Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains

References

1. Afantenos, Stergos, Nicholas Asher, Farah Benamara, Myriam Bras, Cécile Fabre, Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac, Anne Le Draoulec, Philippe Muller, Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley, Laurent Prévot, Josette Rebeyrolle, Ludovic Tanguy, Marianne Verguez-Couret & Laure Vieu
   2012 An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organization: The ANNODIS corpus. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uǧur Doǧan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), –. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
   2003 Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg
   2012 Implicitness of discourse relations. InMartin Kay & Christian Boitet (eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical papers, –. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg
   2020 Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic: Evidence from the study of but and although. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1700760
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1700760 [Google Scholar]
5. Benamara Zitoune, Farah & Maite Taboada
   2015 Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. InMartha Palmer, Gemma Boleda & Paolo Rosso (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2015), –. Denver, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/S15‑1016
   https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1016 [Google Scholar]
6. Cain, Kate & Hannah M. Nash
   2011 The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology(). –. 10.1037/a0022824
   https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
7. Canestrelli, Anneleos R., Willem M. Mak & Ted J. M. Sanders
   2013 Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes(). –. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
8. Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary Ellen Okurowski
   2002 RST Discourse Treebank, LDC2002T07. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Crible, Ludivine
   2018 Discourse markers and (dis)fluency: Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
10. Crible, Ludivine
    2020 Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat, and writing: Do signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations?Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778 [Google Scholar]
11. Das, Debopam
    2014 Signalling of coherence relations in discourse. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    2018 Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
13. Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
    2015 RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Degand, Liesbeth
    2019 Causal relations between discourse and grammar: Because in spoken French and Dutch. InÓscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds.), –. 10.1075/pbns.305.05deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.05deg [Google Scholar]
15. Doherty, Monika
    2003 Discourse relators and the beginnings of sentences in English and German. Languages in Contrast(). –. 10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh [Google Scholar]
16. Fetzer, Anita
    2017 Contrastive discourse relations in context: Evidence from monologic and dialogic editing tasks. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, –. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110546095‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-015 [Google Scholar]
17. Fetzer, Anita
    2018a Discourse analysis. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, –. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-016 [Google Scholar]
18. Fetzer, Anita
    2018b The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. InMaría de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.02fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.02fet [Google Scholar]
19. Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer
    2012 Discourse relations in context: Local and not-so-local constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics(). –. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0025 [Google Scholar]
20. Gast, Volker
    2019 A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in English, German and Spanish: The distribution of although, obwohl and aunque in the Europarl corpus. InÓscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds.), –. 10.1075/pbns.305.06gas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.06gas [Google Scholar]
21. Givón, T.
    1993 English grammar: A function-based introduction (vols.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syns
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syns [Google Scholar]
22. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014 Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edn.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
23. Hoek, Jet & Sandrine Zufferey
    2015 Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. InHarry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), –. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2019 The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition(). –.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hofmockel, Carolin, Anita Fetzer & Robert M. Maier
    2017 Discourse relations: Genre-specific degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative discourse. Argument & Computation(). –. 10.3233/AAC‑170021
    https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170021 [Google Scholar]
26. Klumm, Matthias
    2022 The signaling of continuative and contrastive discourse relations in English argumentative discourse: Corpus-based and experimental perspectives. Discours [Online] . 10.4000/discours.12044
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.12044 [Google Scholar]
27. Lewis, Diana
    2017 Coherence relations and information structure in English and French political speeches. InKarin Aijmer & Diana Lewis (eds.), Contrastive analysis of discourse-pragmatic aspects of linguistic genres, –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1_7 [Google Scholar]
28. Loureda, Óscar, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz
    (eds.) 2019 Empirical studies of the construction of discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.305
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305 [Google Scholar]
29. Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel & Anita Fetzer
    2016 The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics(). –. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
30. Mann, William & Sandra Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text(). –.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Murray, John D.
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition(). –. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
32. Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber, Alan Lee & Aravind Joshi
    2019 Penn Discourse Treebank Version 3.0, LDC2019T05. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Renkema, Jan
    (ed.) 2009 Discourse, of course. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148 [Google Scholar]
34. Sanders, Ted J. M.
    2005 Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InMichel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, –. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman
    2000 The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
36. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. Spooren
    2009 The cognition of discourse coherence. InJan Renkema (ed.), –. 10.1075/z.148.20san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.20san [Google Scholar]
37. Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren, Leo G. M. Noordman
    1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
38. Sanders, Ted J. M., Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel C. J. Scholman, Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2021 Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078 [Google Scholar]
39. Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan & Paula J. Scott
    1991 The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
40. Taboada, Maite
    2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics(). –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
41. Taboada, Maite
    2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJan Renkema (ed.), –. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
42. Wetzel, Mathis, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax
    2022 How robust is discourse processing for native readers? The role of connectives and the coherence relations they convey. Frontiers in Psychology: . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822151
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822151 [Google Scholar]
43. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes & Murathan Kurfali
    2018 Multi-lingual extension of PDTB-style annotation: The case of TED multi-lingual discourse bank. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uǧur Doǧan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), –. Miyazaki, Japan: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2014 Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives: The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.022 [Google Scholar]
45. Zufferey, Sandrine, Willem M. Mak, Sara Verbrugge & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2018 Usage and processing of the French causal connectives car and parce que. Journal of French Language Studies(). –. 10.1017/S0959269517000084
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269517000084 [Google Scholar]