Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2022) ► pp.59–92

The syntax and semantics of coherence relations

From relative configurations to predictive signals

ORCID logo | Ghent University
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.
Keywords: discourse markers, discourse signals, underspecification, usage-based, cognitive complexity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Coherence relations and their signals
    • 2.1Coherence relations
    • 2.2The polyfunctionality of discourse markers
    • 2.3Other discourse signals
    • 2.4Interaction between relations and signals: Hypotheses
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Corpus data
    • 3.2Discourse marker annotation
      • 3.2.1Identification of discourse markers
      • 3.2.2Functional taxonomy
      • 3.2.3Discourse signals analysis
  • 4.Results: From configurations to predictive signals of coherence relations
    • 4.1Configurations vs. signals across relations and genres
    • 4.2Configurations vs. signals across degrees of DM strength
  • 5.Discussion: Limitations of the present approach to co-occurring signals
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19109.cri
References (45)
References
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
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., & Degand, L. (2019). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours, 24 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., & Demberg, V. (2020). When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours, 26 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., & Pickering, M. J. (2020). Compensating for processing difficulty in discourse: Effect of parallelism in contrastive relations. Discourse Processes, 57(10), 862–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours, 24 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, D., Taboada, M., & McFetridge, P. (2015). RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. [URL]
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 1, 829–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, A., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein-Stewart, J., Goodwin, K. A., Sabin, R. E., & Winder, R. K. (2008). Creating and using a correlated corpora to glean communicative commonalities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008. European Language Resources Association. [URL]
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
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 1, 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(2), 275–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, K., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. [URL]. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, H. (1999). The differential linguistic realization of comparative and additive coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2), 147–184.Google Scholar
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. [URL]. DOI logo
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) (pp. 2961–2968). European Language Resources Association. [URL]
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. [URL]
Rohde, H., Tyler, J., & Carlson, K. (2017). Form and function: Optional complementizers reduce causal inferences. Glossa, 2(1), Article 53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 1, 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Reig Alamillo, Asela, David Torres Moreno, Eliseo Morales González, Mauricio Toledo Acosta, Antoine Taroni & Jorge Hermosillo Valadez
2023. The Analysis of Synonymy and Antonymy in Discourse Relations: An Interpretable Modeling Approach. Computational Linguistics 49:2 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2021. Negation Cancels Discourse-Level Processing Differences: Evidence from Reading Times in Concession and Result Relations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:6 ► pp. 1283 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 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.