Cover not available

Introduction published In: Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains: Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches
Edited by Matthias Klumm, Anita Fetzer and Evelien Keizer
[Functions of Language 30:1] 2023
► pp. 4–15

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
Introduction

Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains

Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches

ORCiD logo with link | University of Augsburg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Augsburg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Vienna


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 14 February 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00050.klu
Article outline
  • 1.Discourse relations and their linguistic realizations
  • 2.Continuative and contrastive discourse relations
  • 3.Contributions to this Special Issue
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Afantenos, Stergos, Nicholas Asher, Farah Benamara, Myriam Bras, Cécile Fabre, Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac, Anne Le Draoulec, Philippe Muller, Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley, Laurent Prévot, Josette Rebeyrolle, Ludovic Tanguy, Marianne Verguez-Couret & Laure Vieu. 2012. An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organization: The ANNODIS corpus. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uǧur Doǧan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), 2727–2734. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg. 2012. Implicitness of discourse relations. In Martin Kay & Christian Boitet (eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical papers, 2669–2684. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Interpretation of discourse connectives is probabilistic: Evidence from the study of but and although. Discourse Processes 57(4). 376–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benamara Zitoune, Farah & Maite Taboada. 2015. Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. In Martha Palmer, Gemma Boleda & Paolo Rosso (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2015), 147–152. Denver, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, Kate & Hannah M. Nash. 2011. The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(2). 429–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneleos R., Willem M. Mak & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2013. Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(9). 1394–1413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary Ellen Okurowski. 2002. RST Discourse Treebank, LDC2002T07. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat, and writing: Do signals compensate for ambiguity in explicit relations? Discourse Processes 57(9). 793–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Debopam. 2014. Signalling of coherence relations in discourse. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University PhD thesis.
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2018. Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743–770. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge. 2015. RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2019. Causal relations between discourse and grammar: Because in spoken French and Dutch. In Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds.), 131–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2017. Contrastive discourse relations in context: Evidence from monologic and dialogic editing tasks. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 269–292. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. Discourse analysis. In Andreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 395–424. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, 13–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer. 2012. Discourse relations in context: Local and not-so-local constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(4). 413–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edn. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet & Sandrine Zufferey. 2015. Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In Harry Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11), 39–45. London: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Sandrine Zufferey, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2019. The linguistic marking of coherence relations: Interactions between connectives and segment-internal elements. Pragmatics & Cognition 25(2). 275–309.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofmockel, Carolin, Anita Fetzer & Robert M. Maier. 2017. Discourse relations: Genre-specific degrees of overtness in argumentative and narrative discourse. Argument & Computation 8(2). 131–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klumm, Matthias. 2022. The signaling of continuative and contrastive discourse relations in English argumentative discourse: Corpus-based and experimental perspectives. Discours [Online] 301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana. 2017. Coherence relations and information structure in English and French political speeches. In Karin Aijmer & Diana Lewis (eds.), Contrastive analysis of discourse-pragmatic aspects of linguistic genres, 141–161. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loureda, Óscar, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds.). 2019. Empirical studies of the construction of discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Carolin Hofmockel & Anita Fetzer. 2016. The negotiation of discourse relations in context: Co-constructing degrees of overtness. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1). 71–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, John D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 25(2). 227–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber, Alan Lee & Aravind Joshi. 2019. Penn Discourse Treebank Version 3.0, LDC2019T05. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan (ed.). 2009. Discourse, of course. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Michel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec & Laure Vieu (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Wilbert P. M. Spooren. 2009. The cognition of discourse coherence. In Jan Renkema (ed.), 197–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren, Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel C. J. Scholman, Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2021. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(1). 1–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan & Paula J. Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 14(1). 27–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4). 567–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wetzel, Mathis, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax. 2022. How robust is discourse processing for native readers? The role of connectives and the coherence relations they convey. Frontiers in Psychology 131: 822151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes & Murathan Kurfali. 2018. Multi-lingual extension of PDTB-style annotation: The case of TED multi-lingual discourse bank. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uǧur Doǧan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), 1913–1919. Miyazaki, Japan: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2014. Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives: The case of French puisque. Journal of Pragmatics 621. 121–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Willem M. Mak, Sara Verbrugge & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2018. Usage and processing of the French causal connectives car and parce que. Journal of French Language Studies 28(1). 85–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Klumm, Matthias & Augustin Speyer
2025. Left and right peripheries in discourse: an introduction. Folia Linguistica 59:2 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue