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



Proposals such as continuity and causality-by-default relate the level of expectedness of a relation to its linguistic marking as an explicit or implicit relation. We investigate these two proposals with regard to the English transcripts of six TED Talks and their Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish translations in the TED-Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB), annotated for discourse relations, following the Penn Discourse Treebank style of annotation. Our data shows that the discontinuous relations and are indeed frequently explicit in all languages. But continuous relations show differences per relation and language. For instance, is frequently conveyed implicitly in English and Portuguese, but not in Lithuanian and Turkish. We explore temporal continuity by analysing whether the forward-order sense is more frequently implicit than the backward-order . The hypothesis is confirmed by English and Portuguese, but not Lithuanian and Turkish. However, in Turkish, the arguments of the backward-order relation are frequently presented by the reversed order of arguments, retaining the linear order of events even in the presence of the connective. The causality-by-default hypothesis is not confirmed, as is not the most frequent implicit relation in the four languages.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Altenberg, Bengt
    1984 Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica38(1). 20–69. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1984.tb00734.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1984.tb00734.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson, Marta & Jennifer Spenader
    2014 Result and purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua1481. 1–27. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas M.
    1993Reference to abstract objects in discourse. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy, vol. 50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1715‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InJuliana House & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies, 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary Ellen Okurowski
    2002RST discourse treebank, LDC2002T07. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cresti, Emanuela
    2014 La parataxe dans le parlé spontané et dans l’écrit littéraire. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies11. 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Das, Debopam & Marcus Egg
    2023 Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language30(1). 10.1075/fol.22017.das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22017.das [Google Scholar]
  9. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2009 The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language36(4). 829–854. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
  10. Frank, Austin F. & T. Florian Jaeger
    2008 Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society301. 939–944.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Givón, T.
    1993English Grammar: A function-based introduction, vol.21. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syn2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2017 Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics1211. 113–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. JASP Team
    JASP Team 2022JASP (Version 0.16.3).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ludewig, Julia
    2017 TED Talks as an emergent genre. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture19(1). 10.7771/1481‑4374.2946
    https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2946 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mauranen, Anna
    1999 Will ‘translationese’ ruin a contrastive study?Languages in Contrast2(2). 161–185. 10.1075/lic.2.2.03mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.2.2.03mau [Google Scholar]
  17. Mauranen, Anna & Pekka Kujamäki
    (eds.) 2004Translation universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mauranen, Anna
    2004 Corpora, universals and interference. InAnna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds.), 65–82. 10.1075/btl.48.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.07mau [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Noël, Dirk
    2003 Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics41(4). 757–785. 10.1515/ling.2003.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.024 [Google Scholar]
  21. Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2008 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis & Daniel Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968. Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Prasad, Rashmi, Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind Joshi, Livio Robaldo & Bonnie Webber
    2007The Penn discourse treebank 2.0 annotation manual. Tech. rep., Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Puurtinen, Tiina
    2004 Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature. InAnna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds.), 165–176. 10.1075/btl.48.13puu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.13puu [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Sanders, Ted J. M., Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, M. 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]
  26. Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. S. 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]
  27. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
    2009A typology of purpose clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.88
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.88 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Toury, Gideon
    2004 Probabilistic explanations in translation studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?InAnna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki (eds.), 15–32. 10.1075/btl.48.03tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.03tou [Google Scholar]
  30. Webber, Bonnie, Rashmi Prasad, Alan Lee, Aravind Joshi
    2019The Penn discourse treebank 3.0 annotation manual. Tech. rep., Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Yulia Grishina, Murathan Kurfalı, Samuel Gibbon & Maciej Ogrodniczuk
    2020 TED multilingual discourse bank (TED-MDB): A parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB style. Language Resources and Evaluation54(2). 587–613. 10.1007/s10579‑019‑09445‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09445-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Giedrė V. Oleškevičienė & Sibel Özer
    2022 An exploratory analysis of TED talks in English and Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish translations. Contrastive Pragmatics31. 452–479. 10.1163/26660393‑bja10052
    https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10052 [Google Scholar]
  33. Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes & Murathan Kurfali
    2018 Multi-lingual extension of PDTBstyle 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]
  34. Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax
    2016 The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes53(7). 532–555. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): continuity; discourse relations; explicitness
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