Article published in:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 25:2 (2018) ► pp. 276309
References

References

Asr, Fatemeh T. & Vera Demberg
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
2011Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences 33(2). 243–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes R.
2013Small 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, Katy
2014Predicting contrasts in sentences with and without focus marking. Lingua 150. 78–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, Mary Ellen Okurowski & Daniel Marcu
2002RST Discourse Treebank. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
[ p. 305 ]
Cartoni, Bruno, Sandrine Zufferey & Thomas Meyer
2013Using the Europarl corpus for cross-linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 23–42.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
2002Sequence and solidarity. In Shane R. Thye & Edward Lawler (eds.), Advances in group processes, vol. 19, 229–253. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada
2013Explicit 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
2018Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge
2015RST Signalling Corpus LDC2015T10. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel C. J. Scholman
2017On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse 8(2). 1–20.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecelia E.
1993Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza
1974Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975Logic 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
2004Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner
2007Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2). 241–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 306 ]
(eds.) 2012Cross-linguistic corpora for the study of translations: Insights from the language pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1990Literature 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
2017Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 113–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1983On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
1993Economy 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.
1984Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
1988The power of negation in English: Text, context and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 29(6). 705–752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew
1994Temporal relations: Reference or discourse coherence? Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 319–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale
1994Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18(1). 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koehn, Phillip
2005Europarl: 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
2006On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher
1993Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5). 437–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia & Liesbeth Degand
2017Just 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
2007Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Bernhard Schölkopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), vol. 19, 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
[ p. 307 ]
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
1988Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Melamed, I. Dan
2001Empirical methods for exploiting parallel texts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2003Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics 41(4). 757–785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. & Liesbeth Degand
2001Scaling 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
2001Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 247–274.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna
2003How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German, and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
PDTB Research Group
2007The 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
2013Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2016R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Renkema, Jan
2009The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. http://​timeml​.org​/jamesp​/annotation​_manual​.pdf
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 308 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott
2013Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 203–210.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1985Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI, 540–549.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S.
1997The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes 24(1). 149–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman
1994Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(4). 519–548. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Debopam Das
2013Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2). 249–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
2006Collaborating towards coherence: Lexican cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang
1999Corpus linguistics: A partisan view. TELRI Newsletter 8. 4–19.Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla
2005Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but . Linguistics 43(1). 207–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie L.
2013What excludes an alternative in coherence relations? Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS2013), 276–287.Google Scholar
Wei, Yipu
2018Causal 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
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
1993Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Relevance Theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gergory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Bruno Cartoni
2014A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target 26(3). 23–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 309 ]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2021. 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.