1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Connectives and cue phrases are the most prototypical linguistic elements that signal coherence relations, but by limiting our attention to connectives, we are likely missing out on important other cues readers and listeners use when establishing coherence relations. However, defining the role of other types of linguistic elements in the signaling of coherence relations is not straightforward, and it is also not obvious why and how non-connective elements function as signals for coherence relations. In this paper, we aim to develop a systematic way of categorizing segment-internal elements as signals of coherence relations on the basis of a literature review and evidence from parallel corpora. We propose a three-way distinction between , and to categorize the different ways in which elements inside discourse segments interact with connectives in the marking of coherence relations. In each type of interaction, segment-internal elements can function as signals for coherence relations, but the mechanism behind it is slightly different for each type.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
2019-11-25
2020-10-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asr, Fatemeh T. & Vera Demberg
    2015 Uniform information density at the level of discourse relations: Negation markers and discourse connective omission. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS2015), 118–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Au, Terry K.
    1986 A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language25(1). 104–122. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90024‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90024-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bazzanella, Carla
    2011 Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences33(2). 243–254. 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Canestrelli, Anneloes R.
    2013 Small words, big effects? Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/325_fulltext.pdf
  6. Carlson, Katy
    2014 Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua150. 78–91. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson, Lynn, Mary Ellen Okurowski & Daniel Marcu
    2002RST Discourse Treebank. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey & Thomas Meyer
    2013 Using the Europarl corpus for cross-linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics27(1). 23–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, Thomas Meyer & Andrei Popescu-Belis
    2011 How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. Proceedings of the 4th workshop on building and using comparable corpora, 78–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E.
    2002 Sequence and solidarity. InShane R. Thye & Edward Lawler (eds.), Advances in group processes, vol.19, 229–253. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1016/S0882‑6145(02)19009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber
    2000 Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. InGeoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
    2013 Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2013/Das_and_Taboada-2013.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes55(8). 743–770. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327 [Google Scholar]
  14. Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
    2015RST Signalling CorpusLDC2015T10. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Degand, Liesbeth
    2004 Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of puisque and aangezien. InMichel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 251–270. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dyvik, Helge
    1998 A translational basis for semantics. InStig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies, 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel C. J. Scholman
    2017 On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse8(2). 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ford, Cecelia E.
    1993Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  19. Frank, Austin & T. Florian Jaeger
    2008 Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society30(30). 939–944.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza
    1974 Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry5(3). 459–464.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
    2004 Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9(1). 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Halverson, Sandra
    2004 Connectives as a translation problem. InHarald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert & Fritz Paul (eds.), An international encyclopedia of translation studies, 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner
    2007 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast7(2). 241–265. 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  26. (eds.) 2012Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobbs, Jerry R.
    1990Literature and cognition. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoek, Jet, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
    . in press. Using the cognitive approach to coherence relations for discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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 Pragmatics121. 113–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoey, Michael
    1983On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Horn, Laurence R.
    1984 Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. InDeborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1993 Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993: 1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jordan, Michael P.
    1984Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1988 The power of negation in English: Text, context and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics29(6). 705–752. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00086‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00086-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kehler, Andrew
    1994 Temporal relations: Reference or discourse coherence?Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 319–321. 10.3115/981732.981779
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981779 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Knott, Alistair & Ted J. M. Sanders
    1998 The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics30(2). 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  38. Koehn, Phillip
    2005 Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/pkoehn/publications/europarl-mtsummit05.pdf (8April 2014).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Koornneef, Arnout W. & Jos J. A. van Berkum
    2006 On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language54(4). 445–465. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2013 Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes28(8). 1169–1206. 10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.699076 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher
    1993 Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy16(5). 437–493. 10.1007/BF00986208
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208 [Google Scholar]
  42. Levshina, Natalia & Liesbeth Degand
    2017 Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse8(1). 132–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger
    2007 Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. InBernhard Schölkopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), vol.19, 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, Fang, Ted J. M. Sanders & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2016 On the subjectivity of Mandarin reason connectives: Robust profiles or genre-sensitivity?InNinke M. Stukker, Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 15–49. Amsterdam: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Melamed, I. Dan
    2001Empirical methods for exploiting parallel texts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2708.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2708.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Liesbeth Degand
    2001 Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics12(3). 211–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
    2001 Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 247–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Patterson, Gary & Andrew Kehler
    2013 Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2013), 914–923.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Prasad, Rashmi, Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi, Livio Robaldo & Bonnie L. Webber
    2008 The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pit, Mirna
    2003How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German, and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. PDTB Research Group
    PDTB Research Group 2007The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. IRCS technical report. repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=ircs_reports
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pomerantz, Anita & John C. Heritage
    2013 Preference. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2016R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Renkema, Jan
    2009The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.151
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.151 [Google Scholar]
  57. Reese, Brian, Julie Hunter, Nicholas Asher, Pascal Denis & Jason Baldridge
    2007 Reference manual for the analysis of rhetorical structure. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. timeml.org/jamesp/annotation_manual.pdf
  58. Rohde, Hannah, Andrew Kehler & Jeffrey L. Elman
    2006 Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 697–702.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman
    2000 The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes29(1). 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sanders, Ted J. M., José Sanders, Eve E. Sweetser
    2009 Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. InTed J. M. Sanders & Eve E. Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 19–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
    2007 Discourse and text structure. InDirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2015 Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics53(1). 53–92. 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0034 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott
    2013 Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 203–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1985 Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI, 540–549.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S.
    1997 The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes24(1). 149–168. 10.1080/01638539709545010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman
    1994 Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes9(4). 519–548. 10.1080/01690969408402130
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402130 [Google Scholar]
  69. Stewart, Andrew J., Martin J. Pickering & Anthony J. Sanford
    2000 The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language42(3). 423–443. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2691
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2691 [Google Scholar]
  70. Stukker, Ninke M., Ted J. M. Sanders & Arie Verhagen
    2008 Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics40(7). 1296–1322. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sweetser, Eve E.
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  72. Taboada, Maite & Debopam Das
    2013 Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse4(2). 249–281. 10.5087/dad.2013.211
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2013.211 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2006Collaborating towards coherence: Lexican cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.146 [Google Scholar]
  74. Teubert, Wolfgang
    1999 Corpus linguistics: A partisan view. TELRI Newsletter8. 4–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Umbach, Carla
    2005 Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics43(1). 207–232. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207 [Google Scholar]
  76. Vliet, Nynke van der & Gisela Redeker
    2014 Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. InHelmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theories and applications, 23–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Webber, Bonnie L.
    2013 What excludes an alternative in coherence relations?Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013), 276–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Wei, Yipu
    2018 Causal connectives and perspective markers in Chinese: The encoding and processing of subjectivity in discourse. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/482_fulltext.pdf
  79. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90(1–2). 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2005 Relevance Theory. InLaurence R. Horn & Gergory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Zufferey, Sandrine & Bruno Cartoni
    2014 A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target26(3). 23–42. 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coherence relations , connectives , linguistic marking , parallel corpus and signals
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