The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity theory

The Texture of Discourse: Towards an Outline of Connectivity Theory

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-213

  Renkema, Jan ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945562056     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1075/z.151     Document Type: Book

References (114)

1. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1920-1924).
3. Bateman, J., & Rondhuis, K.J. (1997). Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes, 24, 3-49.
4. Bolívar, A. (1986). Interaction through written text. A discourse analysis of newspaper editorials. PhD. thesis. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
5. Bühler, K. (1990). Theory of language: The representational function of language (D.F. Goodwin, Trans.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Original work published in 1934.
6. Carlson, L., & Marcu, D. (2001). Discourse tagging reference manual. Unpublished paper, available via: http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf.
7. Carlson, L., Marcu, D., & Okurowski, M.E. (2002). RST Discourse Tree Bank, LDC2002T07 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
8. Chafe, W.L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
9. Cozijn, R. (2000). Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
10. Degand, L., & Simon, A.C. (2005). Minimal Discourse Units: Can we define them, and why should we? In M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of SEM-05. Connectors, discourse framing and discourse structure: from corpus-based and experimental analyses to discourse theories, Biarritz, France, 65-74.
11. Den Hertog, C.H. (1973). Nederlandse spraakkunst (Dutch Grammar) (Vols. I-III), with an introduction by H. Hulshof. Amsterdam: Versluys. (Original work published in 1903-1904).
12. Den Ouden, J., Van Wijk, C., Terken, J., & Noordman, L. (1998). Reliability of discourse structure annotation. IPO Annual Progress Report, 33, 129-138.
13. Diessel, H. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43, 449-470.
14. Doblaev, L.P. (1969). Logiko-psichologitsjesky analiz teksta: Na materiale skoljnych utsjebnikov. Saratov: Izdateljstvo Universitet.
15. Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: Changes and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics/LOT.
16. Gómez-González, M.A., & Taboada, M. (2005). Coherence relations in functional discourse grammar. In J.L. Mackenzie & M.A. Gómez-González (Eds.), Studies in functional discourse grammar (pp. 227-259). Berne, Switzerland: Lang.
17. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
18. Grimes, J.E. (1972). The thread of discourse. Available via http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/39/31/7e.pdf.
19. Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
20. Gruber, H. (2007). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In H. Gruber, M. Kaltenbacher & P. Muntigl (Trans.), Empirical approaches to discourse analysis (pp. 51-87). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
21. Hall, A. (2007). The meaning of but: a procedural analysis. Lingua, 117, 199-236.
22. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
23. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, third edition. London: Arnold.
24. Hannay, M., & Kroon, C. (2005). Acts and the relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language, 12, 87-124.
25. Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1-30.
26. Harweg, R. (1979). Pronomina und Textkonstitution [Pronouns and text constitution]. München, Germany: Fink.
27. Hellwig, P. (1984). Grundzüge einer Theorie des Textzusammenhangs. [Outlines of a theory of text connection]. In A. Rothkegel & B. Sandig (Trans.), Text -Textsorten -Semantik. Linguïstische Modelle und maschinelle Verfahren (pp. 51-79). Hamburg, Germany: Buske.
28. Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J.L. (2006). Functional discourse grammar. Unpublished paper, available via: http://home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/FDG.pdf.
29. Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
30. Hovy, E., & Maier, E. (1997). Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? Unpublished paper, available via: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hovy97parsimonious.html.
31. Huber, O. (2002). Hyper-Text-Linguistik: TAH: ein textlinguistisches Analysemodell für Hypertexte. Theoretisch und praktisch exemplifiziert am Problemfeld der typisierten Links von Hypertexten im World Wide Web [Hypertext linguistics: TAH: a text-linguistic model of analysis for hypertexts. Theoretically and practically explained at the problem field of the typed links of hypertexts in the World Wide Web]. München, Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.
32. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
33. Kamalski, J. (2007). Coherence marking, comprehension and persuasion. On the processing and representation of discourse. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics/LOT.
34. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
35. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.
36. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
37. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1991). Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 55-63). Morriston, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
39. Louwerse, M.M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parametrization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
40. Louwerse, M.M. (2004). Un modelo conciso de cohesión en el texto y coherencia en la comprensión [A concise model of cohesion in text and coherence in understanding]. Revista signos, 37, 41-58.
41. Louwerse, M.M., & Mitchell, H.H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialogue: a theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35, 243-281.
42. Mancini, C. (2005). Cinematic Hypertext: Investigating a new paradigm. Amsterdam: IOS.
43. Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., & Thompson, S.A. (1992). Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis. In W.A. Mann & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description (pp. 39-78), Amsterdam: Benjamins.
44. Mann, W.C., & Taboada, M. (2007). RST Web Site. See http://www.sfu.ca.rst.
45. Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
46. Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (2002). The scientific status of rhetorical structure theory: two views. 10th Conference of the Society for Text and Discourse. Lyon, France.
47. Marcus, M.P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M.A., & Taylor, A. (1999). Treebank-3, LDC99T42 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
48. Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
49. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. & Thompson, S.A. (1987). The structure of discourse and 'subordination'. In J. Haiman & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275-329). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
50. Mizuno, Y. (2007). Although clauses in English discourse: a functional analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, Hokkaido University). Available via http://hdl.handle.net/2115/32456.
51. Moore, J.D., & Pollack, M.E. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537-544.
52. Moser, M., & Moore, J. (1996). Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22, 409-420.
53. Moser, M., Moore, J.D., & Glendening, E. (1996). Instructions for coding explanations: identifying segments, relations and minimal units. University of Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Centre (internal publication).
54. Mulder, G. (2008). Understanding causal relations. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics/LOT.
55. Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
56. Pander Maat, H.L.W., & Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive linguistics, 12(3), 211-245.
57. Peirce, C.S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. Burks (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
59. Prasad, R., Lee, A., Dinesh, N., Miltsakaki, E., Campion, G., Joshi, A., et al. (2008). Penn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0 [Corpus]. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
60. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A university grammar of English. London: Longman.
61. Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
62. Renkema, J. (1996). Cohesion analysis and information flow: the case of 'Because' versus 'because'. In C. Cremers & M. Den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 233-244). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
63. Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
64. Renkema, J. (2006). On labeling discourse relations: ambiguity, fixing point and anchor. Studies in Communication Science, 6, 117-134.
65. Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2001). Sens - non-sens- contresens. Tentative d'une définition explicative [Sense - nonsense - contrasense. An attempt at an explanatory definition]. Studies in Communication Sciences, 1, 45-80.
66. Roulet, E., (1984). Speech acts, discourse structures and pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 31-47.
67. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
68. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (1999). Communicative intentions and coherence relations. In W. Bublitz & U. Lenk (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 235-250). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
69. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-36.
70. Schank, R.C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In D.G. Bobrow & A.M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding, Academic Press, New York.
71. Schilperoord, J., & Verhagen, A. (1998). Conceptual dependency and the clausal structure of discourse. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition. Bridging the gap (pp. 141-163). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
72. Schulz Von Thun, F. (1981/2007). Miteinander reden 1, Störungen und Klärungen. Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation. [Talking with one another 1, disturbances and clarifications. General psychology of communication] (45th ed). Hamburg: Rowolt.
73. Schwarz, M. (2000). Indirekte Anaphern in Texten. Studien zur domänengebundenen Referenz und Kohärenz im Deutschen [Indirect Anaphors in texts. Studies to the domain-bound reference and coherence in German]. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
74. Spencer, J.M., & Gregory, M. (1964). An approach to the study of style. In J. Spencer (Ed.), Linguistics and style (pp. 57-105). London: Oxford University Press.
75. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: on cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026.
76. Stede, M. (2004). The Potsdam commentary corpus. Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain.
77. Stede, M. (2007). Representation involves interpretation. A multi-level approach to discourse structure. 10th International Pragmatics Conference, Göteborg, Sweden.
78. Stede, M. (2008). RST revisited: disentangling nuclearity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), 'Subordination' versus 'coordination' in sentence and text (pp. 33-58). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
79. Sweetser, E.E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Taboada, M. (2006). Spontaneous and non-spontaneous turn-taking. Pragmatics, 16(2-3), 329-360.
81. Taboada, M. & Mann, W.C. (2006a). Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8, 423-459.
82. Taboada, M. & Mann, W.C. (2006b). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8, 567-588.
83. Taboada, M. (2004). Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
84. Taboada, M., & Renkema, J. (2008). Discourse relations reference corpus [Corpus]. Simon Fraser University and Tilburg University. Available via http://www.sfu.ca/rst/06tools/discourse_relations_corpus.html.
85. Tanskanen, S.-K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
86. Thompson, S.A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7, 481-505.
87. Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Van Dijk, T.A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
89. Van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109-147.
90. Verhagen, A. (2001). Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 337-357). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
91. Voloshinov, V.N. (1994). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik, Trans.). In P. Morris (Ed.), The Bakhteen Reader: selected writings of Bakhteen, Medvedev and Voloshinov (pp. 26-37). London: Arnold. (Original work published in 1929).
92. Von Humboldt, W. (1999). On language: on the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species (P. Heath, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1836).
93. Webber, B. (2004). D-LTAG: extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive science, 28, 751-779.
94. Webber, B. (2006). Accounting for discourse relations: Constituency and dependency. In M. Butt, M. Dalrymple & T. King (Eds.), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures. Stanford: CSLI Publications (339-360).
95. Wegener, Ph. (1991). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens [Investigations into the basic question of the language life]. K. Koerner (Ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Original work published in 1885).
96. Wolf, F., Fischer, A., & Knight, M. (2005). Discourse GraphBank, LDC2005T08 [Corpus]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
97. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics, 31, 249-287.
98. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2006). Coherence in natural language. Data structures and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
99. Quintilianus, M.F., & Butler, H.E. (1920-1922). The institutio oratoria of Quintilian. London / Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 95.)
100. Butler. H.E. (1920). Institutio Oratoria. UK: Harvard University Press. Available via http://www.archive.org/stream/institutioorator00quin/institutioorator00quin_djvu.txt.
101. Wittgenstein, L. (1956). Remarks on the foundations of mathematics. G.H. von Wright, R. Rhees & G.E.M. Anscombe (Eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (Trans.). London: Macmillan.
102. Goethe, W. (1829). Aphorismen und Aufzeichnungen. "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahren": Betrachtungen im Sinne der Wanderer [Aphorisms and statements. Wilhem Meisters years of searching. Views in the sense of the ramblers]. Cotta, Germany.
103. Goethe, W. (1995). Conversations of German refugees-Wilhelm Meister's Journeyman Years, or The renunciants. J.K. Brown (Ed.), J. van Heurck & K. Winston (Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
104. Reichling, A. (1967). Het woord. Een studie omtrent de grondslag van taal en taalgebruik [The word. A study on the foundations of language and language use]. Zwolle, The Netherlands: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. (Unaltered reprint from 1935.)
105. Weber, M. (1922). Wissenschaft als Beruf [Science as a vocation]. In M. Weber (1922), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr. (Originally a speech at Munich University, Germany, 1919.)
106. Weber, M. (1990). Science as a vocation. In I. Velody & P. Lassman (Eds.), Max Weber's science as a vocation. London: Allen and Unwin.
107. Murakami, H. (2005). Kafka on the shore. P. Gabriel (Trans.). New York: Knopf. (Original work published in 2002).
108. Swift, G. (1985). Waterland. Washington: Washington Square Press.
109. Edelman, G.M. (1993). Bright air, brilliant fire. On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.
110. Adorno, Th. (1966). Negative Dialektik [Negative dialectics]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
111. De Saussure, F., Bally, C., & Sechehaye, A. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics.] Paris & Lausanne: Payot.
112. De Saussure, F. (2000). The nature of the linguistic sign. In L. Burke, T. Crowley & A. Girvin (Eds.), The Routledge language and cultural theory reader. London: Routledge.
113. Mannoury, G. (1978). Mathesis en mystiek. Een signifiese studie van kommunisties standpunt. [Maths and mystics, a sign study from a communist viewpoint.] Utrecht, The Netherlands: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
114. Eliot, T.S. (1968). Four quartets. Philadelphia, PA: Harvest Books. (Original work published in 1943.)