The scope of discourse connectives: implications for discourse organization

1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Unger
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Organization ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Optimal Relevance ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Discourse Organization ◽  
Discourse Units ◽  
Discourse Connectives

The main aim of this paper is to discuss the claim that discourse connectives are best treated as indicators of coherence relations between hierarchically organized discourse units. It will be argued that coherence relations cannot be seen as cognitively real entities. Furthermore, there is no evidence for hierarchical organization in discourse. The intuitions underlying the notion of hierarchical discourse structure are instead explained in terms of consequences of processing a text in the search for optimal relevance. This account draws attention to a hitherto not widely discussed set of data.

scholarly journals Primary and secondary discourse connectives: definitions and lexicons

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-78
Author(s):  
Laurence Danlos ◽  
Katerina Rysova ◽  
Magdalena Rysova ◽  
Manfred Stede
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Written Text ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Ongoing Work ◽  
Discourse Parsing ◽  
Theoretical Investigations ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
The One ◽  
Discourse Connectives

Starting from the perspective that discourse structure arises from the presence of coherence relations, we provide a map of linguistic discourse structuring devices (DRDs), and focus on those for written text. We propose to structure these items by differentiating between primary and secondary connectives on the one hand, and free connecting phrases on the other. For the former, we propose that their behavior can be described by lexicons, and we show one concrete proposal that by now has been applied to three languages, with others being added in ongoing work. The lexical representations can be useful both for humans (theoretical investigations, transfer to other languages) and for machines (automatic discourse parsing and generation).

scholarly journals Investigating genre distinctions through discourse distance and discourse network

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Sun ◽  
Rong Wang ◽  
Wenxin Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Study ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Quantitative Method ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Network Data ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Discourse Units ◽  
Syntactic Dependency

Abstract The notion of genre has been widely explored using quantitative methods from both lexical and syntactical perspectives. However, discourse structure has rarely been used to examine genre. Mostly concerned with the interrelation of discourse units, discourse structure can play a crucial role in genre analysis. Nevertheless, few quantitative studies have explored genre distinctions from a discourse structure perspective. Here, we use two English discourse corpora (RST-DT and GUM) to investigate discourse structure from a novel viewpoint. The RST-DT is divided into four small subcorpora distinguished according to genre, and another corpus (GUM) containing seven genres are used for cross-verification. An RST (rhetorical structure theory) tree is converted into dependency representations by taking information from RST annotations to calculate the discourse distance through a process similar to that used to calculate syntactic dependency distance. Moreover, the data on dependency representations deriving from the two corpora are readily convertible into network data. Afterwards, we examine different genres in the two corpora by combining discourse distance and discourse network. The two methods are mutually complementary in comprehensively revealing the distinctiveness of various genres. Accordingly, we propose an effective quantitative method for assessing genre differences using discourse distance and discourse network. This quantitative study can help us better understand the nature of genre.

scholarly journals TIARA 2.0: an interactive tool for annotating discourse structure and text improvement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Wira Gotama Putra ◽  
Kana Matsumura ◽  
Simone Teufel ◽  
Takenobu Tokunaga
Keyword(s):  
Visual Complexity ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Annotation Tool ◽  
Web Technologies ◽  
Four Levels ◽  
Structure Annotation ◽  
Argumentative Structure ◽  
Discourse Units ◽  
Interactive Visualisation ◽  
Tree View

AbstractDiscourse structure annotation aims at analysing how discourse units (e.g. sentences or clauses) relate to each other and what roles they play in the overall discourse. Several annotation tools for discourse structure have been developed. However, they often only support specific annotation schemes, making their usage limited to new schemes. This article presents TIARA 2.0, an annotation tool for discourse structure and text improvement. Departing from our specific needs, we extend an existing tool to accommodate four levels of annotation: discourse structure, argumentative structure, sentence rearrangement and content alteration. The latter two are particularly unique compared to existing tools. TIARA is implemented on standard web technologies and can be easily customised. It deals with the visual complexity during the annotation process by systematically simplifying the layout and by offering interactive visualisation, including clutter-reducing features and dual-view display. TIARA’s text-view allows annotators to focus on the analysis of logical sequencing between sentences. The tree-view allows them to review their analysis in terms of the overall discourse structure. Apart from being an annotation tool, it is also designed to be useful for educational purposes in the teaching of argumentation; this gives it an edge over other existing tools.

The discourse structure of free indirect discourse reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 21-39
Author(s):  
Sofia Bimpikou ◽  
Emar Maier ◽  
Petra Hendriks
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Pronoun Resolution ◽  
Free Indirect Discourse ◽  
Indirect Discourse ◽  
Attribution Analysis ◽  
Natural Conversation ◽  
Discourse Units

Abstract We investigate the discourse structure of Free Indirect Discourse passages in narratives. We argue that Free Indirect Discourse reports consist of two separate propositional discourse units: an (explicit or implicit) frame segment and a reported content. These segments are connected at the level of discourse structure by a non-veridical, subordinating discourse relation of Attribution, familiar from recent SDRT analyses of indirect discourse constructions in natural conversation (Hunter, 2016). We conducted an experiment to detect the covert presence of a subordinating frame segment based on its effects on pronoun resolution. We compared (unframed) Free Indirect Discourse with overtly framed Indirect Discourse and a non-reportative segment. We found that the first two indeed pattern alike in terms of pronoun resolution, which we take as evidence against the pragmatic context split approach of Schlenker (2004) and Eckardt (2014), and in favor of our discourse structural Attribution analysis.

Discourse connectives across languages

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandrine Zufferey
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Factors ◽  
Implicit Communication ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Discourse Relations ◽  
Discourse Interpretation ◽  
Target Languages ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Discourse Connectives

Coherence relations linking discourse segments can be communicated explicitly by the use of connectives but also implicitly through juxtaposition. Some discourse relations appear, however, to be more coherent than others when conveyed implicitly. This difference is explained in the literature by the existence of default expectations guiding discourse interpretation. In this paper, we assess the factors influencing implicitation by comparing the number of implicit and explicit translations of three polysemous French connectives in translated texts across three target languages: German, English and Spanish. Each connective can convey two discourse relations: one that can easily be conveyed implicitly and one that cannot be easily conveyed implicitly in monolingual data. Results indicate that relations that can easily be conveyed implicitly are also those that are most often left implicit in translation in all target languages. We discuss these results in view of the cognitive factors influencing the explicit or implicit communication of discourse relations.

A computational model for measuring discourse complexity

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 690-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Sun ◽  
Wenxin Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Computational Model ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Dependency Tree ◽  
Discourse Relations ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Discourse Units ◽  
Syntactic Dependency ◽  
Regular Patterns ◽  
Quantitative Approaches

In past studies, the few quantitative approaches to discourse structure were mostly confined to the presentation of the frequency of discourse relations. However, quantitative approaches should take into account both hierarchical and relational layers in the discourse structure. This study considers these factors and addresses the issue of how discourse relations and discourse units are related. It draws upon the available corpora of discourse structure (rhetorical structure theory-discourse treebank (RST-DT)) from a new perspective. Since an RST tree can be converted into a syntactic dependency tree, the data extracted from the RST-DT can be useful for calculating the discourse distance in much the same way as syntactic dependency distance is calculated. Discourse distance is also applicable to measuring the depth of the human processing of discourse. Furthermore, the data derived from the RST-DT are also easily converted into network data. This study finds that discourse structure has its discourse distance minimum and each type of RST relations has its range of discourse distance. The frequency distribution of discourse data basically follows the power law on several levels, while a network approach reveals how discourse units are arranged spatially in regular patterns. The two methods are mutually complementary in revealing the interaction between discourse relations and discourse units in a comprehensive manner, as well as in revealing how people process and comprehend discourse dynamically. Accordingly, we propose merging the two methods so as to yield a computational model for assessing discourse complexity and comprehension.

Language variation in university classrooms

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-165
Author(s):  
Eniko Csomay ◽  
Siew Mei Wu
Keyword(s):  
Classroom Discourse ◽  
Language Use ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
The Us ◽  
Discourse Studies ◽  
Organizational Patterns ◽  
Us Findings ◽  
Discourse Organization ◽  
University Classrooms

Abstract Corpus-based university classroom discourse studies found differences in teaching as it relates to language use: discourse organization, levels of instruction and interactivity, and disciplinary differences in participant talk. These practices were primarily reported on US-based classrooms, while scholars with different foci looked at British university classrooms as well. However, a comparison of how discourse is organized in university classrooms in varying geographical contexts is still missing. The present study provides lexico-grammatical analyses of classroom discourse at a South-East Asian university as associations are made to the communicative and pedagogical functions in the discourse structure of lectures, and comparisons are made to a corpus of university classroom discourse from the US. Findings show differences in language use and associated discourse organizational patterns within three disciplinary areas (Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Engineering) as they are delivered in the two geographical contexts. Implications are discussed for register, disciplinary, and discourse structure studies.

scholarly journals Discourse structure, topicality and questioning

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Van Kuppevelt
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Discourse Units

In this paper we present an alternative approach to discourse structure according to which topicality is the general organizing principle in discourse. This approach accounts for the fact that the segmentation structure of discourse is in correspondence with the hierarchy of topics defined for the discourse units. Fundamental to the proposed analysis is the relation it assumes between the notion of topic and that of explicit and implicit questioning in discourse. This relation implies that (1) the topic associated with a discourse unit is provided by the explicit or implicit question it answers and (2) the relation between discourse units is determined by the relation between these topic-providing questions.

scholarly journals Discourse Relations and Connectives in Higher Text Structure

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Lucie Polakova ◽  
Jiří Mírovský ◽  
Šárka Zikánová ◽  
Eva Hajičová
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Text Structure ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
The Third ◽  
Discourse Coherence ◽  
Global Coherence ◽  
Discourse Relations ◽  
Semantic Types ◽  
Discourse Connectives

The present article investigates possibilities and limits of local (shallow) analysis of discourse coherence with respect to the phenomena of global coherence and higher composition of texts. We study corpora annotated with local discourse relations in Czech and partly in English to try and find clues in the local annotation indicating a higher discourse structure. First, we classify patterns of subsequent or overlapping pairs of local relations, and hierarchies formed by nested local relations. Special attention is then given to relations crossing paragraph boundaries and their semantic types, and to paragraph-initial discourse connectives. In the third part, we examine situations in which annotators incline to marking a large argument (larger than one sentence) of a discourse relation even with a minimality principle annotation rule in place. Our analyses bring (i) new linguistic insights regarding coherence signals in local and higher contexts, e.g. detection and description of hierarchies of local discourse relations up to 5 levels in Czech and English, description of distribution differences in semantic types in cross-paragraph and other settings, identification of Czech connectives only typical for higher structures, or the detection of prevalence of large left-sided arguments in locally annotated data; (ii) as another type of contribution, some new reflections on methodologies of the approaches under scrutiny.

Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandrine Zufferey ◽  
Liesbeth Degand
Keyword(s):  
Reliable Method ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Translation Equivalent ◽  
Coherence Relations ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Discourse Connectives

AbstractDiscourse connectives are lexical items indicating coherence relations between discourse segments. Even though many languages possess a whole range of connectives, important divergences exist cross-linguistically in the number of connectives that are used to express a given relation. For this reason, connectives are not easily paired with a univocal translation equivalent across languages. This paper is a first attempt to design a reliable method to annotate the meaning of discourse connectives cross-linguistically using corpus data. We present the methodological choices made to reach this aim and report three annotation experiments using the framework of the Penn Discourse Tree Bank.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document