Continuity in discourse relations
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1The notion of continuity
- 2.2Discourse relations
- 2.3Continuity in discourse relations
- 3.Operationalisation of continuity dimensions
- 3.1Time
- 3.2Space
- 3.3Reference
- 3.4Action
- 3.5Perspective
- 3.6Modality
- 3.7Speech act
- 4.A corpus analysis of discourse relations
- 4.1The discourse continuity corpus
- 4.2Annotation and inter-rater agreement
- 4.3Results on continuity in discourse relations
- 4.4Evaluation of our results
- 4.5Hypotheses on continuity dimensions and discourse relations
- 5.Conclusions and outlook
- Notes
-
References
References (37)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing
noun-phrase
antecedents. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics
of
conversation. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse
tagging manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545. Marina del Rey, CA: USC Information Science Institute.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge. 2015. The
RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Demberg, Vera, Merel Scholman & Fatemeh Torabi Asr. 2019. How
compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB
annotations. Dialogue &
Discourse 10(1). 87–135. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel Scholman. 2017. On
temporality in discourse annotation. Dialogue &
Discourse 8(2). 1–20. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering:
A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational
Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An
introduction to Functional
Grammar. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics
and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 2001. Modality. In Arnim v. Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landis, Richard & Gary Koch. 1977. The
measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics 331. 159–174. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text
organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Münte, Thomas, Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas. 1998. When
temporal terms belie conceptual
order. Nature 3951. 71–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives
and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and
Cognition 251. 227–236. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pander Maat, Henk. 1998. Classifying
negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of
Pragmatics 30(2). 177–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poesio, Massimo, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio & Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Centering:
A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational
Linguistics 30(3). 309–363. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanders, Ted & Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2004. Accessibility
in text and discourse processing, Discourse
Processes 37(2). 79–89. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. 1992. Toward
a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse
Processes 15(1). 1–35. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Segal, Erwin, Judith Duchan & Paula Scott. 1991. The
role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring. Discourse
Processes 14(1). 27–54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sparks, Jesse & David Rapp. 2010. Discourse
processing – examining our everyday language experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Cognitive
Science 1(3). 371–381. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From
etymology to
pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taboada, Maite & Loreley Hadic Zabala. 2008. Deciding
on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 4(1). 63–108. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taboada, Maite & William Mann. 2006. Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse
Studies 8(3). 423–459. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax. 2016. The
role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse
Processes 53(7). 532–555. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwaan, Rolf & Gabriel Radvansky. 1998. Situation
models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological
Bulletin 123(2). 162–185. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Fetzer, Anita & Matthias Klumm
Mendes, Amália, Deniz Zeyrek & Giedrė Oles̆kevic̆ienė
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.