1887
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This corpus-based study investigates the inter-relation between discourse markers (DMs) and other contextual signals that contribute to the interpretation of coherence relations. The objectives are three-fold: (i) to provide a comprehensive and systematic portrait of the syntax and semantics of a set of coherence relations in English; (ii) to draw a distinction between mere tendencies of co-occurrence and strong predictive signals; (iii) to identify factors that account for the variation of these signals, focusing on relation complexity, DM strength and genre preferences. The methodology combines systematic coding (description) and multivariate statistical modelling (prediction). While the effect of genre and relation complexity was found to be null or moderate, the presence of discourse signals systematically varies with the ambiguity of the DM in the relation: signals co-occur more with ambiguous DMs than with more informative ones.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19109.cri
2022-01-21
2022-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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. (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. (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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19109.cri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19109.cri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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