24.3452, Review: Discourse Analysis; General Linguistics; Dutch: Canestrelli (2013)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3452. Tue Sep 03 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.3452, Review: Discourse Analysis; General Linguistics; Dutch: Canestrelli (2013)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/
					
					

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:04:22
From: Sibo Chen [siboc at sfu.ca]
Subject: Small words, big effects?

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-3452.html&submissionid=18272963&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=18272963


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-1404.html

AUTHOR: Anneloes  Canestrelli
TITLE: Small words, big effects?
SUBTITLE: Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing
SERIES TITLE: LOT dissertation Series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Sibo Chen, Simon Fraser University

SUMMARY

Similar to other PhD dissertations published by the Netherlands Graduate
School of Linguistics, “Small Words, Big Effects?” presents a latest
development in linguistics and is a very informative read for researchers in
psycholinguistics and discourse analysis. The purpose of this book is to
provide a theoretical framework for subjective versus objective causal
connectives (i.e. words such as “so”, “because”, and “therefore” that are
placed between two clauses to mark causal relations) in discourse processing.
The project presented in this book investigates whether the difference between
subjective and objective causal connectives is relevant in discourse online
processing.

Chapter One introduces the topic of coherence markers in discourse processing
and provides an outline for the following chapters. Coherence markers are very
important for human communication, as coherence needs to be established
between pieces of communicated information. Causal relations are an important
aspect of coherence. In general, there are two types of causal relations:
objective causal relations express “causality between events in the real
world”, whereas subjective causal relations express “the relations between the
speakers’ conclusions on the basis of events in the world” (p. 14). For
instance, sentence (1a) presents an objective causal relation while sentence
(1b) presents a subjective causal relation. In addition, causality can be
further distinguished between forward and backward relations. The difference
between forward and backward causal relations lies in the order of events as
they are presented in the text. Forward relations have “a linear order in
which causes precede effects”, whereas backward relations “reverse this order
and let effects precede causes” (p. 14). For example, sentence (2a) presents a
forward causal relation while sentence (2b) presents a backward causal
relation.

(1) 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.

(2) a. My neighbour tripped over his shoelace and as a result he broke his
arm.
 b. My neighbour broke his arm because he tripped over his shoelace.
 (Examples are cited from the reviewed book, p. 14)

Based on the above definitions, the project outlined in the following chapters
explored the differences between the causal relation markers “want” and
“omdat” in Dutch and whether these differences can further influence discourse
online processing, as tested via eye-tracking experiments.

Chapter Two presents theoretical background on subjectivity in processing
causal connectives. In particular, the Dutch connective “want” is compared
with the English connective “because”, although both “want” and “because” can
express subjective and objective causal relations. The eye-tracking experiment
reported in this chapter shows that subjective causals with “because” led to
longer processing times compared to the objective ones, with the effect
arising right before the end of the second clause. By comparison, there was no
processing difference between these two types of causal relations with “want”.
This outcome suggests that “want” and “because” have different influences on
the processing of causal relations.

Chapter Three further investigates whether the difference between “want” and
“because” in online discourse processing is caused by the subjectivity
embedded in “want”. Three eye-tracking experiments were conducted in which
“want” was compared with “omdat”, the prototypical connective that marks
objective causal relations in Dutch. In short, the experimental results show
that subjective causal relations with “want” led to longer processing times
compared to objective causal relations with “omdat”, and such processing
differences were similar to the source of processing difference between
subjective and objective causal relations in English. In addition, the
experiments also found that the processing pattern of “want” versus “omdat”
was unrelated to the actual content of the combined text segments. This
chapter concludes that the Dutch connectives “want” and “omdat” provide
instructions for readers about the type of causal relation that needs to be
constructed: “want” instructs readers to construct a subjective causal
relation, whereas “omdat” instructs readers to construct an objective
relation.

Chapter Four continues to explore the processing complexity of subjective
causal relations, but now introduces the mental space perspective. Mental
Space Theory (MST) (Fauconnier, 1985) proposes that mental spaces are
constructed during communication, and according to this theory, the difference
between subjective and objective causal relations is caused by their different
mental space configurations. Two eye-track experiments are reported in this
chapter, focusing on whether the processing complexity of subjective causal
relations is related to the setup of mental space. The results of the first
experiment show that although the enhancement of text subjectivity through the
addition of evaluative adverbs increased the processing times of subsequent
information, the asymmetry between “want” and “omdat” cannot be explained by
the necessity of setting up a new mental space. Meanwhile, the results of the
second experiment further confirm the lack of effect of space builders on the
processing difference between “want” and “omdat”. Based on the above findings,
the chapter proposes that the processing complexity of subjective causal
relations may be explained by the placement of the first sentence in a
subjective causal relation (S1) as a whole within the mental space of the
relevant thinking subject.

Chapter Five examines the proposal that the processing effects of subjective
causal relations can be explained by a reanalysis of S1 as a claim or
conclusion due to the presence of subjective causal markers (Traxler, Sanford,
Aked, & Moxey, 1997). Three eye-tracking experiments were conducted. In sum,
the first experiment reveals that the complexity of subjective causal
relations cannot be explained by a reanalysis of S1 as a claim; the second
experiment shows that the inherent complexity of subjective causal relations
is not related to reasoning processes; and most importantly, the third
experiment uncovers that the processing complexity of subjective causality can
be explained by the notion of speaker involvement.

Chapter Six summarises the main findings from each chapter and proposes a
tentative processing model for subjective versus objective causal connectives.
Compared with objective causal relations, subjective causal relations require
the representation of the mind of the thinking subject who is responsible for
the presented information, which ultimately leads to its processing
complexity. This chapter further proposes suggestions for future studies and
discusses the book’s implications for discourse processing research.

EVALUATION

The in-depth analyses presented in this book serve as a double-edged sword: on
the one hand, such analyses are very informative for linguists who are
familiar with eye-tracking research methods and interested in the topic of
discourse processing; on the other hand, the complexity of theories and
experiments are not sufficiently addressed, which, consequently, may cause
considerable difficulty for readers without sufficient theoretical background.
For instance, the technical terms involved in the description of eye-tracking
experiments in Chapters Two to Five were not explained, which may influence
the readers’ accurate interpretations of these results. Another example is the
discussion of Mental Space Theory in Chapter Four, which only dedicates two
pages to review this theory despite its theoretical importance for the entire
study. However, this issue of knowledge threshold is somewhat solved by the
book’s chapter organization. Chapters Two to Five are written as individual
papers and have been published either as journal papers or presented at
academic conferences. Although such organization inevitably leads to
repetition and overlap between each chapter, it turns out to be a great
advantage for readers, as the repetition offers a necessary review of the
book’s theoretical framework. Another merit of this book is its brevity.
Unlike many dissertations with excessive chapters for explaining general
concepts of discourse processing, chapters in the reviewed book provide
succinct but comprehensive theoretical discussions, which improve the
coherence of the entire book. In sum, “Small Words, Big Effects?” is a book
written for linguists with interests in discourse processing and can be an
informative read for graduate students as well as junior researchers of
discourse analysis.

REFERENCES

Canestrelli, A. (2013). “Small words, big effects? Subjective versus objective
causal connectives in discourse processing”. Utrecht, NL: Netherlands Graduate
School of Linguistics.

Fauconnier, G. (1985). “Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in
natural language.” Cambridge, Mass: MIT 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” Section
A,50(3), 481-497. doi:10.1080/027249897391982


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sibo Chen is a graduate student in the School of Communication, Simon Fraser
University. He received his MA in Applied Linguistics from the Department of
Linguistics, University of Victoria, Canada. His major research interests are
language and communication, discourse analysis, and genre theories.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3452	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/