Computing Discourse Semantics: The Predicate-Argument Semantics of Discourse Connectives in D-LTAG

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Forbes-Riley
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Connectives

Connective use in the narratives of bilingual children and monolingual children with SLI

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELIZAVETA ANDREIUSHINA ◽  
ELENA DUBINKINA ◽  
TED SANDERS
Keyword(s):  
Structural Properties ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Input Quantity ◽  
Frequency Distributions ◽  
Bilingual Group ◽  
Crosslinguistic Influence ◽  
Discourse Connectives

Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals are often attributed to crosslinguistic influence. This paper compares production of discourse connectives by Dutch–Russian bilinguals (Dutch-dominant), typically-developing Dutch/Russian monolinguals and Russian-speaking children with SLI. If non-target-like production in bilinguals is due to crosslinguistic influence, bilinguals should perform differently from both impaired and unimpaired monolinguals. However, if differences between bilinguals and monolinguals are due to other factors (e.g., input quantity, processing capacities), bilinguals’ language production might be similar to that of children with SLI. The results demonstrate that language dominance determines the direction of crosslinguistic influence. In terms of frequency distributions of Russian connectives across pragmatic contexts, the bilingual group performed differently from both monolingual groups and the differences were compatible with the structural properties of Dutch. However, based on error rates and types bilinguals could not be distinguished from the SLI group, suggesting that factors other than crosslinguistic influence may also be at play.

scholarly journals Ambiguity in Explicit Discourse Connectives

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Webber ◽  
Rashmi Prasad ◽  
Alan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Discourse ◽  
Discourse Connectives

‘I Assume You Know’

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-102
Author(s):  
Maher Bahloul
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Discourse Marker ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
And Function ◽  
Discourse Connectives ◽  
Formal Features

This paper is a pilot study on the form and function of the Arabic discourse marker ‘ṭabʕan’. Discourse markers in language have been the focus of myriad studies under a number of denotations such as discourse operators, discourse connectives, modal markers, cue phrases, amongst several others. While such markers occur in written and spoken forms of language, they are much more abundant in formal and informal conversations. ṭabʕan, for instance, is observed in media Arabic in formal and semi-formal contexts. The paper highlights its formal features, its syntactic distribution, and identifies its core pragmatic function. Although the marker does not change the truth value of utterances or alter them in any significant way, it tends to cluster around the speaker. Thus, it injects some modal features oscillating between assertiveness and evidentiality.

The status of but in documentaries and their Romanian subtitles

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 133-152
Author(s):  
Mihaela MLADENOVICI (IONESCU)
Keyword(s):  
Target Language ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Source Language ◽  
Complex Word ◽  
Theoretical Support ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Status ◽  
Discourse Connectives ◽  
Core Meaning

The aim of this article is to describe the status of but functioning as a connector of contrast in documentaries and their subtitles, with English as the source language and Romanian as the target language. But is a complex word, serving as a connectivity evince, comprehension facilitator and argumentative indicator, acquiring therefore a host of roles, both within and beyond the sentence. As theoretical support, I will employ the idea put forward by Fraser (2009) that but conveys one core meaning, that of contrast and that pragmatically it has a wide range of interpretations which are to be inferred from the context, but I will also draw on the Relevance Theoretic approach to discourse connectives elaborated by Diane Blakemore (1987, 2002, 2004) who referred to these functional items as encoding procedures rather than concepts, their meaning being interpreted based on what they indicate, not on what they describe. As for its role in argumentation, but will be analysed within the pragma-dialectical framework. Using my own research, but also that carried out by Halliday and Hasan (1976), Quirk et al. (1985), Biber et al. (1999) and Fraser (1999, 2009), I have made a list of connectors of contrast and the conclusion I have reached so far is that there are roughly 66 such items in English. However, in documentaries, there is a tendency to use only a few of them, approximately 15 (but, yet, still, however, though, although, even though, despite, rather, in reality, better, while, whereas). But is at the top of the list, having by far the largest number of occurrences and therefore being of outmost importance in constructing the idea of contrast. However, there is a certain inconsistency with respect to the rendition but in Romanian. When it functions at the level of the sentence, it is very rarely omitted as it displays a strong syntactic dependence. Conversely, when it functions at the discourse level, its translation does not always have the same degree of salience, in certain cases the subtitler resorting to its omission as part of his/her strategy of text condensation. I will identify and analyse the types of situations in which but is omitted in Romanian and those in which it is not, focusing on its role according to the various patterns typical of documentaries that include this connector.

Differential properties of three discourse connectives in Turkish

2012 ◽  
pp. 183-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deniz Zeyrek ◽  
Ümit Deniz Turan ◽  
Isin Demirsahin ◽  
Ruket Çakici
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Connectives ◽  
Differential Properties
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document