1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-7233
  • E-ISSN: 2589-7241
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

I present an overview of the concept of coherence in discourse and explore how one of the essential elements to that coherence, relational coherence, has been studied and partitioned in different discourse traditions. I then introduce one of the theories that deals with discourse coherence, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). Through the description of RST, I investigate fundamental concepts in the study of coherence relations such as the classification of relations and their signalling in discourse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00009.tab
2019-07-22
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersson, Marta & Jennifer Spenader
    2014 Result and purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua148. 1–27. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas & Laure Vieu
    2005 Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua115. 591–610. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  4. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi
    2015 An information theoretic approach to production and comprehension of discourse markers. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. PhD dissertation.
  5. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg
    2015 Uniform surprisal at the level of discourse relations: Negation markers and discourse connective omission. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computational semantics, 118–128. UK: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballard, D. Lee , Robert J. Conrad & Robert E. Longacre
    1971 Interclausal relations. Foundations of Language7(1). 70–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bärenfänger, Maja , Daniela Goecke , Mirco Hilbert , Harald Lüngen & Maik Stührenberg
    2008 Anaphora as an indicator of Elaboration: A corpus study. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics23(2). 49–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bateman, John & Klaas J. Rondhuis
    1997 Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes24. 3–49. 10.1080/01638539709545006
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Beekman, John & John Callow
    1974Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Benamara, Farah & Maite Taboada
    2015 Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. Proceedings of the fourth joint conference on lexical and computational semantics (*SEM 2015), 147–152. Denver, USA. 10.18653/v1/S15‑1016
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1016 [Google Scholar]
  11. Berzlánovich, Ildikó & Gisela Redeker
    2012 Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory8(1). 183–208. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burstein, Jill , Joel R. Tetreault & Slava Andreyev
    2010 Using entity-based features to model coherence in student essays. Proceedings of human language technologies: The 11th annual conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 681–684. USA: Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu
    2001 Discourse tagging manual. Unpublished manuscript. www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf
  14. Carlson, Lynn , Daniel Marcu & Mary E. Okurowski
    2002RST discourse treebank, LDC2002T07 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2003 Building a discourse tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Jan van Kuppevelt & Ronnie Smith (eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, 85–112. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0019‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cristea, Dan , Nancy Ide & Laurent Romary
    1998 Veins theory: A model of global discourse cohesion and coherence. Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th international conference on computational linguistics (ACL-98/COLING-98), 281–285. Canada: Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cruse, D. Alan
    2000Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. da Cunha, Iria , Juan M. Torres-Moreno & Gerardo Sierra
    2011 On the development of the RST Spanish Treebank. Proceedings of the fifth language and annotation workshop (LAW V), 1–10. USA: Portland.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Danlos, Laurence
    2008 Strong generative capacity of RST, SDRT and discourse dependency DAGs. In Anton Benz & Peter Kühnlein (eds.), Constraints in discourse, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.172.04dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.172.04dan [Google Scholar]
  20. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    . 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]
  21. De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine & Lifeng Jin
    2015 The overall markedness of discourse relations. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1114–1119. Portugal: Lisbon.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dias, Márcio S. & Thiago A. S. Pardo
    2015 A discursive grid approach to model local coherence in multi-document summaries. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2015 conference, 60–67. Czech Republic: Prague.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dinesh, Nikhil , Alan Lee , Eleni Miltsakaki , Rashmi Prasad , Aditya Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2005 Attribution and the (non-)alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. Proceedings of the workshop on frontiers in corpus annotations II: Pie in the sky, 29–36. USA: Ann Arbor. 10.3115/1608829.1608834
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1608829.1608834 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dixon, Ribbon M. W. & Alexandra Aikhenvald
    (eds.) 2009The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Duque, Eladio
    2014 Signaling causal coherence relations. Discourse Studies16(1). 25–46. 10.1177/1461445613496358
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613496358 [Google Scholar]
  26. Egg, Markus & Gisela Redeker
    2010 How complex is discourse structure?Proceedings of the 7th language resources and evaluation conference (LREC), 1619–1623. Malta: Valetta.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine & Wiebke Ramm
    2008‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.98
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.98 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fuller, Daniel P.
    1959The inductive method of bible study. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, Talmy
    1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Green, Clarence
    2014 On the relationship between clause combination, grammatical hierarchy and discourse-pragmatic coherence. Functions of Language21(3). 297–332. 10.1075/fol.21.3.02gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.3.02gre [Google Scholar]
  32. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics, volume3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Grimes, Joseph E.
    1975The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110886474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886474 [Google Scholar]
  34. Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner
    1986 Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics12(3). 175–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1984 Coherence and cohesive harmony. In James Flood (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension, 181–219. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1985 The texture of a text. In Michael A. K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan (eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 70–96. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hobbs, Jerry
    1979 Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science6. 67–90. 10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoey, Michael
    1979Signalling in discourse. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hoque, Enamul , Vidya Setlur , Melanie Tory & Isaac Dykeman
    2018 Applying pragmatics principles for interaction with visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics24(1). 309–318. 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744684
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744684 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hovy, Eduard & Elisabeth Maier
    1993Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? (Technical Report No. ISI/RR-93-373). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis
    2000Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kehler, Andrew
    2002Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004 Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics30(2–3). 227–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kehler, Andrew , Laura Kertz , Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman
    2008 Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics25. 1–44. 10.1093/jos/ffm018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde
    2013 A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics39(1–2). 1–37. 10.1515/tl‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kintsch, Walter & Teun A. van Dijk
    1978 Towards a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review85. 363–394. 10.1037/0033‑295X.85.5.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [Google Scholar]
  50. Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
    1994 Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes18(1). 35–62. 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  51. 1996 Choosing a set of coherence relations for text generation: A data-driven approach. In Giovanni Adorni & Michael Zock (eds.), Trends in natural language generation: An artificial intelligence perspective, 47–67. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑60800‑1_23
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60800-1_23 [Google Scholar]
  52. Knott, Alistair , Jon Oberlander , Michael O’Donnell & Chris Mellish
    2001 Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In Ted Sanders , Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 181–196. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.10kno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.10kno [Google Scholar]
  53. Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted Sanders
    2013 Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes28. 1169–1206. 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076 [Google Scholar]
  54. Levy, Roger P. & T. Florian Jaeger
    2007 Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 849–856. Vancouver, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Longacre, Robert E.
    1976An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 1983The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Maier, Elisabeth & Eduard Hovy
    1991 A metafunctionally motivated taxonomy for discourse structure relations. Proceedings of 3rd European workshop on language generation. Austria: Innsbruck.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 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]
  59. Mann, William C.
    1983An overview of the Nigel text generation grammar: ISI/RR-83-113. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute. 10.3115/981311.981326
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981311.981326 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mann, William C. , Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson
    1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39–78. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.04man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.04man [Google Scholar]
  61. Mann, William C. & Maite Taboada
    2018RST Web Site. Fromwww.sfu.ca/rst.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8(3). 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  63. Marcu, Daniel
    1996 Building up rhetorical structure trees. Proceedings of 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, volume2, 1069–1074. USA: Portland.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1997 The rhetorical parsing, summarization, and generation of natural language texts. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Ph.D. dissertation.
  65. 1999 Instructions for manually annotating the discourse structures of texts. Unpublished manuscript, Marina del Rey, USA.
  66. Martin, James R.
    1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  67. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2008Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2002 Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 235–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.110.13mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.13mat [Google Scholar]
  69. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Kazuhiro Teruya
    2015 Grammatical realizations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word61(3). 232–281. 10.1080/00437956.2015.1071963
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2015.1071963 [Google Scholar]
  70. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1987The structure of discourse and “subordination” (Technical Report No. ISI/RS-87-183). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 1988 The structure of discourse and “subordination”. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in discourse and grammar, 275–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  72. Morris, Jane & Graeme Hirst
    1991 Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics17(1). 21–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Moser, Megan & Johanna D. Moore
    1996 Towards a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics22(3). 410–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. O’Donnell, Michael
    1997 RST-Tool: An RST analysis tool. Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on natural language generation. Germany: Duisburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Ono, Kenji , Kazuo Sumita & Seiji Miike
    1994 Abstract generation based on rhetorical structure extraction. Proceedings of 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’94), volume1, 344–348. Japan: Kyoto. 10.3115/991886.991946
    https://doi.org/10.3115/991886.991946 [Google Scholar]
  76. Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro & Lucia H. M. Rino
    2002 DMSumm: Review and assessment. Proceedings of advances in natural language processing, third international conference (PorTAL 2002), 263–274. Portugal: Faro.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 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]
  78. Polanyi, Livia
    1988 A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics12. 601–638. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90050‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90050-1 [Google Scholar]
  79. Prasad, Rashmi , Nikhil Dinesh , Alan Lee , Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2007 Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Traitement Automatique des Langues47(2). 43–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Prasad, Rashmi , Alan Lee , Nikhil Dinesh , Eleni Miltsakaki , Geraud Campion , Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie Webber
    2008a Penn discourse treebank version 2.0. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 2961–2968. Morocco: Marrakesh.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2008bPenn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0, LDC2008T05 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Prasad, Rashmi , Bonnie Webber & Aravind K. Joshi
    2014 Reflections on the Penn Discourse Treebank, comparable corpora and complementary annotation. Computational Linguistics40(4). 921–950. 10.1162/COLI_a_00204
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00204 [Google Scholar]
  83. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rehbein, Ines , Merel Scholman & Vera Demberg
    2015 Annotating discourse relations in spoken language: A comparison of the PDTB and CCR frameworks. Proceedings of the workshop on identification and annotation of discourse relations in spoken language, 1. Germany: Saarbrücken.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Renkema, Jan
    2009The texture of discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.151
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.151 [Google Scholar]
  86. Rohde, Hannah & William S. Horton
    2014 Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition133(3). 667–691. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  87. Sanders, Ted , Vera Demberg , Jet Hoek , C. J. Scholman Merel , Torabi A. Fatemeh , Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    . In press. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078 [Google Scholar]
  88. 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]
  89. 1993 Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics4(2). 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sporleder, Caroline & Alex Lascarides
    2008 Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: An assesment. Natural Language Engineering14(3). 369–416. 10.1017/S1351324906004451
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324906004451 [Google Scholar]
  91. Stede, Manfred
    2008 RST Revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 33–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.98.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.98.03ste [Google Scholar]
  92. 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]
  93. Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann
    2006a Applications of rhetorical structure Theory. Discourse Studies8(4). 567–588. 10.1177/1461445606064836
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606064836 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2006b Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies8(3). 423–459. 10.1177/1461445606061881
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061881 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2006Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.146 [Google Scholar]
  96. Teufel, Simone & Marc Moens
    2002 Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical structure. Computational Linguistics28(4). 409–445. 10.1162/089120102762671936
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102762671936 [Google Scholar]
  97. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26(1). 125–164. 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  98. Tofiloski, Milan , Julian Brooke & Maite Taboada
    2009 A syntactic and lexical-based discourse segmenter. Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 77–80. Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Vivanco, Verónica
    2005 The absence of connectives and the maintenance of coherence in publicity texts. Journal of Pragmatics37(8). 1233–1249. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  100. Webber, Bonnie & Rashmi Prasad
    2009 Discourse structure: Swings and roundabouts. Oslo Studies in Language1(1). 171–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wolf, Florian & Edward Gibson
    2005 Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics31(2). 249–287. 10.1162/0891201054223977
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201054223977 [Google Scholar]
  102. 2006Coherence in natural language: Data structures and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1899.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1899.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wolf, Florian , Edward Gibson , Amy Fisher & Meredith Knight
    2005Discourse graphbank, LDC2005T08 [Corpus]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00009.tab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/langct.00009.tab
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