The counterargumentative connection in Italian: experimental evidence on the connective tuttavia
-
Laura Nadal
and
Iria Bello Viruega
Abstract
Counterargumentation marks the disruption of a causal chain by introducing an unexpected conclusion that cancels inferences drawn from a previous premise. The present study compares the processing costs produced by three minimal counterargumentative structures: a) counterargumentation marked by the Italian connective tuttavia (Eng. ‘however’); b) counterargumentation in utterances lacking a connective but containing the phoric element entrambi (Eng. ‘both’); c) counterargumentation with no procedural unit. The reading experiment (1 × 3 design) was carried out with 88 native Italians. The results show that both tuttavia and entrambi are processed as procedural units and that the semantic instruction of the connective helps reduce processing costs, especially when the connection of the phoric element is not present.
Acknowledgments
This study is the result of close cooperation and a constant exchange of ideas between the two authors. In particular, Iria Bello wrote Sections 1, 4, and 7 whereas Laura Nadal took greater responsibility for Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6. We would like to thank Professor Eugenia Sainz and the members of Bembo Lab at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice for their logistical support.
-
Research ethics: Ethical review and approval were waived because this research only involved non-invasive procedures for participants in the study.
-
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.
-
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.
Annex 1. Experimental utterances for condition A (connection with tuttavia)
| Topic | Condition | Utterance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | Alessandra e Gabriele lavorano molto. Tuttavia sono poco stressati. A loro piace il loro lavoro. ‘Alessandra and Gabriele work a lot. However, they are little stressed. They like their job.’ |
| 2 | A | Alina e Lucca pagano molte tasse. Tuttavia sono nullatenenti. Vogliono cercare un nuovo gestore fiscale. ‘Alina and Lucca pay a lot of taxes. However, they are penniless. They want to look for a new tax manager.’ |
| 3 | A | David e Giancarlo pubblicano belle canzoni. Tuttavia vendono pochi dischi. Vivere di musica non è sempre facile. ‘David and Giancarlo publish beautiful songs. However, they sell few records. Making a living off music isn’t always easy.’ |
| 4 | A | Arianna e Ilaria pubblicano bei romanzi. Tuttavia vendono poche copie. L’anno scorso hanno vinto un premio. ‘Arianna and Ilaria publish beautiful novels. However, they sell few copies. Last year they won an award.’ |
| 5 | A | Elena e Antonia studiano molto. Tuttavia ottengono voti bassi. I loro genitori vogliono cercare aiuto. ‘Elena and Antonia study a lot. However, they get low marks. Their parents want to seek help.’ |
| 6 | A | David e Beatrice fumano molto. Tuttavia hanno molta resistenza fisica. Vanno a correre spesso. ‘David and Beatrice smoke a lot. However, they have a lot of physical endurance. They go running often.’ |
| 7 | A | Manuel e Damian lavorano poco. Tuttavia raggiungono molti obiettivi. Sono redattori di alcune reviste. ‘Manuel and Damian work little. However, they achieve many goals. They are editors of some magazines.’ |
| 8 | A | Martin e Lucia hanno molte ristrettezze economiche. Tuttavia vivono felici. Hanno una buona attitudine alla vita. ‘Martin and Lucia have many economic constraints. Yet they live happily. They have a good attitude towards life.’ |
| 9 | A | Maria e Ana hanno molte idee innovative. Tuttavia trovano pochi finanziatori. Sono sempre alla ricerca di sponsor. ‘Maria and Ana have many innovative ideas. However, they find few financiers. They are always looking for sponsors.’ |
| 10 | A | Costanzo e Riccardo conoscono bene le regole grammaticali. Tuttavia commettono molti errori. Per lo più hanno problemi con la coniugazione dei verbi. ‘Costanzo and Riccardo know the grammatical rules well. However, they make many mistakes. They mostly have problem with verb conjugation.’ |
| 11 | A | Cesare e Alessandro realizzano buone traduzioni. Tuttavia ricevono poco lavoro. Traducono per clienti privati e per agenzie. ‘Cesare and Alessandro produce good translations. However, they receive little work. They translate for private clients and agencies.’ |
| 12 | A | Luigi e Andrea sanno molte cose. Tuttavia tengono lezioni poco chiare. Sono insegnanti da dieci anni. ‘Luigi and Andrea know many things. However, they hold unclear lessons. They have been teachers for ten years.’ |
| 13 | A | Claudio e Natalia girano bei film. Tuttavia vincono pochi premi. Sognano di vincere un Oscar. ‘Claudio and Natalia make good films. However, they win few awards. They dream of winning an Oscar.’ |
| 14 | A | Carlo e Paola vedono molti film. Tuttavia conoscono pochi attori. A loro piaciono le commedie. ‘Carlo and Paola watch many films. However, they know few actors. They like comedies.’ |
| 15 | A | Alessia e Chiara leggono molti libri. Tuttavia conoscono pochi scrittori. Leggono principalmente romanzi storici. ‘Alessia and Chiara read many books. However, they know few writers. They mainly read historical novels.’ |
| 16 | A | Antonella e Bianca viaggiano molto. Tuttavia conoscono pochi paesi. L’anno prossimo vogliono visitare l’Australia. ‘Antonella and Bianca travel a lot. However, they know few countries. Next year they want to visit Australia.’ |
| 17 | A | Beatrice e Carmina fanno molta ginnastica. Tuttavia hanno molta cellulite. Stanno pensando di andare a un endocrinologo. ‘Beatrice and Carmina do a lot of gymnastics. However, they have a lot of cellulite. They are thinking of going to an endocrine.’ |
| 18 | A | Lorenzo e Francesco sollevano molti pesi. Tuttavia hanno pochi muscoli. Il trainer ha raccomandato una dietaricca di proteine. ‘Lorenzo and Francesco lift a lot of weights. However, they have little muscle. The trainer recommended a protein-rich diet.’ |
| 19 | A | Enzo e Flavio vendono molti appartamenti. Tuttavia guadagnano poche commissioni. In estate hanno più vendite. ‘Enzo and Flavio sell many apartments. However, they earn little commission. In the summer, they have more sales.’ |
| 20 | A | Franco e Guido vendono molti libri. Tuttavia guadagnano pochi soldi. Vogliono iniziare a vendere degli ebook. ‘Franco and Guido sell many books. However, they earn little money. They want to start selling ebooks.’ |
| 21 | A | Matteo e Maurizio traducono molti sottotitoli di professione. Tuttavia vedono pochi film. Per lo più amano sottotitolare le commedie. ‘Matteo and Maurizio translate many subtitles professionally. However, they see few films. They mostly like to subtitle comedies.’ |
| 22 | A | Piero e Orlando fanno molti doppiaggi di professione. Tuttavia vedono pochi film. Hanno doppiato attori famosi. ‘Piero and Orlando do a lot of dubbing professionally. However, they watch few films. They dubbed famous actors.’ |
| 23 | A | Valentino e Luciano fanno grandi affari. Tuttavia hanno pochi clienti. I suoi migliori clienti sono tedeschi. ‘Valentino and Luciano do great business. However, they have few customers. Their best customers are German.’ |
| 24 | A | Filippo e Federico fanno molti lunghi viaggi. Tuttavia prendono pochi aerei. Preferiscono viaggiare in treno. ‘Filippo and Federico take many long trips. However, they take few planes. They prefer to travel by train.’ |
| 25 | A | Giovanni e Dante visitano molti paesi. Tuttavia guidano poco. Di recente hanno tolto la patente di guida. ‘Giovanni and Dante visit many countries. However, they don’t drive much. They have recently obtained their driving license.’ |
| 26 | A | Carina e Lia guidano molto. Tuttavia rispetano poco le regole della strada. È importante conoscere le regole. ‘Carina and Lia drive a lot. However, they barely respect the rules of the road. It is important to know the rules.’ |
| 27 | A | Mellea e Nicoletta lavorano molto. Tuttavia pianificano molti viaggi. Quest’anno sono andati a Madrid. ‘Mellea and Nicoletta work a lot. However, they plan a lot of trips. This year they went to Madrid.’ |
| 28 | A | Gianna e Fiorella fanno pochi piani. Tuttavia hanno molti amici. Ai tempi dell’università hanno stretto la maggior parte dei contatti. ‘Gianna and Fiorella make few plans. However, they have many friends. During their university days, they made most of their contacts.’ |
| 29 | A | Elena e Laura conoscono molte ricette. Tuttavia cucinano poco. A Natale loro preparano sempre il tacchino. ‘Elena and Laura know many recipes. However, they cook very little. At Christmas, they always prepares turkey.’ |
| 30 | A | Alfonsina e Stella dipingono bei quadri di professione. Tuttavia fanno poche vendite. Questo mese ne hanno venduti due al momento. ‘Alfonsina and Stella paint beautiful pictures professionally. However, they make few sales. This month they have sold two so far.’ |
| 31 | A | Lara e Pia organizzano molti congressi. Tuttavia danno poche lezioni. Devono coordinare molti sforzi. ‘Lara and Pia organize many conferences. However, they give few lessons. They have to coordinate a lot of efforts.’ |
| 32 | A | Milena e Luana disegnano molti abiti. Tuttavia hanno pochi vestiti. La gente dice di avere un ottimo gusto. ‘Milena and Luana design many dresses. However, they have few clothes. People say he has great taste.’ |
| 33 | A | Giulia e Sara fanno molte traduzioni. Tuttavia usano pochi dizionari. Hanno molti anni di esperienza. ‘Giulia and Sara do a lot of translations. However, they use few dictionaries. They have many years of experience.’ |
| 34 | A | Andrea e Adriano hanno pochi clienti. Tuttavia ricevono molti ordini. I suoi migliori clienti sono italiani. ‘Andrea and Adriano have few customers. However, they receive many orders. Its best customers are Italian.’ |
| 35 | A | Sergio e Valentino collezionano molti francobolli. Tuttavia inviano poche lettere. Questo intrattenimento li rilassa. ‘Sergio and Valentino collect many stamps. However, they send few letters. This hobby relaxes them.’ |
| 36 | A | Boris e Camillo fanno molte escursioni. Tuttavia conoscono pochi percorsi. Vogliono comprare un’altra mappa della zona. ‘Boris and Camillo go on a lot of excursions. However, they know few routes. They want to buy another map of the area.’ |
| 37 | A | Amelio e Andrea comprano molti vestiti. Tuttavia hanno poche scarpe. A loro piacionno gli abiti lunghi. ‘Amelio and Andrea buy many clothes. However, they have few shoes. They like long dresses.’ |
| 38 | A | Alda e Caeli mangiano molto gelato. Tuttavia ingrassano poco. A loro piace il gelato alla fragola. ‘Alda and Caeli eat a lot of ice cream. However, they gain little weight. They like strawberry ice cream.’ |
| 39 | A | Adelfo e Albano preparano molti pasti. Tuttavia cucinano male. Cucinano per gli amici. ‘Adelfo and Albano prepare many meals. However, they cook badly. They cook for friends.’ |
| 40 | A | Bruno i Cecilio fanno pochi incidenti. Tuttavia prendono molte multe. Le multe sono costose. ‘Bruno and the Cecilios have few accidents. However, they get many fines. Fines are expensive.’ |
Annex 2. Model syntax
Model syntax – Model 1:
Log (RT) ∼ Condition* AOI + (1 + Condition | Participants) + (1 + Condition | Item)
Where:
Log is the natural logarithm
RT = first reading, total reading, or rereading
AOI = M1 or M2
Condition: A, B, or C
Model syntax – Model 2:
Log (RT) ∼ Condition + (1 + Condition | Participants) + (1 + Condition | Item)
Where:
Log is the natural logarithm
RT = first reading, total reading, or rereading
Condition: A or B
Model syntax – Model 3:
Log (RT) ∼ Condition* AOI + (1 + Condition | Participants) + (1 + Condition | Item)
Where:
Log is the natural logarithm
RT = first reading, total reading, or rereading
AOI = TM or LM
Condition: A, B, or C
References
Anscombre, J. C. 1995. La théorie des topoï: sémantique ou rhétorique? Hermès, n° 15(1). 185. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/15167.Search in Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & O. Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. París: Mardaga.Search in Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. & O. Ducrot. 1994. La argumentación en la lengua. Versión española de Julia Sevilla y Marta Tordesillas. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1989. Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(1). 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00627397.Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar
Borreguero Zuloaga, M. & F. J. Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga. 2019. La gramaticalización del lat. tota via en español y en italiano: valores temporales y adversativos. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 135(4). 1007–1041. https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2019-0059.Search in Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603Search in Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165(3). 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8.Search in Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175. 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010.Search in Google Scholar
Clifton, C., A. Staub & K. Rayner. 2007. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray & R. L. Hill (eds.), Eye Movements, 341–371. Elsevier.10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3Search in Google Scholar
Conklin, K., A. Pellicer-Sánchez & G. Carroll. 2018. Eye-tracking: A guide for applied linguistics research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108233279Search in Google Scholar
Domínguez García, N. 2007. Conectores discursivos en textos argumentativos breves. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Drenhaus, H., V. Demberg, J. Köhne & F. Delogu. 2014. Incremental and predictive discourse processing based on causal and concessive discourse markers: ERP studies on German and English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36. 403–408.Search in Google Scholar
Eckstein, M. K., B. Guerra-Carrillo, A. T. Miller Singley & S. A. Bunge. 2017. Beyond eye gaze: What else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 25. 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Escandell, María Victoria. 2020. Léxico, gramática y procesos cognitivos en la comunicación lingüística. In María Victoria Escandell, José Amenós Pons & Aoife Kathleen Ahern (eds.), Pragmática, 39–59. Madrid: Akal.Search in Google Scholar
Escandell, María Victoria & Manuel Leonetti. 2000. Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental. In Marcos Martínez Hernández, Dolores del Pino García Padrón, Dolores Corbella Díaz, Cristóbal José Corrales Zumbado, Francisco José Cortés Rodríguez, José Secundino Gómez Soliño, María Laura Izquierdo Guzmán, José Manuel Oliver Frade, Berta Pico Graña, Luis Miguel Pino Campos, Francisca del Mar Plaza Picón & Germán Santana Santana Henríquez (eds.), Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad. Actas del Congreso Internacional de Semántica, 363–378. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Search in Google Scholar
Escandell, María Victoria & Manuel Leonetti. 2004. Semántica conceptual / Semántica procedimental. In Milka Villayandre Yamazares (ed.), Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General, 1727–1738. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Escandell, María Victoria & Manuel Leonetti. 2011. On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In María Victoria Escandell, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives, 81–102. Bingley: Emerald Group.10.1163/9780857240941_005Search in Google Scholar
Ferrari, A. & F. Pecorari. 2018. Sintassi, punteggiatura e interpretazione dei connettivi. Il caso di dunque e di tuttavia. Lingua e Stile 2. 219–245.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1). 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x.Search in Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. & C. Mauri. 2009. Dalla continuità temporale al contrasto: la grammaticalizzazione di tuttavia come connettivo avversativo. In F. Cesati & A. Ferrari (eds.), Sintassi storica e sincronica dell’italiano: subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione: atti del X Congresso della Società internazionale di linguistica e filologia italiana, Basilea, 30 giugno-3 luglio 2008. Basilea. Fiesole: Torrossa.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1974. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Holmqvist, K., M. Nyström, R. Andersson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka & J. van de Weijer. 2011. Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & P. A. Carpenter. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87(4). 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.Search in Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. & J. Jegerski. 2015. Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(1). 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000187.Search in Google Scholar
Köhne, J. & V. Demberg. 2013. The time-course of processing discourse connectives. Cognitive Science 35. 2760–2765.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2020. Referencia nominal y anáfora discursiva. In M. V. Escandell, J. Amenós & A. Ahern (eds.), Pragmática, 145–165. Madrid: AKAL.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E. 2021. Presupposition, attention and cognitive load. Journal of Pragmatics 183. 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.022.Search in Google Scholar
Loureda, Ó., A. Cruz, I. Recio & L. Nadal. 2020. La pragmática experimental. In M. V. Escandell-Vidal, A. Ahern & J. Amenós Pons (eds.), Pragmática, 358–383. Akal.Search in Google Scholar
Loureda, Ó., A. Cruz, I. Recio & M. Rudka. 2021a. Comunicación, partículas discursivas y pragmática experimental. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Loureda, Ó., I. Recio, A. Cruz & M. Rudka. 2021b. Ajustes, conflictos y reparaciones entre los significados procedimental y conceptual: estudios experimentales sobre la marcación discursiva. In A. San Martín Núñez, D. Rojas Gallardo & S. Chávez Fajardo (eds.), Estudios en homenaje a Alfredo Matus Olivier, 617–634. Chile: Universidad de Chile.Search in Google Scholar
Mak, W. M. & T. J. Sanders. 2012. The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 28(9). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.708423.Search in Google Scholar
Mederos, H. 1988. Procedimientos de cohesión en el español actual. Tenerife: Excelentísimo Cabildo Insular de Tenerife.Search in Google Scholar
Mollie, B., K. Kasper, K. van Bethem, C. Berg, A. Nielsen, H. Skaug, M. Maechler, B. Bolker & Benjamin,M. Bolker. 2017. GlmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zeroinflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9(2). 378–400. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2017-066.Search in Google Scholar
Murillo, S. 2010. Los marcadores del discurso y su semántica. In Ó. Loureda & E. Acín (eds.), Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, 241–280. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Murray, J. D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition 25(2). 227–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114.Search in Google Scholar
Nadal, L. 2019. Lingüística experimental y contraargumentación: un estudio del conector sin embargo en español. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/b16019Search in Google Scholar
Nadal, L. & I. Bello. 2025. Counter-argumentation and the rigidity of procedural meaning: An experimental study on the Italian connective tuttavia. Studia Linguistica 79. 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12257.Search in Google Scholar
Piciucco, E., V. Masia, E. Maiorana, E. L. Vallauri & P. Campisi. 2022. Information structure effects on the processing of nouns and verbs: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognition 14(1). 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.23.Search in Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., M. J. Traxler & M. W. Crocker. 2000. Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 43(3). 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2708.Search in Google Scholar
Portolés, J. 2001. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124(3). 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 2009. The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(8). 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.Search in Google Scholar
Reboul, A. 1999. Pragmática del contexto: Desambiguación y atribución de referentes. In J. Moeschler & A. Reboul (eds.), Diccionario enciclopédico de pragmática, 137–164. Madrid: Arrecife.Search in Google Scholar
Recio Fernández, I., Ó. Loureda & T. J. M. Sanders. 2021. Constructing discourse: An experimental approach. Revista Signos 54(107). 1004–1025. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342021000301004.Search in Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., S. P. Liversedge, D. Drieghe, H. I. Blythe, H. S. S. L. Joseph, S. J. White & K. Rayner. 2013. Using E-Z Reader to examine the concurrent development of eye-movement control and reading skill. Developmental Review 33(2). 110–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.03.001.Search in Google Scholar
Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110815856Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, T. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Proceedings/Actes SEM 05, first international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning, 105–114. Tolouse: Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, K. 2013. This and that: A procedural analysis. Lingua 131. 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.008.Search in Google Scholar
Segal, E., J. Duchan & P. Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 14(1). 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1998. Relevance: Communication and cognition. (D. & W. Deirdre. 1998. Sperber, Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Spooren, W. & T. Sanders. 2008. The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12). 2003–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021.Search in Google Scholar
Waßner, U. 2001. Konnektoren und Anaphorika – zwei grundlegende sprachliche Mittel zur Herstellung von Zusammenhang zwischen Textteilen. In A. Cambourian (ed.), Textkonnektoren und andere textstrukturierende Einheiten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 1992. Reference and relevance. Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 165–191.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2004. Relevance and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 344–360.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. United Kingdom: Emerald Group.10.1163/9780857240941_002Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual–procedural distinction. Lingua 175–176. 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.005.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & R. Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5.Search in Google Scholar
Winter, B. 2020. Statistics for linguists. An introduction using R. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315165547Search in Google Scholar
Zunino, G. 2014. Cognitive perspectives on discourse processing: Causality and counter-causality. Signos Lingüísticos 10. 154–171.Search in Google Scholar
Zunino, G. M. 2016. Comprensión y producción de causalidad y contracausalidad: distinciones en función del proceso subyacente y efectos de la escolarización formal. Onomázein 34. 132–151. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.34.6.Search in Google Scholar
Zunino, G. 2017. Procesamiento de causalidad y contracausalidad: Interacciones entre estructura sintáctica y conocimiento del mundo en la comprensión de relaciones semánticas. Revista Signos 50(95). 472–491. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342017000300472.Search in Google Scholar
Zunino, G., V. Abusamra & A. Raiter. 2012. Articulación entre conocimiento del mundo y conocimiento lingüístico en la comprensión de relaciones causales y contracausales: El papel de las partículas conectivas. Forma y Función 25. 15–34.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
