Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 25:2 (2018) ► pp.276–309

The linguistic marking of coherence relations

Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements

 | The University of Edinburgh
 | University of Bern
 | Utrecht University
 | Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS
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.
Keywords: coherence relations, connectives, signals, linguistic marking, parallel corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 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.Agreement
    • 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
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18016.hoe
References (81)
References
Asr, Fatemeh T. & Vera Demberg. 2015. Uniform 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.Google Scholar
Au, Terry K. 1986. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2011. Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences 33(2). 243–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes R. 2013. Small words, big effects? Subjective versus objective causal connectives in discourse processing. Utrecht: University of Utrecht LOT PhD thesis. [URL]
Carlson, Katy. 2014. Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua 1501. 78–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, Mary Ellen Okurowski & Daniel Marcu. 2002. RST Discourse Treebank. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey & Thomas Meyer. 2013. Using the Europarl corpus for cross-linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey, Thomas Meyer & Andrei Popescu-Belis. 2011. How 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.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2002. Sequence and solidarity. In Shane R. Thye & Edward Lawler (eds.), Advances in group processes, vol. 191, 229–253. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial 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.Google Scholar
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2013. Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. [URL]
. 2018. Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge. 2015. RST Signalling Corpus LDC2015T10. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2004. Contrastive 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.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1998. A translational basis for semantics. In Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies, 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel C. J. Scholman. 2017. On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse 8(2). 1–20.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecelia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Austin & T. Florian Jaeger. 2008. Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 30(30). 939–944.Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2004. Connectives 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.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner. 2007. Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2). 241–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.). 2012. Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and cognition. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
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. 2017. Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 1211. 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward 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.Google Scholar
1993. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993: 1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72.Google Scholar
Jordan, Michael P. 1984. Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
1988. The power of negation in English: Text, context and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 29(6). 705–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 1994. Temporal relations: Reference or discourse coherence? Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 319–321. 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
Knott, Alistair & Ted J. M. Sanders. 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
Koehn, Phillip. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), [URL] (8 April, 2014).
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Jos J. A. van Berkum. 2006. On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted J. M. Sanders. 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
Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5). 437–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia & Liesbeth Degand. 2017. Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse 8(1). 132–150.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & T. Florian Jaeger. 2007. Speakers 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.Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Ted J. M. Sanders & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2016. On 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.Google Scholar
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
Melamed, I. Dan. 2001. Empirical methods for exploiting parallel texts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2003. Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics 41(4). 757–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Liesbeth Degand. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 211–246.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2001. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 247–274.Google Scholar
Patterson, Gary & Andrew Kehler. 2013. Predicting the presence of discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2013), 914–923.Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Eleni Miltsakaki, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi, Livio Robaldo & Bonnie L. Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968.Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German, and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
PDTB Research Group. 2007. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. IRCS technical report. [URL]
Pomerantz, Anita & John C. Heritage. 2013. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Renkema, Jan. 2009. The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
Rohde, Hannah, Andrew Kehler & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2006. Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 697–702.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman. 2000. The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1). 37–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., José Sanders, Eve E. Sweetser. 2009. Causality, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren. 2007. Discourse and text structure. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics 53(1). 53–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren & Leo G. M. 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
Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott. 2013. Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 203–210.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI, 540–549.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S. 1997. The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes 24(1). 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman. 1994. Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(4). 519–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Andrew J., Martin J. Pickering & Anthony J. Sanford. 2000. The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 42(3). 423–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke M., Ted J. M. Sanders & Arie Verhagen. 2008. Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40(7). 1296–1322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Debopam Das. 2013. Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2). 249–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2006. Collaborating towards coherence: Lexican cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 1999. Corpus linguistics: A partisan view. TELRI Newsletter 81. 4–19.Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2005. Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43(1). 207–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vliet, Nynke van der & Gisela Redeker. 2014. Explicit 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.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie L. 2013. What excludes an alternative in coherence relations? Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013), 276–287.Google Scholar
Wei, Yipu. 2018. Causal 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. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Relevance Theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gergory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Bruno Cartoni. 2014. A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target 26(3). 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Fang, Huijia
2024. Analysis of the potential relationship between linguistic logical coherence ability and English writing level. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2022. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine, Mathis Wetzel & Sandrine Zufferey
2021. Lexical and Structural Cues to Discourse Processing in First and Second Language. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
2020. When Do We Leave Discourse Relations Underspecified? The Effect of Formality and Relation Type. Discours :26 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
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 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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.