial processing facilitation for
daarom compared to dus in relations such as (10), as surfaced in Experiment
1. However, at the end of the second clause, at which point readers have al
the necessary information to construct the causal relation, it is expected that
they will experience difficulties interpreting the relation marked by daarom
because it makes no sense. We therefore expect to find longer processing
times at the end of relations such as (10) with daarom compared to dus.
Assuming that the processing difference between dus and daarom is a
reflection of the difference between subjective and objective causal relations,
the next question is: how do we explain these effects? Experiment 1
demonstrates that the delay in processing times for subjective causal
relations cannot be explained in terms of a reanalysis of already processed
information. Instead, the data suggest that subjective relations are
inherently more complex than objective causal relations. In what follows we
will further investigate the cognitive mechanisms underlying this
complexity. In line with earlier results (Chapter 3-4; Traxler, Sanford, Aked,
& Moxey, 1997), we propose that subjective causal connectives trigger the
representation of one of the two text segments as a conclusion, or claim,
based on the premise in the clause with which it is connected. In the
introduction of this chapter we proposed that the representation of
conclusions could be resource demanding because conclusions rely on
reasoning. Alternatively, this effect may be related to the fact that a thinking
subject is responsible for the presented conclusion. In what follows we will
systematically investigate which of these approaches adequately explains the
processing complexity of subjective causal relations. If this complexity is
explained by the fact that subjective relations involve reasoning, other
linguistic devices that also mark reasoning should lead to similar effects.
In Dutch, there are no other forward causal connectives that share this
property with dus. There are, however, adverbs with similar semantic–
pragmatic characteristics, such as the inferential evidential adverb
blijkbaar, which can be translated by evidently. The function of evidentials is
to mark the source of information underlying statements. These sources can
be direct or non-direct, first-hand or second hand, based on hearsay or
reasoning. Blijkbaar belongs to the class of indirect evidentials because it is
used when the speaker has not witnessed an action himself, but has deduced
it on the basis of indirect perceptible evidence (11a).
(11) a. Mies heeft haar pasta niet opgegeten, blijkbaar had ze geen honger.
Mies did not finish her pasta, blijkbaar she wasn’t hungry.
b. Mies heeft haar pasta niet opgegeten, dus had ze geen honger.
Mies did not finish her pasta, dus she wasn’t hungry.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|105
As an inferential evidential, blijkbaar identifies evidence based upon
reasoning (Van der Auwera & Plungian, 1998). As such, dus and blijkbaar
share the property that they mark conclusions as derived by reasoning,
which modifies the status of S2 as a whole as a conclusion. Therefore, the
relation expressed by blijkbaar in (11a) seems comparable to the relation in
(11b) expressed by dus. Unlike dus, evidentials such as blijkbaar signal that
the evidence underlying the conclusion is outside the speaker’s belief
(Giannakidou, 2011; Nuyts, 2001). By using blijkbaar the speaker signals
that he or she does not take responsibility for the conclusion. Note, that even
though blijkbaar and dus can be used in the same relation with the same
evidence presented in S1, these markers emphasize different levels of
speaker involvement in the conclusions.
If the processing difficulty of subjective causal relations is explained by
the fact that they involve reasoning, irrespective of the degree of speaker
involvement, blijkbaar should also lead to longer processing times compared
to daarom. Yet, no processing differences are expected between dus and
blijkbaar. If, on the other hand, the relative involvement of the speaker’s
mind is responsible for the processing difference between dus and daarom,
we expect to obtain longer processing times for dus compared to daarom and
blijkbaar.
An additional question addressed in this study concerns the integration
effect associated with causal connectives. It is generally assumed that causal
connectives contribute to the construction of causal relations. As discussed in
Chapter 2, a general finding in experimental studies is that the presence of a
causal connective, or cue phrase, speeds up the processing of the first words
of the second clause, compared to an implicit version of the same relation
(e.g. Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Millis & Just, 1994;
Sanders & Noordman, 2000). However, if dus increases the processing load
because it signals the construction of a subjective relation, this connective
may not lead to such a speeding up effect. Results from previous experiments
in Dutch suggest that is may indeed be the case. The use of dus has been
shown to lead to no processing difference (De Leeuw, Mak, & Sanders, 2008),
and even longer processing times (Kleijn, Mak, & Sanders, 2011), compared
to implicit relations. In order to investigate the effects of the different
markers on the integration of the two clauses, we added an implicit condition
to our design.
5.4 Experiment 2
5.4.1 Participants
Because Experiments 1 and 2 were run as one experiment, see Experiment 1
for participant details.
106|Chapter 5
5.4.2 Materials and design
We created 40 ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations in which we varied coherence
marking in 4 conditions: dus (12a), daarom (12b), blijkbaar (12c) and implicit
(12d) (see Appendix 4 for more examples). All items are based on strong
CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE relations, which we inverted to arrive at plausible
ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations. For example, walking in the rain usually
leads to getting your hair wet. Inverting this reasoning results in the
relation in (12a). “Petra’s hair is wet, so it must be the case that it has been
raining outside”. This interpretation is unproblematic with blijkbaar (12c).
However, the use of daarom (12b) leads to an odd interpretation because a
CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE relation does not make sense: wet hair usually
does not cause rain.
(12) a. Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Dus heeft het net hard geregend.
Petra’s hair is soaking wet. Dus it has been raining cats and dogs.
b. #Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Daarom heeft het net hard geregend.
#Petra’s hair is soaking wet. Daarom it has been raining cats and dogs.
c. Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Blijkbaar heeft het net hard geregend.
Petra’s hair is soaking wet. Blijkbaar it has been raining cats and dogs.
d. Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Het heeft net hard geregend.
Petra’s hair is soaking wet. It has been raining cats and dogs.
The 40 sets were divided over four lists, according to a Latin square
design, so that each list contained only one version of a set. 60 Filler items
were added to the materials. These fillers consisted of 40 unrelated sentences
and the 20 CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE relations with dus and daarom that
were used in Experiment 1. Note, that because of these 20 CAUSECONSEQUENCE relations, the design also contained daarom relations that
do make sense. Therefore, readers could not learn that this connective was
always used inappropriately. The rest of the procedure was the same as in
Experiment 1.
5.4.3 Results
The data were treated as in Experiment 1. All observations that were two
standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each position
and condition were excluded from the analysis. Following these criteria we
removed 0.9% of the data (258 cases). Correct answers to the verification
statements were given in 93% of the trials. Again, we analyzed the logtransformations of the measures: first pass reading times, right-bounded
time, regression path duration, and total reading time. Means are reported in
Table 3.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|107
Table 3. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression
path duration (RP) and total reading time (TT) by Condition and region in
Experiment 2. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FP
dus
daarom
blijkbaar
implicit
230 (95)
215 (78)
222 (89)
-
306 (184)
283 (155)
272 (170)
273 (152)
354 (185)
372 (208)
357 (190)
334 (177)
424 (279)
418 (289)
445 (192)
458 (319)
RB
dus
daarom
blijkbaar
implicit
230 (95)
215 (78)
230 (98)
-
317 (200)
296 (180)
279 (177)
280 (154)
409 (230)
405 (246)
380 (207)
371 (210)
497 (303)
516 (365)
506 (307)
529 (318)
RP
dus
daarom
blijkbaar
implicit
240 (97)
228 (130)
238 (119)
-
325 (212)
301 (190)
281 (181)
294 (173)
514 (394)
492 (452)
450 (321)
423 (301)
918 (595)
1133 (868)
807 (441)
890 (561)
TT
dus
daarom
blijkbaar
implicit
250 (135)
295 (212)
249 (126)
-
444 (280)
439 (286)
317 (201)
340 (205)
491 (247)
529 (296)
451 (238)
477 (262)
497 (303)
516 (365)
506 (307)
529 (318)
As in Experiment 1, the critical sentence starting with dus, daarom,
blijkbaar, or no marker in the implicit condition, was divided into 4 regions,
see example (13). Region 1 contains the different markers and is empty in
the implicit condition (14). Region 2 consists of the first two subsequent
words, in most cases an auxiliary and the subject. In the implicit condition,
these are the first words of the second clause, which are inverted because
Dutch main clauses require verb second word order. Notwithstanding this
word order variation, Region 2 contains the same words in all conditions.
Region 4 comprises the final words of the sentence and contains the key
information to construct the causal relation. Region 3 consists of all the
words in between regions 2 and 4.
(13) |Dus 1 | heeft het 2 | net hard 3 | geregend. 4 |
|Dus 1 | has it 2 | just heavy 3 | rained. 4 |
(14) | ---- 1 | Het heeft 2 | net hard 3 | geregend. 4 |
|----- 1 | It has 2| just heavy 2 | rained. 4 |
Again we performed LMER analyses (Baayen, 2008) on the data, with
subjects and items as crossed random effects and Marker (dus, daarom,
108|Chapter 5
blijkbaar and implicit) as fixed effect. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
sampling was used to estimate p values (Baayen, 2008). For clarity’s sake,
we will first discuss the effects of the different markers throughout the
second sentence, after which we will go into the differences between implicit
relations and the marked relations. The results at Region 1, containing the
three markers, will not be discussed because the differences in length and
frequency make it difficult to interpret any effects. The results in total time
will be presented separately because this measure involves rereading, which
is heavily influenced by the anomalous use of daarom.
Dus versus daarom versus blijkbaar
Dus led to longer processing times compared to blijkbaar and daarom at the
first words following the connective (Region 2) and the subsequent region
(Region 3).
At Region 2, this effect surfaced in first pass reading times (dus vs.
blijkbaar: ß=0.122, SE=0.030, t=4.10, p(MCMC)<0.001; dus vs. daarom:
ß=0.071, SE=0.029, t=2.42, p(MCMC)<0.05), right-bounded time (dus vs.
blijkbaar: ß=0.129, SE=0.030, t=4.28, p(MCMC)<0.001; dus vs. daarom:
ß=0.067, SE=0.030, t=2.28, p(MCMC)<0.05) and regression path duration
(dus vs. blijkbaar: (ß=0.133, SE=0.032, t=4.15, p(MCMC)<0.001); dus vs.
daarom: (ß=0.074, SE=0.031, t=2.36, p(MCMC)<0.05).
At Region 3, regression path duration was longer in dus relations
compared to blijkbaar relations (ß=0.112, SE=0.042, t=2.66, p(MCMC)<0.01).
At Region 4, the final words of the relation, we observed a longer
regression path duration in daarom relations compared to dus and blijkbaar
relations (daarom vs. dus: ß=0.141, SE=0.045, t=3.12, p(MCMC)<0.01;
daarom vs. blijkbaar: ß=0.251, SE=0.0462, t=5.43, p(MCMC)<0.001). At this
region, we also observed a longer regression path duration in dus compared
to blijkbaar relations (ß=0.110, SE=0.046, t=2.41, p(MCMC)<0.05). In sum,
arrived at the end of the relation, daarom led to longer rereading times of
previous information compared to dus which in its turn led to longer
rereading times compared to blijkbaar.
Total Time
Region 2 produced longer total reading times in dus and daarom relations
compared
to
blijkbaar
relations
(ß=0.327,
SE=0.038,
t=8.63,
p(MCMC)<0.001; ß=0.298, SE=0.0382, t=7.81, p(MCMC)<0.001 respectively).
At Region 3 we observed longer total reading times in daarom compared
to blijkbaar relations (ß=0.134, SE=0.037, t=3.66, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Implicit versus marked relations
Region 2, which consists of the first two words following the connective or the
first two words of implicit relations, was processed faster in implicit relations
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|109
compared to both dus and daarom relations. This effect appeared in first
pass reading times (implicit vs. dus: ß=-0.137, SE=0.030, t=4.49,
p(MCMC)<0.001; implicit vs. daarom: ß=-0.066, SE=0.031, t=2.15,
p(MCMC)<0.05) and in right-bounded time (implicit vs. dus: ß=-0.144,
SE=0.031, t=4.63, p(MCMC)<0.001; implicit vs. daarom: ß=-0.076, SE=0.031,
t=2.42, p(MCMC)<0.05). In regression path duration this difference was only
significant for implicit compared to dus relations (ß=-0.124, SE=0.033,
t=3.76, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Similar effects appeared at Region 3. Compared to dus relations, this
effect appeared in right –bounded time (ß=-0.143, SE=0.031, t=4.63,
p(MCMC)<0.001) and regression path duration (ß=-0.168, SE=0.043, t=3.89,
p(MCMC)<0.001). Compared to daarom relations, the effect surfaced in first
pass reading times (ß=-0.108, SE=0.034, t=3.14, p(MCMC)<0.01), and right–
bounded time (ß=-0.080, SE=0.036, t=2.23, p(MCMC)<0.05), and compared to
blijkbaar in first pass reading times (ß=-0.076, SE=0.034, t=2.23,
p(MCMC)<0.05).
At the final words of the relations, we observed a shorter regression
path duration for implicit compared to daarom relations only (ß=-0.193,
SE=0.046, t=4.21, p(MCMC)<0.001).
Total time
Total time produced a similar pattern of results as the other measures. We
observed a processing advantage for implicit relations compared to daarom
and dus relations at Region 2 (ß=-0.267, SE=0.039, t=6.84, p<0.001; ß=0.296, SE=0.039, t=7.63, p<0.001). Compared to daarom, this advantage
extended to Region 3 (ß=-0.092, SE=0.037, t=2.46, p<0.05).
5.4.4 Discussion
The purpose of Experiment 2 was to get a better understanding of the
cognitive mechanisms underlying the disadvantage in processing times for
subjective compared to objective causal relations. As a first step, we set out
to verify whether the processing asymmetry between dus and daarom, as
observed in Experiment 1, can be interpreted as a reflection of their
processing instructions about the type of causal relation they mark. The
results from Experiment 2 suggest that this is indeed the case. We
hypothesized that if daarom provides immediate cues to construct a CAUSECONSEQUENCE relation, readers are expected to experience difficulties
when this interpretation is incompatible with the content of the text
segments. This hypothesis was confirmed by our results. When daarom is
used in ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations that do not allow for a CAUSECONSEQUENCE interpretation, such as (15), it initially leads to a
processing advantage compared to dus. This replicates the results from
Experiment 1.
110|Chapter 5
(15) #Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Daarom heeft het net hard geregend.
#Petra’s hair is soaking wet. That’s why it has been raining cats and dogs.
However, at the final words of relations such as (15), daarom leads to
an increase in processing times in regression path duration. At this point in
the sentence, readers can fully establish the CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE
relation, as cued by daarom, and realize that it makes no sense. After all,
wet hair does not usually cause any rain. As a result, readers start to look
back to earlier parts of the relation in order find out what went wrong.
Further evidence supporting the idea that dus provides instructions for
the construction of a subjective causal relation comes from the processing
difference between dus relations and implicit relations. As discussed in
Chapter 2, a general finding in experimental studies is that causal
connectives, and other signals of discourse structure, speed up the processing
of the second clause of the causal relations (e.g. Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk,
2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Millis & Just, 1994; Sanders & Noordman, 2000).
However, dus did not lead to this facilitation effect. In line with the results
from Kleijn, Mak, and Sanders (2011), we observed faster processing times at
the beginning of S2 in implicit relations compared to dus-relations. This
suggests that, rather than facilitating the construction of the relation
between S1 and S2, dus induces additional cognitive processes.
We proposed that these processes could be related to the representation
of conclusions derived by reasoning, or to the representation of speaker
involvement. We tested which of these components is responsible for the
processing effects associated with subjective causal relations by comparing
the processing of dus to the inferential evidential adverb blijkbaar. Blijkbaar
is used to mark conclusions about events that the speaker has not witnessed
himself, but that are derived by reasoning on the basis of the end state of
those events. Yet, unlike dus, evidentials such as blijkbaar rely on objective
evidence in the world, outside the speaker’s beliefs (Giannakidou, 2011;
Nuyts, 2001). Therefore, the speaker is not responsible for the conclusion.
We argued that if the processing difficulty of subjective causal relations
is caused by the simple fact that they involve reasoning, irrespective of the
degree of speaker involvement, blijkbaar and dus should lead to a similar
delay in reading times compared to daarom. The results from Experiment 2,
however, reveal that dus and blijkbaar do not induce comparable processing
patterns. Readers need more time to process the first words after dus
compared to both daarom and blijkbaar. While the effect compared to
daarom is limited to these first words, compared to blijkbaar it extends to all
subsequent regions. These results demonstrate that the processing effect
associated with subjective causal relations cannot be explained by the fact
that language users have difficulties in processing information derived by
reasoning per se. The inferential evidential adverb blijkbaar also marks
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|111
reasoning, yet our data reveal that this adverb does not slow down the
reading process in the way that dus does. In fact, the first region following
blijkbaar even leads to faster processing times compared to daarom.
The result from the comparison between blijkbaar and implicit relations
did provide some evidence for our hypothesis that the representation of
information derived by reasoning leads to a processing slowdown. Compared
to implicit relations, blijkbaar did not lead to an initial speeding up effect.
However, at the second region following blijkbaar, we did observe a
processing slowdown compared to implicit relations. The fact that this effect
does not arise immediately after blijkbaar, but one region later, suggests
that readers do not immediately use all the semantic-pragmatic information
encoded in this adverb. Why this effect should arise one region later is
unclear. We will come back to this issue in the general discussion.
Interestingly, daarom also led to longer processing times of S2
compared to implicit relations, but here the effect surfaced immediately after
the connective. This is unexpected because (objective) causal connectives
have been shown to speed up the processing of the second clause of a causal
relation. One possible explanation for our result is related to the causal
expectations that may have been triggered by our items. Because the
relations in Experiment 2 were all created on the basis of inverted CAUSECONSEQUENCE relations, it may be the case that the first clauses of these
relations created the expectation that a cause, or explanation, will be
provided. For example, the interpretation of the relation in (16) without a
connective is an objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation: S2 explains S1.
(16) Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Het heeft net hard geregend.
Petra’s hair is soaking wet. It has been raining cats and dogs.
This interpretation is constructed on the basis of the two text segments
together. However, the first clause “Petra’s hair is soaking wet” may already
create the expectation that we are going to learn something about why this is
relevant to know. Indeed, readers have been demonstrated to make online
inferences about causes, rather than effects, because these inferences explain
the current situation (Magliano, Bagget, Johnson, & Graesser, 1993). In
addition, experiments by Mak and Sanders (to appear) show that such
expectations immediately affect online processing. If daarom instructs
readers that the following clause is to be interpreted as a consequence, this
connective is unexpected when readers were in fact expecting a cause. This
could explain the longer processing times for daarom relations compared to
implicit relations.
112|Chapter 5
Taken together, our results suggest that the representation of
conclusions, as based on reasoning, comes at a processing cost. However, the
processing cost associated with subjective relations, as marked by dus, is
much greater than the processing effect induced by blijkbaar; blijkbaar leads
to faster processing times compared to dus. This suggests that the processing
difficulty associated with subjective causal relations is not caused by the fact
that they rely on reasoning per se. Instead, our data suggest that this effect
may be caused by the fact that the speaker is responsible for the presented
conclusion; it entails speaker involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001;
Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Pit, 2003; Stukker, Sanders, &
Verhagen, 2009). To be more specific, these relations specify that the mind of
a thinking subject is (at least in part) responsible for the presented
conclusions and claims in a particular clause. As such, subjective connectives
such as dus function as explicit cues to the interlocutor to take this mind into
account in the representation (and possibly also the evaluation) of these
conclusions.
To verify whether this property of subjective causal relations is
responsible for the observed processing effects associated with subjective
causal relations, we conducted a third experiment in which we compared the
processing of dus and blijkbaar to the epistemic modal waarschijnlijk
(probably). Similar to dus and blijkbaar, waarschijnlijk marks (possible)
conclusions. However, being a modal, waarschijnlijk provides additional
information about the speaker’s estimation of the probability of these
conclusions. The speaker explicitly signals that the following proposition is
highly likely, yet he or she is not fully committed to its truthfulness (Nuyts,
2004, p.61) (17a). This estimation relies on all sorts of knowledge available to
the speaker, such as world knowledge, common sense but also personal
experiences, ideas and beliefs.
By using waarschijnlijk the speaker indicates that he or she judges a
scenario to be likely. We therefore propose that conclusions marked by
waarschijnlijk carry more speaker involvement than conclusions marked by
blijkbaar. Yet, it has been recognized that modal expressions, such as
waarschijnlijk, are not always tied to the speaker; they can represent
judgments that are shared by others (e.g. Ernst 2009:540; Lyons, 1977;
Nuyts, 2001, 2004). Given that by using waarschijnlijk the speaker takes a
safe distance from the presented conclusion, we propose that it involves less
speaker involvement than dus. In line with ideas on relative degrees of
speaker involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001) we propose that
waarschijnlijk takes up an intermediate position between dus and blijkbaar
(17).
(17) Degree of speaker involvement
dus > waarschijnlijk > blijkbaar
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|113
If the notion of speaker involvement is related to the processing effects
associated with subjective causal relations, we expect that our classification
of dus, blijkbaar, and waarschijnlijk along the lines of speaker involvement is
reflected in online processing. Waarschijnlijk should therefore lead to a delay
in processing times compared to blijkbaar, but to faster processing times
compared to dus.
An additional difference between waarschijnlijk on the one hand, and
dus and blijkbaar on the other, is that it presupposes doubt. In
ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations as used in Experiment 2, in which reasoning
occurs from effect to cause, waarschijnlijk implies that there are alternative
causes (Cummins, 1991, 1995; Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000) that could in
principle also be responsible for the effect described in the first clause of the
relation (18).
(18) Petra’s haren zijn kletsnat. Waarschijnlijk heeft het net hard geregend (maar
misschien heeft ze haar hoofd net onder de kraan gehad).
Petra’s hair is soaking wet. Waarschijnlijk it has been raining cats and dogs.
(But maybe she just put her head under the tap)
If waarschijnlijk activates such alternative causes during online
processing, we would expect language users to experience difficulties when
this adverb is used in causal scenarios in which there is no doubt. By way of
illustration, consider example (19). People usually get drunk when they
drink too much alcohol. One could, of course, always come up with an
implausible alternative cause for getting drunk. For example, one of the
alternative causes for getting drunk that surfaced in our pretest was “eating
liquor filled chocolates”, which received a low probability score. In this
situation, there really are no plausible alternative causes and the use of
waarschijnlijk should be inappropriate. Readers are expected to realize this
towards the end of the second clause. Arrived at the end of the second clause,
readers have enough information to construct the causal relation and will be
able to evaluate the alternative causes, which there aren’t in case of (19).
(19) Na een avondje stappen kwam Fabio stomdronken thuis.
Waarschijnlijk had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
After a night out, Fabio came home completely drunk.
Waarschijnlijk he drank too much alcohol.
By using dus and blijkbaar (20), on the other hand, the speaker
suggests that there are no alternative causes (with dus because the speaker
believes so, and with blijkbaar because it implies that there is objective
evidence that points into that direction). Therefore, the conclusion in S2 is
presented as the only sensible one.
114|Chapter 5
(20) Na een avondje stappen kwam Fabio stomdronken thuis. Dus / Blijkbaar had hij
te veel alcohol gedronken. (# maar misschien heeft hij heel veel kersenbonbons
gegeten)
After a night out, Fabio came home completely drunk. Dus / Blijkbaar he drank
too much alcohol. (# but maybe he ate too many liqueur bonbons)
The use of dus and blijkbaar should therefore cause problems in
scenarios such as (21) where in fact many alternative causes apply. However,
these scenarios should not cause any problems if they are marked by
waarschijnlijk.
(21) Na een avondje stappen kwam Fabio met een taxi naar thuis.
Dus / blijkbaar had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
After a night out, Fabio came home in a taxi. Dus / Blijkbaar he drank too much
alcohol.
5.5 Experiment 3
5.5.1 Participants
Forty undergraduate students from Utrecht University participated in the
experiment (36 female, mean age 21.2 age range 18–27 years). These
participants did not take part in any of the other experiments described in
this study. All participants were native speakers of Dutch and were paid for
their participation.
5.5.2 Materials and design
The materials consisted of 42 short narratives of 3 sentences in which we
embedded ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations marked by dus, waarschijnlijk and
blijkbaar. Scenarios with and without alternative causes were constructed
for each item, see (22) (see Appendix 4 for more examples). All items have
the same structure. The first sentence sets the stage and provides
background information underlying the conclusion. The second sentence
describes a situation that leads to the speaker’s conclusion about the cause of
that situation, which is presented in the final sentence. The first and second
sentences of the text were manipulated to obtain the different scenarios. For
example, in the scenario with no alternative causes (NO-AC), the conclusion
that Fabio drank too much alcohol is the only plausible cause for getting
drunk. In the scenario with alternative causes (AC) on the other hand, the
conclusion that Fabio drank too much alcohol is not the only plausible cause
for coming home in a taxi. Other causes (lost his keys, flat tire etc.) could be
equally plausible. Note that even though the first clause of the causal
relation is different in the two scenarios, the target sentence is the same in
all conditions.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|115
(22) No Alternative Causes (NO-AC)
Met Oud en Nieuw ging Fabio naar een smartlappenfeest in Den Haag. De
volgende ochtend kwam hij stomdronken thuis.
Dus / Waarschijnlijk / Blijkbaar had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
On New Year’s Eve Fabio went to a tearjerker festival in The Hague. The next
morning he came home completely drunk. Dus / Waarschijnlijk / Blijkbaar he
drank too much alcohol.
Alternative Causes (AC)
Gisteravond ging Fabio naar een verjaardagsfeestje. Uren later kwam hij met
een taxi naar huis.
Dus / Waarschijnlijk / Blijkbaar had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
Yesterday night Fabio went to a birthday party. Hours later he came home in a
taxi. Dus / Waarschijnlijk / Blijkbaar he drank too much alcohol.
The 42 sets were divided over six lists, according to a Latin square
design, so that each list contained only one version of a set. 46 Filler items
were added to the materials, which consisted of 46 unrelated short
narratives. The items were presented in four blocks of stimuli. Line breaks
were placed as in example (23). We made sure that the connective was not
situated at the end or beginning of a line. Length differences between the
target line and the line preceding it were kept to a minimum to avoid effects
of systematic differences in visual presentation. Verification statements were
randomly divided over the stimuli and appeared after 25% of the items.
Participants were informed to respond to these statements by pressing the
‘yes’ or ‘no’ button on the button box. The rest of the procedure was the same
as in Experiments 1 and 2.
(23) Met Oud en Nieuw ging Fabio
naar een smartlappenfeest in Den Haag. De volgende ochtend kwam hij
stomdronken thuis. Dus had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
[On New Year’s Eve went Fabio
to a tearjerker festival in The Hague. The next morning came he completely
drunk home. Dus had he too much alcohol drank.]
5.5.3 Pretest
An offline pretest was conducted to verify whether our manipulation of the
presence or absence of alternative causes was successful. To test the
underlying relation, but avoiding effects of the different markers, we
replaced the markers that introduce the final clause with the phrase I think
that (24). This resulted in two versions of each item (one with, and one
116|Chapter 5
without alternative causes). The items were divided over two lists so that
each list contained only one version of an item.
(24) Met Oud en Nieuw ging Fabio naar een smartlappenfeest in Den Haag. De
volgende ochtend kwam hij stomdronken thuis.
“Ik denk dat hij te veel alcohol had gedronken.”
On New Year ’s Eve Fabio went to a tearjerker festival in The Hague. The next
morning he came home completely.
“I think he drank too much alcohol.”
33 Students of Utrecht University, who did not participate in any of the
other experiments described in this study, were presented with these
scenarios. They were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-scale how probable it
was that the speaker’s conclusion (presented in quotation marks in the
example) was the actual cause of the preceding situation. Also, if possible,
they had to provide an alternative cause for that situation and again rate its
probability.
A NO-AC item was considered to be successful if its mean probability
score was 4 or higher and its alternative cause received a probability score of
2 or lower. Note that this mean score is based on the cases in which our
raters were able to come up with an alternative. However, in cases where no
alternative was provided, an alternative probability score of zero applies.
Therefore, items with an alternative probability score of more than 2.0 were
discarded if more than half of the raters (8 or more) could come up with an
alternative cause. In doing so, only items were included in which the causes
were perceived as highly likely. And even if people were able to provide an
alternative cause when they are stimulated to do so, this cause was judged
as unlikely. In the AC condition, an item was considered to be successful if at
least two thirds of the raters (11 or more) could come up with an alternative
cause. Items that were rejected on the basis of these criteria were adjusted
and retested until they fitted the requirements.
5.5.4 Results
The data were treated as in Experiments 1 and 2. All observations that were
two standard deviations above or below item and subject mean for each
position and condition (101 cases) were excluded from the analysis.
Following these criteria we removed 0.4% of the data.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|117
Table 4. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression
path duration (RP), and total reading time (TT) by Marker (dus, blijkbaar and
waarschijnlijk) per Region in Experiment 2 For AC scenarios. Standard
deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FP
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
225 (78)
217 (136)
232 (115)
227 (110)
249 (130)
237 (121)
316 (162)
303 (153)
333 (190)
411 (313)
363 (245)
396 (251)
RB
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
238 (99)
221 (138)
245 (127)
234 (114)
256 (139)
242 (128)
331 (193)
368 (275)
373 (246)
508 (385)
503 (324)
509 (380)
RP
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
256 (160)
298 (309)
287 (378)
250 (145)
267 (168)
251 (155)
382 (286)
469 (524)
438 (400)
1128 (941)
1202 (888)
1056 (904)
TT
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
274 (138)
256 (160)
301 (182)
298 (190)
463 (279)
323 (447)
447 (281)
513 (360)
464 (307)
508 (385)
503 (324)
509 (380)
Table 5. Mean first pass reading times (FP), right-bounded time (RB), regression
path duration (RP), and total reading time (TT) by Marker (dus, blijkbaar and
waarschijnlijk) per region in Experiment 2 For NO- AC scenarios. Standard
deviations are given in parentheses.
Region
1
2
3
4
FP
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
230 (91)
205 (65)
233 (108)
233 (97)
248 (134)
221 (72)
296 (152)
303 (174)
314 (164)
412 (321)
403 (273)
425 (314)
RB
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
237 (104)
207 (69)
243 (114)
237 (103)
262 (156)
224 (76)
309 (168)
345 (216)
352 (218)
474 (335)
522 (359)
468 (328)
RP
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
245 (130)
231 (126)
257 (160)
253 (143)
283 (253)
224 (76)
377 (366)
467 (500)
436 (367)
919 (738)
1174 (1032)
918 (719)
TT
blijkbaar
dus
waarschijnlijk
256 (132)
256 (159)
271 (156)
284 (146)
429 (265)
272 (148)
385 (221)
436 (261)
432 (275)
474 (335)
522 (359)
468 (328)
118|Chapter 5
Correct answers to the verification statements were given in 90% of the
trials. Again, we analyzed the log-transformations of the measures first pass
reading times, right-bounded time, regression path duration, and total
reading time. Means are reported in Tables 4 and 5.
Similar to Experiments 1 and 2, we divided the target sentence into 4
regions for analysis, illustrated by example (25). Region 1 is the conclusion
marker (dus, blijkbaar or waarschijnlijk) and Region 2 consists of the first
two subsequent words, in most cases an auxiliary and the subject. Region 4
comprises the final words of the sentence and contains the key information
to construct the causal relation. Region 3 consists of all the words in between
regions 2 and 4.
(25) |Dus / Blijkbaar / Waarschijnlijk 1 | had hij 2 | te veel 3 | alcohol
gedronken 4 |
|Dus / Blijkbaar / Waarschijnlijk 1 | had he 2| too much 3 | alcohol drank 4 |
We performed LMER analyses (Baayen, 2008) on the data, with
subjects and items as crossed random effects. We modeled the fixed effect of
Scenario (alternative causes vs. no alternative causes), Marker (dus vs.
blijkbaar vs. waarschijnlijk) and the interaction between these factors.
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling was used to estimate p values
(Baayen, 2008).
There were no significant interactions between Marker and Scenario,
we obtained only main effects. We will first discuss the main effects of
Scenario and then go into the main effects of Marker throughout the target
sentence. The results at Region 1, containing the different markers, will not
be discussed because the differences in length and frequency make any
effects difficult to interpret.
Main effects of Scenario
At Region 4, the final words of the conclusion, a main effect of Scenario was
observed in regression path duration. This region was processed slower in
scenarios with alternative causes compared to scenarios without alternative
causes (ß=0.128, SE=0.036, t=3.51, p(MCMC)<.001). The same effect also
appeared in total time at Region 3 (ß=0.109, SE=0.025, t=4.29,
p(MCMC)<.001).
Main effects of Marker
At Region 2, the words following the markers, reading times were longer in
dus conclusions compared to blijkbaar and waarschijnlijk conclusions. This
effect appeared in first pass reading times (dus vs. blijkbaar: ß=0.074,
SE=0.023, t=3.22, p(MCMC)<.01; dus vs. waarschijnlijk: ß=0.071, SE=0.022,
t=3.16, p(MCMC)<.01), right-bounded time (dus vs. blijkbaar: ß=0.084,
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|119
SE=0.023, t=3.58, p(MCMC)<.001; dus vs. waarschijnlijk: ß=0.092,
SE=0.023, t=3.98, p(MCMC)<.001), regression path duration. (dus vs.
blijkbaar: ß=0.064, SE=0.026, t=2.43, p(MCMC)<.05; dus vs. waarschijnlijk:
ß=0.104, SE=0.026, t=4.02, p(MCMC)<.001) and total time (dus vs. blijkbaar:
ß=0.378, SE=0.033, t=11.58, p(MCMC)<.001; dus vs. waarschijnlijk: ß=0.381,
SE=0.033, t=11.57, p(MCMC)<.001).
Region 3, the prefinal region, produced a slightly different pattern of
results. We observed longer first pass reading times in waarschijnlijk
compared to dus conclusions (ß=0.064, SE=0.027, t=2.37, p(MCMC)<.05) and
longer reading times in right-bounded time for waarschijnlijk compared to
blijkbaar conclusions (ß=0.083, SE=0.029, t=2.91, p(MCMC)<.01). At this
region, we also obtained a longer regression path duration for dus and
waarschijnlijk compared to blijkbaar (dus vs. blijkbaar: ß=0.090, SE=0.035,
t=2.56, p(MCMC)<.01; waarschijnlijk vs. blijkbaar: ß=0.094, SE=0.035,
t=2.69, p(MCMC)<.01) and a longer total time for dus compared to blijkbaar
conclusions (ß=-0.091, SE=0.031, t=2.93, p(MCMC)<.01)
At Region 4, the final words of the conclusion, we observed a similar
pattern as in Region 2. Dus conclusions led to longer reading times in
regression path duration compared to waarschijnlijk (ß=0.169, SE=0.045,
t=3.79, p(MCMC)<.001) and blijkbaar (ß=0.157, SE=0.044, t=3.54,
p(MCMC)<.001) conclusions.
5.5.6 Discussion
The purpose of Experiment 3 was to test whether the notion of speaker
involvement explains the processing cost of subjective causal connectives and
relations. In order to answer this question we compared the processing
patterns of dus and blijkbaar to the epistemic modal adverb waarschijnlijk.
We proposed that dus encodes a high level of speaker involvement whereas
blijkbaar encodes a low level of speaker involvement, and waarschijnlijk
takes up an intermediate position.
The pattern of results that arises from Experiment 3 is consistent with
this division along the lines of speaker involvement. As in Experiment 2, dus
led to a disadvantage in processing time compared to blijkbaar at the entire
second clause (Regions 2, 3, and 4). Compared to waarschijnlijk, dus led to
longer processing times at Regions 2 and 4. At Region 3, however, there was
no difference between dus and waarschijnlijk, except for a single measure.
First pass reading times at this region were longer for waarschijnlijk,
compared to dus. At this region waarschijnlijk also led to longer processing
times compared to blijkbaar in first pass reading times and in regression
path duration. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the differences in right-bounded
time and regression path duration between blijkbaar on the one hand, and
dus and waarschijnlijk on the other.
120|Chapter 5
45
40
Difference in fixation time
35
30
25
dus
20
waarschijnlijk
15
10
5
0
-5
2
3
4
Region
Figure 1. Difference in right-bounded time for dus and waarschijnlijk
compared to blijkbaar per region.
200
Difference in fixation time
150
100
dus
waarschijnlijk
50
0
-50
2
3
4
Region
Figure 2. Difference in regression path duration for dus and waarschijnlijk
compared to blijkbaar per region.
These results suggest that readers are sensitive to the degree of speaker
involvement encoded in waarschijnlijk. However, this effect arises later
compared to dus. Note that this is the same position at which we observed
the effects of blijkbaar compared to implicit relations in Experiment 2.
Hence, both adverbs affect online processing at the same position in the
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|121
sentence, which suggests that this difference in comparison with connectives
may be related to their grammatical properties. Therefore, the delayed
effects could be explained by the fact that waarschijnlijk and blijkbaar,
which are both non-connective adverbs, do not have the same integrative
function as connectives. We will come back to this in the general discussion.
We propose that the processing slowdown induced by waarschijnlijk is a
reflection of speaker involvement. But before we discuss this in more detail,
we need to consider an alternative explanation for this effect. Being a modal,
waarschijnlijk provides information about the probability of the following
proposition. By using waarschijnlijk, the speaker indicates that this
probability is high, yet there is room for an alternative, there is doubt. With
respect to the ARGUMENT-CLAIM relations manipulated in the present
study, in which reasoning occurs from effect to cause, waarschijnlijk implies
that there are alternative causes. It could therefore be argued that the
processing effect of waarschijnlijk is caused by the fact that readers have to
activate these alternatives.
We hypothesized that if language users make use of this information
during online processing, waarschijnlijk should cause problems when the
presented conclusion is necessarily true. Therefore, in relations such as (26),
in which there really are no alternative causes, readers are expected to
experience processing difficulties towards the end of the second clause. At
this point in the sentence, the relation can be fully constructed and
evaluated against the world knowledge of the reader.
(26) Met Oud en Nieuw ging Fabio naar een smartlappenfeest in Den Haag. De
volgende ochtend kwam hij stomdronken thuis. Waarschijnlijk had hij te veel
alcohol gedronken.
On New Year’s Eve Fabio went to a tearjerker festival in The Hague. The next
morning he came home completely Waarschijnlijk drunk. he drank too much
alcohol.
Conversely, dus and blijkbaar presuppose that there are no alternative
causes; there is no doubt. The conclusions in the second clause are presented
as the only sensible ones. We therefore hypothesized that dus and blijkbaar
should lead to processing difficulties in relations with many alternative
causes, such as (27).
(27) Gisteravond ging Fabio naar een verjaardagsfeestje. Uren later kwam hij met
een taxi naar huis. Blijkbaar / Dus had hij te veel alcohol gedronken.
Yesterday night Fabio went to a birthday party. Hours later he came home in a
taxi. Dus / Blijkbaar he drank too much alcohol.
122|Chapter 5
The results from Experiment 3 reveal that the presence of alternative
causes does not interact with the type of marker used in ARGUMENTCLAIM relations. Contrary to what we hypothesized, waarschijnlijk did not
cause any processing difficulties in conclusions that are necessarily true;
neither did it facilitate the processing of conclusions that are questionable.
These results suggest that the presence of waarschijnlijk does not lead to the
activation of alternative causes. Rather, it seems that what is most
informative about waarschijnlijk is not the notion of doubt, but the high
probability of the following proposition.
The conclusions presented in scenarios without alternative causes are
highly likely, and therefore compatible with the probability indicated by
waarschijnlijk. Conclusions in scenarios with alternative causes, however,
are necessarily less probable because there are alternatives. This is
confirmed by the results from our offline judgment task, which revealed an
overall lower probability score for the conclusion in causal scenarios with
alternative causes compared to scenarios without alternative causes. The
online data reveal that our participants were sensitive to these differences.
Overall, readers took more time to process conclusions in scenarios with
alternative causes compared to scenarios without alternative causes. This
mainly resulted in a longer regression path duration at the final text region
and in the total reading times of the entire conclusion. The position of these
effects, and the measures in which they arise, suggests that readers take
more time rereading conclusions in scenarios with alternative causes.
However, readers did not differentiate between dus, blijkbaar and
waarschijnlijk when they evaluated the conclusions against their world
knowledge. This suggests that the notion of doubt, implied by waarschijnlijk,
does not affect the processing and evaluation of ARGUMENT-CLAIM
relations. These observations therefore support our interpretation of the
processing slowdown induced by waarschijnlijk as a reflection of speaker
involvement rather than doubt.
5.6 General Discussion
The three eye-tracking experiments reported in this study contribute to our
understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying the complexity of
subjective causal relations. Previous studies in English and Dutch have
reported longer processing times for subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT
compared to objective CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations (Chapter 3-4;
Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997).
The main difference between English and Dutch is that in English, the
connective because can be used in both subjective and objective relations
whereas Dutch has two connectives, want and omdat, that specialize in
subjective and objective causal relations respectively. Therefore, in Dutch the
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|123
effect of subjectivity arises immediately after the subjective connective want
is processed.
On the basis of these studies, however, it remained unclear whether the
effect of subjectivity is to be attributed to a reanalysis of S1 as a conclusion,
or a psychological event (Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997), or whether
it arises because the representation of these conclusions is inherently
complex. Since backward and forward causal relations are considered to be
conceptually similar (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2012), we tried to
disentangle these factors by investigating the online processing of forward
subjective and objective causal relations marked by dus and daarom
respectively. The advantage of this setup is that a conclusion marked by dus
does not involve a reanalysis of the conclusion because the conclusion follows
the connective.
Experiment 1 revealed that, similar to the processing asymmetry
between want and omdat, the connective dus leads to longer processing
times compared to daarom at the immediately following words. These results
reveal that the delay in processing times for subjective causal relations
compared to objective causal relations cannot be explained in terms of a
reanalysis of the first clause of those relations as claims or conclusions.
Instead, our data suggest that subjective relations are inherently more
complex.
Experiments 2 and 3 shed more light on this complexity by focusing on
different pieces of information that are encoded in dus. We hypothesized that
the complexity of subjective causal relations may consist of at least two
components. Given that claims and conclusions are products of reasoning, it
may be the case that the cognitive complexity associated with subjective
causality is related to this underlying process. Reasoning can be defined as a
simulation of the world (Johnson-Laird, 2010). This process involves the
construction of different mental models compatible with a situation in the
real world, on the basis of which a conclusion is drawn. In addition,
conclusions as part of subjective causal relations entail speaker involvement
(Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Pit,
2003); a thinking subject takes responsibility for the presented conclusion.
This subject can be the speaker, author, or any third person character whose
reasoning is presented. For sake of convenience we will continue to refer to
the speaker in this discussion.
Experiment 2 revealed that the cognitive complexity of subjective causal
relations is not explained by the simple fact that these relations involve
reasoning. Similar to dus, the inferential evidential adverb blijkbaar relies
on reasoning, yet this adverb does not lead to longer processing times
compared to the objective connective daarom. The results of Experiment 3, in
which we compared the processing of dus and blijkbaar to the modal adverb
waarschijnlijk, suggest that it is the relative degree of speaker involvement
124|Chapter 5
in the presented conclusions that determines the processing complexity of
subjective causal relations. We argued that dus conclusions are directly
linked to the mind of the speaker. As such, dus signals that this mind is to be
taken into account in the representation (and possibly the evaluation) of
those conclusions. Blijkbaar, on the other hand, emphasizes that the
speaker’s personal beliefs and opinions are not involved in the conclusion; it
signals a certain distance from the speaker’s mental world. It implies that
there is perceptible evidence in the world (Giannakidou, 2011; Nuyts, 2001)
that forces the speaker to draw that particular conclusion. As such, the
speaker does not take responsibility for that conclusion. We hypothesized
that if speaker involvement is a determining factor underlying the longer
processing times for dus compared to daarom and blijkbaar, other sentence
modifiers that also signal speaker involvement, such as the modal adverb
waarschijnlijk, should have a similar effect.
Waarschijnlijk provides the speaker’s evaluation of the probability of
the following proposition. Yet, modals such as waarschijnlijk can also
represent evaluations that belong to people other than the speaker (e.g.
Ernst 2009, p.540; Lyons, 1977; Nuyts, 2001, 2004). Also, by using
waarschijnlijk, the speaker might not fully commit him or herself to the
truthfulness of the proposition: he or she takes a safe distance. We therefore
proposed that waarschijnlijk signals more speaker involvement than
blijkbaar, but less speaker involvement than dus. The processing effects
observed in Experiment 3 are consistent with this division along the lines of
speaker involvement. We observed longer processing times after
waarschijnlijk compared to blijkbaar, yet dus led to even longer processing
times.
The notion of subjectivity as speaker involvement is not new. This term
already been used to capture the difference between subjective and objective
causal relations (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001, Pander Maat & Sanders,
2000, 2001). In these studies, speaker involvement has been described as
“…referring to the degree to which the present speaker is implicitly involved
in the construal of the relation” (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001, p.214), or
“the involvement of the speaker in the interpretation of the relation” (Pander
Maat & Sanders, 2001, p.253). Note, however, that the original definitions
are somewhat misleading because they suggest that speaker involvement
only concerns involvement of the speaker. Yet, the processing data discussed
in the current study reveal that third person mental states (John thinks,
according to John) have the same ability to cancel out the processing effects
in the second clause of subjective causal relations as epistemic modals
(perhaps, maybe), which implicitly refer to the speaker. This confirms that
speaker involvement concerns any character in a discourse whose reasoning
is presented (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009). Pander Maat and
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|125
Degand also refer to involvement of the concluder, who by default is the
speaker himself (2001, p.221).
In addition, according to the original definitions, speaker involvement is
conceived as a property of relations. However, the experimental evidence on
backward causal relations suggests that it is not necessarily the relational
aspect that causes processing problems, but the link between the proposition
comprising the conclusion and the mind of the thinking subject. The effects
of subjectivity disappear when the first clause of the subjective causal
relation is marked by phrases such as perhaps and according to John. These
phrases do not build causal relations between two segments, but signal the
fact that a thinking subject is responsible for the proposition at hand. This
suggests that speaker involvement, as an explanation for the observed
processing effects in subjective causal relations, may be a property of
propositions rather than relations.
At this point we can only speculate about why speaker involvement
should come at a processing cost. From a communicative perspective it seems
relevant to know whether an utterance conveys a description of a situation in
the real world, or whether it is derived from the mental world of a thinking
subject. Cues of speaker involvement could therefore function as a signal to
the reader, or listener, that the information should be interpreted against
the background of this mental world. As discussed in the introduction of this
chapter, the construction of the representation of this mental world could in
itself be cognitively demanding. However, the increased processing load
could also be explained by the placement of information within the
representation of the relevant mind, the maintenance of that representation
next to the representation of the real world, or by the fact that this
information bound to specific mental worlds requires a more careful
evaluation on behalf of the reader. In Chapter 6 we will further elaborate on
these processes.
It is remarkable that the effect of subjectivity induced by causal
connectives has a different time course than non-connective adverbs: the
disadvantage in processing time induced by dus surfaced at the region
immediately following the connective whereas the effect of waarschijnlijk
surfaced one segment later. This pattern of results reveals that the
information about the relative degree of speaker involvement encoded in
these devices is put to use at different positions in the sentence. One
explanation for this difference is that connectives may induce immediate
effects of subjectivity because they have an integration function (Noordman
& Vonk, 1997) whereas non-connective adverbs do not.
There is some evidence from neuro-linguistic experiments that suggests
that connectives and non-connective adverbs differently affect online
processing. German ERP studies by Brehm (2005) revealed that connectives
126|Chapter 5
lead to a Late Anterior Negativity (LAN) at the immediately following word
compared to non-connective adverbs. This effect was interpreted as reflecting
the immediate integration of the first sentence as the external argument of a
two-place relation. Indeed, while connectives by default establish links
between two pieces of text, non-connective adverbs, such as waarschijnlijk
and blijkbaar, do not necessarily do this. They can easily be used out of the
blue, without any linguistic context, in single declarative sentences (28a)
(29a), whereas this is impossible or at the very least more difficult for dus or
daarom (28b) (29b)3.
(28) a. Waarschijnlijk ga ik zondag naar het strand.
Waarschijnlijk I’m going to the beach tomorrow.
b. ?Dus / Daarom ga ik zondag naar het strand.
? Dus I’m going to the beach tomorrow.
(29) (speaker looks at his watch)
a. Oeps, blijkbaar is het niet gelukt om op tijd te komen.
Oops, blijkbaar I failed to be in time.
b. ?Oeps, dus / daarom is het niet niet gelukt om op tijd tekomen.
? Oops, dus / daarom I failed to be in time.
Our data support the idea that adverbs such as waarschijnlijk and
blijkbaar have a different function in online processing compared to
connectives. The effect of subjectivity induced by waarschijnlijk in
Experiment 3 surfaced later compared to the connective dus. Crucially, this
was the same position in the sentence where we observed the processing
delay in reading times for blijkbaar compared to implicit relations in
Experiment 2. This pattern of results suggests that information encoded in
adverbs that influences the status of the entire clause may not be put to use
immediately when they are encountered. Because non-connective adverbs do
not require the construction of a relation between two clauses, it could be the
case that interclausal integration starts only when the content of the second
clauses reveals that a relation between S1 and S2 needs to be established. At
this point in the sentence, information about the status of clauses as
conclusions derived by reasoning (in case of blijkbaar) or as conclusions that
entail speaker involvement (in case of waarschijnlijk) could become relevant.
Conversely, because causal connectives trigger the immediate integration of
two clauses, information about the degree of subjectivity underlying one of
these clauses has an immediate effect in online processing.
Further results reported in this study support the hypothesis that
causal connectives lead to a more active integration process compared to
3 It is remarkable that dus can be used in these situations if it functions as a
discourse marker, with a specific intonation pattern and followed by a pause.
The processing complexity of subjective causal relations|127
adverbs. Recall that in Experiment 1, dus leads to longer processing times
compared to daarom at the first words following the connectives, but not at
later regions, as compared to waarschijnlijk and blijkbaar in Experiments 2
and 3. This suggests that connectives induce longer processing times at the
end of the causal relation compared to adverbs. This effect is reminiscent of
the ‘inference effect’ (Cozijn, 2000) or ‘world knowledge integration’ effect
(Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011) attributed to causal connectives, as
discussed in Chapter 2.
In addition, the data from Experiment 2 shed new light on the
integration effect associated with causal connectives. A typical finding in
experimental studies is that causal connectives, and other signals of
discourse structure, speed up the processing of the beginning of the second
clause (e.g. Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Haberlandt, 1982; Millis &
Just, 1994; Sanders & Noordman, 2000). Our results suggest that this
facilitation does not arise when 1) the relation expressed by the connective
violates the causal expectations elicited by S1 (daarom vs. implicit relations)
and 2) the relation expressed by the connective is more complex, as a result
of speaker involvement, than the relation established without a connective
(dus vs. implicit relations). These results reveal that interclausal integration
is not a static operation, but a complex process that interacts with factors
such as discourse expectations and subjectivity. More research is required to
fully understand the dynamic process of interclausal integration and how it
is reflected in online processing.
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Coherence relations and their linguistic markers play a significant role in
the study of discourse processing and comprehension. A number of studies
have shown that the presence of coherence markers, such as connectives, in a
text facilitates the construction of a coherent representation. That is, these
markers specify the coherence relations that need to be constructed between
text segments. This information leads to faster processing times of the
information following a connective (Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011;
Haberlandt, 1982; Kamalski, Sanders, Lentz, & Zwaan, 2008; Millis,
Golding, & Barker, 1995; Millis & Just, 1994; Noordman & Vonk, 1997;
Sanders & Noordman, 2000), and to a better a text representation (Degand &
Sanders, 2002; Hyönä & Lorch, 2004; Loman & Mayer, 1983; Lorch & Lorch,
1986; McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; Meyer, Brandt, &
Bluth, 1980; Millis & Just, 1994; Sanders, Land, & Mulder, 2007). Therefore,
connectives are proposed to function as processing instructions (e.g. Britton,
1994; Gernsbacher, 1997; Murray, 1995; Sanders & Spooren, 2007). The
main purpose of the current study was to get a better understanding of the
type of information that is encoded in these processing instructions, and how
this information affects online discourse processing. More specifically, we
focused on causal connectives and investigated whether they provide cues
about the fine-grained distinction between subjective and objective causal
relations (or epistemic and content relations in terms of Sweetser (1990)).
This question is relevant for two reasons. First, in many languages of the
world causal connectives seem to specialize in either subjective or objective
causal relations (Stukker & Sanders, 2012). And second, subjective causal
relations are assumed to be more complex than objective causal relations
(Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992). This complexity is associated with
longer processing times in reading experiments (Noordman & De Blijzer,
2000; Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey,
1997).
In the current dissertation we have investigated these issues from a
processing perspective, by focusing on Dutch forward and backward causal
connectives (dus versus daarom and want versus omdat). In this final
chapter we will discuss our main findings and explore ideas for future
research.
6.1 Summary of results
6.1.1 Causal connectives as processing instructions
130|Chapter 6
Causal connectives are assumed to provide processing instructions about the
causal relation that needs to be constructed between the pieces of text. So
far, no other studies have investigated whether such processing instructions
are to be taken as general instructions about the causal nature of the
coherence relation, or whether they also convey subtle information about the
degree of subjectivity of that relation.
Previous research on the processing of English subjective and objective
causal relations (Traxler, Bybee, & Pickering, 1997; Traxler, Sanford, Aked,
& Moxey, 1997) focused on subjectivity as a property of relations, and
compared the processing of subjective and objective causal relations that
were marked by the same connective. Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders, and Zwaan
(2008) investigated the effects of various subjective and objective connectives
and cue phrases on discourse processing by comparing explicit versus
implicit versions of a text. In the current study, however, we directly
compared the processing effects of subjective and objective connectives and
investigated this matter in a series of eye-tracking experiments. While the
presence of a causal connective is generally assumed to speed up processing
times, we found that this is not the case for subjective causal connectives.
In Chapter 2 we first explored whether the notion of subjectivity could
play a role in the processing of causal connectives, and started out by
focusing on the Dutch causal connectives want and omdat in comparison to
the English connective because. The latter is used to mark both subjective
and objective causal relations in English, and is therefore underspecified
with respect to the degree of the subjectivity of the causal relation it marks
(e.g. Couper- Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993; Knott & Dale, 1994; Knott &
Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990). Conversely, the Dutch connective want is a
prototypical marker of backward subjective causal relations, while omdat is
a prototypical marker of backward objective causal relations (Degand &
Pander Maat, 2003; Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009; submitted;
Verhagen, 2005). In addition, there is a syntactic difference between these
two connectives: want is a coordinating connective, whereas omdat
introduces a subordinate clause. As we will show later on in this chapter,
this syntactic difference cannot be used as a plausible explanation for the
effects obtained in our experiments. Given that want, but not omdat, can be
used in all relational contexts in which because occurs, we formulated the
following research question:
RQ1
Is the Dutch connective want comparable to English because with
respect to its processing instructions?
We tested this question in an eye-tracking experiment in which we used
a Dutch version of the items from Traxler, Bybee, and Pickering (1997) in
which the connective want marked both subjective (1b) and objective (1a)
Conclusion|131
causal relations. Note that these relations are perfectly fine in Dutch when
they are both marked by want.
(1)
a. Hanneke was buiten adem, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
In the original English study subjective causals with because were
found to lead to longer processing times compared to objective causals with
because. This effect arose right before the end of the second clause. The
position of this effect is fully compatible with the assumption that because
does not provide information about the degree of subjectivity of the causal
relation it marks. Language users can therefore only derive this information
from the propositional content, which explains why the effects of subjectivity
arise relatively late in the second sentence. We found that when want marks
both subjective and objective causal relations in Dutch, there is no processing
difference between subjective and objective causal relations. This suggests
that want and because are not similar in terms of their processing
instructions. One possible explanation for this (null) effect put forward in
Chapter 2 is that want, being a prototypical marker of subjective causal
relations, induces a subjective representation of (inherently) objective
relations such as (1a). As such, readers may treat S1 as a claim (followed by
an argument) rather than a consequence (followed by a cause). In Chapter 3
we verified this explanation by testing the following research question:
RQ2
Is the distinction between subjective and objective causal
connectives, as distinguished in corpus-based studies on the
semantic-pragmatic characteristics of connectives, relevant in
online processing? And if so, what is the time course of this effect?
In Experiment 1 we used the same materials as in Chapter 2, with the
only difference that the objective connective omdat marks the objective
condition (2).
(2)
Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
[Hanneke was out of breath, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail
get.]
Hanneke was out of breath, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
132|Chapter 6
This time we did replicate the delay in processing times for subjective
compared to objective causal relations as observed in English with Dutch
subjective and objective causal relations marked by want and omdat
respectively. In addition, we found that the slowing down effect in Dutch
arises much earlier, directly at and after the connective want. At this point
in the sentence, readers do not yet have enough information to construct the
causal relation from the content, which shows that the effect must be caused
by the semantic-pragmatic properties of the connectives. The results from
Experiment 2 confirmed that this effect is a reflection of the difference
between want and omdat in terms of subjectivity. We found that the
processing delay in subjective causal relations disappears when the reader is
explicitly cued about the status of S1 as a claim, or conclusion, by means of
mental state predicates such as volgens Peter (according to Peter) (3).
(3)
Volgens Peter had Hanneke haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de
post te halen.
[According to Peter Hanneke was in a hurry, want she was four stairs ran
down to the mail get.]
According to Peter, Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs
to get the mail.
These results replicate earlier studies in English (Traxler, Sandford,
Aked & Moxey, 1997), and reveal that the relative complexity of subjective
causal relations in English and Dutch has to be related to the representation
of S1 as someone’s reasoning, or claim, rather than an actual event in the
world. This finding allows us to exclude an alternative explanation for the
processing asymmetry between want and omdat observed in Experiment 2 in
terms of their syntactic properties, that is, as coordinating or subordinating
connective. The addition of according to Peter to the first clause of a want
relation does not alter the syntactic properties of want, yet does eliminate
the processing asymmetry between want and omdat. Therefore this
asymmetry cannot be explained by the syntactic differences between the two
connectives. In addition, our results illustrate that the construction of the
subjective representation, as triggered by subjective connectives such as
want, comes at a processing cost. If this representation is already explicitly
cued in the first clause of the causal relation, the rest of the subjective
relation is processed smoothly. On the basis of these results we proposed that
want triggers the representation of a subjective CLAIM-ARGUMENT
relation, whereas omdat triggers the representation of an objective
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation.
Experiment 3 in Chapter 3 provides further evidence that omdat
triggers the representation of a CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relation. In this
Conclusion|133
experiment we used both want and omdat in subjective relations that do not
make sense with a CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE interpretation such as (4).
(4)
#Hanneke had haast, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te halen.
[Hanneke was in a hurry, omdat she four stairs was ran down to the mail get.]
Hanneke was in a hurry, because she ran down four stairs to get the mail.
We found that in sentences like these, omdat initially leads to faster
processing times compared to want. However, at the end of the second
clause, at which point it becomes clear that the relation makes no sense,
omdat leads to a discourse garden path effect, which is reflected in longer
processing times.
Taken together, our results provide a quite detailed picture of the role
causal connectives play in the dynamic process of discourse comprehension.
We found that causal connectives do more than inform the reader that a
causal coherence relation needs to be constructed between two pieces of text.
On top of that they provide information about the relative degree of
subjectivity of that causal relation. On the basis of our results we conclude
that the Dutch causal connectives want and omdat instruct the reader to
construct either a subjective, or an objective representation of the causal
relation. Crucially, this information is put to use immediately when the
connectives are processed, as becomes apparent from the immediate
processing effects reported throughout this dissertation. This suggests that
when readers encounter the connective want, the previous segment is
immediately interpreted as a claim or conclusion. These results are in line
with the assumption that coherence markers have an immediate influence
on the interpretation of the unfolding discourse (e.g. Cozijn Noordman, &
Vonk, 2011; Kehler, Kertz, Rohde, & Elman, 2008; Koornneef & Sanders, to
appear; Noordman & Vonk, 1997).
6.1.2 Why are subjective causal relations complex?
A central question in this study concerns the source of the processing
complexity of subjective causal relations. Why should these relations lead to
longer processing times compared to objective causal relations? In Chapter 2
we discussed two different explanations for this effect that have been
proposed in the literature so far, which we will summarize here.
According to Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997), the processing
delay in English subjective compared to objective causal relations is caused
by the fact “that it has not been made obvious enough that A [the first
clause] is a psychological event” (p.89). They argue that the default
interpretation of the first clause of a causal relation is an objective
interpretation of the state of affairs in the world. Therefore, the processing
effects associated with subjective causal relations surface because “the text
134|Chapter 6
does not signal that a less preferred [subjective] interpretation should be
adopted” (p.89). Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey therefore interpret the
processing effect of subjective causal relations in terms of a reanalysis,
similar to the garden path effects associated with reduced relatives and
reduced complements (Ferreira & Henderson, 1990; Trueswell, Tanenhaus,
& Garnsey, 1994; Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Kello, 1993).
Noordman and De Blijzer (2000), on the other hand, argue that the
comprehension of causal relations requires a match between the causal
relation and a model of the world. Objective causal relations directly reflect
real-world causality. Subjective relations, however, are more complex
because they less directly reflect real-world causality. These relations involve
a line of reasoning on the basis of real-world causality, and the reader has to
check the possibility of that underlying causal relation in the world.
The results obtained in our experiments shed new light on the
complexity of subjective causal relations, and allow us to discard both these
explanations. The idea that subjective causal relations are more difficult to
process than objective causals because they involve a validation of the
underlying causal relation, as Noordman and De Blijzer propose, is
incompatible with the early effects of subjectivity that surfaced directly after
the subjective connective want. After all, such a checking procedure is
expected to play a role towards the end of the relation, because the
underlying relation cannot be evaluated before it has become clear what the
actual content of that relation is.
In Chapters 4 and 5 we further investigated the source of the processing
complexity of subjective causal relations. In Chapter 4 we used insights from
Mental Spaces Theory (Fauconnier, 1994), which we discuss below, to
investigate the online processing of subjective causal relations. The central
research question in this chapter was:
RQ3
Is the processing complexity of subjective causal relations related
to readers’ cognitive processes involved in the setup of the mental
space of the thinking subject?
In Chapter 5 we started out by testing the reanalysis account,
formulated in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey (1997). The first research
question formulated in this chapter was:
RQ4
Is the processing complexity of subjective compared to objective
causal relations explained by a reanalysis of S1 as a claim?
For sthe ake of argumentation, we will first discuss the latter research
question before we will go into research question 3. So far, all preceding
studies on subjective causal relations involved CLAIM-ARGUMENT versus
Conclusion|135
CONSEQUENCE-CAUSE relations. Therefore, it was impossible to
determine whether the subjectivity effect was related to a reanalysis of S1 as
a claim or conclusion, or to the inherent complexity of the processing and
representation of CLAIM-ARGUMENT relations. The results from
Experiment 1 in Chapter 5, however, revealed that the forward subjective
connective dus (5a) also leads to an immediate processing slowdown
compared to daarom (5b).
(5)
a. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Dus zit hij al uren te studeren.
Tim has a test tomorrow. So he has been studying for hours.
b. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Daarom zit hij al uren te studeren.
Tim has a test tomorrow. That is why he has been studying for hours.
Similarly to the distinction between want and omdat, speakers of Dutch
distinguish between the connectives dus and daarom to express forward
subjective and objective causal relations (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001;
Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Stukker, 2005; Verhagen, 2005). Since
the conclusion follows the connective in forward subjective causal relations
marked by dus, the results from this experiment cannot be explained in
terms of a reanalysis of the conclusion triggered by the connective. These
results provide evidence against the reanalysis account by Traxler, Sanford,
Aked, & Moxey (1997) and suggest that there has to be a different
explanation for the complexity of subjective causal relations. Given that the
same immediate processing asymmetry between subjective and objective
causal connectives arises in forward and backward connectives, we proposed
that the cognitive operations involved in the processing and representation of
subjective claims or conclusions are inherently complex. The next big
question is then: why should the representation of conclusions increase the
processing load?
We proposed that this effect is related to the representation of the
internal world of the thinking subject, be it the speaker, author, or a
character in the discourse whose reasoning is presented, to which the
utterance relates. Conclusions as part of subjective relations entail speaker
involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000,
2001; Pit, 2003); they involve a thinking subject who takes responsibility for
uttering the presented conclusion. Therefore the conclusion needs to be
interpreted against the background of the mental world of this thinking
subject. In Chapters 4 and 5 we have systematically investigated how this
process relates to the processing delay in subjective compared to objective
causal relations. In Chapter 4 we investigated this issue from a mental
spaces perspective in which we focused on research question 3, repeated
below.
136|Chapter 6
RQ3
Is the processing complexity of subjective causal relations related
to readers’ cognitive processes involved in the setup of the mental
space of the thinking subject?
Mental Spaces Theory (MST) (Fauconnier, 1994) is a cognitive linguistic
framework that has been used to describe the distinction between subjective
and objective causal relations (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009, 2012;
Verhagen, 2005). The mental space configuration of subjective causal
relations has been characterized as more complex than the configuration of
objective relations because the latter involves the setup of the mental space
of the thinking subject, and interpreting the conclusion within this mental
space (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser (2009, 2012). In addition, the
connectives want and dus, but not omdat or daarom, are assumed to function
as space builders that cue the construction of new mental spaces (Verhagen,
2005). In Chapter 4 we investigated whether other space builders in the
context preceding the causal relations have the ability to cancel out the
processing asymmetry between want and omdat. In order to answer this
question, we conducted two eye-tracking experiments in which we
manipulated one-paragraph long news texts with embedded subjective (6a)
and objective (6b) causal relations marked by want and omdat respectively.
(6)
a. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag want slechts de helft haalt een
voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is low want only half of them pass the maths and
language tests.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag omdat slechts de helft van de
onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is low omdat only half of the teaching hours are
dedicated to maths and language.
Unlike the Experiments in Chapters 2 and 3, the first clause of both
relations in this experiment was exactly the same, including the first text
region following the connectives (‘slechts the helft’). We created subjective
contexts by adding space builders in the form of evaluative adverbs and
adjectives, such as terrible, ridiculously, and luckily, to the title and the
context preceding the causal relations. These markers make clear that the
text is presented from the author’s perspective. An offline judgment task
showed that this manipulation of speaker involvement was successful, as
became apparent from judgments about the author’s intentions. In addition,
the presence of evaluative markers led to an increase in processing times of
subsequent information. These results indicate that readers were sensitive to
our manipulation of space builders. However, this manipulation had no
influence on the processing asymmetry between want and omdat. We found
similar results to those reported in Chapter 3: want led to longer processing
Conclusion|137
times compared to omdat. Again, this effect already surfaced at the
connectives and at the immediately following text region. These results
suggest that the asymmetry between want and omdat is not explained by the
necessity of setting up the new mental space of the thinking subject.
In Experiment 2 we placed the same (non-sentence modifying)
evaluative adverbs within S1 of the causal relations (7).
(7)
a. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag want slechts de helft
haalt een voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is ridiculously low want only half of them pass
the maths and language tests.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag omdat slechts de
helft van de onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
The students' current skill level is ridiculously low omdat only half of the
teaching hours are dedicated to maths and language.
Again, we found no effect of space builders on the processing difference
between want versus omdat. As discussed earlier, explicit signals such as
John thinks and perhaps, that modify the status of S1 as a whole as a claim
or conclusion (8), cancel out the delay in processing times for subjective
compared to objective causal relations. The evaluative adverbs and adjectives
manipulated in Experiment 2 convey the author’s emotional involvement, yet
they do not modify the entire sentence. If used as in (9) they only modify a
subpart of S1. Given that these markers do not have the ability to cancel out
the processing effect in subjective causal relations, we conclude that this
effect must be related to the representation of one of the clauses as a whole
as someone’s conclusion or claim.
(8)
Volgens Jan / Waarschijnlijk [is het huidige niveau van de studenten laag]
According to John / Probably [the students' current skill level is low]
Het huidige niveau van de studenten is [belachelijk [laag]]
The students' current skill level is [ridiculousy [low]]
(9)
In Chapter 5 we investigated why the representation of such
conclusions is resource consuming. Given that claims, or conclusions, are
products of reasoning, we hypothesized that the cognitive complexity
associated with subjective causality could also be related to this underlying
process. Reasoning can be defined as a “simulation of the world fleshed out
with our knowledge” (Johnson-Laird, 2010, p.1). It involves the construction
of a set of possible mental models compatible with a given situation in the
world, on the basis of which a conclusion is derived. It may therefore be the
case that, besides the fact that subjective causal relations are linked to the
internal world of the thinking subject (they entail speaker involvement), they
138|Chapter 6
also invite the reader, or listener, to follow the underlying steps of reasoning,
which increases the processing load. This hypothesis led to the following
research question:
RQ 5
Can we distinguish between reasoning and speaker involvement in
order to explain the inherent processing complexity of subjective
compared to objective causal relations?
This question has been addressed in Experiments 2 and 3 of Chapter 5.
In Experiment 2 we focused on the reasoning aspect of subjective causal
relations and compared the processing of the forward subjective connective
dus to the inferential evidential adverb blijkbaar. Similar to dus, blijkbaar
identifies evidence based upon reasoning (Van der Auwera & Plungian,
1998). Yet, unlike dus, evidentials such as blijkbaar rely on objective
evidence in the world, outside the speaker’s beliefs (Giannakidou, 2011;
Nuyts, 2001); blijkbaar signals a certain distance from the speaker’s mental
world. We found that blijkbaar does not lead to an immediate disadvantage
in processing time compared to daarom. These results demonstrate that the
processing effect associated with subjective causal relations cannot be
explained by the fact that language users have difficulties in processing
conclusions derived by reasoning per se.
In Experiment 3 we tested whether this effect can be explained by
differences in terms of speaker involvement, by including the epistemic modal
adverb waarschijnlijk. This adverb provides the speaker’s evaluation of the
probability of the following proposition, but at the same time, the speaker
does not fully commit him or herself to the truthfulness of that proposition:
he or she takes a safe distance (Nuyts, 2004, p.61). We therefore proposed
that dus encodes a high degree of speaker involvement whereas blijkbaar
encodes a low degree of speaker involvement. Waarschijnlijk takes up an
intermediate position (10).
(10) Degree of speaker involvement
dus > waarschijnlijk > blijkbaar
The results from Experiment 3 are consistent with this division along
the lines of speaker involvement. We observed longer processing times after
waarschijnlijk compared to blijkbaar, yet dus led to even longer processing
times. Taken together, we propose that the processing complexity of
subjective causal relations can be explained by the notion of speaker
involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000,
2001; Pit, 2003). The conclusions and claims presented in subjective causal
relations have a special status because they are directly linked to the mental
world of the thinking subject – be it the speaker, author, or a third person
Conclusion|139
character in the discourse – who is responsible for that particular conclusion.
As such, subjective causal relations are more complex than objective
relations because language users need to be able to understand that the
information in the conclusion is not a description of the outside world, but is
part of someone’s view on the world. This is essential information because
this view can differ from individual to individual. It is plausible that this
information induces several different cognitive operations that could increase
the processing load. In section 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 we will further elaborate on
these processes.
In Chapter 1 of this dissertation we introduced the discussion about the
level of representation (Fletcher, 1994; Fletcher & Chrysler, 1990; Graesser,
Millis, & Zwaan, 1997; Kintsch, 1998; Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998) at which
explicitly marked causal relations are represented. Here, we will briefly
consider what our results tell us about the level of representation involved in
the representation of subjective causal relations. The distinction between
representing the status of information as a description of the world versus
someone’s view on the world is not a property of the textual representation of
a text. Even though this representation may be triggered by linguistic cues,
such as subjective connectives, it differs with respect to the mental picture of
the message. As the materials from Chapter 4 in example (6) (page 136)
show, claims and objective descriptions can contain exactly the same
linguistic content but still receive a different interpretation, that is, objective
or subjective. Therefore, we conclude that we are dealing with
representations that differ at the level of the situation model rather than the
text base.
6.2 Issues for discussion and future research
6.2.1 Cognitive categories reflected in processing
The most important result that arises from the various experiments
presented in this study is that subjective and objective causal connectives
differently affect online discourse processing. We argue that subjective
causal connectives such as want and dus trigger the representation of
subjective causal relations, whereas objective causal connectives such as
omdat and daarom trigger the representation of objective relations. This
pattern parallels the semantic profiles of these connectives as put forward in
corpus-based studies of their meaning and use (Degand & Pander Maat,
2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001;
Pit, 2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009; submitted; Stukker, 2005; Verhagen,
2005). Causal relations and connectives have been organized in distinct
categories that differ in terms of subjectivity, or speaker involvement. Our
results reveal a direct link between these usage patterns and the online
140|Chapter 6
processing of causal connectives. We found no difference between subjective
and objective relations when both relations are marked by want (Chapter 2).
This difference only appeared when the relations are marked by their
prototypical connectives: want in subjective relations, and omdat in objective
relations (Chapter 3). In addition, we have shown that the use of the
objective connectives daarom and omdat causes processing problems when
they are placed in highly subjective relations that are not compatible with
the typical relation that these connectives express (Chapter 3 Experiment 3;
Chapter 5 Experiment 2). Taken together, these results support the idea that
the different categories these causal connectives represent, that of subjective
and objective causality, are cognitively ‘real’ (Sanders & Spooren, 2009).
A more fundamental question is how these categories could be
represented. Some theories distinguish between two separate categories of
connectives and relations, that is between relations with a high degree of
speaker involvement referred to as subjective, and those with a low degree of
speaker involvement referred to as objective (De Smet & Verstraete, 2006;
Pander Maat & Sanders 2001; Stukker & Sanders, 2012). Others, however,
have argued for a classification in the form of a scale that involves several
levels of speaker involvement (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001).
Throughout this dissertation we have not committed ourselves to one or
the other approach, as it was not the purpose of our study to settle this issue.
In Chapter 5 we did propose, as a working hypothesis, a scalar division
between the connective dus and the adverbs waarschijnlijk and blijkbaar
with respect to the degree of speaker involvement they encode. On the basis
of our results there is no way to decide whether subjectivity is in fact to be
taken as a scale or not. What is important for our discussion here is that the
results presented in this study are compatible with both approaches. Our
results demonstrate that the linguistic encoding of speaker involvement
comes at a processing cost. Whether or not this varies as a function of the
degree of speaker involvement is open for future research.
The results obtained throughout this dissertation may have
methodological implications for future research focusing on the semanticpragmatic profiles of causal connectives. The traditional methodology used to
establish these profiles systematically underestimates the role of causal
connectives in the discourse representation. In order to classify the meaning
of a causal connective it is first extracted from the text segments that it
relates (Sanders, 1997, p.128). Next the degree of subjectivity of the causal
relation is established by means of a paraphrase test. Subsequently, the
meaning of the connective is determined on the basis of this underlying
relation between the two segments. For example, the relation in (11a) with
the connective want could be classified as objective because without the
connective (11b), the relation can be paraphrased by “the situation in S2 is
Conclusion|141
the cause of the situation in S1”. As a result, the meaning of want in this
relation would also be classified as objective.
(11) a. De straten zijn nat want het regent.
The streets are wet want it is raining.
b. De straten zijn nat. Het regent.
The streets are wet. It is raining.
The data presented in the current study suggest that connectives make
their own contribution to the discourse representation, irrespective of the
propositional content in the two combined segments. If, as our data suggest,
connectives influence, or maybe even determine, the degree of subjectivity of
the causal relation, the classical methods for determining the semantic
profiles of connectives run the risk of misclassifying actual connective
meaning. Nevertheless, we understand that this procedure is necessary in
order to avoid circular reasoning.
The results from the current study are based on the characteristics of
Dutch connectives in terms of the amount of subjectivity that they encode.
An obvious question that may be addressed in future research concerns the
generalizability of the effects presented throughout this study. If subjective
and objective causality are indeed two distinct cognitive categories, it follows
that similar processing effects should arise in other languages that also have
specific linguistic markers for these categories, such as French (e.g.
Anscombre & Ducrot, 1983; Le Groupe Lambda- λ, 1975; Zufferey, 2011)
German (Pasch, 1983) and Portuguese (Lopes, 2009). However, there may
also be languages that do not have specific causal connectives to mark
subjective and objective causal relations. Future research may address the
question of how these languages signal the degree of subjectivity of causal
relations, and how such signals affect online processing.
In addition, the effects of coherence markers on text comprehension
have been demonstrated to vary across text type and with reader
characteristics (McNamara & Kintsch, 1996; McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, &
Kintsch, 1996; Meyer, Young, & Bartlett, 1989; Noordman, Vonk, & Kempff,
1992; Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders, & Zwaan, 2008). It may therefore be
worthwhile to investigate whether these factors also influence the online
processing effects of (subjective) causal connectives.
6.2.2 Subjectivity as speaker involvement
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are various ways to characterize the
difference between subjective and objective causal relations. Throughout this
study we have relied on the notion of speaker involvement as formulated in
many other studies (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders,
142|Chapter 6
2000, 2001; Pit, 2003; Stukker, Sanders, & Verhagen, 2009). In these
studies, speaker involvement has been described as “…referring to the degree
to which the present speaker is implicitly involved in the construal of the
relation” (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001, p.214), or “the involvement of the
speaker in the interpretation of the relation” (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2001,
p.253). Note that these definitions are somewhat misleading because they
suggest that speaker involvement only concerns involvement of the speaker.
Yet, processing data reveal that third person mental states (John thinks,
according to John) have the same ability to cancel out the processing effects
in the second clause of subjective causal relations as epistemic modals
(perhaps, maybe) do, which implicitly refer to the speaker (Chapter 3;
Traxler, Sanford, Aked, & Moxey, 1997). This confirms that speaker
involvement concerns any character in a discourse whose reasoning is
presented (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009). Indeed, Pander Maat and
Degand also refer to involvement of the concluder, who by default is the
speaker himself (2001, p.221).
In addition, the experimental evidence illustrates that the processing
effects of subjectivity cannot be explained in terms of differences in
perspective. As discussed in Chapter 2, first person evaluations have been
proposed to be more subjective than third person evaluations because their
perspective is closer to the communicative “here and now” (Sanders, Sanders,
& Sweetser, 2012; Traugott, 1989, 1995). However, the observation that
markers of both types of perspective within S1 cancel out the effects of
subjectivity suggests that these differences in perspective are not relevant
for the processing effects observed in subjective versus objective causal
relations. Rather, these processing data stress what these different
perspectives have in common: they all involve a thinking subject who is
responsible for the causal relation.
It is, however, not impossible for there to be differences between such
perspectives that could influence the processing of subjective causal
relations. For instance, it may be easier to adopt the first person perspective
because it is always implicitly available (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser,
2009, 2012). It is open for future research to assess the impact of such
properties on the processing of subjective causal relations.
A second insight provided by the processing data reported in this study,
and in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, and Moxey (1997), concerns the level at which
subjectivity operates. According to the original definitions, speaker
involvement is conceived as a property of relations. However, the
experimental evidence on backward causal relations suggests that it is not
necessarily the relation between S1 and S2 that causes processing problems,
but the link between the proposition comprising the conclusion and the mind
of the relevant thinking subject. The effects of subjectivity disappear when
the first clause of the subjective causal relation is marked by phrases such as
Conclusion|143
perhaps and according to John. These phrases do not build causal relations
between clauses, but signal the fact that someone is responsible for the
proposition at hand. It may therefore be the case that speaker involvement,
as an explanation for the observed processing effects in subjective causal
relations, is a property of the clauses that constitute the causal relations
rather than the relations themselves.
6.2.3 Complexity from a mental space perspective
In Chapter 4 we studied the online processing of subjective causal relations
by relying on the theoretical framework of Mental Spaces Theory (MST)
(Fauconnier, 1994), which is one way to describe the cognitive processes
involved. According to this framework, language users build, and constantly
update, a network of mental spaces when they communicate. These mental
spaces are conceived as conceptual spaces in which information bound to
time, space, and person is represented relative to the here and now. Within
MST it is assumed that certain linguistic signals, such as connectives,
function as space builders. Crucially, mental space configurations can differ
in their overall complexity. Subjective causal relations are assumed to be
more complex than objective relations because the latter involve conclusions
placed within the mental space of the thinking subject, be it the speaker,
author, or a third person character in the discourse (Sanders, Sanders, &
Sweetser (2009, 2012).
Because MST was not developed as a processing theory, it remains
unclear how exactly the processing effects associated with subjective causal
relations fit into this theory. Intuitively it makes sense that keeping track of
the minds of the speaker and the characters in a discourse is resource
consuming. However, this operation may consist of several sub-processes
that each may have an individual contribution to the processing complexity.
For one thing, the mental spaces that represent the different minds need to
be constructed, or set up. Second, language users need to engage in some sort
of mapping procedure by which they assign pieces of communicated
information to the relevant mental space for interpretation. And third,
information bound to specific mental spaces may require a more careful
evaluation, against the background of the relevant thinking subject.
In addition to these primary processes, there may also be recursive
processes involved in the overall representation. Throughout the discourse,
the content of the different mental spaces may need to be revised, or
updated, whenever new opinions or claims come up. And second, keeping
track of everything requires a simultaneous maintenance of the
representations of different realities (the real world versus the speaker’s
mental world), which obviously draws on executive functions such as
working memory.
144|Chapter 6
On the basis of our results we cannot draw clear conclusions about
which sub-process is responsible for the observed effects of subjectivity.
Nevertheless, the results reported in Chapter 4 do shed some light on this
matter. Our data suggest that the immediate processing effects induced by
subjective connectives are not necessarily related to the set up of mental
space of the thinking subject. Space builders in the form of evaluations in the
context preceding the causal relations did not cancel out the processing
asymmetry between want and omdat. We therefore tentatively interpreted
this immediate effect in terms of the mapping of information onto the specific
mental spaces. After all, even if the author ’s perspective is clearly “visible”
in a given text, which makes it relatively easy for readers to set up the
relevant mental space, this does not mean that all utterances in the text
need to be interpreted as claims or conclusion. Even an argumentative text
contains objective descriptions of events and situations in the real world.
This means that even if a specific mental space has been constructed in the
discourse, readers still need to make decisions about how upcoming
information is to be interpreted. Future research will have to establish
whether the immediate effect of subjective causal connectives is indeed
related to such mapping processes.
Even though we found no effect of mental space builders on the
processing of want versus omdat, we cannot exclude that more restricting
contexts can facilitate the mapping of claims onto specific mental spaces. The
example in the introduction of Chapter 4, here repeated in (12), makes clear
that the intended interpretation of a sentence as a claim can often be easily
derived from the communicative context, without local linguistic markers of
subjectivity.
(12) That referee needs to go look for a new job.
Future research may explore whether more restricting communicative
settings facilitate the processing of subjective connectives such as want. One
way to test this could be by manipulating clear argumentative contexts that
bring participants in a more argumentative “mood”, such as heated
discussions in a football stadium or between environmental activists. It may
be the case that in contexts like these, language users automatically assign
all incoming information to the mental space of the relevant thinking
subject.
The results from Chapter 4 suggest that additional processes involved
in the representation of mental spaces could be reflected in online
processing. We observed that the presence of mental space builders leads to
longer processing times of subsequent text regions compared to neutral
contexts, even though these sentences had exactly the same content
Conclusion|145
compared to the neutral context. There are two ways to interpret this effect.
First, it may result from maintenance of an additional mental space next to
the representation of reality. Alternatively, these longer processing times
may be a reflection of a more careful evaluation of how to interpret the
utterances in a text, that is, as a claim or not. As such, this effect may also be
related to mapping processes. On the basis of our data we cannot distinguish
between these different sub-processes.
In order to verify whether the processing and representation of speaker
involvement requires the representation of a thinking subject, future
research may include neuroimaging techniques such as FMRI. For example,
the repeated name penalty (Gordon, Grosz, & Gilliom, 1993), which arises
when a proper name is repeated instead of using a pronoun, has been related
specific neural activation patterns associated with the representation of
discourse entities (Almor et al., 2007). These results suggest that the
repeated name penalty arises because of the increased representational load
due to the activation of a new discourse entity. If, as we propose, speaker
involvement requires the representation of another person’s mind, it may be
the case that this leads to similar activation patterns.
6.2.4 Mental spaces and higher order cognitive processes: Epistemic
vigilance
Why should language users pay attention to the different mental spaces
involved in the representation of claims? One straightforward answer is that
claims are not necessarily trustworthy. In fact, the purpose of providing
arguments to support claims is to convince others of the truth of those
claims. Overt marking of the status of information as a claim, by means of
want or dus, may therefore signal that the presented information requires
increased attention before it is accepted, a process that can be related to the
notion of epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al., 2010).
Epistemic vigilance is described as a set of cognitive mechanisms that
serve to filter incoming information in order to avoid misinformation,
manipulation, and deceit. Crucially, these mechanisms come with a
processing cost that is likely to be kept at a bare minimum when the
communicated information is not relevant (Sperber et al., 2010, p.363).
Epistemic vigilance can be targeted at the source, we make split-second
judgments about a person’s trustworthiness when we see a new face (Willis
& Todorov, 2006; Ybarra, Chan, & Park, 2001). Or it can be targeted at the
content. But clearly these two are also related. As discussed in Chapter 5,
the claim in (13) is more credible when it is produced by the weatherman
than by an umbrella salesman.
(13) I think it will rain today.
146|Chapter 6
Epistemic vigilance, as presented in Sperber et al., has not been fully
worked out in terms of a processing model. In fact, the authors point out that
many of the assumptions put forward are speculative. Nevertheless, the
issues discussed throughout this dissertation seem very compatible with this
theoretical proposal, and our results may be used to specify how epistemic
vigilance is reflected in online processing. Sperber et al. assume that
comprehension involves a tentative stance of trust (Holton, 1994; Origgi,
2005, 2008), which will lead to acceptance if epistemic vigilance does not
provide reasons to doubt (Sperber et al., 2010, p.368). It is, however, not
clear under what circumstances epistemic vigilance is triggered. Sperber et
al. put it very generally by proposing that it is “triggered by the same
communicative acts that trigger comprehension” (p.369). The results put
forward in our study suggest that specific linguistic cues of subjectivity, such
as causal connectives, could function as a trigger for epistemic vigilance.
A similar account can be found in Kamalski et al. (2008) who propose
that subjective coherence markers trigger resistance to persuasion. The
authors argue that the use of subjective coherence markers makes language
users realize that the speaker is trying to persuade them. As a result, they
stick to their own opinion. However, epistemic vigilance, as described by
Sperber et al., differs from this mechanism because it does not necessarily
lead to resistance. Epistemic vigilance is not the opposite of trust; it is the
opposite of blind trust (p.361). Vigilance, as used in cognitive psychology,
refers to “sustained attention”. As such, cues of subjectivity may lead to a
more careful evaluation, or interpretation, of information. Whether this
immediately leads to a lower level of persuasiveness will depend on many
other factors, such as, the source (who is claiming) and the validity of the
argument on which it is based. If, however, the information is accepted, it is
not excluded that epistemic vigilance results in a stronger representation of
that information because the reader, or listener, has been engaged in deeper
processing strategies. As such, it is even possible that the use of subjective
connectives leads to a higher persuasive power compared to objective
connectives.
Of course, we can only speculate about such effects. Future research
will have to establish whether the processing effects reported in this chapter
can be related to these mechanisms, and how they affect the persuasiveness
of communication.
6.2.5 Subjectivity and Theory of Mind
There is a clear link between the notions of subjectivity, Mental Spaces
Theory, and Theory of Mind abilities. Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to
reason about other people’s mental states. And such metacognitive abilities
are a prerequisite for understanding subjective causal relations because
these require the representation of other's beliefs and conclusions (Sperber,
Conclusion|147
1997). It is a well-known observation that children up to 4 years of age have
difficulty processing and representing this type of information because their
own knowledge of reality interferes, as becomes apparent from false belief
tasks (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985; Wimmer & Perner, 1983).
However, there is also some experimental evidence that suggests that ToM
engaging activities lead to an increased processing load in adults too. Recent
experiments with adults reveal that inferring character’s beliefs (true and
false beliefs) ad hoc leads to increased reaction times (Back & Apperly, 2010),
and there is some evidence to suggest that holding information about other’s
beliefs in mind is resource consuming (Apperly, Back, Samson, & France,
2008). These results suggest that even when language users are endowed
with ToM abilities, putting these abilities to use may increase the processing
load. It remains to be seen whether such effects are related to the processing
effects observed in subjective causal relations.
Preliminary results by Zufferey (2010) indeed suggest that there is a
relation between ToM abilities and the use and comprehension of subjective
causal relations. In a corpus study, Zufferey found that French and English
autistic children and adolescents, who are known to have limited ToM
abilities, do not produce subjective causal relations marked by connectives.
Also, in a comprehension study, Zufferey showed that the comprehension of
ironic use of puisque in 7-year-old children is moderately correlated with
performance on theory of mind tests (p.300). However, because these data
are not conclusive, more research is required to establish whether these
concepts relate.
Interestingly, ToM has been related to the development of epistemic
vigilance (Sperber et al.) as well. Around the age of passing the standard
false belief test, a validated indicator of children’s ToM abilities, children
also become increasingly attentive to the epistemic quality of other people’s
beliefs and messages (Sperber et al., 2010, p.373). In addition, they become
more selective in their trust, and also more willing and able to manipulate
the beliefs of others. This overlap offers insights into the nature and
development of ToM abilities. Sperber et al. suggest that ToM, as measured
by the false belief test, may actually be the output of epistemic vigilance. The
authors propose that children may pay more attention to the relevant
aspects of false belief tasks as a result of their increased capacity for
epistemic vigilance: “As they become increasingly aware that others may hold
false beliefs […] they get better at taking these false beliefs into account
when predicting the behavior of others. Their interest is not so much that of
an observer, but rather that of a potential victim of misinformation, a
potential perpetrator of deception, or a co-operator who prefers
knowledgeable partners” (p.373). It remains to be seen whether or not this
explanation holds.
148|Chapter 6
Nevertheless, it seems straightforward that the cognitive abilities
underlying ToM are also involved in the understanding of subjective causal
relations and the representation of mental spaces. How else could we
understand other people’s conclusions, if we are unable to distinguish our
own beliefs from the beliefs of others? It is open for future research to
establish whether and how exactly these concepts relate. It is, however, clear
that the processing complexity of subjective causal relations cannot be
explained by ToM alone. We still need the linguistic markers of subjectivity
that allow us to recognize beliefs and conclusion, and we have to be able to
represent and maintain them in a representation such as a mental space
configuration.
6.3 Conclusion
The results obtained throughout this study all add up to our conclusion that
subjective causal connectives and relations require the representation of the
mind of the thinking subject, be it the speaker, author, or a third person
character in the discourse, who is responsible for the presented information.
Crucially, our results suggest that the processes involved in the construction
of this representation increase the processing load. Therefore, linguistic
devices that trigger this representation, such as the subjective connectives
dus and want, will generally induce longer processing times compared to
markers that do not, such as omdat and daarom. This is in line with the
assumption that causal connectives are processing instructions that help
readers construct a coherent discourse representation. We have shown that
these instructions go as far as informing the reader about the exact type of
causal relation that needs to be constructed, be it subjective or objective. But
what could these instructions look like? In Figure 1 we propose a tentative
processing model of subjective versus objective causal connectives. Note, that
this model does not include syntactic parsing instructions; rather, it
describes the instructions about the required discourse interpretation of the
causal relation the connectives mark.
Conclusion|149
Connective
Subjective
Direction:
Backward - S1 is claim based on S2
or
Forward - S2 is claim based on S1
Objective
Direction:
Backward - S1 is cause of S2
or
Forward - S2 is cause of S1
Set up:
Find relevant mind & set up mental
space
Mapping:
Assign clause to relevant mental
space
Reconstruct:
Recover underlying inference or add inference to knowledge
Evaluate:
If access to source & relevant enough
Figure 1. A tentative processing model for subjective versus objective causal
connectives.
Both subjective and objective connectives signal the direction in which
they operate. With respect to objective causal relations they specify that S2
functions as the consequence of the situation in S1 (forward relations), or
they signal that S2 contains the cause of S1 (backward relations). This cue
triggers the construction of the causal relation between the two clauses.
Whether or not language users fully understand this relation depends
on their ability to recover the underlying causal inferences (if P then Q), in
line with the inference function ascribed to causal connectives (Cozijn,
Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Noordman & Vonk, 1997). However, language
users may not always able to do so. For example, most readers will not be
able to recover the underlying causal inference in (14) because they lack the
150|Chapter 6
relevant background knowledge. That does not mean that they cannot
construct the causal relation, they may just not fully understand it.
(14) Patrick holds his breath because it is Opposite Day.
Readers who know the SpongeBob episode from which this relation is
derived will be able to activate the underlying knowledge and generate the
necessary inference: Opposite Day means doing exactly the opposite of what
you’re used to, therefore Patrick decides to stop breathing. In the absence of
such knowledge, Cozijn et al. propose that the presence of the causal
connective will invite the reader to derive a causal inference (apparently it is
customary to hold your breath on Opposite Day), which they will then add to
their world knowledge.
The direction of the relation is also relevant for subjective causal
connectives. Here, however, the connective signals that S1 functions as a
claim or conclusion on the basis of the argument in S2, or it signals that S2
functions as a claim or conclusion on the basis of the argument in S1.
Next, the reader needs to find the mind of the thinking subject that is
responsible for uttering the claim, and a mental space representing this
mind needs to be set up. In line with theories on speaker involvement
(Pander Maat & Degand, 2001, p.221) we will assume that, by default, this
mind is the speaker’s mind. Subsequently, the claim needs to be mapped
onto that mental space. The reason why we are suggesting that the set up of
a mental space and the mapping of information onto that space are two
distinct processes is that mental spaces can also be set-up by space builders
in the preceding discourse. This does not imply, however, that everything
that follows is to be interpreted as a (subjective) claim. In this case,
subjective connectives still have the mapping function.
Similar to objective connectives, subjective causal connectives may
invite the reader to derive the underlying causal inference by checking the
causal relation against their world knowledge, or by adding the
reconstructed inference to their world knowledge. A final piece of
information encoded in subjective causal connectives could be a cue to
evaluate the information in the claim. The reason why this final step is
presented with a dotted line is that language users do not necessarily have to
evaluate all the claims they hear. That would in fact be a rather time and
energy consuming endeavor, which is unnecessary if the claim is about
something that is completely irrelevant to the reader or listener. For
example, in (15) the claim “orange is trending” will have a different effect on
people who are interested in fashion, compared to those that are not.
(15) Orange is trending, because I saw Blake Lively wear an orange dress.
Conclusion|151
Fashionistas may run through a number of steps before they will accept
the claim as truthful (Is Blake Lively a true fashion icon? Have I seen orange
clothing in the fashion magazines?). Fashion phobes, on the other hand, may
be able to derive the inference that Blake Lively must be a fashion icon.
However, whether or not that justifies the claim “orange is trending” may be
of too little interest to them to waste energy on such evaluations in the first
place.
Note that the model only includes the primary processes triggered by
causal connectives. However, we can also identify two recursive processes
involved in the representation of subjective causal relations. First, language
users need to maintain the representations of the relevant mental spaces in
the discourse. In addition, whenever a given space is called into existence, its
contents may require revisions, or updates, throughout the discourse
whenever new opinions or claims come up.
Of course, our model is only a tentative processing model on the basis of
the empirical data so far. One thing that remains unclear, for example, is
how the evaluation of claims correlates with knowledge of the person who
produced it. In order to be able to evaluate a claim, you also need to know
something about the source. Is the claim compatible with what I already
know about this person’s beliefs? Is this person trustworthy? Does he have a
hidden agenda? Is this person knowledgeable? Do we usually share opinions?
It is unclear what happens in the absence of such information. It may be the
case that in this situation claims stay in some sort of ‘mental space limbo’
and remain unaccepted by the reader. However, it may also be the case that
the claim is accepted provided that the argument on which it is based is
sound. Conversely, in case of a highly reliable source, we may skip the
evaluation process altogether and accept everything that he or she claims as
truthful. Future research may focus on how these factors influence the
processing of subjective causal connectives and of subjectivity in general.
This can only be achieved in a fruitful way by interdisciplinary collaborations
between cognitive linguists and text linguists on the one hand, and
experimental psycholinguists and social psychologists on the other. Such
collaborations should help us get a better understanding of the exact
processes involved in discourse processing, which is a crucial part of
communication through language.
References
Anscombre, J., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue
[Argumentation in language]. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
Almor, A., Smith, D., Bonilha, L., Fridriksson, J., & Rorden, C. (2007).
What’s in a name? Spatial brain circuits are used to track discourse
references. Neuroreport, 18(12), 1215-1219.
Apperly, I. A., Back, E., Samson, D., & France, L. (2008). The cost of thinking
about false beliefs: Evidence from adult performance on a noninferential theory of mind task. Cognition, 106, 1093–1108.
Baayen, H. R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical
database [CD-ROM]: Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania.
Baayen, H. R. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to
statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Back, E., & Apperly, I. A. (2010). Two sources of evidence on the nonautomaticity of true and false belief ascription. Cognition, 115(1), 54-70.
Balota, D. A., Flores d'Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (1990). Comprehension
processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child
have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition, 21, 37–46.
Bestgen, Y., & Costermans, J. (1994). Time, space, and action: Exploring the
narrative structure and its marking. Discourse Processes, 17, 421-446.
Bestgen, Y., & Vonk, W. (2000). Temporal adverbials as segmentation
markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language,
42, 74-87.
Biber D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse
Processes, 11, 1-34.
Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in
narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20, 267275.
Black, J. B., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving.
Poetics, 9, 223–250.
Bolkestein, A. M. (1991). Causally related predications and the choice
between parataxis and hypotaxis in Latin. In R. Coleman (Ed.), New
studies in Latin linguistics (pp. 427-451). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Bradshaw, G. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Encoding elaboration as an
explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 21, 165-174.
Brehm-Jurish, E. U. (2005). Connective ties in discourse: Three ERP-studies
on causal, temporal, and concessive ties and their influence on language
processing (PhD dissertation). Potsdam University, Berlin.
154|References
Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text. Building mental
structures to induce insights. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of
psycholinguistics (pp. 641-674). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of
text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74(1), 51-61.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young
readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 103(2), 429-441.
Caron, J., Micko, H. C., & Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of
composite sentences. Journal of memory and language, 27, 309-323.
Clark, H., & Clark, E. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to
psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
Clifton, C., Jr., J. Bock, & J. Rado (2000). Effects of the Focus Particle Only
and Intrinsic Contrast on Comprehension of Reduced Relative Clauses.
In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a
Perceptual Process (pp. 591-620). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Clifton, C., Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading
words and sentences. In R. van Gompel (Ed.), Eye movements: A window
on mind and brain (pp. 341-372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The
case of because. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389-426.
Cozijn, R. (1994). Manual for the interactive analysis program of eye
movement recordings: FIXATION. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Max
Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. [Internal paper].
Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inferences in understanding causal
sentences (PhD dissertation). Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Cozijn, R., Noordman, L. & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and
world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because
sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475-500.
Cummins, D. D. (1991). Naive theories and causal deduction. Memory and
Cognition, 23, 646-658.
Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., & Rist, R. (1991). Conditional
reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19, 274-282.
De Leeuw, S. F. B. L. M., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. (2008). Effects of the
Dutch causal connectives 'dus' and 'daardoor' on discourse processing.
Toegepaste
Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 79(1), 53-64.
De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity.
Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365-392.
De Vries, J. W. (1971). Want en omdat. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 64, 414-420.
References|155
Degand, L. (2001). Form and Function of Causation. A theoretical and
empirical investigation of causal constructions in Dutch. Leuven:
Peeters.
Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and
French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A.
Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage based approaches to Dutch
(pp. 175-199). Utrecht: LOT.
Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on
expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15,
719-757.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 27, 497-544.
Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: Change and
acquisition as windows on form-function relations (PhD dissertation).
Utrecht University, LOT, Utrecht.
Evers-Vermeul, J. (2010). 'Dus' vooraan of in het midden? Over vormfunctierelaties in het gebruik van connectieven. Nederlandse taalkunde,
15(2), 149-175.
Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2011). Discovering domains – On the
acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 16451662.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces, Aspects of Meaning Construction in
Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1st edn.,
Cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press 1985).
Fauconnier. G. (1998). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual
integration. In M. Tomasello (Ed), The new psychology of
language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language atructure
(pp. 251-279). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic
parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced
reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 16(4), 725–745.
Fletcher, C. R. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In
M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589-607).
New York: Academic Press.
Fletcher, C. R., & Chrysler, S. T. (1990). Surface Forms, textbases, and
situation models: Recognition memory for three types of textual
information. Discourse Processes, 13, 175-190.
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American
English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
156|References
Garrett, E. (2001). Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan (PhD dissertation).
University of California, Los Angeles.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension.
In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal
relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text. (pp.
3-21). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givòn, T. (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items: Licensing,
compositionality, and variation. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, &
P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural
language Meaning (pp. 660–1712). Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In J. Greenberg, C.
Ferguson, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language (Vol.
4, pp. 291-330). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Golding, J. M., Millis, K. M., Hauselt, J., & Sego, S. A. (1995). The effect of
connectives and causal relatedness on text comprehension. In R. F.
Lorch & E. J. O'Brien (Eds), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 127143). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gordon, P., Grosz, B., & Gilliom, L. (1993). Pronouns, names and the
centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.
Graesser, A. C., & Bower, G. H. (1990). The psychology of learning and
motivation: Inferences and text comprehension. New York: Academic
Press.
Graesser, A. C., & Clark, L. C. (1985). Structures and procedures of implicit
knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse
comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do
readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in
narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.),
Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford
Publications.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences
during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371395.
Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In. J.-F.
Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 239-249).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Haberlandt, K. (1984). Components of sentence and word reading times. In
D. E., Kieras, & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading
comprehension research (pp. 219–251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
References|157
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- 425.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London/New
York: Longman.
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new
information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512-521.
Hirsch, E. (1977). The philosophy of composition. Chicago, Chicago
University Press.
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
Holton, R. (1994). Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Australasian Journal
of Philosophy, 72, 63–76.
Hyönä, J., & Lorch, R. F., Jr. (2004). Effects of topic headings on text
processing: Evidence from adult readers' eye fixation patterns. Learning
and Instruction, 14(2), 131-152.
Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor
measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.),
Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29-54). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2003). Book review: Epistemic modality, language and
conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 657-663.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of
language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., (2010). Mental models and human reasoning.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18243–18250.
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and
disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye
fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354.
Kamalski, J. M. H., Lentz, L. R., Sanders, T. J. M., & Zwaan, R. (2008). The
forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuative discourse:
Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45, 545579.
Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal
cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115-126.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Kehler, A., Kertz, L. Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and
coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1-44.
158|References
Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing
complements: Comments on the generality principle of minimal
attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), 51-76.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension
and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Kleijn, S., Mak, P., & Sanders, T. (2011). Daardoor dus! Effecten van
specificiteit en subjectiviteit op de verwerking van connectieven.
Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 85(1), 103-112.
Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of
coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62.
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and
their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
Knott, A. (2001). Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended
effects. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text
representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 127-152).
Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (To appear). Establishing coherence
relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and
connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes.
Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of
lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 12, 301-248.
Koring, L. (2012). Don’t shoot the messenger: How subjectivity affects
distributional properties. Lingua, 122(8), 874 – 890.
Kroon, C. (1998). A framework for the description of Latin discourse
markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (2), 205-223.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38.
Le Groupe Lambda-λ. (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10,
248-280.
Li, F., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (submitted). Subjectivity and
result marking in Mandarin: A corpus-based investigation. Chinese
Language and Discourse.
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the
understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75(3), 402-412.
Lopes, A. C. M. (2009). Justification: A coherence relation. Pragmatics,19(2),
241-252.
Lorch, R. F.,Jr, & Lorch, E. P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and
importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 489-496.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References|159
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Magliano, J. P., Baggett, W. B., Johnson, B. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1993). The
time course of generating causal antecedent and causal consequence
inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 35–53.
Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (to appear). The role of causality in
discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations.
Language and Cognitive Processes.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: A
theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text
comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20,
489-512.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological
Review, 99, 440-466.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior
knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & 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.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M. & Bluth, G. J. (1980) Use of top-level structure
in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students.
Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved:
Reading and memory enhancement across the life span through strategic
text structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Millis, K. K., Golding, J. M., & Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives
increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20(1), 29-49.
Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of
connectives on memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 317-340.
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence
comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
Millis, K. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1999). The co-influence of grammatical
markers and comprehender goals on the memory for short discourse.
Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 183-198.
Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000).
Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of Construal Theory. In
A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a
perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Oxford: Elsevier.
160|References
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. (1995).
Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of
coarse-grained
(nonlexical)
statistical
records.
Journal
of
Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 469-488.
Mulder, G. & Sanders, T.J.M. (2012). Causal coherence relations and levels
of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501-522.
Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch,
Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of Coherence in Reading (pp. 107125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity.
Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.
Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and
memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 453-465.
Noordman, L. G. M., & De Blijzer, F. (2000). On the processing of causal
relations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause Condition - Concession - Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives
(pp. 35-56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a
conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J.
Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships.
Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp.75-93).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1998). Memory-based processing in
understanding causal information. Discourse Processes, 26(2/3), 191–
212.
Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences
during the reading of expository text. Journal of Memory and Language,
13, 573-590.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal
expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383-400.
Nuyts, J. (2004). Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische,
epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands (Antwerp
papers in linguistics 108). Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Origgi, G. (2005, July). A stance of trust. Paper presented at the 9th
International Pragmatics Conference (IPRA), Riva del Garda.
Origgi, G. (2008). Trust, authority and epistemic responsibility. Theoria, 23,
35–44.
Oversteegen, L. (2005). Causality and tense – Two temporal structure
builders. Journal of semantics, 22, 307-337.
Palmer, F., (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd edn.). London/ New
York: Longman.
References|161
Pander Maat, H., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and
connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics,
12(3), 211-245.
Pander Maat, H. & Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity: The
distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In E. CouperKuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause - Condition - Concession Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 57-82). Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives:
An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 247273.
Pander Maat, H. & T. Sanders (2006). Connectives in text. In K. Brown (ed.),
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 33-41)
London: Elsevier.
Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, 116,
1688-1702.
Pasch, R. (1983). Die Kausalkonjunktionen ‘da’, ‘denn’, und ‘weil’: Drei
Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Klassen. Deutsch als Fremsprache,
20, 332-337.
Pounds, G. (2005). Writer’s argumentative attitude: A contrastive analysis of
‘Letters to the editor’ in English and Italian. Pragmatics, 15(1), 49-88.
Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective? Subjectivity
and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam:
Editions Rodopi B.V.
Pit, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in
Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast, 7, 53–82.
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physicianphysician discourse. In R. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the
professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on
Language Studies (pp. 83–97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from
repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43, 103121.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20
years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in
reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical
ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191-201.
Rayner, K., Kambe, G., & Duffy, S. A. (2000). Clause wrap-up effects on eye
movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 53, 1061–1080.
162|References
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movements in reading:
Psycholinguistic studies. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of
psycholinguistics (pp. 57-82). New York: Academic Press.
Roebben, N., & Bestgen, Y. (2006). Reading and expertise: The impact of
connectives on text comprehension in the financial field. In: S.
Carliner, J.P. Verckens, & C. de Waele (Eds.), Information and
Document Design: Varieties in recent research (pp.149-165). Amsterdam
/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S.
Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.
222-272). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Rutherford, W. (1970). Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in
English. Language, 46(1), 97-115.
Sanchez, R. P., Lorch, E. P., & Lorch Jr., R. F. (2001). Effects of headings on
text processing strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3),
418-428.
Sanders, T.J.M. (1992). Discourse Structure and Coherence. Aspects of a
cognitive theory of discourse representation (PhD Dissertation). Tilburg
University, Tilburg.
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the
categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24,
119-147.
Sanders, T. J. M., & Canestrelli, A. R. (2012). The processing of pragmatic
information in discourse. In: Schmid, H. (ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics
Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 201-232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistic markers of coherence
improve text comprehension in functional contexts – on text
representation and document design. Information Design Journal,
15(3), 219-235.
Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence
relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse
Processes, 29, 37-60.
Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Causality, cognition and
communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal
connectives. In S. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in
discourse and cognition (pp. 19-59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & 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), 191-231.
Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2007). Discourse and text structure. In D.
Geeraerts & H. Cuykens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.
37-60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References|163
Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2009). Causal categories in discourse Converging evidence from language use. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser
(Eds.). Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 205-246).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (submitted) Causality and subjectivity in
discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous
conversation, chat interactions and written text.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of
coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1-35.
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993).
Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation.
Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 93-133.
Segal, E., & Duchan, J. (1997). Interclausal connectives as indicators of
structuring in narratives. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.),
Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and
comprehension of text. (pp. 95-119). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
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, 27-54.
Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints
approach to l anguage acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science,
23, 569-588.
Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and
discourse processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Singer, M., Graesser, A. C., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global
inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 421441.
Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language, 12,
67-83.
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., &
Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–
393.
Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence
relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics,
40, 2003-2026.
Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects
on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 285-298.
Steen, G. (2011). Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M.
Callies, W. Keller, & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the Cognitive
Sciences (pp. 21-42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stevenson, S., & Merlo, P. (1997). Lexical Structure and Parsing Complexity.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2), 349-399.
164|References
Stukker, N. (2005). Causality marking across levels of language structure. A
cognitive semantic analysis of causal verbs and causal connectives in
Dutch (PhD dissertation). Utrecht University, LOT, Utrecht.
Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in
causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(2), 169-190.
Stukker, N., Sanders, T., & Verhagen, A. (2009). Categories of subjectivity in
Dutch causal connectives: A usage-based analysis. In T. Sanders & E.
Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 119171). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and
cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006). Applications of rhetorical structure
theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567-588.
Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical
system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and
structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 12, 211-271.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S.
Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and
the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trabasso, T. & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story
events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595-611.
Trabasso, T., & Van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the
representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language,
24, 612-630.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An
example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31-55.
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein &
S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic
perspectives (31-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of
connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for
incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 50A(3), 481-497.
Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P., & Moxey, L. M. (1997). Processing
causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88-101.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic
influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic
disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
References|165
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific
constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical
preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553.
Van Belle, W. (1989). Want, omdat en aangezien. Een argumentatieve
analyse. Leuvense bijdragen, 78, 435-456.
Van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map.
Linguistic Typology, 2, 79-124.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447456.
Van Veen, R. (2011). The acquisition of causal connectives: The role of
parental input and cognitive complexity (PhD dissertation). Utrecht
University, LOT, Utrecht.
Veenker, T. J. G. (2006). FEP: A tool for designing and running computerized
experiments (version 2.4.19) [computer software]. Utrecht: Utrecht
Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax,
and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1990). On the control of inferences in text
understanding. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner
(Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 447–464). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind
after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–98.
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and
constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s
understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 41–68.
Xing, F. (2001).《
句研究》. A study of Chinese complex sentences.
Beijing: Commercial Publishing House.
Ybarra, O., Chan, E., & Park, D. (2001). Young and old adults’ concerns
about morality and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 85–100.
Zufferey, S. (2010). Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind. The acquisition of
connectives as a window on cognitive development. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Zufferey, S. (2011). “Car, Parce Que, Puisque" Revisited. Three empirical
studies with French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2),
138-153.
Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
20, 920- 933.
Zwaan, R. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1196–1207.
166|References
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language
comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
Zwaan, R., & Rapp, D. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler &
M.A.Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd Ed., pp.
725-764). New York: Academic Press, 2006.
Appendix 1
Items Chapter 2
1
a. Heidi voelde zich trots en gelukkig,
b. Heidi is goed in dingen bedenken en creëren,
want / ze heeft de eerste prijs / gewonnen / op het kunstfestival.
2
a. De keeper won,
b. De keeper wist hoe hij het spel moest spelen,
want / de tegenstander / heeft niet gescoord/ tijdens de wedstrijd.
3
a. Bente had het koud toen ze naar buiten ging,
b. Bente is blijven hangen aan een doornstruik,
want / haar trui / heeft een groot gat/ aan de voorkant.
4
a. Susan is haar geld en credit cards kwijtgeraakt,
b. Susan let niet goed op haar geld en credit cards,
want / ze heeft haar portemonnee / laten liggen /in de bus.
5
a. De kinderen waren bang,
b. De kinderen misdroegen zich,
want / de meester was hard / aan het schreeuwen/ tijdens de les.
6
a. Peter vermeed duistere types,
b. Peter was bijgelovig,
want / een waarzegger heeft zijn hand / gelezen / op de kermis.
7
a. Eva verdient veel meer geld,
b. Eva werkte harder dan de rest,
want / de directeur heeft haar / gepromoveerd / tot manager.
8
a. Jeff werd boos op zijn buren,
b. Jeff had asociale buren,
want / ze hadden altijd hun stereo hard /aanstaan/ tot diep in de nacht.
9
a. Barbara werd boos op haar zus,
b. Barbara was niet zo balvaardig als haar zus,
want / ze /verloor altijd /met tennis.
10
a. Rick overleed bijna aan een shock,
b. Rick heeft in een afgelegen gebied gewandeld,
want / een giftige slang heeft hem /gebeten / in zijn been.
11
a. De voetballers waren te aangeschoten om 's morgens te spelen,
b. De voetballers waren hun kampioenschap aan het vieren,
want / ze hadden de hele nacht / gefeest / in de kroeg.
12
a. Matthijs kreeg erg sterke beenspieren,
168|Appendix 1
b. Matthijs had geen auto,
want/ hij / fietste elk dag/ naar zijn werk
13
a. Bob liep twee weken mank,
b. Bob was geraakt door een andere speler,
want / hij is geblesseerd / geraakt / bij het hockeyen.
14
a. Lisa kon niet naar Idols kijken,
b. Er was bij Lisa ingebroken,
want / iemand had haar tv /gestolen / uit de woonkamer.
15
a. Louise verdiende meer geld,
b. Louise had heel sterke spieren,
want / ze had een baan / gekregen / als bouwvakker.
16
a. Diane is bang om in het donker te lopen,
b. Diane droeg geen reflecterende kleding,
want / ze is gisteren bijna /aangereden / door een auto.
17
a. Jannie heeft meer geld op haar rekening,
b. Jannie werkt hard op haar werk,
want / ze heeft vorige maand opslag /gekregen / van haar baas.
18
a. Ellen's buik rommelde hard,
b. Ellen was vergeten te ontbijten,
want / om 11 uur ‘s morgens / had ze al trek / in een boterham.
19
a. De brandweer kon het gebouw niet meer redden,
b. De brandweer kwam te laat bij het gebouw aan,
want / het vuur / verspreidde zich snel / door de benedenverdieping.
20
a. Hanneke was buiten adem,
b. Hanneke had haast,
want / ze was vier trappen / afgerend/ om de post te halen.
21
a. Lieke en Dave hebben spierpijn,
b. Lieke en Dave zijn goede vrienden van elkaar,
want / ze zijn weer samen gaan / hardlopen / in het park.
22
a. Marieke viel voorover het water in,
b. Marieke was op een erg wilde rivier aan het raften,
want / de boot / sloeg om / door de stroming.
23
a. Jack is maandagochtend zijn baan kwijtgeraakt,
b. Jack heeft persoonlijke problemen,
want / hij is deze maand vijf keer / te laat gekomen / op zijn werk.
24
a. Valerie mist haar oude vrienden,
b. Valerie houdt van zon en warmte,
want / ze is deze lente / geëmigreerd / naar Spanje.
Appendix 2
Items Chapter 3
Experiment 1: conditions a-b
Experiment 2: conditions a-b-c
1
a. Heidi voelde zich trots en gelukkig, omdat / ze de eerste prijs heeft / gewonnen / op het
kunstfestival.
b. Heidi is goed in dingen bedenken en creëren, want / ze heeft de eerste prijs / gewonnen /
op het kunstfestival.
c. Volgens Pieter is Heidi goed in dingen bedenken en creëren, want / ze heeft de eerste
prijs / gewonnen / op het kunstfestival.
2
a. De keeper won, omdat / de tegenstander / niet gescoord heeft / tijdens de wedstrijd.
b. De keeper wist hoe hij het spel moest spelen, want / de tegenstander / heeft niet
gescoord/ tijdens de wedstrijd.
c. Volgens Lars wist de keeper hoe hij het spel moest spelen, want / de tegenstander / heeft
niet gescoord/ tijdens de wedstrijd.
3
a. Bente had het koud toen ze naar buiten ging, omdat / haar trui / een groot gat had/ aan
de voorkant.
b. Bente is blijven hangen aan een doornstruik, want / haar trui / heeft een groot gat/ aan
de voorkant.
c. Volgens Tygo is Bente blijven hangen aan een doornstruik, want / haar trui / heeft een
groot gat/ aan de voorkant.
4
a. Susan is haar geld en credit cards kwijtgeraakt, omdat / ze haar portemonnee heeft /
laten liggen /in de bus.
b. Susan let niet goed op haar geld en credit cards, want / ze heeft haar portemonnee /
laten liggen /in de bus.
c. Volgens Marc let Susan niet goed op haar geld en credit cards, want / ze heeft haar
portemonnee / laten liggen /in de bus.
5
a. De kinderen waren bang, omdat / de meester hard / aan het schreeuwen was/ tijdens de
les.
b. De kinderen misdroegen zich, want / de meester was hard / aan het schreeuwen/ tijdens
de les.
c. Volgens Tessa misdroegen de kinderen zich, want / de meester was hard / aan het
schreeuwen/ tijdens de les.
6
a. Peter vermeed duistere types, omdat / een waarzegger zijn hand heeft / gelezen / op de
kermis.
b. Peter was bijgelovig, want / een waarzegger heeft zijn hand / gelezen / op de kermis.
c. Volgens Amy was Peter bijgelovig, want / een waarzegger heeft zijn hand / gelezen / op de
kermis.
7
a. Eva verdient veel meer geld, omdat/ de directeur haar heeft / gepromoveerd / tot
manager.
170|Appendix 2
b. Eva werkte harder dan de rest, want / de directeur heeft haar / gepromoveerd / tot
manager.
c. Volgens Milan werkte Eva harder dan de rest, want / de directeur heeft haar /
gepromoveerd / tot manager.
8
a. Jeff werd boos op zijn buren, omdat/ ze altijd hun stereo hard hadden /aanstaan/ tot diep
in de nacht.
b. Jeff had asociale buren, want / ze hadden altijd hun stereo hard /aanstaan/ tot diep in de
nacht.
c. Volgens Lieke had Jeff asociale buren, want / ze hadden altijd hun stereo hard /aanstaan/
tot diep in de nacht.
9
a. Barbara werd boos op haar zus, omdat / ze /altijd verloor /met tennis.
b. Barbara was niet zo balvaardig als haar zus, want / ze /verloor altijd /met tennis.
c. Volgens Tim was Barbara niet zo balvaardig als haar zus, want / ze /verloor altijd /met
tennis.
10
a. Rick overleed bijna aan een shock, omdat / een giftige slang hem heeft /gebeten / in zijn
been.
b. Rick heeft in een afgelegen gebied gewandeld, want / een giftige slang heeft hem /gebeten
/ in zijn been.
c. Volgens Petra heeft Rick in een afgelegen gebied gewandeld, want / een giftige slang
heeft hem /gebeten / in zijn been.
11
a. De voetballers waren te aangeschoten om 's morgens te spelen, omdat / ze de hele nacht
hadden / gefeest / in de kroeg.
b. De voetballers waren hun kampioenschap aan het vieren, want / ze hadden de hele nacht
/ gefeest / in de kroeg.
c. Volgens Tom waren de voetballers hun kampioenschap aan het vieren, want / ze hadden
de hele nacht / gefeest / in de kroeg.
12
a. Matthijs kreeg erg sterke beenspieren, omdat/ hij / elk dag fietste/ naar zijn werk
b. Matthijs had geen auto, want/ hij / fietste elk dag/ naar zijn werk
c. Volgens Laura had Matthijs geen auto, want/ hij / fietste elk dag/ naar zijn werk
13
a. Bob liep twee weken mank, omdat / hij geblesseerd is / geraakt / bij het hockeyen.
b. Bob was geraakt door een andere speler, want / hij is geblesseerd / geraakt / bij het
hockeyen.
c. Volgens Martine was Bob geraakt door een andere speler, want / hij is geblesseerd /
geraakt / bij het hockeyen.
14
a. Lisa kon niet naar Idols kijken, omdat / iemand haar tv had /gestolen/ uit de woonkamer.
b. Er was bij Lisa ingebroken, want / iemand had haar tv /gestolen / uit de woonkamer.
c. Volgens Dennis was er bij Lisa ingebroken, want / iemand had haar tv /gestolen / uit de
woonkamer.
15
a. Louise verdiende meer geld, omdat / ze een baan had / gekregen / als bouwvakker.
b. Louise had heel sterke spieren, want / ze had een baan / gekregen / als bouwvakker.
c. Volgens Rogier had Louise heel sterke spieren, want / ze had een baan / gekregen / als
bouwvakker.
Appendix 2|171
16
a. Diane is bang om in het donker te lopen, omdat / ze gisteren bijna is /aangereden / door
een auto.
b. Diane droeg geen reflecterende kleding, want / ze is gisteren bijna /aangereden / door een
auto.
c. Volgens Simon droeg Diane geen reflecterende kleding, want / ze is gisteren bijna
/aangereden / door een auto.
17
a. Jannie heeft meer geld op haar rekening, omdat / ze vorige maand opslag heeft
/gekregen/ van haar baas.
b. Jannie werkt hard op haar werk, want / ze heeft vorige maand opslag /gekregen / van
haar baas.
c. Jannie werkt hard op haar werk, want / ze heeft vorige maand opslag /gekregen / van
haar baas.
18
a. Ellen's buik rommelde hard, omdat / ze om 11 uur ‘s morgens / al trek had / in een
boterham.
b. Ellen was vergeten te ontbijten, want / om 11 uur ‘s morgens / had ze al trek / in een
boterham.
c. Volgens Remco was Ellen vergeten te ontbijten, want / om 11 uur ‘s morgens / had ze al
trek / in een boterham.
19
a. De brandweer kon het gebouw niet meer redden, omdat / het vuur / zich snel verspreidde
/ door de benedenverdieping.
b. De brandweer kwam te laat bij het gebouw aan, want / het vuur / verspreidde zich snel /
door de benedenverdieping.
c. Volgens Kim kwam de brandweer te laat bij het gebouw aan, want / het vuur /
verspreidde zich snel / door de benedenverdieping.
20
a. Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat / ze vier trappen was / afgerend/ om de post te halen.
b. Hanneke had haast, want / ze was vier trappen / afgerend/ om de post te halen.
c. Volgens Alex had Hanneke haast, want / ze was vier trappen / afgerend/ om de post te
halen.
21
a. Lieke en Dave hebben spierpijn, omdat / ze weer samen zijn gaan / hardlopen / in het
park.
b. Lieke en Dave zijn goede vrienden van elkaar, want / ze zijn weer samen gaan /
hardlopen / in het park.
c. Volgens Linda zijn Lieke en Dave goede vrienden van elkaar, want / ze zijn weer samen
gaan / hardlopen / in het park.
22
a. Marieke viel voorover het water in, omdat / de boot / om sloeg / door de stroming.
b. Marieke was op een erg wilde rivier aan het raften, want / de boot / sloeg om / door de
stroming.
c. Volgens Huub was Marieke op een erg wilde rivier aan het raften, want / de boot / sloeg
om / door de stroming.
23
a. Jack is maandagochtend zijn baan kwijtgeraakt, omdat / hij deze maand vijf keer / te laat
is gekomen / op zijn werk.
b. Jack heeft persoonlijke problemen, want / hij is deze maand vijf keer / te laat gekomen /
op zijn werk.
172|Appendix 2
c. Volgens Irma heeft Jack persoonlijke problemen, want / hij is deze maand vijf keer / te
laat gekomen / op zijn werk.
24
a. Valerie mist haar oude vrienden, omdat / ze deze lente is / geëmigreerd / naar Spanje.
b. Valerie houdt van zon en warmte, want / ze is deze lente / geëmigreerd / naar Spanje.
c. Volgens Jasper houdt Valerie van zon en warmte, want / ze is deze lente / geëmigreerd /
naar Spanje.
Experiment 3
New items
25
a. Frans is verdrietig, omdat / hij weer is / gezakt voor / zijn eindexamen.
b. Frans heeft niet goed gestudeerd, want / hij is weer / gezakt voor / zijn eindexamen.
c. Frans is verdrietig, want / hij is weer / gezakt voor / zijn eindexamen.
d. Frans heeft niet goed gestudeerd, omdat / hij weer is / gezakt voor / zijn eindexamen.
26
a. Anne is erg bruin geworden, omdat / ze maanden heeft / gereisd /door Australië.
b. Anne is avontuurlijk, want / ze heeft maanden/ gereisd/ door Australië.
c. Anne is erg bruin geworden, want / ze heeft maanden/ gereisd/ door Australië.
d. Anne is avontuurlijk, omdat / ze maanden heeft / gereisd /door Australië.
27
a. Pieter is erg gelukkig, omdat / hij een verzameling heeft / van Picasso schilderijen.
b. Pieter is een kunstliefhebber, want / hij heeft een verzameling / van Picasso schilderijen.
c. Pieter is erg gelukkig, want / hij heeft een verzameling / van Picasso schilderijen.
d. Pieter is een kunstliefhebber, omdat / hij een verzameling heeft / van Picasso
schilderijen.
28
a. De minister van onderwijs maakt zich zorgen, omdat / veel basisscholen / laag scoren / op
de citotoets.
b. De minister van onderwijs doet zijn werk niet goed, want / veel basisscholen / scoren laag
/ op de citotoets.
c. De minister van onderwijs maakt zich zorgen, want / veel basisscholen / scoren laag / op
de citotoets.
d. De minister van onderwijs doet zijn werk niet goed, omdat / veel basisscholen / laag
scoren / op de citotoets.
29
a. Het gaat slecht met de NS, omdat / steeds minder / mensen reizen / met de trein.
b. De NS wordt minder populair, want / steeds minder / mensen reizen / met de trein.
c. Het gaat slecht met de NS, want / steeds minder / mensen reizen / met de trein.
d. De NS wordt minder populair, omdat / steeds minder / mensen reizen / met de trein.
30
a. Hans kreeg een hoge rekening van de apotheek, omdat / zijn huisarts / veel medicijnen
heeft / voorgeschreven.
b. Hans heeft een zwakke gezondheid, want / zijn huisarts / heeft veel medicijnen /
voorgeschreven.
c. Hans kreeg een hoge rekening van de apotheek, want / zijn huisarts / heeft veel
medicijnen / voorgeschreven.
d. Hans heeft een zwakke gezondheid, omdat / zijn huisarts / veel medicijnen heeft /
voorgeschreven.
Appendix 2|173
31
a. De VVD-leden zijn opgelucht, omdat / de partij / gewonnen heeft / in een paar provincies.
b. De VVD is populair, want / de partij / heeft gewonnen / in een paar provincies.
c. De VVD-leden zijn opgelucht, want / de partij / heeft gewonnen / in een paar provincies.
d. De VVD is populair, omdat / de partij / gewonnen heeft / in een paar provincies.
32
a. Kunstenaar Frits Maas verdient genoeg geld, omdat /veel van /zijn werken gewild zijn /
in het buitenland.
b. Kunstenaar Frits Maas heeft een groot talent, want /veel van /zijn werken zijn gewild / in
het buitenland.
c. Kunstenaar Frits Maas verdient genoeg geld, want /veel van /zijn werken zijn gewild / in
het buitenland.
d. Kunstenaar Frits Maas heeft een groot talent, omdat /veel van /zijn werken gewild zijn
/in het buitenland.
33
a. Petra verdient veel geld, omdat / veel van / haar nummers / op 3FM worden gedraaid.
b. Petra kan goed zingen, want / veel van / haar nummers / worden op 3FM gedraaid.
c. Petra verdient veel geld, want / veel van / haar nummers / worden op 3FM gedraaid.
d. Petra kan goed zingen, omdat / veel van / haar nummers / op 3FM worden gedraaid.
34
a. FC Twente is veel in het nieuws, omdat / het team / goed presteert / in de eredivisie.
b. FC Twente heeft goede spelers, want / het team / staat bovenaan / in de eredivisie.
c. FC Twente is veel in het nieuws, want / het team / staat bovenaan / in de eredivisie.
d. FC Twente heeft goede spelers, omdat / het team / goed presteert / in de eredivisie.
35
a. Marc gaat even terug naar huis, omdat / de lampen / in de woonkamer / nog aan staan.
b. Marc is thuis, want / de lampen / in de woonkamer / staan nog aan.
c. Marc gaat even terug naar huis, want / de lampen / in de woonkamer / staan nog aan.
d. Marc is thuis, omdat de lampen / in de woonkamer / nog aan staan.
36
a. Het is erg warm in het huis van Marie, omdat / de verwarming / de hele dag heeft /
aangestaan.
b. Marie houdt geen rekening met het milieu, want / de verwarming / heeft de hele dag /
aangestaan.
c. Het is erg warm in het huis van Marie, want / de verwarming / heeft de hele dag /
aangestaan.
d. Marie houdt geen rekening met het milieu, omdat / de verwarming / de hele dag heeft /
aangestaan.
37
a. De fiets van Sophie is kapot, omdat / ze gisteren is / aangereden / door een brommer.
b. Sophie is een dromer, want / ze is gisteren / aangereden / door een brommer.
c. De fiets van Sophie is kapot, want / ze is gisteren / aangereden / door een brommer.
d. Sophie is een dromer, omdat / ze gisteren is / aangereden / door een brommer.
38
a. Maarten is opgenomen in het ziekenhuis, omdat / zijn rug / gisteren ernstig is / verbrand.
b. Maarten heeft te lang in de zon gelegen, want / zijn rug / is gisteren ernstig / verbrand.
c. Maarten is opgenomen in het ziekenhuis, want / zijn rug / is gisteren ernstig / verbrand.
d. Maarten heeft te lang in de zon gelegen, omdat zijn rug / gisteren ernstig is / verbrand.
39
a. Chantal kan geen baan vinden, omdat / haar cv / een gat heeft /van twee jaar.
b. Chantal is niet ambitieus, want / haar cv / heeft een gat / van twee jaar.
174|Appendix 2
c. Chantal kan geen baan vinden, want / haar cv / heeft een gat / van twee jaar.
d. Chantal is niet ambitieus, omdat / haar cv / een gat heeft /van twee jaar.
40
a. Daniel heeft een boete gekregen, omdat / de stoep / voor zijn huis / bezaaid is met rotzooi.
b. Daniel is slordig, want / de stoep / voor zijn huis / is bezaaid met rotzooi.
c. Daniel heeft een boete gekregen, want / de stoep / voor zijn huis / is bezaaid met rotzooi.
d. Daniel is slordig, omdat / de stoep / voor zijn huis / bezaaid is met rotzooi.
Appendix 3
Items Chapter 4
Experiment 1
1.
I. Verbeteringen in het onderwijs (Context Neutraal)
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar meer aandacht besteden aan het
niveau van de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er dan 14 uur per week uitgetrokken
voor reken- en taalvakken.
II. Pabo moet echt beter (Context Subjectief)
De Nederlandse Pabo-opleidingen gaan vanaf volgend jaar eindelijk meer aandacht
besteden aan het niveau van de studenten. In plaats van 8 uur wordt er dan maar liefst 14
uur per week uitgetrokken voor reken- en taalvakken.
Target:
Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag
a. want / slechts de helft / haalt een voldoende / voor rekenen / en taal.
b. omdat / slechts de helft / van de onderwijsuren / wordt besteed / aan rekenen en taal.
Afsluiting:
De minister van Onderwijs pleit voor strengere toelatingseisen en meer toetsingsmomenten
in een schooljaar.
2.
I. Voedingscentrum luidt de noodklok
Minister Klink van volksgezondheid heeft een onderzoek ingesteld naar de gezondheid van
vegetariërs en vleeseters. Eerder deze maand luidde het voedingscentrum de noodklok over
vegetarisme bij kinderen.
II. Voedingscentrum moet vegetariërs aanpakken
Minister Klink van volksgezondheid heeft eindelijk een degelijk onderzoek ingesteld naar
de gezondheid van vegetariërs en vleeseters. Eerder deze maand luidde het
voedingscentrum gelukkig al de noodklok over vegetarisme bij kinderen.
Kinderen die geen vlees eten zijn niet gezond
a. want / deze kwetsbare groep / heeft vaak last / van bloedarmoede / en andere kwalen.
b. omdat / deze kwetsbare groep / ongemerkt / te weinig / vitaminen binnen krijgt.
Het voedingscentrum adviseert alle vegetariërs om extra b12 bij te slikken.
3.
I. Nieuwe aanpak studentenhuisvesting
De Tweede Kamer houdt vanmiddag een debat over huisvesting voor studenten en starters.
Vooral de gemeentes Nijmegen en Amsterdam staan hoog op de agenda.
II. Studentenhuisvesting kan veel beter
De Tweede Kamer houdt vanmiddag eindelijk het broodnodige debat over huisvesting voor
studenten en starters. Vooral in de gemeentes Nijmegen en Amsterdam moet nu echt wat
aan de situatie veranderen.
De gemeente Nijmegen doet weinig aan betaalbare huisvesting in de stad
a. want / veel woningzoekenden / moeten uitwijken / naar buurgemeenten / Lent en Elst.
176|Appendix 3
b. omdat / veel woningzoekenden / ook in omringende / gemeenten / willen wonen.
Minister van der Laan zal een voorstel doen om dit probleem zo snel mogelijk aan te
pakken.
4.
I. Ontwikkelingsbeleid onder de loep
Uit een onderzoek van de Universiteit Twente is gebleken dat de ontwikkelingshulp, die
Europa de afgelopen decennia aan Afrika heeft geboden, negatieve effecten heeft. Deze
uitkomst is in strijd met eerdere conclusies van de EU.
II. Ontwikkelingsbeleid moet anders
Uit een opzienbarend onderzoek van de Universiteit Twente is gebleken dat de
goedbedoelde ontwikkelingshulp, die Europa de afgelopen decennia aan Afrika heeft
geboden, behoorlijk wat negatieve effecten heeft. Deze uitkomst is in strijd met eerdere
twijfelachtige conclusies van de EU.
Ontwikkelingshulp belemmert Afrika
a. want / de bevolking / is met de jaren / alleen maar armer / geworden.
b. omdat / de bevolking / hierdoor niet leert / om op eigen / benen te staan.
Volgens de onderzoekers is het veel beter om te investeren in educatie zodat de Afrikanen
meer kansen krijgen om een vak te leren.
5.
I. Meer stallingen Arnhem centraal
De gemeente Arnhem werkt sinds 2008 aan een grootschalige verbouwing van het centraal
station. Een probleem dat hiermee wordt aangepakt is de beperkte parkeermogelijkheid
voor fietsers.
II. Arnhem centraal wordt eindelijk aangepakt
De gemeente Arnhem werkt al sinds 2008 aan een broodnodige verbouwing van het
centraal station. Een probleem dat hiermee gelukkig wordt aangepakt is de beperkte
parkeermogelijkheid voor fietsers.
Er zijn nu te weinig fietsenstallingen
a. want / de straten / rond het station / staan vol / met slordig geparkeerde fietsen.
b. omdat / de straten / rond het station / te smal zijn / voor extra fietsenstallingen.
Uiterlijk 2015 zal het probleem opgelost worden.
6.
I. Herziening basisbeurs
Minister Plasterk heeft aangekondigd de basisbeurs van de studiefinanciering af te willen
schaffen. De landelijke studentenbond is bezorgd over de financiële situatie van
toekomstige studenten.
II. Herziening basisbeurs is nekslag
Minister Plasterk kwam vorige maand met de schokkende aankondiging de basisbeurs van
de studiefinanciering af te willen schaffen. De landelijke studentenbond is hierdoor
natuurlijk zeer bezorgd over de financiële situatie van studenten.
De meesten kunnen nu al niet rondkomen van 246 euro basisbeurs
a. want / studenten / lenen jaarlijks / gemiddeld duizenden / euro’s bij.
Appendix 3|177
b. omdat / studenten / gemiddeld 300 euro / moeten betalen / voor een kamer.
Door de nieuwe wetgeving zullen er naar verwachting minder jongeren aan een studie gaan
beginnen, uit angst voor een te hoge studieschuld.
7.
I. Growshops extra aandacht politie
De politie in Den Helder gaat dit jaar extra letten op het doen en laten van growshops. Dat
zijn winkels waar benodigdheden voor de teelt van hennep verkocht worden.
II. Growshops gelukkig extra aandacht politie
De politie in Den Helder gaat dit jaar eindelijk eens extra letten op het doen en laten van
growshops. Dat zijn dubieuze winkels waar benodigdheden voor de teelt van hennep
zomaar verkocht mogen worden.
Growshops zorgen voor problemen
a. want / over het algemeen / kampen de wijken / waarin ze staan / met allerlei vormen van
criminaliteit.
b. omdat / over het algemeen / veel crimineel / publiek op de / winkels afkomt.
Begin volgend jaar zal er een evaluatierapport verschijnen over de nieuwe aanpak.
8.
I. Astma Fonds op de bres voor longziekten
In aanloop naar de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen voert het Astma Fonds campagne met
acties in Amsterdam, Den Haag en Arnhem. Speerpunt van de campagne is het overtuigen
van politici om de luchtkwaliteit in de steden aan te pakken.
II. Astma Fonds verdient een medaille
In aanloop naar de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen voert het Astma Fonds een fantastische
campagne met acties in Amsterdam, Den Haag en Arnhem. Speerpunt van de campagne is
het overtuigen van politici om de luchtkwaliteit in de steden eindelijk eens goed aan te
pakken.
De stadslucht is ernstig vervuild
a. want / jaarlijks / worden er steeds / meer mensen / ziek van.
b. omdat / jaarlijks / meer CO2 door / uitlaatgassen / wordt uitgestoten.
Van 22 tot en met 25 februari organiseert de stichting publieke debatten om het bewustzijn
onder de bevolking te vergroten.
9.
I. Minder reizigers NS
Uit de kwartaalcijfers van de NS is gebleken dat de winst in het eerste kwartaal van 2010
is gedaald. De afname wordt in verband gebracht met de prijsstijgingen die in 2009 zijn
doorgevoerd.
II. Mensen hebben natuurlijk genoeg van de NS
Uit de kwartaalcijfers van de NS is gebleken dat de winst in het eerste kwartaal van 2010
verschrikkelijk is gedaald. De afname wordt natuurlijk in verband gebracht met de
belachelijke prijsstijgingen die in 2009 zijn doorgevoerd.
Reizen met de trein is minder populair geworden
a. want / veel reizigers / hebben dit jaar / hun abonnement / opgezegd.
178|Appendix 3
b. omdat / veel reizigers / het te duur vinden / om met de / trein te reizen.
Reizigersorganisatie Rover heeft laten weten dat de afname mogelijk ook ligt aan een
verminderd vertrouwen in de NS.
10.
I. Melkboeren protesteren
Melkboeren zijn gisteren in tien lidstaten van de Europese Unie de straat op gegaan om te
protesteren tegen de dalende melkprijs. De boeren zullen pas weer melk aanleveren als er
nieuwe afspraken over de melkprijs zijn gemaakt.
II. Melkboeren moeten wel protesteren
Melkboeren zijn gisteren in tien lidstaten van de Europese Unie de straat op gegaan om
eens flink te protesteren tegen de zorgwekkend dalende melkprijs. De boeren zullen pas
weer melk aanleveren als er fatsoenlijke afspraken over de melkprijs zijn gemaakt.
De huidige prijs is laag
a. want / in de afgelopen / 6 maanden zijn veel / boeren failliet / gegaan.
b. omdat / in de afgelopen / 6 maanden in alle / lidstaten de vraag / naar melk is gedaald.
Vandaag zal een delegatie van de EMB in Brussel een onderhoud hebben met
eurocommissaris Mariann Fischer Boel van Landbouw.
11.
I. Instellen TomTom strafbaar
De politie heeft aangekondigd dat het instellen van een TomTom tijdens het rijden
strafbaar wordt gesteld. Hiermee reageert de landelijke Politie op het verzoek van de
ANWB om strengere regels op te stellen.
II. Instellen TomTom nu dan toch strafbaar
De politie heeft aangekondigd dat het instellen van een TomTom tijdens het rijden eindelijk
strafbaar wordt gesteld. Hiermee reageert de landelijke Politie op het begrijpelijke verzoek
van de ANWB om eindelijk eens strengere regels op te stellen.
Het probleem wordt nu groots aangepakt
a. want / dit jaar / is er 1 miljoen euro / uitgetrokken voor een / voorlichtingscampagne.
b. omdat / dit jaar / al honderden mensen / een ongeluk hebben / veroorzaakt tijdens het
instellen van de TomTom.
De politie maakt zich ook zorgen over de extra mogelijkheden van de apparaatjes, zoals
televisie kijken.
12.
I. WHO waarschuwt voor homeopathie
De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie WHO waarschuwt mensen voor homeopathische
middelen. De WHO reageerde op de resultaten van een onderzoek van het Health Network
waaruit blijkt dat homeopathische middelen het leven van mensen in gevaar kunnen
brengen.
II. WHO waarschuwt eindelijk voor homeopathie
De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie WHO waarschuwt eindelijk voor homeopathische
middelen. De WHO reageerde terecht op de schokkende resultaten van een onderzoek van
het Health Network waaruit blijkt dat homeopathische middelen levensgevaarlijk kunnen
zijn.
Appendix 3|179
Homeopathie is slecht voor de volksgezondheid
a. want / veel patiënten / krijgen te maken / met ernstige / bijwerkingen.
b. omdat / veel patiënten / de door reguliere / artsen / voorgeschreven medicijnen laten
staan.
Vanavond houdt de Tweede Kamer een spoeddebat over de situatie.
13.
I. Bioscopen weigeren Frankenweenie
Een groot aantal Nederlandse bioscopen gaat Frankenweenie, de nieuwe Disneyfilm van
regisseur Tim Burton, niet vertonen. Dat is het antwoord van de Nederlandse Vereniging
van Bioscoopexploitanten (NVB) op het besluit van Disney om de film al binnen 3 maanden
op dvd uit te brengen.
II. Disney ligt weer eens dwars
De meeste Nederlandse bioscopen gaan Frankenweenie, de spectaculaire nieuwe film van
regisseur Tim Burton en Disney, niet vertonen. Dat is het terechte antwoord van de
Nederlandse Vereniging van Bioscoopexploitanten op het lachwekkende besluit van Disney
om de film al binnen 3 maanden op dvd uit te brengen.
Disney heeft zich in de nesten gewerkt
a. want / de filmmaatschappij / wordt door meerdere / landen / geboycot.
b. omdat / de filmmaatschappij / zich niet aan / de internationale / afspraken houdt.
Volgende week gaan alle partijen nogmaals in overleg om tot een compromis te komen.
14.
I. Problemen door OV chipkaart
De invoering van de OV-chipkaart heeft geleid tot ontevredenheid onder reizigers. Dit blijkt
uit een onderzoek van de provincie Zuid-Holland.
II. OV chipkaart is een drama
De invoering van de zogenaamd handige OV-chipkaart heeft geleid tot grote
ontevredenheid onder reizigers. Dit blijkt uit een confronterend onderzoek van de provincie
Zuid-Holland.
De OV chipkaart is geen succes
a. want / veel mensen / zijn weer meer / met de auto gaan / reizen.
b. omdat / veel mensen / niet goed weten / hoe ze de kaart / moeten gebruiken.
Minister Peijs van Verkeer heeft toegegeven dat er nog veel verbeterd moet worden aan het
nieuwe systeem.
15.
I. Documentairemaker BBC opgepakt
Documentairemaker Ray Grosling (70) van de BBC is opgepakt nadat hij had toegegeven
dat hij jaren geleden zijn ongeneeslijk zieke partner had geholpen bij zelfdoding. De Britse
omroep heeft bekend gemaakt alles te zullen doen om een gevangenisstraf te voorkomen.
II. Ray Grossling is een held
De sympathieke documentairemaker Ray Grosling van de BBC is opgepakt nadat hij had
toegegeven dat hij jaren geleden zijn ongeneeslijk zieke partner had geholpen bij
180|Appendix 3
zelfdoding. De Britse omroep heeft gelukkig bekend gemaakt alles te zullen doen om een
gevangenisstraf te voorkomen.
Grosling is niet bang voor strafrechtelijke vervolging
a. want / de documentairemaker / bekende zijn daad / op nationale / televisie.
b. omdat / de documentairemaker / vindt dat / zijn daad / gerechtvaardigd is.
De Britse politie is een onderzoek gestart naar de toedracht van de moord.
16.
I. Kabinet is gevallen
Het kabinet-Balkenende is zaterdagmorgen ten val gekomen. De urenlange vergaderingen
over de parlementscrisis konden het vertrouwen in de minister-president niet verbeteren.
II. Weer een Kabinet gevallen
Er is weer een kabinet-Balkenende gevallen. De urenlange vergaderingen over de
parlementscrisis konden het vertrouwen in de minister-president blijkbaar niet verbeteren.
De populariteit van Balkenende is afgenomen
a. want / het CDA / is flink / gedaald in de / peilingen.
b. omdat / het CDA / zich niet / aan het regeerakkoord / heeft gehouden.
Het is nog onduidelijk wanneer de nieuwe verkiezingen zullen worden gehouden.
17.
I. ABN deelt bonussen uit
ABN-AMRO betaalt zijn werknemers over 2009 in totaal 520 miljoen euro aan bonussen.
De Tweede Kamer heeft de Minister van Financiën opgeroepen om maatregelen te nemen
tegen het nieuwe beleid.
II. ABN deelt nog steeds belachelijke bonussen uit
ABN-AMRO betaalt zijn werknemers over 2009 gewoon weer miljoenen euro’s aan
bonussen. De Tweede Kamer heeft de Minister van Financiën gelukkig opgeroepen om
maatregelen te nemen tegen het belachelijke beleid.
ABN-AMRO heeft slecht gepresteerd
a. want / de bank / heeft subsidie / nodig om / te kunnen bestaan.
b. omdat / de bank / te lijden heeft / onder de / crisis.
Vakbond CNV Dienstenbond liet weten een dubbel gevoel te hebben bij het
beloningsvoorstel.
18.
I. Rechtbank hervat proces tegen Berlusconi
De rechtbank van Milaan hervatte maandag het zogeheten Mediaset-proces tegen premier
Silvio Berlusconi. Ondanks al zijn voorstanders wordt Berlusconi aangeklaagd wegens
fraude.
II. Berlusconi blijft een boef
De rechtbank van Milaan hervatte maandag eindelijk het zogeheten Mediaset-proces tegen
de beruchte premier Silvio Berlusconi. Ondanks al zijn voorstanders wordt Berlusconi
aangeklaagd wegens fraude.
De premier heeft de belastingdienst voor de gek gehouden
Appendix 3|181
a. want / hij heeft jarenlang / miljoenen euro’s / aan belastinggeld / in eigen zak gestoken.
b. omdat / hij jarenlang heeft / geprobeerd om / zoveel mogelijk / geld te verdienen.
Het Mediaset-proces is de tweede zaak waarin Berlusconi deze week verwikkeld is.
19.
I. Extra verlof Amalia
Prins Willem-Alexander en Máxima hebben samen met hun drie dochters de Olympische
winterspelen in Vancouver bezocht. Veel Nederlandse ouders hebben hun ongenoegen
uitgesproken over de speciale verlofregels die voor Amalia gelden.
II. Amalia krijgt weer eens vrij
Prins Willem-Alexander en Máxima hebben uiteindelijk toch nog samen met hun drie
dochters de Olympische winterspelen in Vancouver bezocht. Veel Nederlandse ouders
hebben heel terecht hun ongenoegen uitgesproken over de speciale verlofregels die voor
Amalia gelden.
Amalia krijgt een voorkeursbehandeling
a. want / de prinses / krijgt buiten / de vakantieperiodes / heel vaak vrij.
b. omdat / de prinses / veel meer / verplichtingen heeft / dan gewone kinderen.
Omdat het verlof door de school werd goedgekeurd, hielden Prins Willem-Alexander en
prinses Máxima zich wel aan de Leerplichtwet.
20.
I. Rotterdam begint aan hertelling
Rotterdam gaat de stemmen die vorige week uitgebracht zijn voor de
gemeenteraadsverkiezingen hertellen. Burgemeester Aboutaleb heeft dat advies gegeven
aan de raadscommissie.
II. Rotterdam moet echt hertellen
Rotterdam gaat de stemmen die vorige week uitgebracht zijn voor de
gemeenteraadsverkiezingen gelukkig hertellen. Burgemeester Aboutaleb heeft dat
verstandige advies gegeven aan de raadscommissie.
De oorspronkelijke telling is niet goed verlopen
a. want / op verschillende / stembureaus zijn / naderhand nog / losse stembiljetten
gevonden.
b. omdat / op verschillende / stembureaus weinig / toezichthouders / aanwezig waren.
De hertellingen gaan in de openbaarheid plaatsvinden en kosten de gemeente naar
schatting enkele tonnen.
21.
I. Molens populair bij het publiek
In het kader van de Nationale Molenweek stelden het afgelopen weekend 728 molens en
gemalen hun deuren open voor het publiek. Vorig jaar trok de Molenweek nog weinig
bezoekers.
II. Molens trekken terecht veel publiek
In het kader van de Nationale Molenweek stelden het afgelopen weekend 728 prachtige
molens en gemalen eindelijk eens hun deuren open voor het publiek. Vorig jaar trok de
Molenweek nog onbegrijpelijk weinig bezoekers.
182|Appendix 3
De molens zijn dit jaar een populaire trekpleister
a. want / meer dan 50 000 / mensen hebben / dit weekend / een bezoek gebracht aan een
molen.
b. omdat / meer dan 50 000 / euro is uitgetrokken / om de / monumenten aantrekkelijker te
maken voor een bezoek.
Volgens een woordvoerder is het evenement van groot belang voor het voortbestaan van de
molens.
22.
I. Kamer wil debat over reddingsplan euro
De Tweede Kamer wil maandag nog een debat met demissionair minister Jan Kees de
Jager van Financiën over het Europese reddingsplan voor de euro. CDA en GroenLinks
hebben het overleg al aangevraagd en ook de VVD schaart zich erachter.
II. Kamer pakt euro eindelijk aan
De Tweede Kamer wil maandag gelukkig een debat met demissionair minister Jan Kees de
Jager van Financiën over het broodnodige Europese reddingsplan voor de euro. CDA en
GroenLinks hebben het overleg al aangevraagd en gelukkig doet ook de VVD mee.
Het gaat niet goed met de Euro
a. want / de waarde / van de munt / daalt steeds / verder.
b. omdat / de waarde / van de munt / wordt beïnvloed / door de financiële crisis in
Griekenland.
Het reddingsplan houdt in dat de Europese Unie in totaal 500 miljard euro beschikbaar
stelt om eurolanden te helpen die hun schulden niet meer kunnen betalen.
23.
I. LAKS beleeft drukste dag
Dag vier van de eindexamens is bij de klachtenlijn van het Landelijk Aktie Komitee
Scholieren (LAKS) de drukste dag tot nu toe gebleken. In totaal heeft het LAKS zo’n 60 000
klachten van leerlingen binnengekregen. De meeste klachten gingen dit jaar over het Havoexamens Nederlands.
II. Eindexamen Nederlands is een drama
Dag vier van de eindexamens is bij de populaire klachtenlijn van het Landelijk Aktie
Komitee Scholieren (LAKS) de drukste dag tot nu toe gebleken. In totaal heeft het LAKS
maar liefst 60 000 klachten van protesterende leerlingen binnengekregen. De meeste
klachten gingen dit jaar terecht over het Havo-examen Nederlands.
Dit examen was moeilijk
a. want / veel vragen / konden door geen / enkele leerling / beantwoord worden.
b. omdat / veel vragen / slecht geformuleerd / waren en niet / aansloten op de leerstof.
De opmerkelijkste klacht die tot nu toe bij het LAKS is binnengekomen betreft een
ontplofte airco.
24.
I. Plannen sluiting SnowDome
De gemeente Venlo heeft aangekondigd de indoor skihal SnowDome te willen sluiten in
verband met de klachten van buurtbewoners over parkeeroverlast. De abonnementhouders
zijn het niet eens met het besluit en hebben bezwaar gemaakt tegen het plan.
Appendix 3|183
II. Belachelijke plannen sluiting SnowDome
De gemeente Venlo heeft aangekondigd de indoor skihal SnowDome te willen sluiten in
verband met de zogenaamde klachten van buurtbewoners over parkeeroverlast. De
abonnementhouders zijn het absoluut niet eens met het besluit en hebben bezwaar
gemaakt tegen het onbegrijpelijke plan.
Wintersportliefhebbers zijn tevreden met de indoor skihal
a. want / de pistes / trekken steeds / meer / toeristen.
b. omdat / de pistes / zeer goed / onderhouden / zijn.
De gemeente Venlo heeft nog niet gereageerd op de bezwaren.
25.
I. Apple lanceert iPad
Op 21 januari 2010 lanceerde Apple haar nieuwste creatie de iPad. Het gaat om een gadget
in A4 formaat waarmee boeken en tijdschriften digitaal gelezen kunnen worden.
II. Nieuwe iPad is fantastisch
Een paar maanden geleden lanceerde Apple haar beste creatie ooit: de iPad. Het gaat om
een unieke gadget in A4 formaat waarmee boeken en tijdschriften digitaal gelezen kunnen
worden.
De consument is onder de indruk van de nieuwe uitvinding
a. want / het apparaat / haalt bijzonder / hoge /verkoopcijfers.
b. omdat / het apparaat / heel licht is / terwijl de / beeldkwaliteit uitstekend is.
Apple lijkt hiermee, na de iPhone en de iPod, een nieuw groot succes te gaan boeken.
26.
I. Brehm stapt op
In Duitsland is bekend gemaakt dat Hans Brehm opstapt als korpschef van de politieregio
Nordrhein-Westfalen. Het ontslag volgt na het uit de hand gelopen Sommerfest in de zomer
van 2009, waarbij tientallen gewonden vielen door de drukte. Brehm is daarvoor
verantwoordelijk gesteld.
II. Brehm stapt gelukkig op
In Duitsland is bekend gemaakt dat Hans Brehm eindelijk opstapt als korpschef van de
politieregio Nordrhein-Westfalen. Het terechte ontslag volgt na het uit de hand gelopen
Sommerfest in de zomer van 2009, waarbij tientallen gewonden vielen door de
verschrikkelijke drukte. Brehm is daarvoor verantwoordelijk gesteld.
De korpschef had niet voldoende aandacht besteed aan de veiligheidsmaatregelen
a. want / het feest / werd gehouden / op een veel / te klein terrein.
b. omdat / het feest / in voorgaande jaren / maar weinig / bezoekers trok.
Hans Brehm blijft in functie totdat zijn opvolger bekend is.
27.
I. Rotterdam blinkt uit in onderscheppen drugs
Op een overslagbedrijf in Rotterdam is maandag 500 kilo cocaïne ontdekt in plastic
ananassen. In de Rotterdamse haven zijn dit jaar in totaal 40 gevallen van drugssmokkel
ontdekt.
II. Rotterdam is de beste
184|Appendix 3
Op een overslagbedrijf in Rotterdam is maandag een gigantische hoeveelheid cocaïne
ontdekt in plastic ananassen. In de Rotterdamse haven zijn dit jaar nu al zo’n 40 gevallen
van drugssmokkel ontdekt.
De lokale douanebeambten zijn goed in het opsporen van drugs
a. want / al jarenlang / worden er in Rotterdam / meer drugs / onderschept dan waar ook in
Europa.
b. omdat / al jarenlang / specifieke trainingsprogramma’s / worden / georganiseerd voor het
douanepersoneel.
De Europese Unie heeft aangekondigd het Rotterdamse beleid in de rest van Europa door
te willen voeren.
28.
I. Jonge vandalen opgepakt
De politie Brabant heeft vorige week een aantal jongeren aangehouden die op diverse
plaatsen speeltoestellen hebben vernield. Buurtbewoners en politie hadden maandenlang
tevergeefs geprobeerd om de daders, die steeds ’s nachts in actie kwamen, op heterdaad te
betrappen.
II. Domme vandalen gelukkig opgepakt
De politie Brabant heeft vorige week eindelijk een aantal asociale jongeren aangehouden
die op diverse plaatsen speeltoestellen hebben vernield. Buurtbewoners en politie hadden
maandenlang tevergeefs geprobeerd om de rotjongens, die steeds ’s nachts in actie kwamen,
op heterdaad te betrappen.
De groep is uiteindelijk overmoedig geweest
a. want / de jongens / hebben de laatste keer / op klaarlichte dag / toegeslagen.
b. omdat / de jongens / dachten dat ze toch / niet zouden worden / opgepakt.
De jongeren zijn inmiddels voorgeleid aan de kinderrechter.
29.
I. Problemen Belgische wegen
Gisteren presenteerde de Belgische mobiliteitsorganisatie Touring het jaarlijkse
wegenrapport. Uit de resultaten blijkt dat er drastische maatregelen moeten worden
genomen om het Belgische wegdek te verbeteren.
II. Belgische wegen geen cent waard
Gisteren presenteerde de Belgische mobiliteitsorganisatie Touring het jaarlijkse
wegenrapport. Uit de resultaten blijkt dat er toch echt super veel maatregelen moeten
worden genomen om het Belgische gebrekkige wegdek te verbeteren.
De kwaliteit van het wegennetwerk laat te wensen over
a. want / in België / is er meer schade / door opspattend gesteente / dan in andere West
Europese landen.
b. omdat / in België / goedkoper en inferieur / asfalt wordt / gebruikt dan in andere West
Europese landen.
Touring concludeert dat mensen, ondanks het slechte wegdek, nog steeds liever met de auto
dan met het openbaar vervoer reizen.
30.
I. Geen gezichtsscan meer in dierentuin
Appendix 3|185
Dierenpark Emmen heeft de gezichtsscans bij de poorten verwijderd. Het toegangssysteem
werd in 2007 voor drie ton aangeschaft om de rijen bij de poorten op te lossen. Sinds de
aanschaf van de scans zijn de kosten van de jaarkaarten gestegen en is de 50-plus korting
afgeschaft.
II. Gezichtsscan is een grote flop
Dierenpark Emmen heeft de gezichtsscans bij de poorten nu alweer verwijderd. Het
toegangssysteem werd in 2007 voor wel drie ton aangeschaft om de rijen bij de poorten op
te lossen. Sinds de aanschaf van de scans zijn de kosten van de jaarkaarten belachelijk veel
gestegen en is de 50-plus korting afgeschaft.
De abonnementhouders waren erg boos
a. want / de helft van / de jaarkaarten werd / binnen 6 maanden / opgezegd.
b. omdat / de helft van / de bezoekers hun / jaarkaart niet meer / kon betalen.
Het systeem gaat nu terug naar de ouderwetse abonnementen omdat de scans niet goed
functioneren.
31.
I. Romeinse voetbalsupporters zorgen voor onrust
De Italiaanse politie heeft gisteren extra mankracht in moeten zetten om de openbare orde
in de hoofdstad te handhaven. In verband met de wedstrijd AS Roma-Lazio Roma waren er
vanaf het middaguur grote groepen voetbalsupporters in het centrum aanwezig.
II. Romeinse voetbalsupporters maken er een rotzooi van
De Italiaanse politie heeft gisteren weer eens extra mankracht in moeten zetten om de
openbare orde in de hoofdstad te handhaven. In verband met de verschrikkelijk spannende
wedstrijd tussen de rivalen AS Roma en Lazio Roma waren er vanaf het middaguur grote
groepen baldadige voetbalsupporters in de stad aanwezig.
De supporters hebben zich misdragen
a. want / de politie / heeft het stadscentrum / hermetisch / af moeten sluiten.
b. omdat / de politie / zich direct agressief / opstelde / tegenover de voetbalfans.
In totaal werden 30 mensen gearresteerd en alle voetbalsupporters mochten zich tot
middernacht niet meer in de binnenstad vertonen.
32.
I. Varkenshouders opgepakt
De politie heeft tijdens een grote controle van een varkenshouderij in het Brabantse Lierop
de twee eigenaren aangehouden vanwege een overtreding van milieuwetten. De twee
mannen van 39 en 66 jaar hebben bekend zich schuldig te hebben gemaakt aan illegale
mestlozing.
II. Misdadige varkenshouders opgepakt
De politie heeft tijdens een grote controle van een beruchte varkenshouderij in Lierop de
twee eigenaren aangehouden vanwege een schandalige overtreding van milieuwetten. De
twee mannen van 39 en 66 jaar hebben gelukkig meteen bekend zich schuldig te hebben
gemaakt aan illegale mestlozing.
De mannen hebben gewetenloos gehandeld
a. want / het tweetal / was al eerder / duidelijk gewezen / op de schadelijke gevolgen.
b. omdat / het tweetal / zoveel mogelijk / winst wilde maken / met het bedrijf.
186|Appendix 3
Morgen zal het duo worden voorgeleid aan de rechter-commissaris.
33.
I. Meer beveiliging rond het spoor
Ondanks de inzet van meer conducteurs is het aantal geweldplegingen in het openbaar
vervoer het afgelopen jaar verdubbeld. Hierdoor voelen veel mensen zich niet meer veilig in
de trein.
II. NS personeel bakt er niets van
Ondanks de ambitieuze inzet van meer conducteurs is het aantal geweldplegingen in het
openbaar vervoer het afgelopen jaar verschrikkelijk toegenomen. Hierdoor voelen veel
mensen zich behoorlijk onveilig in de trein.
Het NS personeel straalt geen gezag uit
a. want / onruststokers / in de trein / trekken zich niets / aan van de waarschuwingen.
b. omdat / onruststokers / in de trein / weten dat ze toch / niet fysiek in mogen grijpen.
Vanaf volgend jaar komt er daarom op sommige trajecten extra beveiliging om het
personeel en de reizigers te beschermen.
34.
I. 300 aangiften bandenprikker Elp
Bij de politie in het Drentse dorp Elp zijn sinds november ruim 300 aangiften
binnengekomen van mensen van wie de autobanden zijn lek gestoken. Ondanks de talrijke
klachten weigert de gemeente meer beveiligingscamera’s in het dorp te plaatsen.
II. 300 Bizarre aangiften bandenprikker Elp
Bij de politie in het Drentse dorp Elp zijn sinds november wel zo’n 300 bizarre aangiften
binnengekomen van arme stakkers van wie de autobanden zijn lek gestoken. Ondanks de
stortvloed aan terechte klachten weigert de gemeente meer beveiligingscamera’s in het
dorp te plaatsen.
De politie neemt de zaak wel serieus
a. want / bijna alle inwoners / van het dorp / zijn ondervraagd / door rechercheurs.
b. omdat / bijna alle inwoners / zich onveilig / voelen in hun / eigen buurt.
Er wordt nu duizend euro uitgeloofd voor de tip die ertoe leidt dat de dader wordt
aangehouden.
35.
I. Global warming
Tijdens de klimaattop in Kopenhagen hebben alle wereldleiders overlegd over de
klimaatschommelingen van de afgelopen decennia. Een belangrijk punt van
overeenstemming betrof de wens om deze veranderingen zo veel mogelijk te beperken.
II. Global warming wordt eindelijk aangepakt
Tijdens de klimaattop in Kopenhagen hebben alle wereldleiders eindelijk eens goed
overlegd over de zorgwekkende klimaatschommelingen van de afgelopen decennia. Een
belangrijk punt van overeenstemming betrof gelukkig de wens om deze veranderingen zo
veel mogelijk te beperken.
De aarde warmt snel op
a. want / in de hele wereld / smelten al / gletsjers en stijgt / de zeespiegel.
b. omdat / in de hele wereld / te veel / koolstofdioxide wordt / uitgestoten.
Appendix 3|187
De secretaris-generaal van de Verenigde Naties verwacht dat in 2010 een bindend en
gedetailleerd akkoord wordt gesloten.
36.
I. Nieuw plan van aanpak strooizout
In de winter van 2009 kampten veel Nederlandse gemeenten met een tekort aan strooizout.
Het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat heeft laten weten dat er voor de komende winter
al een ruime hoeveel strooizout is besteld.
II. Strooizout dit jaar wèl goed aangepakt
In de winter van 2009 kampten veel Nederlandse gemeenten met een verschrikkelijk tekort
aan strooizout. Het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat heeft gelukkig laten weten dat er
voor de komende winter wèl een behoorlijke hoeveel strooizout is besteld.
De inkopers bij de overheid hadden vorig jaar verkeerd gepland
a. want / de voorraad / strooizout was / toen veel / te snel op.
b. omdat / de voorraad / strooizout in / voorgaande / jaren / nauwelijks werd aangesproken.
Rijkswaterstaat zal er dit jaar alles aan doen om genoeg zout op voorraad te hebben.
Experiment 2
1.
Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag (Context Neutraal)
Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag (Context Subjectief)
a. want / slechts de helft / haalt een voldoende / voor rekenen en taal.
b. omdat / slechts de helft / van de lesuren wordt / besteed aan rekenen en taal.
2.
Kinderen die geen vlees eten zijn ongezond
Kinderen die geen vlees eten zijn natuurlijk ongezond
a. want / deze kwetsbare groep / heeft vaak / last van allerlei kwalen.
b. omdat / deze kwetsbare groep / ongemerkt te weinig / vitaminen binnen krijgt
3.
De gemeente Nijmegen doet weinig aan betaalbare huisvesting in de stad
De gemeente Nijmegen doet bijzonder weinig aan betaalbare huisvesting in de stad
a. want / veel woningzoekenden / moeten uitwijken / naar buurgemeente Lent.
b. omdat / veel woningzoekenden / ook bereid zijn om / in omringende gemeenten te wonen.
4.
Ontwikkelingshulp heeft een negatieve invloed op Afrika
Ontwikkelingshulp heeft een enorm negatieve invloed op Afrika
a. want / de bevolking / is met de jaren / alleen maar armer geworden.
b. omdat / de bevolking / hierdoor niet leert / om op eigen benen te staan.
5.
Er zijn nu te weinig fietsenstallingen
Er zijn nu echt veel te weinig fietsenstallingen
a. want / de straten / rond het station / staan vol met fietsen.
b. omdat / de straten / rond het station / te smal zijn voor extra stallingen.
6.
De meesten kunnen nu al moeilijk rondkomen van 246 euro basisbeurs
188|Appendix 3
De meesten kunnen nu al behoorlijk moeilijk rondkomen van 246 euro basisbeurs
a. want / studenten / lenen jaarlijks / gemiddeld duizenden euro’s bij.
b. omdat / studenten / gemiddeld / 300 euro betalen voor een kamer.
7.
Growshops zorgen voor problemen
Growshops zorgen voor ontzettend veel problemen
a. want / over het algemeen / hebben omliggende wijken / last van criminaliteit.
b. omdat / over het algemeen / veel crimineel / publiek op de winkels afkomt.
8.
De stadslucht is ernstig vervuild
De stadslucht is echt heel ernstig vervuild
a. want / jaarlijks / worden er steeds / meer mensen ziek van.
b. omdat / jaarlijks / meer CO2 / wordt uitgestoten.
9.
Reizen met de trein is minder populair geworden
Reizen met de trein is uiteraard minder populair geworden
a. want / veel reizigers / hebben dit jaar / hun abonnement opgezegd.
b. omdat / veel reizigers / het te duur vinden / om met de trein te reizen.
10.
De huidige prijs is laag
De huidige prijs is belachelijk laag
a. want / in de afgelopen maanden / zijn veel / boeren failliet gegaan.
b. omdat / in de afgelopen maanden / de vraag / naar melk is gedaald.
11.
Het probleem wordt nu groots aangepakt
Het probleem wordt nu gelukkig groots aangepakt
a. want / dit jaar / is er 1 miljoen euro / besteed aan voorlichting.
b. omdat / dit jaar / veel mensen tijden het instellen van de Tom Tom / een ongeluk hebben
veroorzaakt.
12.
Homeopathie is slecht voor de volksgezondheid
Homeopathie is verschrikkelijk slecht voor de volksgezondheid
a. want / veel patiënten / krijgen te maken / met ernstige bijwerkingen.
b. omdat / veel patiënten / hun reguliere / medicijnen laten staan.
13.
Disney heeft zich in de nesten gewerkt
Disney heeft zich gigantisch in de nesten gewerkt
a. want / de filmmaatschappij / wordt door / meerdere landen geboycot.
b. omdat / de filmmaatschappij / zich niet aan de / internationale afspraken houdt.
14.
De OV chipkaart is een mislukking
De OV chipkaart is een enorme mislukking
a. want / veel mensen / zijn weer meer / met de auto gaan reizen.
b. omdat / veel mensen / niet goed weten / hoe de kaart werkt
15.
Grosling heeft vertrouwen in een goede afloop
Grosling heeft echt alle vertrouwen in een goede afloop
a. want / de documentairemaker / bekende / zijn daad op nationale televisie.
b. omdat / de documentairemaker / vindt dat / zijn daad gerechtvaardigd is.
16.
De populariteit van Balkenende is afgenomen
Appendix 3|189
De populariteit van Balkenende is enorm afgenomen
a. want / het CDA / is flink / gedaald in de peilingen.
b. omdat / het CDA / de missie / in Uruzgan wilde voortzetten.
17.
ABN-AMRO heeft slecht gepresteerd
ABN-AMRO heeft behoorlijk slecht gepresteerd
a. want / de bank / heeft subsidie / nodig om te kunnen bestaan.
b. omdat / de bank / te lijden / heeft onder de kredietcrisis.
18.
De premier heeft de belastingdienst voor de gek gehouden
De premier heeft de belastingdienst gigantisch voor de gek gehouden
a. want / hij heeft jarenlang / miljoenen euro’s / aan belastinggeld achtergehouden.
b. omdat / hij jarenlang heeft / geprobeerd om / belastingpremies te ontduiken.
19.
Amalia krijgt een voorkeursbehandeling
Amalia krijgt een aanzienlijke voorkeursbehandeling
a. want / de prinses / krijgt buiten / de vakanties heel vaak vrij.
b. omdat / de prinses / meer verplichtingen / heeft dan gewone kinderen.
20.
Er waren onregelmatigheden bij de oorspronkelijke telling
Er waren behoorlijke onregelmatigheden bij de oorspronkelijke telling
a. want / op verschillende stembureaus / zijn naderhand / nog stembiljetten gevonden.
b. omdat / op verschillende stembureaus / weinig / toezichthouders aanwezig waren.
21.
De molens zijn dit jaar een populaire trekpleister
De molens zijn dit jaar gelukkig wel een populaire trekpleister
a. want / meer dan 50 000 / mensen hebben / dit jaar de molenweek bezocht.
b. omdat meer dan 50 000 / euro is / uitgetrokken voor promotieacties.
22.
Het gaat slecht met de Euro
Het gaat ontzettend slecht met de Euro
a. want / de waarde / van de munt / daalt steeds verder.
b. omdat / de waarde / van de munt wordt / beïnvloed door de crisis in Griekenland
23.
Dit examen was moeilijk
Dit examen was belachelijk moeilijk
a. want / veel vragen / konden door geen / enkele leerling beantwoord worden.
b. omdat / veel vragen / slecht / aansloten op de leerstof.
24.
Wintersportliefhebbers zijn tevreden met de indoor skihal
Wintersportliefhebbers zijn natuurlijk wel tevreden met de indoor skihal
a. want / de pistes / trekken steeds /meer toeristen.
b. omdat / de pistes / zeer goed / onderhouden zijn.
25.
De consument is onder de indruk van de nieuwe uitvinding
De consument is flink onder de indruk van de nieuwe uitvinding
a. want / het apparaat / haalt bijzonder / hoge verkoopcijfers.
b. omdat / het apparaat / een uitstekende / beeldkwaliteit heeft.
26.
De korpschef had onvoldoende aandacht besteed aan de veiligheidsmaatregelen
De korpschef had absoluut onvoldoende aandacht besteed aan de veiligheidsmaatregelen
190|Appendix 3
a. want / het feest / werd gehouden / op een veel te klein terrein.
b. omdat / het feest / in voorgaande jaren / maar weinig bezoekers trok.
27.
De lokale douanebeambten zijn goed in het opsporen van drugs
De lokale douanebeambten zijn ontzettend goed in het opsporen van drugs
a. want / al jarenlang / onderschept de Rotterdamse douane / meer drugs dan waar ook in
Europa.
b. omdat / al jarenlang / specifieke trainingsprogramma’s / voor hen worden georganiseerd.
28.
De groep is uiteindelijk overmoedig geweest
De groep is uiteindelijk ontzettend overmoedig geweest
a. want / de jongens / hebben de laatste keer / op klaarlichte dag toegeslagen.
b. omdat / de jongens / dachten dat ze / toch niet zouden worden opgepakt.
29.
De kwaliteit van het wegennetwerk laat te wensen over
De kwaliteit van het wegennetwerk laat absoluut te wensen over
a. want / in België / is er veel schade / door opspattend gesteente.
b. omdat / in België / goedkoop en inferieur / asfalt wordt gebruikt.
30.
De abonnementhouders waren boos
De abonnementhouders waren vreselijk boos
a. want / de helft van / de jaarkaarten is / inmiddels opgezegd.
b. omdat / de helft van / de bezoekers hun / jaarkaart niet meer kon betalen.
31.
De supporters hebben zich misdragen
De supporters hebben zich ongelofelijk misdragen
a. want / de politie / heeft het stadscentrum / hermetisch af moeten sluiten.
b. omdat / de politie / zich direct agressief / opstelde tegenover de voetbalfans.
32.
De mannen hebben gewetenloos gehandeld
De mannen hebben volslagen gewetenloos gehandeld
a. want / het tweetal / was al eerder duidelijk / gewezen op de gevolgen.
b. omdat / het tweetal / zoveel mogelijk /winst wilde maken.
33.
Het NS personeel heeft weinig gezag
Het NS personeel heeft bijzonder weinig gezag
a. want / onruststokers / in de trein / negeren alle waarschuwingen.
b. omdat / onruststokers / in de trein / niet bang zijn voor een boete.
34.
De politie neemt de zaak wel serieus
De politie neemt de zaak wel buitengewoon serieus
a. want / bijna alle inwoners / van het dorp / zijn ondervraagd door rechercheurs.
b. omdat / bijna alle bewoners / zich onveilig / voelen in hun eigen buurt.
35.
De aarde warmt snel op
De aarde warmt bijzonder snel op
a. want / in de hele wereld / smelten al / gletsjers en stijgt de zeespiegel.
b. omdat / in de hele wereld / te veel koolstofdioxide / wordt uitgestoten.
36.
De inkopers bij de overheid hadden vorig jaar verkeerd gepland
De inkopers bij de overheid hadden vorig jaar nogal verkeerd gepland
Appendix 3|191
a. want / de voorraad / strooizout was /toen veel te snel op.
b. omdat / de voorraad / strooizout in voorgaande / jaren nauwelijks werd aangesproken.
Appendix 4
Items Chapter 5
Experiment 1
1. Frank houdt erg van films. Daarom | Dus / is hij / vaak in de / bioscoop te vinden.
2. Frits vindt het leuk om te skiën. Daarom | Dus / gaat hij / ieder jaar / op wintersport.
3. Marieke had een dunne jas aan. Daarom |Dus / had ze / het koud toen / ze naar buiten
ging.
4. Pieter had gisteren een feestje. Daarom |Dus / kwam hij / vanmiddag pas / uit zijn bed.
5. Lotte is vandaag jarig. Daarom |Dus / krijgt zij / van iedereen /een cadeau.
6. Bas is op vakantie geweest. Daarom |Dus / is hij / erg bruin /geworden.
7. De trein had vertraging. Daarom |Dus / is Joep / een uur te laat / op zijn werk.
8. Fleur heeft gisteren te veel gedronken. Daarom | Dus / heeft zij / vandaag last / van
hoofdpijn.
9. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Daarom | Dus / zit hij / al uren / te studeren.
10. Koen heeft gister weinig geslapen. Daarom | Dus / heeft hij / nu moeite / om wakker te
blijven.
11. Jantine heeft opslag gekregen van haar baas. Daarom | Dus / heeft ze / deze maand /
meer geld verdiend.
12. De weersvoorspellingen waren erg slecht. Daarom | Dus / heb ik / mij warm /
aangekleed.
13. Sjon heeft veel last van hoogtevrees. Daarom | Dus / durft hij / niet met / het vliegtuig.
14. Anne had het tentamen niet goed gemaakt. Daarom | Dus / heeft ze / het vak / niet
gehaald.
15. Er is een overval op de bank gepleegd. Daarom | Dus / is direct / de politie / gebeld.
16. Hans haalde als eerste de finish. Daarom | Dus / kreeg hij / van de organisatie / een bos
bloemen.
17. De verdediger maakte hands. Daarom | Dus / trok de / scheidsrechter / een gele kaart.
18. De oven was al voorverwarmd. Daarom | Dus / was de pizza / binnen enkele / minuten
klaar.
19. Het heeft gesneeuwd. Daarom | Dus / maken de kinderen / in de buurt / een
sneeuwpop.
20. Henk heeft vanavond een gala. Daarom | Dus / trekt hij / zijn mooiste / pak aan.
Experiment 2
1. De gordijnen zijn om 8 uur al dicht op de kamer van Marijke.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / ligt ze / vanavond vroeg / in bed.
Impliciet: Ze ligt vanavond vroeg in bed.
2. De waterkoker is heet.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft er / net iemand / thee gezet.
Impliciet: Er heeft net iemand thee gezet.
3. Luc heeft een paraplu meegenomen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / verwacht hij / dat het vandaag / gaat regenen.
Impliciet: Hij verwacht dat het vandaag gaat regenen.
194|Appendix 4
4. Ingrid heeft geen belminuten meer.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft ze /de afgelopen weken / veel getelefoneerd.
Impliciet: Ze heeft de afgelopen weken veel getelefoneerd.
5. Pieter heeft een 9 gehaald voor zijn tentamen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / erg zijn best gedaan / bij het studeren.
Impliciet: Hij heeft erg zijn best gedaan bij het studeren.
6. José heeft haar bord niet leeggegeten.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / vindt ze / het eten / niet zo lekker.
Impliciet: Ze vindt het eten niet zo lekker.
7. Karin past haar broeken niet meer.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is ze /in het afgelopen jaar / behoorlijk aangekomen.
Impliciet: Ze is in het afgelopen jaar behoorlijk aangekomen.
8. Pim heeft een strafblad.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / wel eens / een wet overtreden.
Impliciet: Hij heeft wel eens een wet overtreden.
9. De sneeuw is aan het smelten.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is het / buiten niet meer / aan het vriezen.
Impliciet: Het is buiten niet meer aan het vriezen.
10. Maarten is verbrand.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / te lang / in de zon gelegen.
Impliciet: Hij heeft te lang in de zon gelegen.
11. Ik hoor de muziek van de bovenbuurman heel goed.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / zijn radio / hard aan staan.
Impliciet: Hij heeft zijn radio hard aan staan.
12. De verf op de schutting is nat.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft iemand / hem net nog / geschilderd.
Impliciet: Iemand heeft hem net nog geschilderd.
13. Op Sicilië is er weinig groen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / valt er / jaarlijks / weinig regen.
Impliciet: Er valt jaarlijks weinig regen.
14. Peter is erg bezweet.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / zich net / lichamelijk uitgesloofd.
Impliciet: Hij heeft zich net lichamelijk uitgesloofd.
15. De secretaresse is vandaag weer niet op haar werk.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is ze / nog niet / beter.
Impliciet: Ze is nog niet beter.
16. Jan heeft zijn zonnebril op.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is het / vandaag / een mooie dag.
Impliciet: Het is vandaag een mooie dag.
Appendix 4|195
17. De jas van Guus hangt aan de kapstok.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is hij / op dit moment / thuis.
Impliciet: Hij is op dit moment thuis.
18. De kamerdeur van Suzanne is op slot.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / wil ze / vandaag niet / gestoord worden.
Impliciet: Ze wil vandaag niet gestoord worden.
19. De hond is weggelopen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft Freek / niet goed / op hem gelet.
Impliciet: Freek heeft niet goed op hem gelet.
20. Stephanie heeft buikpijn.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft ze / iets verkeerds / gegeten.
Impliciet: Ze heeft iets verkeerds gegeten.
21. De auto start niet.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heb ik / gisteren mijn / lichten aan laten staan.
Impliciet: Ik heb gisteren mijn lichten aan laten staan.
22. De buurman is zijn ruit aan het krabben.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft het / vannacht / gevroren.
Impliciet: Het heeft vannacht gevroren.
23. Sophie’s fiets heeft een lekke band.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is ze / over iets / scherps heen gereden.
Impliciet: Ze is over iets scherps heen gereden.
24. Anne is vandaag heel moe.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is ze / gisteravond te laat / naar bed gegaan.
Impliciet: Ze is gisteravond te laat naar bed gegaan.
25. De vlag van de buren hangt uit.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft Kim / haar diploma / gehaald.
Impliciet: Kim heeft haar diploma gehaald.
26. Er kwam witte rook uit de schoorsteen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / hebben de kardinalen / een nieuwe / paus gekozen.
Impliciet: De kardinalen hebben een nieuwe paus gekozen.
27. Piet heeft een gouden medaille.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / de wedstrijd / gewonnen.
Impliciet: Hij heeft de wedstrijd gewonnen.
28. De zwerver zwalkt over de weg.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / te veel / gedronken.
Impliciet: Hij heeft te veel gedronken.
29. Jelmer had een blauw oog.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / met iemand / gevochten.
Impliciet: Hij heeft met iemand gevochten.
196|Appendix 4
30. De bomen van de spoorwegovergang gaan dicht.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / komt er / een trein / aan.
Impliciet: Er komt een trein aan.
31. Het orkest kreeg een staande ovatie.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / vonden de toeschouwers / het een / goed optreden.
Impliciet: De toeschouwers vonden het een goed optreden
32. De schaatswedstrijd ging door.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / had het / hard genoeg / gevroren
Impliciet: Het had hard genoeg gevroren
33. De krant kwam vandaag niet.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is de / bezorger / ziek
Impliciet: De bezorger is ziek
34. Ben kreeg een boete.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / was zijn fietsverlichting / niet in / orde
Impliciet: Zijn fietsverlichting was niet in orde
35. Petra's haren zijn kletsnat.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft het / erg hard / geregend.
Impliciet: Het heeft erg hard geregend.
36. Het was warm in huis toen ik thuis kwam.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft de verwarming / de hele dag / aangestaan
Impliciet: De verwarming heeft de hele dag aangestaan
37. Er zit een deuk in de auto.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is er iemand / tegenaan / gereden.
Impliciet: Er is iemand tegenaan gereden.
38. Sjoerd heeft van zijn werkgever een bonus gekregen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is zijn baas / tevreden over / zijn functioneren.
Impliciet: Zijn baas is tevreden over zijn functioneren.
39. Kees is geselecteerd voor het Nederlands team.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / indruk gemaakt / op de bondscoach.
Impliciet: Hij heeft indruk gemaakt op de bondscoach.
40. Jeroen mag nog geen alcohol kopen.
Dus | Daarom | Blijkbaar / is hij / nog geen / 16 jaar.
Impliciet: Hij is nog geen 16 jaar.
Appendix 4|197
Experiment 3
1.
NO AC: Ik vraag me af of Remco wel te vertrouwen is. Hij is vorig jaar van zijn opleiding
gestuurd wegens plagiaat.
AC: Ik heb wel een vermoeden waarom Remco problemen heeft met zijn klasgenoten.
Niemand uit zijn klas wil nog met hem samenwerken.
Target:
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / geprobeerd andermans / werk te kopiëren.
2.
N) Pim heeft gesolliciteerd op een baan in de beveiliging. De manager vertrouwde hem niet
helemaal en heeft zijn gegevens bij de politie opgevraagd. Nu blijkt dat Pim een strafblad
heeft.
A)Pim en ik waren getuigen van een aanrijding. Eigenlijk moesten wij een verklaring
afleggen maar Pim durfde niet mee te gaan naar het politiebureau.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / wel eens / de wet overtreden.
3.
N)Karin heeft gisteren haar kledingkast opgeruimd. Nadat ze alle broeken van vorig jaar
had gepast, ontdekte Karin dat er geen enkele broek meer was waarvan ze de knoop dicht
kreeg.
A) Op de avond voor haar eerste schooldag legde Karin haar favoriete outfit klaar. De
volgende ochtend, toen Karin naar de bus rende, scheurde ze uit haar broek.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is ze / in het afgelopen jaar / veel aangekomen.
4.
N)De afgelopen weken heeft het bijna elke dag gesneeuwd maar op het weerbericht hebben
ze ons beter weer beloofd. Toen ik vanmorgen naar buiten keek zag ik dat de sneeuw al aan
het smelten was.
A) Dankzij het winterse weer hebben we heel veel kunnen schaatsen en iedereen vraagt
zich af hoe lang dit weer nog aanhoudt. Vanmiddag viel het me op dat de sneeuw op de
rijdende auto’s aan het smelten is.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is het / buiten niet meer / aan het vriezen.
5.
N)Mijn bovenbuurman vindt het irritant dat ik vaak klaag over geluidsoverlast. Ondanks
de goede isolatie hoor ik vandaag zijn radio weer heel goed en trillen de kopjes van tafel.
A)Bij ons in de flat hebben de mensen regelmatig ruzie met elkaar. Vandaag zijn veel
flatbewoners boos op mijn bovenbuurman.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / zijn muziekinstallatie / te hard aan staan.
6.
N)Bij een bromfietscontrole moest Marc zijn scooter laten controleren op de rollerbank. Hij
ging veel harder dan toegestaan.
A)In de herfstvakantie ging ik met Marc een stukje rijden op onze scooters. Zijn scooter
ging harder dan die van mij.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is de scooter / van Marc / opgevoerd.
198|Appendix 4
7.
N)Ik kijk ’s ochtends altijd eerst naar buiten om te zien wat voor weer het is. Vandaag is de
buurman zijn autoruit aan het krabben.
A)Als ik ’s ochtends op sta vind ik het leuk om te kijken wat er allemaal in de straat
gebeurt. Vandaag heeft de buurman zijn winterbanden uit de garage gehaald.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft het / vannacht / gevroren.
8.
N)De bellen rinkelen en de lichten gaan aan bij de spoorwegovergang. De spoorbomen gaan
dicht.
A)Op het station is het een drukte van jewelste. Een groepje reizigers staat te wachten op
perron 14.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / komt er / zo een / trein aan.
9.
N)Ik wilde met Jeroen naar de kroeg gaan. Maar ik hoorde van Klaas dat Jeroen nog geen
bier mag kopen.
A)Veel van mijn klasgenoten komen met de brommer naar school. Jeroen heeft geen
brommer.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is hij / nog jonger / dan 16 jaar.
10.
N)Ben ging vorig weekend naar Amsterdam om zijn oma te bezoeken. Toen hij in de trein
zat, kreeg Ben een boete voor zwartrijden.
A)Ben ging vorig weekend naar Amsterdam om zijn oma te bezoeken. Toen hij in de trein
zat, was Ben erg zenuwachtig.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / had hij / geen geldig / vervoersbewijs bij zich.
11.
N)Ik kwam Erik daarnet tegen in de stad en hij zag er erg verzorgd uit. Zijn haar is veel
korter dan vorige week.
A)Ik kwam Erik daarnet tegen in de stad. Het viel me op dat zijn haar anders zit dan
vorige week.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft hij / pas zijn haren / laten knippen.
12.
N)Gisteravond was mijn vaste parkeerplaats bezet en ik moest mijn auto in een donkere
steeg parkeren. Vanmorgen ontdekte ik dat mijn autoslot geforceerd was.
A)Gisteravond was mijn vaste parkeerplaats bezet en ik moest mijn auto in een donkere
steeg parkeren. Vanmorgen ontdekte ik krassen op mijn auto.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft er / iemand geprobeerd / in te breken.
13.
N)In de gymzaal waren Nick en Martijn allerlei trucs aan het oefenen. Nick legde zomaar
zijn been in zijn nek.
A)Omdat ze zich vaak vervelen zijn Nick en Martijn nieuwe hobby's aan het bedenken.
Nick wil wel graag gaan turnen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is hij / heel erg / lenig.
Appendix 4|199
14.
N)Rutger heeft duidelijk geen groene vingers. Toen ik op bezoek was, zag ik dat zijn
kamerplant in de gang helemaal verdroogd was.
A)Rutger heeft duidelijk geen groene vingers. Toen ik op bezoek was zag ik dat zijn
kamerplant er slecht uitzag.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / had hij / hem niet genoeg / water gegeven.
15.
N)Vanwege het afgegeven weeralarm ben ik gisteravond niet op stap gegaan. Vanmorgen
zag ik dat er bij ons in de straat drie bomen zijn omgevallen.
A)Mijn buurman laat zijn kliko altijd veel te lang buiten staan. Vanmorgen zag ik dat zijn
kliko was omgevallen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft het / vannacht erg / hard gewaaid.
16.
N)Heel Friesland is in de ban van de Elfstedentocht en veel vrijwilligers zetten zich in om
het evenement te laten plaatsvinden. Maar vanmorgen is een van de vrijwilligers door het
ijs gezakt.
A)Heel Friesland is in de ban van de Elfstedentocht en veel vrijwilligers zetten zich in om
het evenement te laten plaatsvinden. Vanmorgen zag ik dat een groot stuk van de baan is
afgezet met oranje linten.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is het / ijs nog niet / dik genoeg.
17.
N)Ik vraag me af of Carla wel een geschikte chauffeur is. Zonder haar bril kan Carla de
snelheidsmeter niet eens lezen.
A)Toen ik mijn lenzen op ging halen bij de opticien kwam ik Carla tegen. Carla vertelde dat
ze een nieuwe bril moest aanschaffen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft ze / erg slechte / ogen.
18.
N)De hele buurt is in rep en roer. De presentator van de Postcode Loterij loopt namelijk
met een grote cheque door de straat.
A)Zojuist belde de buurvrouw aan om even te kletsen. Ze vertelde dat ze een busje met
reclame van de Postcode Loterij voorbij zag rijden.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft iemand / uit de buurt / een prijs gewonnen.
19.
N)Ik gebruik mijn creditcard alleen maar in noodgevallen. Toen ik net ging
internetbankieren zag ik dat er onlangs vanuit Bangkok aankopen met mijn creditcard zijn
gedaan, maar de pas zit gewoon nog in mijn portemonnee.
A)Ik gebruik mijn creditcard af en toe voor grote aankopen. Vanmorgen ontdekte ik dat de
maximum bestedingslimiet van mijn creditcard was bereikt.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft iemand / mijn gegevens / gestolen.
20.
N)Piet was hard aan het werk toen opeens zijn computer uitviel. Ook de rest van de
apparaten en lampen in het kantoor gingen uit.
200|Appendix 4
A)Op een hete zomerdag was Piet hard aan het werk toen het opeens warmer werd in zijn
kantoor. De airconditioning was uitgevallen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / was er / een probleem / met de stroomvoorziening.
21.
N)Met Oud en Nieuw ging Fabio naar een smartlappenfeest in Den Haag. De volgende
ochtend kwam hij stomdronken thuis.
A)Gisteravond ging Fabio naar een verjaardagsfeestje. Uren later kwam hij met een taxi
naar huis.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / had hij / te veel / alcohol gedronken.
22.
N)Linda is na haar auto-ongeluk nog steeds niet bijgekomen. De artsen hebben ons verteld
dat ze voorlopig nog op de Intensive Care moet blijven.
A)Linda heeft bij een auto-ongeluk een hersenschudding opgelopen. De artsen willen haar
nog een nacht in het ziekenhuis houden.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / verkeert ze / in kritieke / toestand.
23
N)In Duitsland wordt vandaag feest gevierd. Angela Merkel heeft met een grote
overwinning de Bondsdagverkiezing gewonnen.
A)In Duitsland is bekend gemaakt dat Joschka Fischer de Bondsdagverkiezing heeft
verloren. Toch kreeg ze van de menigte in de straten van Berlijn een groot applaus.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / hebben veel / mensen op / haar gestemd.
24.
N)Philips breidt uit. Vandaag las ik in de krant dat er veel nieuwe vacatures zijn bij het
bedrijf.
A)Werken bij Philips is best zwaar. Ik hoorde dat de medewerkers af en toe overuren
moeten maken.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / hebben ze / op dit moment / meer personeel nodig.
25
N)Er is altijd maar een beperkt aantal studieplaatsen binnen de opleiding Geneeskunde.
Dit jaar zijn er 100 studenten te veel toegelaten.
A)Maartje is net gestart met de opleiding Geneeskunde. Ze vertelde dat er dit jaar meer
studenten zijn dan vorig jaar.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is er / iets fout gegaan / in de selectieprocedure.
26
N)Vanmorgen was het een enorme bende bij ons thuis. Toen ik vanmiddag thuiskwam was
er geen vuiltje meer te bekennen.
A)Vanmorgen was het een enorme bende bij ons thuis. Toen ik vanmiddag thuiskwam, was
het meubilair verschoven.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft er / iemand / schoongemaakt.
27
N)We hebben net nieuwe buren en ik zag de buurvrouw laatste met een dikke buik lopen.
Sinds gisteren staat er een versierde houten ooievaar in hun tuin.
Appendix 4|201
A)Mijn buren zijn erg teruggetrokken mensen. Vandaag zag ik dat ze hun tuin hebben
versierd.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is er / pas een / baby geboren.
28
N)De muzikanten van het Utrechts Orkest waren voor de show bang dat het publiek het
maar niks zou vinden. Na het slotlied kreeg het orkest een staande ovatie en werden er
bloemen gegooid.
A)De muzikanten van het Utrechts Orkest waren voor de show erg zenuwachtig. Achteraf
was er weinig kritiek op de voorstelling.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / vonden de / toeschouwers het / een goed optreden.
29
N)Eduard is de sportiefste persoon die ik ken. Dit jaar is hij Nederlands sprintkampioen
geworden.
A)Eduard is een echte sportliefhebber en hij kijkt altijd naar Studio Sport. In het weekend
doet hij aan atletiek.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / kan hij / erg hard / rennen.
30
N)Aline had heel veel moeite met het schrijven van haar scriptie, maar ze was vastberaden
om er een goed stuk van te maken. Tot ieders verbazing had ze haar scriptie een maand
voor de uiterlijke inleverdatum af.
A)Aline had heel veel moeite met het schrijven van haar scriptie. Ondanks de tegenslagen
heeft ze haar scriptie uiteindelijk wel afgerond.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft ze / flink hard / doorgewerkt.
31
N)Ik heb al de hele dag geen licht aan gezien bij Sam en zijn auto staat ook niet voor de
deur. Toen ik net aanbelde werd er niet open gedaan.
A)Ik krijg nog geld van Sam. Toen ik net bij hem aanbelde werd er niet open gedaan.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is hij / vandaag / niet thuis.
32
N)We maken ons grote zorgen over Els. Ze heeft al zeven dagen 40 graden koorts.
A)Ik kreeg net een sms’je van Els. Ze ligt met lichte koorts op bed.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is er meer / aan de hand / dan een simpel griepje.
33
N)Na een dag hard werken ging Kim uitgebreid in bad. Even later ontdekte haar moeder
dat er veel water door de badkamermuur was gelekt.
A)Na een dag hard werken ging Kim uitgebreid in bad. Even later lag er veel water op de
vloer.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / zit er / ergens / een lek.
34
N)Tijdens de springwedstrijd viel Guido van zijn paard. Na het ongeluk zag ik dat hij
morfine kreeg toegediend.
A)Tijdens de snowboardwedstrijd viel Guido op zijn arm. Na de wedstrijd kreeg hij van de
eerste hulp een rekverband.
202|Appendix 4
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / deed zijn / verwonding / erg veel pijn.
35.
N)Bij ons in huis wordt er maar af en toe koffie gezet. Vanmiddag zag ik dat er een dikke
laag schimmel in het koffiefilter stond.
A)Bij ons in huis wordt er maar af en toe koffie gezet. Vanmiddag zag ik dat de stekker van
het koffiezetapparaat uit het stopcontact was gehaald.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is het apparaat / al een tijdje / niet meer gebruikt.
36.
N)Gisteren ging ik een hapje eten met mijn vriendin Stella. Tot mijn verbazing at ze een
voorgerecht en twee grote pizza’s.
A)Gisteren kwam ik mijn vriendin Stella tegen in de snackbar. Ze bestelde een grote zak
friet.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / had ze / een enorme / honger.
37
N)Na de inbraak bleek dat de dieven precies wisten waar de kluis stond. Ook hadden ze
alle bewakingscamera’s omzeild.
A)Gisteravond is er bij de juwelier op de hoek ingebroken. De dieven zijn er met een grote
buit vandoor gegaan.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / hadden ze / hun overval / goed voorbereid.
38
N)Sinds het rookverbod bij ons op kantoor is ingevoerd doen mijn collega’s de raarste
dingen. Zojuist rook het op de wc sterk naar sigaretten.
A)Vandaag was het mijn beurt om de keuken op te ruimen. Toen ik de vuilniszak ging
vervangen zag ik dat er sigarettenpeuken in de prullenbak lagen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / heeft daar / iemand / zitten roken.
39
N)Vanmorgen heb ik mij verslapen en moest ik haasten om op tijd op mijn werk te komen.
Toen ik met 140 over de A12 bij Woerden scheurde schrok ik van een flits.
A)Vandaag reed ik over de A12 naar mijn werk. Ter hoogte van Woerden zag ik dat veel
automobilisten hun snelheid minderden.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / wordt er / op die plek / op snelheid gecontroleerd.
40
N)Gisteravond heb ik de keuken goed schoongemaakt. Vanmorgen lagen er weer kleine
keutels op het aanrecht.
A)Vanmiddag haalde ik een pak koekjes uit de keuken voor bij de thee. Ik zag dat er kleine
gaatjes in de verpakking zaten.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / zijn er / vannacht / muizen in de keuken geweest.
41
N)Op de voorpagina van de krant stond een oproep van de Hema. Het bedrijf waarschuwt
alle consumenten om de ontbijtkoekrepen niet op te eten.
A)De Hema verandert regelmatig haar aanbod aan levensmiddelen. Onlangs heeft het
bedrijf de ontbijtkoekrepen uit het assortiment gehaald.
Appendix 4|203
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / is er / iets niet goed / met het product.
42
N)Ik maak me zorgen over de stijgende werkloosheid. Er zijn dit jaar al veel meer WWuitkeringen aangevraagd dan vorig jaar.
A)Henk werkt al jaren bij Randstad. Hij vertelde dat het vergeleken met vorig jaar
makkelijker is om vacatures te vervullen.
Dus | Waarschijnlijk | Blijkbaar / zijn er / meer mensen / werkloos geworden.
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Kleine woorden, grote effecten?
De invloed van subjectieve versus objectieve causale
connectieven op de verwerking van discourse
Wanneer taalgebruikers met elkaar communiceren speelt het vermogen om
een mentale representatie van de informatie te maken een belangrijke rol.
Hierbij is het niet genoeg om alleen de betekenis van de losse onderdelen
(zinnen of deelzinnen) van de discourse te begrijpen, het is van essentieel
belang dat we ook in staat zijn deze delen te verbinden door er relaties
tussen te leggen. Dit soort relaties worden coherentierelaties (cf. Hobbs 1979;
Sanders, Spooren & Noordman, 1992; Kehler, 2002) genoemd. Voorbeelden
van coherentierelaties zijn additieve (1a), contrastieve (1b) en causale
relaties (1c). Deze relaties kunnen expliciet worden gemaakt door middel van
talige signalen zoals connectieven (en, maar, dus) en signaalzinnen (om die
reden, dat is waarom).
(1)
a. Mijn fiets is gestolen en ik heb net mijn telefoon in de wc laten vallen.
b. Hij was niet knap maar ik ben toch maar met hem uit gegaan.
c. Mijn zusje heeft mijn schoenen verpest dus heeft ze nu een groot probleem.
Coherentierelaties en hun talige markeerders spelen een grote rol in het
onderzoek naar het begrip en de verwerking van discourse. Diverse studies
hebben aangetoond dat de aanwezigheid van coherentiemarkeerders, zoals
connectieven, in een tekst een positieve invloed heeft op de constructie van
een coherente discourse. Deze signalen maken de coherentierelaties tussen
zinsdelen expliciet, en deze informatie leidt tot een snellere verwerking van
de informatie die volgt na het connectief (Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011;
Haberlandt, 1982; Kamalski, Sanders, Lentz, & Zwaan, 2008; Millis,
Golding, & Barker, 1995; Millis & Just, 1994; Noordman & Vonk, 1997;
Sanders & Noordman, 2000), en tot een betere tekstrepresentatie (Degand &
Sanders, 2002; Hyönä & Lorch, 2004; Loman & Mayer, 1983; Lorch & Lorch,
1986; McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; Meyer, Brandt, &
Bluth, 1980; Millis & Just, 1994; Sanders, Land, & Mulder, 2007). Om die
reden wordt verondersteld dat connectieven fungeren als instructies voor
verwerking (e.g. Britton, 1994; Gernsbacher, 1997; Murray, 1995; Sanders &
Spooren, 2007). Het doel van dit proefschrift is meer inzicht te verkrijgen in
het soort informatie dat in deze instructies is vastgelegd, en hoe deze
informatie de online verwerking van discourse beïnvloedt. De nadruk ligt
hierbij op causale connectieven en de vraag of deze signalen ook informatie
verschaffen over het type causale relatie dat ze markeren.
206|Samenvatting
Subjectieve en objectieve causale relaties
In de literatuur worden er grofweg twee soorten causale relaties
onderscheiden: subjectieve en objectieve causale relaties (Degand & Pander
Maat, 2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000,
2001). Een causale relatie is objectief wanneer er sprake van een oorzaakgevolg relatie in de werkelijke wereld (2a). In subjectieve relaties (2b)
bestaat de causaliteit niet in de werkelijke wereld, maar in het hoofd van de
spreker. Deze trekt een conclusie, of beweert iets, op basis van een bepaalde
situatie of gebeurtenis.
(2)
a. Mijn buurman heeft zijn arm gebroken omdat hij is uitgegleden over een
bananenschil.
b. Mijn buurman is een sukkel want hij is uitgegleden over een bananenschil.
Er zijn twee redenen waarom het relevant is om dit onderscheid in
relatie tot causale connectieven te bestuderen. Ten eerste zijn er veel talen
waarin causale connectieven zich specialiseren in subjectieve of objectieve
causale relaties (Stukker & Sanders, 2012). Ten tweede wordt er
verondersteld dat subjectieve causale relaties complexer zijn dan objectieve
relaties (Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992). Deze veronderstelling wordt
ondersteund door resultaten van studies naar taalverwerving en
psycholinguïstische experimenten. Subjectieve causale relaties komen later
voor in de kindertaal van zowel Nederlandse als Engelse kinderen. (EversVermeul & Sanders, 2011; Van Veen, 2011). Daarnaast laten
leesexperimenten zien dat subjectieve causale relaties langzamer worden
verwerkt dan objectieve relaties (Noordman & De Blijzer, 2000; Traxler,
Bybee, & Pickering; Traxler, Sanford, Aked & Moxey, 1997). Traxler,
Sanford, Aked en Moxey (1997) hebben bijvoorbeeld met een leesexperiment
(self-paced reading) aangetoond dat subjectieve relaties zoals (4b) leiden tot
langere leestijden van de gehele zin die volgt na het connectief because,
vergeleken met objectieve relaties (3a). Leestijden wordt over het algemeen
geïnterpreteerd als een reflectie van de hoeveelheid cognitieve energie die
het de lezer kost om een tekst te lezen en te begrijpen: hoe langer de
leestijden, hoe moeilijker de tekst is.
(3)
a.Rick almost died from shock because a poisonous snake bit him on the leg.
Rick overleed bijna aan een shock ‘because’ een giftige slang hem in zijn been
heeft gebeten
b.Rick was walking in a remote area because a poisonous snake bit him on the
leg.
Rick was in een afgelegen gebied aan het wandelen ‘because’ een giftige slang
hem in zijn been heeft gebeten.
Samenvatting|207
Met nagenoeg hetzelfde testmateriaal lieten Traxler, Bybee, en
Pickering (1997) in een oogbewegingsexperiment zien dat dit effect
gecentreerd is rondom het werkwoord, op het tekstsegment bit him in (4b).
Zoals te zien is in voorbeeld (3) worden in het Engels zowel subjectieve
als objectieve causale relaties uitgedrukt met connectief because. Dit
connectief kan daarom beschouwd worden als een algemeen connectief dat
geen informatie verschaft over de mate van subjectiviteit van de causale
relatie (zie bijvoorbeeld Couper- Kuhlen, 1996; Ford, 1993; Knott & Dale,
1994; Knott & Sanders, 1998; Sweetser, 1990). In het Nederlands zijn er
echter connectieven die gespecialiseerd zijn in het uitdrukken van een
subjectieve dan wel objectieve relatie. Uit corpusonderzoek is gebleken dat
bij achterwaartse causale relaties zoals in (3) (waarin het effect voorafgaat
aan de oorzaak in de tekst) het connectief want een prototypische
markeerder is voor subjectieve relaties, terwijl omdat een prototypische
markeerder is van objectieve relaties (Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pit,
2003; Sanders & Spooren, 2009, submitted; Verhagen, 2005). Bij voorwaartse
causale relaties, waarin de oorzaak voorafgaat aan het gevolg, is het
connectief dus een prototypische markeerder van subjectieve relaties, en is
daarom prototypische voor objectieve relaties (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001;
Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Stukker, 2005; Verhagen, 2005). In dit
proefschrift is onderzocht of dit verschil tussen subjectieve en objectieve
causale connectieven ook van invloed is op de verwerking van causale
relaties.
Causale connectieven als instructies voor verwerking
In de hierboven beschreven experimenten van Traxler, Sanford, Aked, en
Moxey (1997) en Traxler, Bybee, en Pickering (1997) stond de subjectiviteit
van de causale relaties centraal. In Hoofdstuk 2 wordt verslag gedaan van
een oogbewegingsexperiment waarin voor het eerst werd onderzocht of
subjectiviteit ook een rol speelt in de verwerking van causale connectieven.
Omdat because altijd vertaald kan worden met want, maar niet altijd met
omdat, hebben we de volgende onderzoeksvraag geformuleerd:
RQ1
Geeft want dezelfde verwerkingsinstructies als because?
Om deze vraag te beantwoorden werd een Nederlandse versie van het
testmateriaal van Traxler, Bybee en Pickering (1997) gebruikt. Zowel de
objectieve (4a) als de subjectieve (4b) relaties werden gemarkeerd door het
connectief want.
(4)
a. Hanneke was buiten adem, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te
halen.
b. Hanneke had haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de post te halen.
208|Samenvatting
In het originele Engelse experiment werd het verwerkingsverschil tussen
subjectieve en objectieve relaties gevonden op de tekstregio met het
hoofdwerkwoord. De positie van dit effect komt overeen met de assumptie
dat het connectief because zelf geen informatie verstrek over de aard van de
causale relaties (subjectief of objectief). De lezer moet dit zelf herleiden aan
de hand van de inhoud van de twee zinnen, wat het relatief late effect
verklaart. De resultaten van het Nederlandse experiment lieten echter geen
verwerkingsverschil tussen subjectieve en objectieve causale relaties zien.
Een mogelijke verklaring voor deze uitkomst is dat want (als prototypische
markeerder van subjectieve relaties) de lezer mogelijk instrueert om een
subjectieve relatie te construeren, ook al is de relatie tussen de twee
tekstsegmenten zonder connectief objectief (zoals 5a). Hierdoor behandelt de
lezer de eerste zin (ook wel S1 genoemd) van (5a) mogelijk als een bewering
(die zou worden gevolgd door een argument) in plaats van als een gevolg (dat
zou worden gevolgd door een oorzaak).
In Hoofdstuk 3 werd deze verklaring verder onderzocht door de
volgende onderzoeksvraag te testen:
RQ2
Is het onderscheid tussen subjectieve en objectieve causale
connectieven dat voortkomt uit corpusonderzoek naar de
semantisch-pragmatische eigenschappen van connectieven
relevant in online verwerking? Als dat zo is, op welk moment
tijdens het leesproces treedt het dan op?
In Experiment 1 van Hoofdstuk 3 hebben we exact hetzelfde materiaal
gebruikt als in Hoofdstuk 2, met als enige verschil dat het connectief omdat
gebruikt werd om de objectieve relaties uit te drukken, zie (5).
(5)
Hanneke was buiten adem, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te
halen.
Ditmaal repliceerden we de resultaten van het Engelse experiment:
subjectieve relaties (met want) leidden tot langere leestijden dan objectieve
relaties (met omdat). Opmerkelijker was de bevinding dat het
vertragingseffect in het Nederlands zich veel eerder voordoet dan in het
Engels, namelijk direct na het connectief want. Op dit moment in de zin
heeft de lezer nog lang niet genoeg inhoud verwerkt om te bepalen of de
relatie subjectief of objectief is. Dit betekent dat het verschil in
verwerkingstijd wel te maken moet hebben met de semantische en
pragmatische eigenschappen van de twee connectieven.
De resultaten van Experiment 2 bevestigden dat het effect in
Experiment 1 gerelateerd is aan het verschil tussen want en omdat in
termen van subjectiviteit. Uit dit experiment bleek dat het vertragingseffect
Samenvatting|209
na het connectief want verdwijnt wanneer de lezer al in de voorafgaande zin
weet dat deze zin geen feit, maar een bewering of conclusie is, door mentale
predicaten zoals “volgens Peter” toe te voegen (6).
(6)
Volgens Peter had Hanneke haast, want ze was vier trappen afgerend om de
post te halen.
Deze uitkomst repliceert eerder onderzoek in het Engels (Traxler,
Sandford, Aked & Moxey, 1997), en laat zien dat de complexiteit van dit type
subjectieve relaties in zowel het Engels als het Nederlands te maken heeft
met de representatie van S1 als iemands redenering, of bewering, in plaats
van een beschrijving van de werkelijke wereld.
De resultaten van Experiment 2 sluiten een alternatieve verklaring
voor het verwerkingsverschil tussen want en omdat in termen van
syntactische verschillen (subordinerend versus coördinerend) uit. De
toevoeging van “volgens Peter” aan S1 verandert niets aan deze
eigenschappen, maar het doet het verwerkingsverschil tussen de twee
connectieven wèl verdwijnen. Daarnaast suggereren onze resultaten dat de
constructie van een subjectieve representatie, opgeroepen door subjectieve
connectieven zoals want, extra cognitieve energie kost. Als deze
representatie al in S1, dus vóórdat de lezer want heeft gelezen, wordt
opgeroepen, dan kan de rest van de subjectieve relatie zonder problemen
worden verwerkt.
Op basis van deze resultaten kwamen we tot de hypothese dat want
werkt als een trigger voor de representatie van een subjectieve bewering–
argument relatie, terwijl omdat de representatie van een objectieve gevolgoorzaak relatie activeert. Deze laatste hypothese werd ondersteund door de
resultaten van Experiment 3. In dit experiment hebben we gebruik gemaakt
van subjectieve causale relaties die onzinnig zijn met een gevolg-oorzaak
interpretatie (7), en deze met zowel want als omdat aangeboden.
(7)
?Hanneke had haast, omdat ze vier trappen was afgerend om de post te halen.
De resultaten waren als volgt: omdat zorgde in relaties zoals (7) in
eerste instantie voor een snellere verwerking ten opzichte van want. Echter,
aan het einde van de tweede zin, wanneer het voor de lezer duidelijk wordt
dat de relatie met omdat nergens op slaat, zorgde omdat juist voor langere
leestijden ten opzichte van want.
De resultaten van deze eerste experimenten laten zien dat causale
connectieven veel meer doen dan de lezer informeren dat er een causaal
verband bestaat tussen twee tekstdelen. Deze signalen geven ook informatie
over de mate van subjectiviteit van die relatie. Op basis van onze resultaten
concluderen we dat de Nederlandse connectieven want en omdat fungeren
210|Samenvatting
als instructies aan de lezer (of luisteraar) om respectievelijk een subjectieve
of objectieve causale relatie te construeren. Deze informatie wordt direct
gebruikt wanneer de connectieven zijn verwerkt, wat blijkt uit de effecten
die zich onmiddellijk na de connectieven voordoen. Dit zou betekenen dat
wanneer taalgebruikers het connectief want tegenkomen in een tekst, ze de
voorafgaande zin gaan interpreteren als bewering of conclusie. Deze
resultaten
zijn
verenigbaar
met
de
veronderstelling
dat
coherentiemarkeerders de interpretatie van de te verwerken informatie
direct beïnvloeden (e.g. Cozijn, Noordman & Vonk, 2011; Koornneef &
Sanders, te verschijnen; Kehler, Kertz, Rohde & Elman, 2008; Noordman &
Vonk, 1997).
Waarom zijn subjectieve causale relaties complex?
Een centrale vraag in dit proefschrift betreft de oorzaak van de
verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties. Waarom zorgen
deze relaties voor langere leestijden vergeleken met objectieve relaties?
In Hoofdstuk 2 hebben we twee theoretische verklaringen voor dit
verschijnsel besproken die tot nu toe in de literatuur zijn aangedragen.
Volgens Traxler, Sanford, Aked, en Moxey (1997) wordt het vertragingseffect
in subjectieve vergeleken met objectieve causale relaties veroorzaakt door
het feit dat “het niet duidelijk genoeg is gemaakt dat A [de eerste zin] een
mentale gebeurtenis is” (p.89). Volgens de auteurs is de standaard
interpretatie van zo’n eerste zin altijd een objectieve interpretatie van een
situatie in de werkelijke wereld. De verwerkingseffecten in subjectieve
relaties doen zich dan ook voor omdat “de tekst niet duidelijk maakt dat er
een interpretatie moet worden toegekend die niet de voorkeur heeft” (p.89).
Traxler, Sanford, Aked en Moxey interpreteren deze effecten daarom in
termen van een heranalyse, vergelijkbaar met de bekende garden path
effecten zoals die zich voordoen in relatieve bijzinnen (Trueswell, Tanenhaus
& Garnsey, 1994; Trueswell, Tanenhaus & Kello, 1993).
Noordman en De Blijzer (2000) hebben een andere kijk op de zaak en
stellen dat er aan het begrip van causale relaties een vergelijking tussen de
desbetreffende relatie en een model van de wereld ten grondslag ligt. Het
begrip van objectieve relaties is relatief makkelijk doordat oorzaak en gevolg
in objectieve causale relaties overeenkomen met causaliteit in de werkelijke
wereld. Subjectieve causale relaties daarentegen zijn complexer omdat deze
relaties een minder directe weerspiegeling zijn van causaliteit in de
werkelijke wereld. Subjectieve relaties bevatten een redenering op basis van
een situatie of gebeurtenis in de wereld, en de lezer moet eerst checken of de
onderliggende oorzaak-gevolg relatie klopt.
Samenvatting|211
De resultaten van onze experimenten werpen een nieuw licht op de
complexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties en maken het mogelijk om beide
theorieën te verwerpen.
Het idee dat subjectieve causale relaties moelijker zijn omdat de
onderliggende causale relatie eerst gevalideerd moet worden, zoals
Noordman en De Blijzer postuleren, is niet verenigbaar met de zeer vroege
effecten van subjectiviteit die onmiddellijk na het connectief want
verschijnen. Immers, zo’n valideringsprocedure zou alleen een rol kunnen
spelen richting het eind van de causale relatie, aangezien de relatie
onmogelijk kan worden gevalideerd voordat het duidelijk is wat de inhoud
van die relatie is. Verderop in deze samenvatting zullen we ingaan op de
heranalyseverklaring van Traxler, Sanford, Aked en Moxey (1997).
In Hoofdstuk 4 en 5 werd de complexiteit van subjectieve causale
relaties nader onderzocht. In Hoofdstuk 4 hebben we gebruik gemaakt van
inzichten uit de Mental Spaces Theory (Fauconnier, 1994), die hieronder
wordt besproken, om de online verwerking van subjectieve causale relaties te
bestuderen. De hoofdvraag in dit hoofdstuk was:
RQ3
Wordt de verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties
bepaald door de cognitieve processen tijdens het lezen die te maken
hebben met de constructie van de mental space van de spreker of
auteur als denkende instantie?
In Hoofdstuk 5 begonnen we met het toetsen van de heranalyseverklaring, geformuleerd in Traxler, Sanford, Aked, en Moxey (1997). De
eerste onderzoeksvraag die in dit hoofdstuk aan de orde kwam is:
RQ4
Is de verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties
vergeleken met objectieve causale relaties te verklaren door een
heranalyse van S1 als een bewering?
In deze samenvatting zal ik eerst onderzoeksvraag 4 bespreken voordat
we overgaan naar onderzoeksvraag 3. Tot nu toe hebben alle voorgaande
studies naar de verwerking van subjectieve causale relaties gekeken naar de
verwerking van (achterwaartse) bewering-argument relaties ten opzichte
van gevolg-oorzaak relaties. Daardoor was het onmogelijk om te bepalen of
het effect van subjectiviteit te wijten was aan een heranalyse van S1 als een
bewering of conclusie, of aan de inherente complexiteit van de verwerking en
representatie van bewering-argument relaties. In Experiment 1 van
Hoofdstuk 5 hebben we daarom gekeken naar voorwaartse causale relaties
gemarkeerd door het subjectieve connectief dus (8a) en het objectieve
connectief daarom (8b).
212|Samenvatting
(8)
a. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Dus zit hij al uren te studeren.
b. Tim heeft morgen een tentamen. Daarom zit hij al uren te studeren.
De resultaten lieten zien dat het connectief dus ook tot een
onmiddellijke vertraging in het leesproces leidt ten opzichte van daarom.
Aangezien in voorwaartse subjectieve relaties met dus de conclusie pas na
het connectief komt, kan het resultaat van dit experiment niet verklaard
worden door een heranalyse van de conclusie die door het connectief wordt
opgeroepen. Deze resultaten kunnen worden gebruikt als evidentie tegen de
heranalyseverklaring van Traxler, Sanford, Aked, en Moxey (1997) en
suggereren dat er een andere verklaring moet zijn voor de
verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties. Het gegeven dat
zowel voorwaartse als achterwaartse subjectieve connectieven tot een direct
vertragingseffect leiden ten opzichte van hun objectieve equivalenten leidt
tot de conclusie dat de cognitieve operaties die betrokken zijn bij de
verwerking en representatie van beweringen en conclusies inherent complex
zijn. De volgende grote vraag is dan: waarom kost de representatie van
conclusies extra cognitieve energie?
In dit proefschrift betogen we dat dit effect gerelateerd is aan de
representatie van de interne wereld van de denkende persoon aan wie de
uiting moet worden verbonden. In conclusies, als onderdeel van subjectieve
relaties, is er altijd sprake van sprekerbetrokkenheid (Pander Maat &
Degand, 2001; Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Pit, 2003); er is een
denkende persoon die de verantwoordelijkheid neemt voor het uiten van de
conclusie. Deze denkende persoon kan zijn de spreker, auteur of een
personage in de discourse wiens redenering wordt gepresenteerd. Zodoende
moet er bij de interpretatie van deze conclusies rekening worden gehouden
met de ‘mentale ruimte’ van deze denkende persoon. In Hoofdstuk 4 en 5
hebben we systematisch onderzocht hoe dit proces zich verhoudt tot de
verwerkingsvertraging in subjectieve vergeleken met objectieve causale
relaties.
In Hoofdstuk 4 benaderden we deze kwestie vanuit een mental space
perspectief waarin onderzoeksvraag 3 centraal stond:
RQ3
Wordt de verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties
bepaald door de cognitieve processen tijdens het lezen die te maken
hebben met de constructie van de mental space van de spreker of
auteur als denkende instantie?
Mental Spaces Theory (MST) (Fauconnier, 1994) (zie Hoofdstuk 4) is een
theorie uit de cognitieve taalkunde die recent ook is gebruikt om het verschil
tussen subjectieve en objectieve causale relaties te beschrijven (Sanders,
Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009, 2012; Verhagen, 2005). Mental spaces zijn
Samenvatting|213
conceptuele ruimten waarbinnen informatie gekoppeld aan tijd, ruimte, en
personen ten opzichte van het hier en nu wordt gerepresenteerd. Wanneer
taalgebruikers met elkaar communiceren bouwen ze een dynamisch netwerk
van mental spaces, dat wordt aangepast met het verloop van de discourse. De
mental space configuraties van subjectieve causale relaties zijn beschreven
als meer complex dan die van objectieve causale relaties omdat in er in
subjectieve relaties een extra mental space van de denkende persoon moet
worden aangemaakt. De causale relatie dient vervolgens binnen deze space
te worden geïnterpreteerd (Sanders, Sanders, & Sweetser, 2009, 2012).
Relevant voor onze discussie is dat de connectieven want en dus, maar niet
omdat en daarom, beschouwd worden als zogenaamde space builders die de
constructie van nieuwe mental spaces activeren (Verhagen, 2005).
In Hoofdstuk 4 is onderzocht of space builders in de context
voorafgaande aan de causale relatie het verwerkingsverschil tussen want en
omdat kunnen doen verdwijnen. Om deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden
hebben we twee oogbewegingsexperimenten uitgevoerd waarin korte
nieuwsberichten zijn gemanipuleerd. In deze teksten werden subjectieve
causale relaties met want (9a), en objectieve causale relaties met omdat (9b)
verwerkt.
(9)
a. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag want slechts de helft haalt een
voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is laag omdat slechts de helft van de
onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
Anders dan in de voorgaande experimenten werden in dit experiment
objectieve en subjectieve causale relaties gemanipuleerd die precies dezelfde
S1 hebben, inclusief de eerste tekstregio na het connectief (‘slechts de helft’).
Subjectieve contexten werden gecreëerd door space builders aan de titel en
de context voorafgaande aan de causale relaties toe te voegen. Deze space
builders bestonden uit evaluatieve bijwoorden en adjectieven, zoals
verschrikkelijk, belachelijk en gelukkig, die duidelijk maken dat de tekst
gepresenteerd wordt vanuit het perspectief van de auteur.
Een offline beoordelingstaak, waarin de deelnemers gevraagd werd naar
de intenties van de auteur, liet zien dat deze manipulatie van
sprekerbetrokkenheid geslaagd was. Daarbij zorgde de aanwezigheid van de
evaluaties voor langere leestijden van het vervolg van de tekst, dat in beide
condities precies dezelfde woorden bevatte. Deze resultaten laten zien dat
onze proefpersonen gevoelig waren voor onze manipulatie van space builders.
Echter, deze manipulatie had geen enkele invloed op het verwerkingsverschil
tussen want en omdat. Net als in de experimenten in Hoofdstuk 3 zorgde
want voor een vertraging in het leesproces ten opzichte van omdat. Dit effect
deed zich voor op het connectief, en op de eerste tekstregio na het connectief.
214|Samenvatting
Deze resultaten doen vermoeden dat het verwerkingsverschil tussen want en
omdat niet kan worden verklaard door de noodzaak van het aanmaken van
een extra mental space van de denkende persoon.
In Experiment 2 hebben we deze kwestie verder onderzocht door het
materiaal minimaal aan te passen. Ditmaal werd in de subjectieve contexten
ook de eerste zin van de causale relatie gemarkeerd met (nietzinsmodificerende) evaluatieve bijwoorden (10).
(10) a.Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag want slechts de helft
haalt een voldoende voor rekenen en taal.
b. Het huidige niveau van de studenten is belachelijk laag omdat slechts de
helft van de onderwijsuren wordt besteed aan rekenen en taal.
Wederom was er geen effect van space builders op het
verwerkingsverschil tussen want en omdat. Eerder in deze samenvatting
hebben we besproken dat expliciete signalen in S1, zoals volgens Jan en
waarschijnlijk, die de status van heel S1 modificeren tot een bewering of
conclusie (11), het verwerkingsverschil tussen subjectieve en objectieve
causale relaties doen verdwijnen. De evaluatieve elementen die we in
Experiment 2 van Hoofdstuk 4 hebben gemanipuleerd signaleren wel de
emotionele betrokkenheid van de auteur, maar ze modificeren niet de status
van hele zin. Wanneer ze worden gebruikt zoals in (12), beïnvloeden dit soort
markeerders de interpretatie van slechts een deel van S1. Aangezien deze
evaluaties niet in staat zijn om de verwerkingsvertraging in subjectieve
causale relaties op te lossen, concluderen we dat dit effect gerelateerd moet
zijn aan de interpretatie van een van de zinnen in zijn geheel als iemands
conclusie of bewering. Het lijkt erop dat het subjectieve connectief want deze
interpretatie oproept.
(11) Volgens Jan / Waarschijnlijk [is het huidige niveau van de studenten laag]
(12) Het huidige niveau van de studenten is [belachelijk [laag]]
In Hoofdstuk 5 hebben we verder onderzocht waarom de representatie
van dit soort conclusies de cognitieve belasting vergroot. Aangezien
beweringen en conclusies voortkomen uit een redenering, kwamen we tot de
hypothese dat de cognitieve complexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties
gerelateerd is aan dit onderliggende proces.
Een redenering kan worden gedefinieerd als een “simulatie van de
wereld, ingevuld met onze kennis” (Johnson-Laird, 2010, p.1). Deze omvat de
constructie van een set van mogelijke mentale modellen die overeenkomen
met een gegeven situatie in de wereld, op basis waarvan een conclusie kan
worden herleid. Het is mogelijk dat, naast het feit dat subjectieve causale
relaties verbonden zijn aan de interne wereld van de denkende person, ze
ook een beroep doen op de lezer (of luisteraar) om de onderliggende
Samenvatting|215
redenering te volgen, wat de cognitieve belasting vergroot. Deze hypothese
heeft geleid tot de volgende onderzoeksvraag die centraal stond in
Experiment 2 en 3 van Hoofdstuk 5:
RQ5
Is het mogelijk om onderscheid te maken tussen redeneren en
sprekerbetrokkenheid om de inherente complexiteit van subjectieve
causale relaties te verklaren?
In Experiment 2 hebben we ons gericht op het redeneeraspect van
subjectieve causale relaties door de verwerking van het voorwaartse
subjectieve connectief dus met het bijwoord blijkbaar, een zogenaamde
inferential evidential, te vergelijken. Net als dus identificeert blijkbaar
evidentie op basis van een redenering (Van der Auwera & Plungian, 1998).
Maar in tegenstelling tot dus zijn evidentiële bijwoorden zoals blijkbaar
gebaseerd op objectieve evidentie in de wereld, wat losstaat van de
(subjectieve) overtuigingen van de spreker (Giannakidou, 2011; Nuyts, 2001);
blijkbaar signaleert een zekere afstand tot mentale wereld van de spreker.
Uit de resultaten bleek dat, vergeleken met daarom, blijkbaar niet tot
een verwerkingsvertraging leidt. Deze uitkomst laat zien dat het gegeven dat
conclusies voortkomen uit een redenering op zichzelf geen verklaring kan
zijn voor het vertragingseffect in subjectieve causale relaties.
In Experiment 3 is onderzocht of dit effect wèl verklaard kan worden
door verschillen in sprekerbetrokkenheid. In dit experiment werd de
verwerking van dus en blijkbaar vergeleken met het epistemische modale
bijwoord waarschijnlijk. Met het gebruik van waarschijnlijk geeft de spreker
een evaluatie van de waarschijnlijkheid van de volgende propositie.
Tegelijkertijd verbindt de spreker zich niet volledig aan het
waarheidsgehalte van die propositie: hij of zij houdt een veilige afstand
(Nuyts, 2004, p.61). We postuleerden daarom dat dus een hoge mate van
sprekerbetrokkenheid encodeert terwijl blijkbaar juist een lage mate van
sprekerbetrokkenheid encodeert. Waarschijnlijk bevindt zich ergens in het
midden van die schaal (13).
(13)
Mate van sprekerbetrokkenheid
dus > waarschijnlijk > blijkbaar
De resultaten van Experiment 3 komen overeen met deze verdeling in
termen
van
sprekerbetrokkenheid.
We
observeerden
langere
verwerkingstijden na waarschijnlijk vergeleken met blijkbaar. Echter, dus
zorgde voor nog langere verwerkingstijden.
Op basis van de in dit proefschrift verkregen resultaten betogen we dat
de verwerkingscomplexiteit van subjectieve causale relaties verklaard kan
216|Samenvatting
worden door sprekerbetrokkenheid (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pander
Maat & Sanders, 2000, 2001; Pit, 2003). De conclusies en beweringen in
subjectieve causale relaties hebben een bijzondere status omdat ze gelinkt
zijn aan de ‘mentale ruimte’ van de denkende persoon – spreker, auteur, of
personage in de discourse - die verantwoordelijk is voor het uiten van die
conclusie. Zodoende zijn subjectieve causale relaties complexer dan
objectieve relaties omdat taalgebruikers moeten begrijpen dat de informatie
in de conclusie geen beschrijving is van de externe wereld, maar onderdeel
uitmaakt van iemands kijk op de wereld. Dit is essentiële informatie omdat
deze kijk kan verschillen van persoon tot persoon. Het is plausibel dat deze
informatie diverse cognitieve operaties in werking die de cognitieve belasting
vergroten.
Conclusie
De in dit proefschrift verkregen resultaten laten zien dat het onderscheid
tussen subjectieve en objectieve causale connectieven direct van invloed is op
de verwerking van de discourse. Wij concluderen dat het voor het begrip van
subjectieve causale connectieven (en relaties) noodzakelijk is om een
representatie te maken van de mentale wereld van de denkende persoon die
verantwoordelijk is voor die causale relatie. Onze resultaten laten zien dat
de cognitieve processen die betrokken zijn bij deze representatie de
cognitieve belasting vergroten. Zodoende leiden talige markeerders die deze
representatie activeren, zoals de subjectieve connectieven dus en want, tot
langere verwerkingstijden vergeleken met markeerders die dat niet doen,
zoals omdat en daarom. Deze conclusie sluit aan bij de veronderstelling dat
causale connectieven fungeren als instructies voor verwerking die de lezer
helpen bij het construeren van een coherente discourserepresentatie. We
hebben laten zien dat deze instructies zo ver gaan dat ze de lezer informeren
over het type causale relatie dat moet worden gelegd, subjectief of objectief.
In Hoofdstuk 6 schetsen we een tentatief verwerkingsmodel dat illustreert
hoe deze instructies er mogelijk uitzien.
Zowel subjectieve als objectieve causale connectieven signaleren de
richting waarin zij opereren. Objectieve connectieven specificeren dat de
tweede zin (ook wel S2 genoemd) het gevolg is van de situatie in S1 (in
voorwaartse relaties), of dat S2 juist de oorzaak is van S1 (achterwaartse
relaties). Dit signaal activeert de constructie van de causale relatie tussen de
twee zinnen. Of taalgebruikers deze relatie volledig zullen begrijpen hangt af
van hun vermogen om de onderliggende inferentie te herleiden (als P dan Q).
Dit wordt ook wel de inferentie functie van causale connectieve genoemd
(Cozijn, Noordman, & Vonk, 2011; Noordman & Vonk, 1997).
De richting van de relatie is ook relevant voor subjectieve causale
connectieven. In dit geval signaleert het connectief dat S1 functioneert als
Samenvatting|217
een bewering of conclusie op basis van het argument in S2 (achterwaartse
relaties), of dat S2 functioneert als een bewering of conclusie op basis van het
argument in S1 (voorwaartse relaties).
Vervolgens is het aan de lezer om de denkende persoon die
verantwoordelijk is voor de bewering te identificeren, en een mental space
aan te maken die de gedachten van deze persoon representeert. In
overeenstemming met theorieën over sprekerbetrokkenheid (Pander Maat &
Degand, 2001, p.221) gaan we ervan uit dat deze persoon by default de
spreker is. Daarna moet de bewering binnen de relevante mental space
worden geplaatst.
Net als bij objectieve connectieven kan het zijn dat subjectieve
connectieven de lezer uitnodigen om de onderliggende causale inferentie te
herleiden. Dit kan zijn door het toetsen van de causale relatie aan de
bestaande wereldkennis van de lezer, of door de gereconstrueerde inferentie
aan deze kennis toe te voegen. Een laatste bron van informatie die mogelijk
in subjectieve connectieven is vastgelegd, is een signaal om de informatie in
de bewering te evalueren.
In het model worden slechts de primaire processen beschreven die door
causale connectieven worden geactiveerd. Maar er zijn ook recursieve
processen aan te wijzen die mogelijk betrokken zijn bij de representatie van
subjectieve causale relaties. Ten eerste moeten taalgebruikers de
representatie van relevante mental spaces actief houden in het
werkgeheugen. Daarnaast kan het zijn dat de inhoud van een mental space
moet worden bijgewerkt wanneer nieuwe beweringen of meningen voorbij
komen in de discourse.
Het spreekt voor zich dat dit model slechts een tentatief
verwerkingsmodel is op basis van de empirische data die tot nu toe
beschikbaar zijn. Het is bijvoorbeeld nog onduidelijk hoe de evaluatie van
een bewering samenhangt met de achtergrondkennis over de persoon die
verantwoordelijk is voor die bewering. Immers, om een bewering goed te
kunnen evalueren is het belangrijk om ook iets te weten van de bron: Is deze
persoon betrouwbaar? Heeft hij of zij een dubbele agenda? Hebben we
doorgaans dezelfde mening? Het is onduidelijk wat er gebeurt wanneer dit
soort informatie ontbreekt. Het kan zijn dat in dit geval de bewering
ongeaccepteerd blijft. Maar het kan ook zijn de bewering wordt geaccepteerd
zolang het argument waarop het is gebaseerd redelijk genoeg wordt
bevonden. Anderzijds kan het in het geval van een zeer betrouwbare bron
zijn dat het evaluatieproces in zijn geheel wordt overgeslagen en alle
beweringen voor waar worden geaccepteerd. In vervolgonderzoek kan
worden nagegaan wat de invloed is van dit soort factoren op de verwerking
van subjectieve causale connectieven en subjectiviteit in het algemeen. De
uitgelezen manier om dit te doen is door middel van interdisciplinaire
218|Samenvatting
samenwerkingen tussen cognitieve taalkundigen en tekstlinguïsten aan de
ene kant, en experimentele psycholinguïsten en sociaal psychologen aan de
andere kant. Deze samenwerking zal bijdragen aan een beter begrip van de
processen die betrokken zijn bij de verwerking van discourse, wat een
essentieel onderdeel is van communicatie door taal.
Acknowledgements
Looking back at my PhD project I am very happy, but still a bit amazed, that
somehow I made it to the end. I wrote a book. Of course there are many
people who have helped me along the way and I would like to take the
opportunity to thank you all. I apologize in advance to anyone I may have
forgotton to mention.
First of all, I thank my promotor Ted Sanders and co-promotor Pim Mak
who never stopped believing in me, even when I did. Thank you for shaping
my thoughts, polishing my writing and the good laughs during our meetings.
Ted, thank you for including me in your VICI team and for the time and
effort you have put into my supervision despite your crazy agenda. You
showed me the world of discourse and that truly opened my eyes. Also, I
very much respect your persistence in trying to get me to speak Italian,
always surprising me with out of the blue buongiorno’s and grazie’s
(sometimes there was some Spanish too I recall). Ecco, due parole in Italiano
per te: grazie per tutto!
Pim, I am grateful for everything you taught me about eye-tracking,
doing experiments, and interpreting data. But more than that, I thank you
for our conversations, irrelevant detours (let’s google this!), and for always
being there to help me out. Somehow you helped me get back on the horse by
convincing me to “just write up a boring story”.
There are a number of people who have been of particular value
throughout this project. First I thank the other members of the connectives
mafia who were part of Ted’s VICI-project: Ninke Stukker, Pim Mak, Rosie
van Veen and Ingrid Persoon. Thank you for the discussions and feedback
that contributed to my research. A huge ‘thank you’ goes to Rosie van Veen
for checking the English of parts of my dissertation (all remaining errors are
my own!), helping me out with all kinds of things, listening to my complaints,
for the fun we had (at conferences and in the office), and for agreeing to be
my paranimf.
Another special ‘thank you’ goes to Loes Koring, who turned out to work
on subjectivity as well. Thanks for always being enthusiastic about my work
and for our discussions on blijken, blijkbaar, lijken, lijkt me, schijnen, and
waarschijnlijk J. It was nice to share the ups and downs of “finishing” with
you, we made it!
A word of gratitude goes to the people who have read parts of this
dissertation and provided helpful feedback. Arnout Koornneef, Sandrine
Zufferey and Kirsten Vis: thank you for your time and effort.
220|Acknowledgements
I wouldn’t have been able to conduct so many experiments if it wasn’t
for the Uil-OTS lab support provided by Iris Mulders, Theo Veenker,
Warmolt Tonckens and Sjef Pieters. Special thanks to Iris Mulders for
getting me into research in the first place and for making me fall in love with
eye-tracking.
I also wish to thank the people who have helped collect part of my data:
Linda de Leeuw, Fang Li, and Susanne Kleijn. I also thank the CIW
students Martijn Piggen, Klaas van Staveren, Jasper van Dijk, and Michelle
van ‘t Hof, who helped collect part of the data for Experiment 2 in Chapter 5
as part of their Bachelor theses.
Next, I would like to thank my colleagues at UiL-OTS and Afdeling
Taalbeheersing for making life at Trans fun, in particular: Rosie van Veen,
Ingrid Persoon, Louise Nell, Hans Rutger Bosker (sorry for all the girl-talk),
Gerdineke van Silfhout, Sanne Elling, Nina Versteeg, Kirsten Vis, Rogier
Kraf, Hanna Jochmann-Mannack, Naomi Kamoen, Marion Tillema, Monica
Koster, Renske Bouwer, Marie-Elise van der Ziel, Desiree Capel, Ana
Aguilar Guevara, Nadya Goldberg, Sophia Manika, Marco Simonovich, Daria
Bahtina, and Arnout Koornneef. I owe a special ‘thank you’ to Marrit
Müskens for being my paranimf and for all the good laughs: bedankt maat!
As we reach the final part of these acknowledgements it is time to
thank the people outside academia who have kept my feet on the ground.
Manon, Laura, Lotte, Mariëtte, Petra, Linda, Kimberly, Ingrid, Ellen S, en
Ellen N: thank you for being my friends, for distracting me with serious and
not so serious stuff, and for putting things in perspective.
In the end I owe everything to my family: my mother, my brother
Sergio, and my sister Michelle. Thank you for the love and support you have
given me. Mam, bedankt dat je mij altijd mijn eigen keuzes hebt laten maken
en mij onvoorwaardelijk hebt gesteund in wat ik ook wilde doen. Even though
I can only imagine what my father would have said about all this (probably
lots of ridicule), I am sure he would have been so proud!
Finally, the biggest ‘thank you’ of them all goes to Marc who put up
with me on a daily basis. Thank you for being patient, understanding, and
supporting. More importantly, thank you for being fun and crazy! Being
around you has certainly helped lighten things up.
Curriculum vitea
Anneloes Canestrelli was born on the 27th of August 1982 in Arnhem, The
Netherlands. In 2000 she obtained her Athenaeum diploma from the Lorentz
College in Arnhem. Two years later she went on to study Italian language
and culture at Utrecht University where she received a BA in 2005
(specializing in linguistics). She then joined the international research
program in Linguistics at UiL-OTS. As part of the research master she went
to the Università degli studi di Milano-Bicocca for a 6 month internship. In
2008 she obtained her Masters degree (cum laude) from the University of
Utrecht with a thesis on relative clause processing. She started her PhDresearch at the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics–OTS in 2009. This
dissertation is the result of the research she carried out during that period.

Topics SOJA 25-9-2015

Writing a Bachelor Thesis in Computer Science

F. Watuseke Tondano and not Toulour In

CD-CDR opdruk - eScos DupliceerService

Beating heart cells on a silicon chip

Gerhard Richter, une pièce pour le théâtre

April 2016 - ISE Campus

Martin Storey Knit Along

BDZONDERE VERGADERING

teaching and examination regulations master`s programme