Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Context and Text
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.205–233

The space of coherence relations and their signalling in discourse

| Simon Fraser University

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.

Keywords: coherence relations, discourse relations, rhetorical relations, cohesion, cohesive harmony, conjunction, Rhetorical Structure Theory, discourse organization, discourse markers, discourse signalling
Article outline
  • 1.What discourse coherence means and how we can find it
  • 2.The texture of discourse
  • 3.Coherence relations through the ages
  • 4.Rhetorical Structure Theory: One approach to coherence relations
  • 5.Taxonomies of coherence relations
  • 6.Signalling coherence relations
  • 7.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00009.tab
References
Andersson, Marta & Jennifer Spenader
2014 Result and purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua 1481. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
2003 Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Laure Vieu
2005 Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 1151. 591–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi
2015 An information theoretic approach to production and comprehension of discourse markers. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
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
Ballard, D. Lee, Robert J. Conrad & Robert E. Longacre
1971 Interclausal relations. Foundations of Language 7(1). 70–118.Google Scholar
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 Linguistics 23(2). 49–72.Google Scholar
Bateman, John & Klaas J. Rondhuis
1997 Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes 241. 3–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekman, John & John Callow
1974 Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berzlánovich, Ildikó & Gisela Redeker
2012 Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 183–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu
2001 Discourse tagging manual. Unpublished manuscript. [URL]
Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary E. Okurowski
2002 RST discourse treebank, LDC2002T07 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Cruse, D. Alan
2000 Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2018. Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8): 743–770. DOI logo
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Ribbon M. W. & Alexandra Aikhenvald
(eds.) 2009 The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duque, Eladio
2014 Signaling causal coherence relations. Discourse Studies 16(1). 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine & Wiebke Ramm
2008 ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Daniel P.
1959 The inductive method of bible study. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979 On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics, volume 31, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E.
1975 The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner
1986 Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175–204.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2014 Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya
1984 Coherence and cohesive harmony. In James Flood (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension, 181–219. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
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
Hobbs, Jerry
1979 Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 61. 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1979 Signalling in discourse. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Hoque, Enamul, Vidya Setlur, Melanie Tory & Isaac Dykeman
2018 Applying pragmatics principles for interaction with visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24(1). 309–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovy, Eduard & Elisabeth Maier
1993 Parsimonious 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
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis
2000 Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew
2002 Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004 Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics 30(2–3). 227–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman
2008 Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 251. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde
2013 A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39(1–2). 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, Walter & Teun A. van Dijk
1978 Towards a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review 851. 363–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
1994 Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18(1). 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted Sanders
2013 Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 281. 1169–1206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Longacre, Robert E.
1976 An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
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
Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel & Anita Fetzer
2016 The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1). 71–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C.
1983 An overview of the Nigel text generation grammar: ISI/RR-83-113 . Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C. & Maite Taboada
2018 RST Web Site. From [URL].
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcu, Daniel
1996 Building up rhetorical structure trees. Proceedings of 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, volume 21, 1069–1074. USA: Portland.Google Scholar
1997 The rhetorical parsing, summarization, and generation of natural language texts. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
1999 Instructions for manually annotating the discourse structures of texts. Unpublished manuscript, Marina del Rey, USA.Google Scholar
Martin, James R.
1992 English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose
2008 Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Kazuhiro Teruya
2015 Grammatical realizations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word 61(3). 232–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Sandra A. Thompson
1987 The structure of discourse and “subordination” (Technical Report No. ISI/RS-87-183). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Jane & Graeme Hirst
1991 Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Google Scholar
Moser, Megan & Johanna D. Moore
1996 Towards a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 22(3). 410–419.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Michael
1997 RST-Tool: An RST analysis tool. Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on natural language generation. Germany: Duisburg.Google Scholar
Ono, Kenji, Kazuo Sumita & Seiji Miike
1994 Abstract generation based on rhetorical structure extraction. Proceedings of 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’94), volume 11, 344–348. Japan: Kyoto. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Poesio, Massimo, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio & Janet Hitzeman
2004 Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30(3). 309–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, Livia
1988 A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 601–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie Webber
2007 Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Traitement Automatique des Langues 47(2). 43–63.Google Scholar
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
2008b Penn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0, LDC2008T05 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber & Aravind K. Joshi
2014 Reflections on the Penn Discourse Treebank, comparable corpora and complementary annotation. Computational Linguistics 40(4). 921–950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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
Renkema, Jan
2009 The texture of discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohde, Hannah & William S. Horton
2014 Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition 133(3). 667–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman
1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sporleder, Caroline & Alex Lascarides
2008 Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: An assesment. Natural Language Engineering 14(3). 369–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite
2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4). 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann
2006a Applications of rhetorical structure Theory. Discourse Studies 8(4). 567–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 423–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
2006 Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teufel, Simone & Marc Moens
2002 Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical structure. Computational Linguistics 28(4). 409–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Vivanco, Verónica
2005 The absence of connectives and the maintenance of coherence in publicity texts. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8). 1233–1249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie & Rashmi Prasad
2009 Discourse structure: Swings and roundabouts. Oslo Studies in Language 1(1). 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Florian & Edward Gibson
2005 Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics 31(2). 249–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Coherence in natural language: Data structures and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Florian, Edward Gibson, Amy Fisher & Meredith Knight
2005 Discourse graphbank, LDC2005T08 [Corpus]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 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
Stöckl, Hartmut & Jana Pflaeging
2022. Multimodal Coherence Revisited: Notes on the Move From Theory to Data in Annotating Print Advertisements. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2023. 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.