English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

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.

The counterargumentative connection in Italian: experimental evidence on the connective tuttavia