Connectives and cue phrases are the most prototypical linguistic elements that signal coherence relations, but by limiting our attention to connectives, we are likely missing out on important other cues readers and listeners use when establishing coherence relations. However, defining the role of other types of linguistic elements in the signaling of coherence relations is not straightforward, and it is also not obvious why and how non-connective elements function as signals for coherence relations. In this paper, we aim to develop a systematic way of categorizing segment-internal elements as signals of coherence relations on the basis of a literature review and evidence from parallel corpora. We propose a three-way distinction between division of labor, agreement, and general collocation to categorize the different ways in which elements inside discourse segments interact with connectives in the marking of coherence relations. In each type of interaction, segment-internal elements can function as signals for coherence relations, but the mechanism behind it is slightly different for each type.
2015Uniform information density at the level of discourse relations: Negation markers and discourse connective omission. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS2015), 118–128.
Au, Terry K.
1986A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language 25(1). 104–122.
Bazzanella, Carla
2011Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences 33(2). 243–254.
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Canestrelli, Anneloes R.
2013Small words, big effects? Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. [URL]
Carlson, Katy
2014Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua 1501. 78–91.
Carlson, Lynn, Mary Ellen Okurowski & Daniel Marcu
2002RST Discourse Treebank. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, Thomas Meyer & Andrei Popescu-Belis
2011How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. Proceedings of the 4th workshop on building and using comparable corpora, 78–86.
Clayman, Steven E.
2002Sequence and solidarity. In Shane R. Thye & Edward Lawler (eds.), Advances in group processes, vol. 191, 229–253. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber
2000Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2013Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. [URL]
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2018Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770.
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
2015RST Signalling Corpus LDC2015T10. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Degand, Liesbeth
2004Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of puisque and aangezien. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 251–270. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Dyvik, Helge
1998A translational basis for semantics. In Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies, 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel C. J. Scholman
2017On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse 8(2). 1–20.
Ford, Cecelia E.
1993Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank, Austin & T. Florian Jaeger
2008Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 30(30). 939–944.
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza
1974Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464.
Grice, Paul
1975Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
1976Cohesion in English. London & New York: Routledge.
Halverson, Sandra
2004Connectives as a translation problem. In Harald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert & Fritz Paul (eds.), An international encyclopedia of translation studies, 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner
(eds.)2012Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1990Literature and cognition. Stanford: CSLI.
Hoek, Jet, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
in press. Using the cognitive approach to coherence relations for discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse.
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders
2017Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 1211. 113–131.
Hoey, Michael
1983On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Horn, Laurence R.
1984Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, Laurence R.
1993Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993: 1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72.
Jordan, Michael P.
1984Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Jordan, Michael P.
1988The power of negation in English: Text, context and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 29(6). 705–752.
Kehler, Andrew
1994Temporal relations: Reference or discourse coherence?Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 319–321.
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
1994Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18(1). 35–62.
Knott, Alistair & Ted J. M. Sanders
1998The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2). 135–175.
Koehn, Phillip
2005Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), [URL] (8April 2014).
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Jos J. A. van Berkum
2006On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465.
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
2013Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(8). 1169–1206.
Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher
1993Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5). 437–493.
Levshina, Natalia & Liesbeth Degand
2017Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse 8(1). 132–150.
Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger
2007Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Bernhard Schölkopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), vol. 191, 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, Fang, Ted J. M. Sanders & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
2016On the subjectivity of Mandarin reason connectives: Robust profiles or genre-sensitivity? In Ninke M. Stukker, Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 15–49. Amsterdam: de Gruyter Mouton.
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
1988Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.
Melamed, I. Dan
2001Empirical methods for exploiting parallel texts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Noël, Dirk
2003Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics 41(4). 757–785.
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Liesbeth Degand
2001Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 211–246.
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
2001Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 247–274.
Patterson, Gary & Andrew Kehler
2013Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2013), 914–923.
Prasad, Rashmi, Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi, Livio Robaldo & Bonnie L. Webber
2008The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968.
Pit, Mirna
2003How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German, and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Reese, Brian, Julie Hunter, Nicholas Asher, Pascal Denis & Jason Baldridge
2007Reference manual for the analysis of rhetorical structure. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. [URL]
Rohde, Hannah, Andrew Kehler & Jeffrey L. Elman
2006Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 697–702.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman
2000The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1). 37–60.
Sanders, Ted J. M., José Sanders, Eve E. Sweetser
2009Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Ted J. M. Sanders & Eve E. Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 19–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
2007Discourse and text structure. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
2015Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics 53(1). 53–92.
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman
1992Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35.
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman
1993Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133.
Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott
2013Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 203–210.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1985Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI, 540–549.
Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S.
1997The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes 24(1). 149–168.
Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman
1994Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(4). 519–548.
Stewart, Andrew J., Martin J. Pickering & Anthony J. Sanford
2000The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 42(3). 423–443.
Stukker, Ninke M., Ted J. M. Sanders & Arie Verhagen
2008Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40(7). 1296–1322.
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, Maite & Debopam Das
2013Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2). 249–281.
1999Corpus linguistics: A partisan view. TELRI Newsletter 81. 4–19.
Umbach, Carla
2005Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics 43(1). 207–232.
Vliet, Nynke van der & Gisela Redeker
2014Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. In Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theories and applications, 23–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Webber, Bonnie L.
2013What excludes an alternative in coherence relations?Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013), 276–287.
Wei, Yipu
2018Causal connectives and perspective markers in Chinese: The encoding and processing of subjectivity in discourse. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. [URL]
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
1993Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25.
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
2005Relevance Theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gergory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. New York: Wiley.
2021. Lexical and Structural Cues to Discourse Processing in First and Second Language. Frontiers in Psychology 12
Fang, Huijia
2024. Analysis of the potential relationship between linguistic logical coherence ability and English writing level. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1
Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak
2021. Temporal Relations at the Sentence and Text Genre Level: The Role of Linguistic Cueing and Non-linguistic Biases—An Annotation Study of a Bilingual Corpus. Corpus Pragmatics 5:3 ► pp. 379 ff.
Scholman, Merel C. J., Vera Demberg & Ted J. M. Sanders
2020. Individual differences in expecting coherence relations: Exploring the variability in sensitivity to contextual signals in discourse. Discourse Processes 57:10 ► pp. 844 ff.
Scholman, Merel C.J., Vera Demberg & Ted J.M. Sanders
2022. Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations. Discours :30
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 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.