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 (time, space, reference, action,
perspective, modality, and speech act), 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 (causal, contrastive, conditional, elaboration, and
temporal) 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
causal, conditional, and contrastive relations, we also illustrate how the results of our analysis
can be used to verify hypotheses about correlations between continuity and discourse relations.
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics
of
conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
Asr, Fatemeh & Vera Demberg. 2012. Measuring
the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In Eva 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.
Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering:
A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational
Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An
introduction to Functional
Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hopper, Paul. 1979. Aspect
and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax
and semantics, vol.121. Discourse and
Syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics
and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2001. Modality. In Arnim v. Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton.
Landis, Richard & Gary Koch. 1977. The
measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics 331. 159–174.
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text
organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.
Münte, Thomas, Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas. 1998. When
temporal terms belie conceptual
order. Nature 3951. 71–73.
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives
and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and
Cognition 251. 227–236.
Pander Maat, Henk. 1998. Classifying
negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of
Pragmatics 30(2). 177–204.
Poesio, Massimo, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio & Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Centering:
A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational
Linguistics 30(3). 309–363.
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2008. The
Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Nicoletta 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).
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
Theory 17(1). 1–71.
Sanders, Ted & Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2004. Accessibility
in text and discourse processing, Discourse
Processes 37(2). 79–89.
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. 1992. Toward
a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse
Processes 15(1). 1–35.
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.
Segal, Erwin, Judith Duchan & Paula Scott. 1991. The
role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring. Discourse
Processes 14(1). 27–54.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From
etymology to
pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Taboada, Maite & Loreley Hadic Zabala. 2008. Deciding
on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 4(1). 63–108.
Taboada, Maite & William Mann. 2006. Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse
Studies 8(3). 423–459.
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
Processes 58(8). 766–786.
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. NeuroImage 59(4). 3662–3667.
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax. 2016. The
role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse
Processes 53(7). 532–555.
Zwaan, Rolf & Gabriel Radvansky. 1998. Situation
models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological
Bulletin 123(2). 162–185.
Zwaan, Rolf & Murray Singer. 2003. Text
comprehension. In Arthur Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Susan Goldman (eds.), Handbook
of discourse processes, 83–121. New York: Routledge.
2024. A corpus-based study of phrasal and clausal temporal adjuncts at the left and right peripheries across genres of written English discourse. Lingua 309 ► pp. 103794 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.
