Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:34:02.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The scope of discourse connectives: implications for discourse organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Christoph Unger
Christoph Unger
Affiliation:
Seminar fur Sprachmethodik, Burbach
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1996, pp. 403 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1988a). ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, R. M. (ed.) Mental representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 183–195.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1988b). The organization of discourse. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Volume IV: Language: the socio-cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1993). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blass, R. (1986). Cohesion, coherence and relevance. Notes on Linguistics. 34. 41–64.Google Scholar
Blass, R. (1990). Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charolles, M. (1983). Coherence as a principle in the interpretation of discourse. Text 3. 71–97.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In Fodor, J.Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 283–292.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 383–395.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In: Givón, T.135–157.Google Scholar
Hofmann, T. R. (1989). Paragraphs, & anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 13. 239–250.Google Scholar
Holy Bible. New international version (1973, 1978, 1984). International Bible Society (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987a). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987b). Cognitive models and prototype theory. In Neisser, U. (ed.) Concepts and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 63–100.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givón, T.115–134.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The Grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9. 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8. 243–281.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. N. (1961). Kurdish dialect studies. (2 vols.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 601–638.Google Scholar
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14. 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickheit, G. & Strohner, H. (1992). Towards a cognitive theory of linguistic coherence. Theoretical Linguistics 18. 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M. & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M. & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representations. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 93–133.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, M. (1992). Einfithrung in die Kognitive Linguistik. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Smith, E. & Medin, N. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Unger, C. (1992). Constraining context selection and paragraph markers. Ms., Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Unger, C. (1994). Prepositions, polysemy, and the theory of concepts. Essay in the philosophy of language written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MA degree of the University of London.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1994). Truth, coherence and relevance. Paper delivered to the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90. 1–25.Google Scholar