Elamur ResearchβŒ•
☰
home / papers / 2015 / Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages

Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages

Written for the Research library (claude-opus-5-5) from the paper text, in our own words: the license "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)" does not allow redistributing the text itself. Original β€” aclanthology.org/W15-0205.pdf

Summary

Connectives such as because or although are optional, yet some discourse relations survive without them far better than others. Earlier monolingual work, notably on the Penn Discourse Tree Bank, linked this to reader expectations, specifically the causality-by-default and continuity hypotheses. Hoek and Zufferey ask whether these tendencies also hold across languages. They used Europarl Direct, which contains only text originally produced in the source language. From it they sampled English fragments with also, because, although and if, and manually classified how each was rendered in Dutch, German, French and Spanish: with a connective, implicitly, or through a paraphrase or syntactic construction. The four connectives were chosen to represent features from the Sanders et al. (1992) taxonomy, mainly polarity and basic operation. Overall implicitation rates varied by target language, but the relative ranking of relations was similar everywhere. Additive relations were dropped more often than causal ones, which contradicts causality-by-default. Conditionals were never implicitated. The authors therefore propose that default, easily implicit relations are those that are cognitively simplest.

Key points

  • The data come from Europarl Direct (English source; Dutch, German, French and Spanish targets), with roughly 180–390 relevant relations per connective and language.
  • If was never made implicit in any target language (0/201 to 0/241). Concessive although was rarely dropped, ranging from 7/248 in Dutch to 1/261 in Spanish.
  • In every target language, also (positive additive) was implicitated significantly more often than although and if. Additive relations also outnumbered causal ones in implicit renderings everywhere except Dutch (p=0.16).
  • Spanish translations were the most explicit, and Dutch and French the least. Examples: also 7/195 in Spanish vs. 19/194 in Dutch; because 4/393 in Spanish vs. 27/383 in Dutch.
  • The authors argue that default interpretations can also block implicitation, since no implicit additive relation allowed a causal reading. They suggest that negative polarity, non-basic segment order and conditionality add cognitive complexity and so require explicit marking.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words β€” not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Discourse analysis

Cited by

9 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 3 of them have a page here, 6 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{hoek2015factors,
  title = {{Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages}},
  author = {Hoek, Jet and Zufferey, Sandrine},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11)},
  year = {2015},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W15-0205/}
}

References

29 references, 6 of them with a card of ours. β†— leads to the work, Β«findΒ» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Asr, F.T. & Demberg, V. (2012). Implicitness of discourse relations. Proceedings of COLING. Mumbai, India. find our card
  2. Asr, F.T. & Demberg, V. (2013). On the information conveyed by discourse markers. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, 84-93. Sofia: Bulgaria. find our card
  3. German also Ο‡ 2 =10.92 p\<0.001 if Ο‡ 2 =9.63 p\<0.05 Ο‡ 2 =19.15 p\<0.001 although Ο‡ 2 =0.82 p=0.183 Ο‡ 2 =13.48 p\<0.001 because also although p=0.305* Table 3b English-German data Spanish also although if because p=0.036* p=0.338* p=0.147* p\<0.05* p\<0.001* also although p=0.520* Table 3d English-Spanish… find
  4. Britton, B.K., Glynn, S.M., Meyer, B.J.F., & Penland, M..J. (1982). Effects of text structure on the use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 51–61. find
  5. Caron, J., Micko, H.C., & Thuring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 309–323. find
  6. Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S., & Meyer, T. (2013). Using the Europarl corpus for linguistics research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 27, 23-42. find
  7. Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S., Meyer, T., & Popescu-Belis, A. (2011). How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. Proceedings of the 4 th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora, 78-86. Portland, Oregon. find
  8. Das, D. & Taboada, M. (2013). Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. find
  9. Evers-Vermeul, J. & Sanders, T.J.M. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 36(4), 829-854. find
  10. Frank, A. & Jaeger, T. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the 28th meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. find
  11. Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In: J-F Le Ny & W Kintsch (Eds.), Language and Comprehension. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 239-249. find
  12. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London. find
  13. Halverson, S. (2004). Connectives as a translation problem. In: H. Kittel et al. (Eds.), An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 562–572. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. find
  14. Knott, A. & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18, 35–62. find
  15. Koehn, P. (2005) Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Proceedings of the 10 th Machine Translation Summit, 79-86. Phuket, Thailand. find
  16. Koornneef, A.W., & Sanders, T.J.M. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(8), 1169-1206. find
  17. Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., and Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23, 1230–1246. find
  18. Mak, W.M., Sanders, T.J.M. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Discourse Processes 28(9), 1414-1437. find
  19. Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8, 243–281. find our card
  20. Millis, K.K., Golding, J.M., & Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes 20(1), 29–49. find
  21. Murray, J.D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. Lorch & E. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension, 107-125. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. find
  22. Murray, J.D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 25, 227–236. find
  23. Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), 2961–2968. find our card
  24. Sanders, T.J.M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. find
  25. Sanders, T.J.M., & Noordman, L.G.M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29, 37–60. find
  26. Sanders T.J.M., Spooren W.P.M.S. & Noordman L.G.M. (1992). Towards a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15, 1–36. find
  27. Scholman, M.C.J., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T.J.M. (subm.). Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation. Submitted for publication. find our card
  28. Taboada, M. & Das, D. (2013). Annotation upon annotation: Adding signalling information to a corpus of discourse relations. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2), 249-281. find our card
  29. Zufferey, S. & Cartoni, B. (2014). A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target 26, 361–384. find

↑ back to top