Cover not available

Article 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. 16–40

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

The linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in English discourse

A context-based analysis across narrative and argumentative genres

ORCiD logo with link | University of Augsburg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Augsburg
Published online: 30 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22010.fet
Abstract
This paper examines the linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in British English written discourse comparing narrative and argumentative dyadically edited texts. The data comprise 18 co-edited texts and metadata documenting the editing process (keystroke logs and transcripts of the dyads negotiating discursive well-formedness). The focus of analysis lies on the linguistic realization of coordinating continuation and narration, which keep the discourse on the same level, and on the linguistic realization of subordinating elaboration and explanation, which introduce a deeper level in the discourse hierarchy. Special attention is paid to contexts in which the discourse relations are encoded in intra-clausal coherence strands, and to contexts in which they are additionally signalled in the peripheries. The quantitative analysis of the signalling of continuative discourse relations shows genre-specific preferences for the signalling of continuation and elaboration in the argumentative data, and continuation, narration and explanation in the narrative data. Both the products of the edited data, the co-edited texts, and the metadata show that the linguistic realization and interpretation of continuative discourse relations are – to varying degrees – subject to recontextualization. We suggest that this variation provides evidence for (1) discourse relations as constitutive parts of discourse grammar, and (2) genre as a blueprint which constrains their linguistic realization.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Continuative discourse relations
  • 3.Method and data
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative analysis
    • 4.2Qualitative analysis
      • 4.2.1Argumentative data
      • 4.2.2Narrative data
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
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
Bellos, David. 2013. The solitary monoglots. The Guardian, 19 August 2013, p. 23.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
Bublitz, Wolfram & Uta Lenk. 1999. Disturbed coherence: ‘Fill me in’. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24–27 April 1997, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg. 2020. When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours 261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, Robert. 1991. Exploring the role of punctuation in the signalling of discourse structure. Proceedings of the Workshop on Text Representation and Domain Modelling: Ideas from Linguistics and AI, 110–120. Berlin: Technical University of Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Debopam & Markus Egg. 2023. Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language 30(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
. 2019. Multiple signals of coherence relations. Discours 241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demberg, Vera, Merel C. J. Scholman & Fatemeh Torabi Asr. 2019. How compatible are our discourse annotation frameworks? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations. Dialogue & Discourse 10(1). 87–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2010. Small stories in political discourse: The public self goes private. In Christian R. Hoffmann (ed.), Narrative revisited: Telling a story in the age of new media, 163–184. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. 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
. 2018b. Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Cornelia Ilie & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 33–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giomi, Riccardo & Evelien Keizer. 2020. Extra-clausal constituents in Functional Discourse Grammar: Function and form. Revista da Abralin 19(3). 159–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175–204.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1996. The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 374–406. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: OUP. 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
Hyland, Ken. 2018. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury Academic.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 301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 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
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., 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
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2009. Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Jan Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies, 127–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibault, Paul J. 2003. Contextualization and social meaning-making practices. In Susan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 41–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36(1). 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda & Anita Fetzer. 2021. The discursive construction of accountability for communicative action to citizens: A contrastive analysis across Israeli and British media discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics 18(5). 605–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Berthe, Florine, Anita Fetzer & Isabelle Gaudy-Campbell
2024. ‘What we found is’. Functions of Language 31:2 ► pp. 142 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