The syntax and semantics of coherence relations

References

1. Asr, F. , & Demberg, V.
   (2012) Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In E. Hajičová , L. Poláková , & J. Mírovský (Eds.), Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA) (pp.33–42). The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Biber, D.
   (2006) University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
   https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
3. Blakemore, D.
   (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Cain, K. , & Nash, H.
   (2011) The influence of connective on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. 10.1037/a0022824
   https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
5. Chafe, W.
   (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen & R. Freedle (Eds.), Spoken and Written Language (pp.83–113). Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Clark, H.
   (1996) Using Language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
7. Crible, L.
   (2017) Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French. Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 242–269. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri [Google Scholar]
8. Crible, L. , & Degand, L.
   (2019) Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours, 24. 10.4000/discours.9997
   https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9997 [Google Scholar]
9. Crible, L. , & Demberg, V.
   (2020) When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours, 26. 10.4000/discours.10848
   https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10848 [Google Scholar]
10. Crible, L. , & Pickering, M. J.
    (2020) Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes, 57(10), 862–879. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813493 [Google Scholar]
11. Cuenca, M. J.
    (2013) The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In L. Degand , B. Cornillie , & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description (pp.191–216). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.08cue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.08cue [Google Scholar]
12. Das, D. , & Taboada, M.
    (2018) Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743–770. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
13. Das, D. , & Taboada, M.
    (2019) Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours, 24. 10.4000/discours.10032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10032 [Google Scholar]
14. Das, D. , Taboada, M. , & McFetridge, P.
    (2015) RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2015T10
    [Google Scholar]
15. Evers-Vermeul, J. , & Sanders, T.
    (2009) The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36, 829–854. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
16. Frank, A. , & Goodman, N.
    (2012) Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998. 10.1126/science.1218633
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633 [Google Scholar]
17. Goldstein-Stewart, J. , Goodwin, K. A. , Sabin, R. E. , & Winder, R. K.
    (2008) Creating and using a correlated corpora to glean communicative commonalities. InProceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008. European Language Resources Association. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hansen, M.-B. M.
    (2006) A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp.21–41). Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hoek, J. , Zufferey, S. , Evers-Vermeul, J. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2017) Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 113–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
20. Hoek, J. , Zufferey, S. , Evers-Vermeul, J. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2018) The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(2), 275–309. 10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe [Google Scholar]
21. Horn, L.
    (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Implications (pp.11–42). Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Knott, A. , & Dale, R.
    (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62. 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
23. Knott, A. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(2), 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
24. Koornneef, A. , & Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2013) Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169–1206. 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076 [Google Scholar]
25. Kunz, K. , & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2015) Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288. 10.35360/njes.347
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347 [Google Scholar]
26. Levy, R. , & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2007) Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf , J. Platt , & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference (pp.849–856). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Liu, Y.
    (2019) Beyond the Wall Street Journal: Anchoring and comparing discourse signals across genres. In A. Zeldes , D. Das , E. Galani Maziero , J. Desiderato Antonio , & M. Iruskieta (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking 2019 (pp.72–81). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W19-27.pdf. 10.18653/v1/W19‑2710
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-2710 [Google Scholar]
28. Mak, P. , Tribushinina, E. , & Andreiushina, E.
    (2013) Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse: An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 557–576. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.841075
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.841075 [Google Scholar]
29. Mann, W. C. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
30. Millis, K. K. , & Just, M. A.
    (1994) The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
31. Murray, J.
    (1997) Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
32. Pander Maat, H.
    (1999) The differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2), 147–184.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Petukhova, V. , & Bunt, H.
    (2009) Towards a multidimensional semantics of discourse markers in spoken dialogue. In H. Bunt , V. Petuhova , & S. Wubben (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics (pp.157–168). Tilburg University. https://aclanthology.org/W09-3700.pdf. 10.3115/1693756.1693773
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1693756.1693773 [Google Scholar]
34. Prasad, R. , Dinesh, N. , Lee, A. , Miltsakaki, E. , Robaldo, L. , Joshi, A. , & Webber, B.
    (2008) The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) (pp.2961–2968). European Language Resources Association. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
    [Google Scholar]
35. Prasad, R. , Webber, B. , & Lee, A.
    (2018) Discourse annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (pp.87–97). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W18-4700.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
36. Rohde, H. , Tyler, J. , & Carlson, K.
    (2017) Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa, 2(1), Article 53. 10.5334/gjgl.134
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.134 [Google Scholar]
37. Sanders, T. J. M.
    (2005) Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In M. Aurnague , M. Bras , A. le Droualec , & L. Vieu , Proceedings of SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp.105–114). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46669022_Coherence_Causality_and_Cognitive_complexity_in_discourse
    [Google Scholar]
38. Sanders, T. J. M. , & Noordman, L.
    (2000) The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
39. Sanders, T. J. M. , Spooren, W. , & Noordman, L.
    (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
40. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
41. Spooren, W.
    (1997) The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149–168. 10.1080/01638539709545010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010 [Google Scholar]
42. Taboada, M.
    (2006) Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
43. Tonelli, S. , Riccardi, G. , Prasad, R. , & Joshi, A.
    (2010) Annotation of discourse relations for conversational spoken dialogs. In N. Calzolari , K. Choukri , B. Maegaard , J. Mariani , J. Odijk , S. Piperidis , M. Rosner , & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 10) (pp.2084–2090). European Language Resources Association. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/
    [Google Scholar]
44. Webber, B.
    (2013) What excludes an alternative in coherence relations?In A. Koller , & K. Erk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013) (pp.276–287). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W13-01.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
45. Xu, X. , Jiang, X. , & Zhou, X.
    (2015) When a causal assumption is not satisfied by reality: Differential brain responses to concessive and causal relations during sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 704–715. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1005636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1005636 [Google Scholar]