1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00050.klu
2023-02-14
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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), 2727–2734. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics 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, 2669–2684. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2020 Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic: Evidence from the study of but and although. Discourse Processes57(4). 376–399. 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), 147–152. 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 Psychology103(2). 429–441. 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 Processes28(9). 1394–1413. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary Ellen Okurowski
    2002RST Discourse Treebank, LDC2002T07. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crible, Ludivine
    2018Discourse 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. 2020 Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat, and writing: Do signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations?Discourse Processes57(9). 793–807. 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 Processes55(8). 743–770. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
  13. Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
    2015RST 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.), 131–150. 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 Contrast3(2). 223–251. 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, 269–292. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110546095‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-015 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018a Discourse analysis. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 395–424. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-016 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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, 13–44. 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 Pragmatics9(4). 413–452. 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.), 151–191. 10.1075/pbns.305.06gas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.06gas [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, T.
    1993English grammar: A function-based introduction (21vols.). 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
    2014Halliday’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), 39–45. 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 & Cognition25(2). 275–309.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofmockel, Carolin, Anita Fetzer & Robert M. Maier
    2017 Discourse relations: Genre-specific degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative discourse. Argument & Computation8(2). 131–151. 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] 301. 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, 141–161. 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.) 2019Empirical 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 Pragmatics13(1). 71–105. 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. Text8(3). 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Murray, John D.
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition25(2). 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  32. Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber, Alan Lee & Aravind Joshi
    2019Penn Discourse Treebank Version 3.0, LDC2019T05. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Renkema, Jan
    (ed.) 2009Discourse, 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, 105–114. 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 Processes29(1). 37–60. 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.), 197–212. 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 Processes15(1). 1–35. 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 Theory17(1). 1–71. 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 Processes14(1). 27–54. 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 Pragmatics38(4). 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJan Renkema (ed.), 125–138. 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 Psychology131: 822151. 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), 1913–1919. Miyazaki, Japan: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2014 Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives: The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics621. 121–135. 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 Studies28(1). 85–112. 10.1017/S0959269517000084
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269517000084 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00050.klu
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error