Authors:
Weicker, Merle, weicker@em.uni-frankfurt.de, Goethe University Frankfurt
Keywords: coherence relation, causal connectives, clause order, German
Abstract:
Reading comprehension crucially depends on the cognitive process of establishing coherence. Experimental evidence suggests that cohesion via connectives (e.g., although) facilitates this process. However, this positive effect varies across discourse relations ([1]; [2]). Our study focuses on causal relations. Previous studies comparing sentence processing with and without causal connectives (because, therefore) indicate that causality is inferred by default when left implicit ([3]). Another line of research on the processing of explicit causal relations suggests an effect of clause order: sentences were read faster when the connective occured in the first clause (Because Ccause, Cconsequence vs. Cconsequence because Ccause) ([4)]. To date, it is open how the factors cohesion and clause order interact. To address this question, we conducted an eye-tacking study. Nineteen German speakers read test sentences (N=28) following a 2 (Cohesion) × 2 (Clause order) within-subjects design (Table 1).
Table 1. Example test items.
| Example | Cohesion | Order |
|———————————————————————————————————————————————|:——–:|:——-:|
| Sophie bedient die Gäste, weil Kevin am Herd steht.
‘[Sophie is serving the guests]-ROI1, because [Kevin is at the stove]-ROI2.’ | + | Cco<Cca |
| Weil Kevin am Herd steht, bedient Sophie die Gäste.
‘Because [Kevin is at the stove]-ROI1, [Sophie is serving the guests]-ROI2.’ | + | Cca<Cco |
| Sophie bedient die Gäste. Kevin steht am Herd.
‘[Sophie is serving the guests]-ROI1. [Kevin is at the stove]-ROI2.’ | - | Cco<Cca |
| Kevin steht am Herd. Sophie bedient die Gäste.
‘[Kevin is at the stove]-ROI1. [Sophie is serving the guests]-ROI2.’ | - | Cca<Cco |
Total fixation times on two regions of interest (ROI1, ROI2; Table 1) were analyzed. On ROI1, no significant difference across conditions was found. ROI2 was read faster when a connective occurred in the second clause. A linear mixed regression with Cohesion and Clause order as fixed effects and random intercept for Participant revealed a significant effect of Cohesion (β=-0.12431, t=-2.413, p=.02) and a significant CohesionClause order interaction (β=0.21628, *t=2.974, p=.003). Our data specifies the causality-by-default hypothesis: causal connectives facilitate processing, but only if they occur in the second clause. The conflicting evidence concerning the clause order in our eye-tracking study and the self-paced reading study by [4] may result from differences in the sensitivity of the two measures.
References: [1] Wetzel, M., Zufferey, S. & Gygax, P. (2022). Do non-native readers rely on connectives? The processing of coherence relations in L2. In M. Cuenca & L. Degand (Ed.), Discourse Markers in Interaction: From Production to Comprehension (pp. 89-120). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. [2] Xiaodong Xu, Qingrong Chen, Klaus-Uwe Panther & Yicheng Wu (2017): Influence of Concessive and Causal Conjunctions on Pragmatic Processing: Online Measures from Eye Movements and Self-Paced Reading. Discourse Processes. [3] Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague, & M. Bras (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp. 31-46). Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail. [4] Rummer, R., Engelkamp, J., & Konieczny, L. (2003). The subordination effect: Evidence from self-paced reading and recall. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 539–566.