The effect of the nature of the adversative relations on the online processing of but-sentences

Maria Tsilimos; Jason Ozubko

doi:10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.2.tsi

Автор(и)

Maria Tsilimos University of Zurich, Switzerland
Jason Ozubko State University of New York at Geneseo, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.2.tsi

Анотація

The purpose of the study was to extend the knowledge about two different types of adversative relations. The study pertaining to the principles of the Connective Integration Model (Millis & Just, 1994) included two experiments to examine the effect of two types of but-sentences (type 1 and type 2) in connective and non-connective versions on reading comprehension and recall performance. Reading comprehension was measured by clause 2 reading times, response times to comprehension questions and answer accuracy, while recall performance was measured via probe recognition times and accuracy in probe answers. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that the connective versions led to faster clause 2 reading times, faster answer latencies and greater answer accuracy than did the non-connective versions. Experiment 1 also showed that the semantic constraints related to the two types of but-sentences had an impact on reading speed and comprehension, since it was found that type 1 but-sentences were associated with faster clause 2 reading times, answer latencies and higher answer accuracy than were type 2 but-sentences in the non-connective versions versus the connective versions, and that type 2 but-sentences were read faster than were type 1 but-sentences in the connective versions. The results of Experiment 2 only indicated greater accuracy in probe answers in the type 1 versus the type 2 but-sentences in the connective and non-connective versions.

Data Availability Statement

The data analysis as well as the stimuli sentences underlying this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository, at https://osf.io/sc2e8/?view_only=ff1ac9ffb5ee4dddbfe0e6aba0322c2a

The experimental (anonymous) data cannot be stored in a repository since in the Consent letter, given prior to the experiments, the participants agreed that their data would be used only for the purposes of the current study and that in no way will identify them in any papers or reports written about the research. The participants also agreed that their data would be destroyed three months after the experiments.

The study was preregistered on 13.03.23 prior to the conduct of the experiments in the Open Science Framework repository, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CG6QT

Ethics and Consent

This project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Zurich.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

* Corresponding author: Maria Tsilimos,

0000-0002-5167-553X maria.tsilimos@uzh.ch

Завантажити

Дані для завантаження поки недоступні.

Посилання

Asr, F. T., & Demberg, V. (2020). Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic: Evidence from the study of but and although. Discourse Processes, 57, 376-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1700760

BNC Consortium (2007). The British National Corpus. XML Edition, Oxford Text Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12024/2554

Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1994). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.). Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 353-374). Erlbaum.

Caron, J. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5

Cevasco, J. (2009). The role of connectives in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600001475

Fletcher, C. R., Chrysler, S.T., Broek, P., Deaton, J., & Bloom, C.P. (1994). The role of co-occurrence, coreference, and causality in the coherence of conjoined sentences. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 203-218). Erlbaum.

Golding, J. M., Millis, K. M., Hauselt, J., & Sego, S. A. (1994). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.). Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 127-144). Erlbaum.

Graesser, A.C., Wiemer-Hastings, P. & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2001). Constructing inferences and relations during text comprehension. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.). Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 249-271). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.3.371

Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 9, 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8

Kleijn, S., Maat, H. L.W. P., & Sanders, T. J.M. (2019). Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 56, 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257

Lakoff, R. (1971). If’s, and’s, but’s about conjunction. In C.J. Fillmore, & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.). Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 115-150). Irvington.

Millis, K.K., & Just, M.A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007

Murray, J. D. (1994). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.). Sources of cohesion in text comprehension (pp. 107-125). Erlbaum.

Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114

Noordman, L.G.M., & Vonk, W. (1992). Readers’ knowledge and the control of inferences in reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 373-391. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/ 10.1080/01690969208409392

Rudolph, E. (1996). Contrast: Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. De Gruyter.

Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse [Paper presentation]. Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning. France. (105-114).

Spooren, W. (1989). Some aspects of the form and interpretation of global contrastive coherence relations. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Radboud University Repository. Retrieved from https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/113691

Thorndyke, P.W. (1976). The role of inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 437-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90039-6

Verhagen, A. (2000). Concession implies causality, though in some other space. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause - condition - concession - contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 361-380). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-015