Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765



Continuity and discontinuity (maintaining or shifting deictic centres across segments) are important aspects of discourse relations. Yet they have been attributed to these relations in very different ways. This calls for an analysis of individual instances of discourse relations with respect to their continuity dimensions. To this end, we operationalise Givón’s (1993) continuity dimensions ( and ), decomposing them into distinctive features that allow a consistent and accurate classification of the continuity dimensions in discourse relation tokens. This inventory was applied to five representative relation types (, , , and ) from the RST Discourse Treebank (Carlson & Marcu 2001). We found that relations can simultaneously be more continuous for some dimensions but more discontinuous for others. What is more, discourse relations typically vary widely in different continuity dimensions and thus cannot be described as fully continuous or discontinuous, neither on the level of the entire relation type nor for one of its particular dimensions. Using examples of , and relations, we also illustrate how the results of our analysis can be used to verify hypotheses about correlations between continuity and discourse relations.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Ariel, Mira
    1990Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg
    2012 Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. InEva Hajičová, Lucie Poláková & Jiří Mírovský (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), 33–42. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bott, Oliver
    2010The processing of events. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.162
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.162 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu
    2001Discourse tagging manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545. Marina del Rey, CA: USC Information Science Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
    2015The RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Demberg, Vera, Merel Scholman & Fatemeh Torabi Asr
    2019 How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. Dialogue & Discourse10(1). 87–135. 10.5087/dad.2019.104
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2019.104 [Google Scholar]
  8. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel Scholman
    2017 On temporality in discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse8(2). 1–20. 10.5087/dad.2017.201
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.201 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fetzer, Anita
    2018 The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse. 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]
  10. Givón, Talmy
    (ed.) 1983Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Givón, T.
    1993English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syn1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi & Scott Weinstein
    1995 Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics21(2). 203–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, Michael
    1994An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopper, Paul
    1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. InT. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol.121. Discourse and Syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kratzer, Angelika
    2001 Modality. InArnim v. Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Landis, Richard & Gary Koch
    1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics331. 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mann, William & Sandra Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text8(3). 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Münte, Thomas, Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas
    1998 When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature3951. 71–73. 10.1038/25731
    https://doi.org/10.1038/25731 [Google Scholar]
  20. Murray, John
    1997 Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition251. 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  21. Pander Maat, Henk
    1998 Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics30(2). 177–204. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00024-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Poesio, Massimo, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio & Janet Hitzeman
    2004 Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics30(3). 309–363. 10.1162/0891201041850911
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201041850911 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Sanders, Ted, Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel Scholman, Fatemeh Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2021 Unifying dimensions in coherence relations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory17(1). 1–71. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sanders, Ted & Morton Ann Gernsbacher
    2004 Accessibility in text and discourse processing, Discourse Processes37(2). 79–89. 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo 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. Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson
    1975 Scripts, plans, and knowledge. Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’75), 151–157. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Segal, Erwin, Judith Duchan & Paula Scott
    1991 The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring. Discourse Processes14(1). 27–54. 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sparks, Jesse & David Rapp
    2010 Discourse processing – examining our everyday language experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science1(3). 371–381. 10.1002/wcs.11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.11 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  31. Taboada, Maite & Loreley Hadic Zabala
    2008 Deciding on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory4(1). 63–108. 10.1515/CLLT.2008.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Taboada, Maite & William Mann
    2006 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies8(3). 423–459. 10.1177/1461445606061881
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061881 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wei, Yipu, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted Sanders & Willem Mak
    2021 The role of connectives and stance markers in the processing of subjective causal relations, Discourse Processes58(8). 766–786. 10.1080/0163853X.2021.1893551
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1893551 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ye, Zheng, Marta Kutas, Marie St. George, Martin Sereno, Feng Ling & Thomas Münte
    2012 Rearranging the world: Neural network supporting the processing of temporal connectives. NeuroImage59(4). 3662–3667. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.039
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.039 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. Zwaan, Rolf & Gabriel Radvansky
    1998 Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin123(2). 162–185. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
  37. Zwaan, Rolf & Murray Singer
    2003 Text comprehension. InArthur Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Susan Goldman (eds.), Handbook of discourse processes, 83–121. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): continuity; discourse relations; Rhetorical Structure Theory
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