The linguistic marking of coherence relations
Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements
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.
- 1.1The marking of coherence relations by connectives
- 1.2The marking of coherence relations by other linguistic elements
- 1.3The interaction between connectives and segment-internal elements
- 2.The marking of coherence relations in parallel corpora
- 2.1Coherence relations in translation
- 2.2The Cognitive approach to Coherence Relations
- 3.Division of labor
- 3.1Division of labor between connectives and segment-internal elements
- 3.2Division of labor in translation
- 4.1Agreement between connectives and segment-internal elements
- 4.2Agreement in translation
- 5.General collocation
- 5.1General collocation between connectives and segment-internal elements
- 5.2General collocation in translation
- 6.Discussion and conclusion
Published online: 25 November 2019
Asr, Fatemeh T. & Vera Demberg
Au, Terry K.
Canestrelli, Anneloes R.
2013 Small words, big effects? Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. http://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/325_fulltext.pdf
Carlson, Lynn, Mary Ellen Okurowski & Daniel Marcu
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey & Thomas Meyer
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, Thomas Meyer & Andrei Popescu-Belis
Clayman, Steven E.
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2013 Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2013/Das_and_Taboada-2013.pdf
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel C. J. Scholman
Ford, Cecelia E.
Frank, Austin & T. Florian Jaeger
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner
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
Horn, Laurence R.
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
Knott, Alistair & Ted J. M. Sanders
2005 Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/pkoehn/publications/europarl-mtsummit05.pdf (8 April 2014).
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Jos J. A. van Berkum
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher
Levshina, Natalia & Liesbeth Degand
Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger
Li, Fang, Ted J. M. Sanders & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Liesbeth Degand
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Ted J. M. Sanders
Patterson, Gary & Andrew Kehler
Prasad, Rashmi, Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi, Livio Robaldo & Bonnie L. Webber
PDTB Research Group
2007 The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. IRCS technical report. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=ircs_reports
Pomerantz, Anita & John C. Heritage
R Core Team
2016 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Reese, Brian, Julie Hunter, Nicholas Asher, Pascal Denis & Jason Baldridge
2007 Reference manual for the analysis of rhetorical structure. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. http://timeml.org/jamesp/annotation_manual.pdf
Rohde, Hannah, Andrew Kehler & Jeffrey L. Elman
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman
Sanders, Ted J. M., José Sanders, Eve E. Sweetser
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman
Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S.
Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman
Stewart, Andrew J., Martin J. Pickering & Anthony J. Sanford
Stukker, Ninke M., Ted J. M. Sanders & Arie Verhagen
Sweetser, Eve E.
Taboada, Maite & Debopam Das
Vliet, Nynke van der & Gisela Redeker
Webber, Bonnie L.
2018 Causal connectives and perspective markers in Chinese: The encoding and processing of subjectivity in discourse. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/482_fulltext.pdf
Cited by 4 other publications
Crible, Ludivine, Mathis Wetzel & Sandrine Zufferey
Grisot, Cristina & Joanna Blochowiak
Scholman, Merel C. J., Vera Demberg & Ted J. M. Sanders
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.