Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Context and Text
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.205–233

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

The space of coherence relations and their signalling in discourse

 | Simon Fraser University
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00009.tab
Abstract
I present an overview of the concept of coherence in discourse and explore how one of the essential elements to that coherence, relational coherence, has been studied and partitioned in different discourse traditions. I then introduce one of the theories that deals with discourse coherence, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). Through the description of RST, I investigate fundamental concepts in the study of coherence relations such as the classification of relations and their signalling in discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.What discourse coherence means and how we can find it
  • 2.The texture of discourse
  • 3.Coherence relations through the ages
  • 4.Rhetorical Structure Theory: One approach to coherence relations
  • 5.Taxonomies of coherence relations
  • 6.Signalling coherence relations
  • 7.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (103)
References
Andersson, Marta & Jennifer Spenader. 2014. Result and purpose relations with and without ‘so’. Lingua 1481. 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Laure Vieu. 2005. Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 1151. 591–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi. 2015. An information theoretic approach to production and comprehension of discourse markers. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg. 2015. Uniform surprisal at the level of discourse relations: Negation markers and discourse connective omission. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computational semantics, 118–128. UK: London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ballard, D. Lee, Robert J. Conrad & Robert E. Longacre. 1971. Interclausal relations. Foundations of Language 7(1). 70–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bärenfänger, Maja, Daniela Goecke, Mirco Hilbert, Harald Lüngen & Maik Stührenberg. 2008. Anaphora as an indicator of Elaboration: A corpus study. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics 23(2). 49–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateman, John & Klaas J. Rondhuis. 1997. Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes 241. 3–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beekman, John & John Callow. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benamara, Farah & Maite Taboada. 2015. Mapping different rhetorical relation annotations: A proposal. Proceedings of the fourth joint conference on lexical and computational semantics (*SEM 2015), 147–152. Denver, USA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berzlánovich, Ildikó & Gisela Redeker. 2012. Genre-dependent interaction of coherence and lexical cohesion in written discourse. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 183–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burstein, Jill, Joel R. Tetreault & Slava Andreyev. 2010. Using entity-based features to model coherence in student essays. Proceedings of human language technologies: The 11th annual conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 681–684. USA: Los Angeles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse tagging manual. Unpublished manuscript. [URL]
Carlson, Lynn, Daniel Marcu & Mary E. Okurowski. 2002. RST discourse treebank, LDC2002T07 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Building a discourse tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In Jan van Kuppevelt & Ronnie Smith (eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, 85–112. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristea, Dan, Nancy Ide & Laurent Romary. 1998. Veins theory: A model of global discourse cohesion and coherence. Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th international conference on computational linguistics (ACL-98/COLING-98), 281–285. Canada: Montréal.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 2000. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
da Cunha, Iria, Juan M. Torres-Moreno & Gerardo Sierra. 2011. On the development of the RST Spanish Treebank. Proceedings of the fifth language and annotation workshop (LAW V), 1–10. USA: Portland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danlos, Laurence. 2008. Strong generative capacity of RST, SDRT and discourse dependency DAGs. In Anton Benz & Peter Kühnlein (eds.), Constraints in discourse, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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.
De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine & Lifeng Jin. 2015. The overall markedness of discourse relations. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1114–1119. Portugal: Lisbon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dias, Márcio S. & Thiago A. S. Pardo. 2015. A discursive grid approach to model local coherence in multi-document summaries. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2015 conference, 60–67. Czech Republic: Prague.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dinesh, Nikhil, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aditya Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2005. Attribution and the (non-)alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. Proceedings of the workshop on frontiers in corpus annotations II: Pie in the sky, 29–36. USA: Ann Arbor. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Ribbon M. W. & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.). 2009. The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duque, Eladio. 2014. Signaling causal coherence relations. Discourse Studies 16(1). 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Gisela Redeker. 2010. How complex is discourse structure? Proceedings of the 7th language resources and evaluation conference (LREC), 1619–1623. Malta: Valetta.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine & Wiebke Ramm. 2008. ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuller, Daniel P. 1959. The inductive method of bible study. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics, volume 31, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. 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
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In James Flood (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension, 181–219. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. The texture of a text. In Michael A. K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan (eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 70–96. Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 61. 67–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1979. Signalling in discourse. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoque, Enamul, Vidya Setlur, Melanie Tory & Isaac Dykeman. 2018. Applying pragmatics principles for interaction with visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24(1). 309–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hovy, Eduard & Elisabeth Maier. 1993. Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? (Technical Report No. ISI/RR-93-373). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics 30(2–3). 227–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 251. 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39(1–2). 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter & Teun A. van Dijk. 1978. Towards a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review 851. 363–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18(1). 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Choosing a set of coherence relations for text generation: A data-driven approach. In Giovanni Adorni & Michael Zock (eds.), Trends in natural language generation: An artificial intelligence perspective, 47–67. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair, Jon Oberlander, Michael O’Donnell & Chris Mellish. 2001. Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 181–196. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Ted Sanders. 2013. Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 281. 1169–1206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, Roger P. & T. Florian Jaeger. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 849–856. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1976. An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1983. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, Elisabeth & Eduard Hovy. 1991. A metafunctionally motivated taxonomy for discourse structure relations. Proceedings of 3rd European workshop on language generation. Austria: Innsbruck.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 C. 1983. An overview of the Nigel text generation grammar: ISI/RR-83-113 . Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39–78. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Maite Taboada. 2018. RST Web Site. From [URL].
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. 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
Marcu, Daniel. 1996. Building up rhetorical structure trees. Proceedings of 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, volume 21, 1069–1074. USA: Portland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. The rhetorical parsing, summarization, and generation of natural language texts. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Instructions for manually annotating the discourse structures of texts. Unpublished manuscript, Marina del Rey, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2002. Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 235–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2015. Grammatical realizations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word 61(3). 232–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. The structure of discourse and “subordination” (Technical Report No. ISI/RS-87-183). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. The structure of discourse and “subordination”. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in discourse and grammar, 275–329. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, Jane & Graeme Hirst. 1991. Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser, Megan & Johanna D. Moore. 1996. Towards a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 22(3). 410–419.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Michael. 1997. RST-Tool: An RST analysis tool. Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on natural language generation. Germany: Duisburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ono, Kenji, Kazuo Sumita & Seiji Miike. 1994. Abstract generation based on rhetorical structure extraction. Proceedings of 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’94), volume 11, 344–348. Japan: Kyoto. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pardo, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro & Lucia H. M. Rino. 2002. DMSumm: Review and assessment. Proceedings of advances in natural language processing, third international conference (PorTAL 2002), 263–274. Portugal: Faro.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
Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 601–638. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2007. Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. Traitement Automatique des Langues 47(2). 43–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Alan Lee, Nikhil Dinesh, Eleni Miltsakaki, Geraud Campion, Aravind K. Joshi & Bonnie Webber. 2008a. Penn discourse treebank version 2.0. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 2961–2968. Morocco: Marrakesh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. Penn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0, LDC2008T05 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber & Aravind K. Joshi. 2014. Reflections on the Penn Discourse Treebank, comparable corpora and complementary annotation. Computational Linguistics 40(4). 921–950. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rehbein, Ines, Merel Scholman & Vera Demberg. 2015. Annotating discourse relations in spoken language: A comparison of the PDTB and CCR frameworks. Proceedings of the workshop on identification and annotation of discourse relations in spoken language, 1. Germany: Saarbrücken.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan. 2009. The texture of discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah & William S. Horton. 2014. Anticipatory looks reveal expectations about discourse relations. Cognition 133(3). 667–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, C. J. Scholman Merel, Torabi A. Fatemeh, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. In press. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
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
. 1993. Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 93–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sporleder, Caroline & Alex Lascarides. 2008. Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: An assesment. Natural Language Engineering 14(3). 369–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stede, Manfred. 2008. RST Revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 33–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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
Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann. 2006a. Applications of rhetorical structure Theory. Discourse Studies 8(4). 567–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 423–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teufel, Simone & Marc Moens. 2002. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical structure. Computational Linguistics 28(4). 409–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tofiloski, Milan, Julian Brooke & Maite Taboada. 2009. A syntactic and lexical-based discourse segmenter. Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 77–80. Singapore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vivanco, Verónica. 2005. The absence of connectives and the maintenance of coherence in publicity texts. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8). 1233–1249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie & Rashmi Prasad. 2009. Discourse structure: Swings and roundabouts. Oslo Studies in Language 1(1). 171–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, Florian & Edward Gibson. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics 31(2). 249–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Coherence in natural language: Data structures and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, Florian, Edward Gibson, Amy Fisher & Meredith Knight. 2005. Discourse graphbank, LDC2005T08 [Corpus]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Reig Alamillo, Asela, David Torres Moreno, Eliseo Morales González, Mauricio Toledo Acosta, Antoine Taroni & Jorge Hermosillo Valadez
2023. The Analysis of Synonymy and Antonymy in Discourse Relations: An Interpretable Modeling Approach. Computational Linguistics 49:2 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Stöckl, Hartmut & Jana Pflaeging
2022. Multimodal Coherence Revisited: Notes on the Move From Theory to Data in Annotating Print Advertisements. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 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