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. 41–66

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

Continuity in discourse relations

ORCiD logo with link | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
ORCiD logo with link | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Published online: 31 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22017.das
Abstract
Continuity and discontinuity (maintaining or shifting deictic centres across segments) are important aspects of discourse relations. Yet they have been attributed to these relations in very different ways. This calls for an analysis of individual instances of discourse relations with respect to their continuity dimensions. To this end, we operationalise Givón, T.. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar continuity dimensions (time, space, reference, action, perspective, modality, and speech act), decomposing them into distinctive features that allow a consistent and accurate classification of the continuity dimensions in discourse relation tokens. This inventory was applied to five representative relation types (causal, contrastive, conditional, elaboration, and temporal) from the RST Discourse Treebank (Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse tagging manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545. Marina del Rey, CA: USC Information Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). We found that relations can simultaneously be more continuous for some dimensions but more discontinuous for others. What is more, discourse relations typically vary widely in different continuity dimensions and thus cannot be described as fully continuous or discontinuous, neither on the level of the entire relation type nor for one of its particular dimensions. Using examples of causal, conditional, and contrastive relations, we also illustrate how the results of our analysis can be used to verify hypotheses about correlations between continuity and discourse relations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The notion of continuity
    • 2.2Discourse relations
    • 2.3Continuity in discourse relations
  • 3.Operationalisation of continuity dimensions
    • 3.1Time
    • 3.2Space
    • 3.3Reference
    • 3.4Action
    • 3.5Perspective
    • 3.6Modality
    • 3.7Speech act
  • 4.A corpus analysis of discourse relations
    • 4.1The discourse continuity corpus
    • 4.2Annotation and inter-rater agreement
    • 4.3Results on continuity in discourse relations
    • 4.4Evaluation of our results
    • 4.5Hypotheses on continuity dimensions and discourse relations
  • 5.Conclusions and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.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 & Vera Demberg. 2012. Measuring the strength of linguistic cues for discourse relations. In Eva Hajičová, Lucie Poláková & Jiří Mírovský (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects (ADACA), 33–42. Mumbai, India: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse tagging manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545. Marina del Rey, CA: USC Information Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Debopam, Maite Taboada & Paul McFetridge. 2015. The RST Signalling Corpus, LDC2015T10. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demberg, Vera, Merel 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
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Jet Hoek & Merel Scholman. 2017. On temporality in discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse 8(2). 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2018. The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse. 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
Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol.121. Discourse and Syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2001. Modality. In Arnim v. Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landis, Richard & Gary Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 331. 159–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Münte, Thomas, Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas. 1998. When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature 3951. 71–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 251. 227–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk. 1998. Classifying negative coherence relations on the basis of linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2). 177–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio & Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30(3). 309–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis & Daniel Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968. Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel Scholman, Fatemeh Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2021. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(1). 1–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2004. Accessibility in text and discourse processing, Discourse Processes 37(2). 79–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson. 1975. Scripts, plans, and knowledge. Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’75), 151–157. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segal, Erwin, Judith Duchan & Paula Scott. 1991. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring. Discourse Processes 14(1). 27–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparks, Jesse & David Rapp. 2010. Discourse processing – examining our everyday language experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(3). 371–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Loreley Hadic Zabala. 2008. Deciding on units of analysis within Centering Theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(1). 63–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite & William Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 423–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, Yipu, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted Sanders & Willem Mak. 2021. The role of connectives and stance markers in the processing of subjective causal relations, Discourse Processes 58(8). 766–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ye, Zheng, Marta Kutas, Marie St. George, Martin Sereno, Feng Ling & Thomas Münte. 2012. Rearranging the world: Neural network supporting the processing of temporal connectives. NeuroImage 59(4). 3662–3667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax. 2016. The role of perspective shifts for processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes 53(7). 532–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf & Gabriel Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2). 162–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf & Murray Singer. 2003. Text comprehension. In Arthur Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Susan Goldman (eds.), Handbook of discourse processes, 83–121. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Santosa, Riyadi, Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Hamzi, Tri Wiratno, Agus Dwi Priyanto & Djatmika Djatmika
2025. Report Genre: a Conjunctive Relation perspective and its pedagogical implication on teaching in Junior High Schools in Indonesia. Cogent Education 12:1 DOI logo
Berthe, Florine, Anita Fetzer & Isabelle Gaudy-Campbell
2024. ‘What we found is’. Functions of Language 31:2 ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias
2024. A corpus-based study of phrasal and clausal temporal adjuncts at the left and right peripheries across genres of written English discourse. Lingua 309 ► pp. 103794 ff. DOI logo
Villalobos Cardozo, Mercedes, Ludivine Crible & Liesbeth Degand
2024. Discourse Markers as Cues for Topic Shift Interpretation: Experimental Evidence from Spanish. Discours 35 DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita & Matthias Klumm
2023. The linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in English discourse. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Mendes, Amália, Deniz Zeyrek & Giedrė Oles̆kevic̆ienė
2023. Explicitness and implicitness of discourse relations in a multilingual discourse bank. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 67 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