Chapter 2
Local vs. global scope of discourse markers
Corpus-based evidence from syntax and pauses
This paper discusses the relevance and challenges
of a corpus-based investigation of the scope of discourse markers.
It builds on Lenk’s
(1998) distinction between local and global scope of
discourse markers and maps it with annotation variables available in
existing corpora. Given the interplay of syntactic and
semantic-pragmatic variables that a direct approach to scope
involves, it is argued that indirect and independent cues (namely
position of the marker, its degree of syntactic integration and
co-occurrence with pauses) offer a more reliable access to the
variation in scope. The analysis focuses on three pairs of discourse
markers (topic-shifting vs. topic-resuming, coordinating vs.
subordinating conjunctions, objective vs. subjective uses of
so) in a corpus of spoken English.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Accessing DM scope through direct and indirect evidence
- 3.DisFrEn: Corpus and annotation
- 4.Syntax and pauses as indirect measures of DM scope
- 4.1Function-specific: Topic-shifting vs. topic-resuming
- 4.2POS-specific: Subordination vs. coordination
- 4.3DM-specific:
So expressing consequence vs.
conclusion
- 5.Summary and discussion
-
Notes
-
References
References (44)
References
Baldridge, Jason, and Alex Lascarides. 2005. “Annotating
Discourse Structure for Robust Semantic
Interpretation.” In Proceedings
of the 6th International Workshop on Computational Semantics
(IWCS-6), January 12th-14th, Tilburg, The Netherlands, ed.
by Hendrik Cornelis Bunt, Jeroen Geertzen, Elias Thijsse 17–29. Tilburg: Tilburg University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bunt, Harry. 2012. “Multifunctionality
in Dialogue.” Computer Speech
and
Language 25: 222–245. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cabedo, Adrián, and Salvador Pons. 2013. Corpus
Val.Es.Co. [online: [URL]].
Castellà, Josep. 2004. Oralitat
i Escriptura. Dues Cares de la Complexitat del
Llenguatge. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. “Using
uh and um in
Spontaneous
Speaking.” Cognition 84: 73–111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crible, Ludivine. 2018. “Towards
a Constructional Framework of the Polyfunctionality of
Discourse Markers.” Paper
given at the
10th
International Conference on Construction Grammar
(ICCG-10)
, July
16–18, Paris,
France.
Crible, Ludivine, and Sandrine Zufferey. 2015. “Using
a Unified Taxonomy to Annotate Discourse Markers in Speech
and
Writing.” In
Proceedings
of the
11th
Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic
Annotation
(isa-11)
, April
14th, London,
UK, ed.
by Harry Bunt: 14–22.
Crible, Ludivine, and Maria-Josep Cuenca. 2017. “Discourse
Markers in Speech: Characteristics and Challenges for Corpus
Annotation.” Dialogue and
Discourse 8 (2): 149–166.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crible, Ludivine, Amandine Dumont, Iulia Grosman, and Ingrid Notarrigo. 2019. “(Dis)fluency across
Spoken and Signed Languages: Application of an Interoperable
Annotation
Scheme.” In Fluency and Disfluency across Languages and Language Varieties, ed.
by Liesbeth Degand, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Laurence Meurant, and Anne-Catherine Simon, 17–39. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada, and Paul McFetridge. 2015. RST
Signalling Corpus
LDC2015T10. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Estellés Arguedas, Maria, and Salvador Pons Bordería. 2014. “Absolute
Initial
Position.” In Discourse
Segmentation in Romance Languages, ed.
by Salvador Pons, 121–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From
Cognitive Semantics to Lexical
Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Kerstin. 2010. “Beyond
the Sentence: Constructions, Frames and Spoken
Interaction.” Constructions
and
Frames 2(2): 185–207.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. “Construction
Grammar and Spoken Language: The Case of Pragmatic
Particles.” Journal of
Pragmatics 37: 1752–1778. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. “Testing
the Hypothesis. Objectivity and Verification in Usage-based
Cognitive
Semantics.” In Quantitative
Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven
Approaches [Cognitive Linguistic
Research 46], ed.
by Dylan Glynn, and Kerstin Fischer, 239–269. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
González, Montserrat. 2005. “Pragmatic
Markers and Discourse Coherence Relations in English and
Catalan Oral
Narrative.” Discourse
Studies 77 (1): 53–86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. “A
Dynamic Polysemy Approach to the Lexical Semantics of
Discourse Markers (with an exemplary analysis of French
toujours).” In Approaches
to Discourse Particles, ed.
by Kerstin Fischer, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lenk, Uta. 1998. “Discourse
Markers and Global Coherence in
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 30: 245–257. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Little, Daniel R., Raoul Oehmen, John Dunn, Kathryn Hird, and Kim Kirsner. 2013. “Fluency
Profiling System: An Automated System for Analyzing the
Temporal Properties of
Speech.” Behavioral Research
Methods 45 (1): 191–202. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lundholm, Kristina. 2015. Production
and Perception of Pauses in
Speech. PhD
diss., University of Gothenburg.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mann, William, and Sandra Thompson. 1988. “Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text
Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra Thompson. 2006. “The
Grammaticalization of but as a Final
Particle in English
Conversation.” In Selected
Papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australia Linguistic
Society, ed.
by Keith Allan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pander Maat, Henk, and Ted J. M. Sanders. 2000. “Domains
of Use and Subjectivity. On the Distribution of three Dutch
Causal
Connectives.” In Cause,
Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse
Perspectives, ed.
by Bernd Kortmann, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 57–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pander Maat, Henk, and Ted J. M. Sanders. 2001. “Subjectivity
in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in
Use.” Cognitive
Linguistics 12 (3): 247–273.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances H. Syder. 2000. “The
One-clause-at-a-time
Hypothesis.” In Perspectives
on Fluency, ed.
by Heidi Riggenbach, 163–199. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pitler, Emily, and Ani Nenkova. 2009. “Using
Syntax to Disambiguate Explicit Discourse Connectives in
Text.” In Proceedings
of the ACL-IJCNLP Conference Short
Papers: 13–16. ![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, and Bonnie Webber. 2008. “The
Penn Discourse Treebank
2.0.” In Proceedings
of the 6th International Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC’08), May, Marrakech, Morocco, ed.
by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odjik, Stelios Piperidis, and Daniel Tapias: 2961–2968.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Benjamin, and Kim Kirsner. 2000. “Temporal
Cycles in Speech
Production.” Language and
Cognitive
Processes 15 (2): 129–157. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward
a Taxonomy of Coherence
Relations.” Discourse
Processes 15: 1–35. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2012. “Generalizing
the Apparently Ungeneralizable. Basic Ingredients of a
Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to the Construal of
Meaning-in-context.” In Cognitive
Pragmatics, ed.
by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmidt, Thomas, and Kai Wörner. 2012. “EXMARaLDA.” In Handbook
on Corpus Phonology, ed.
by Jacques Durand, Gut Ulrike, and Gjert Kristoffersen, 402–419. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. “Discourse
Markers: A
Tutorial.” Lingua 107: 227–265. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spooren, Wilbert, and Liesbeth Degand. 2010. “Coding
Coherence Relations: Reliability and
Validity.” Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic
Theory 6 (2): 241–266. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stent, Amanda. 2000. “Rhetorical
Structure in
Dialog.” In Proceedings
of the 2nd International Natural Language Generation
Conference (INLG’2000).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swerts, Marc. 1998. “Filled
Pauses as Markers of Discourse
Structure.” Journal of
Pragmatics 30: 485–496. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Unger, Christoph. 1996. “The
Scope of Discourse Connectives: Implications for Discourse
Organization.” Journal of
Linguistics 32: 403–438. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Webber, Bonnie, Rashmi Prasad, Alan Lee, and Aravind Joshi. 2016. “Discourse
Annotation of Conjoined
VPs.” In Conference
Handbook of the 2nd Action Conference of
TextLink, April, Budapest, Hungary, ed.
by Liesbeth Degand, Csilla Dér, Péter Furkó, and Bonnie Webber: 135–140.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Garrido Medina, Joaquín
2024.
Coordinación y subordinación discursivas en la columna periodística.
Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 98
► pp. 17 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Alfano, Iolanda & Loredana Schettino
2023.
Segnali discorsivi in italiano. Funzioni e posizioni .
Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 30
► pp. 207 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.