This paper describes a three-stage methodology for investigating the semantics and pragmatics of sentence and clause connective phrases. The first step in the methodology is to assemble a large corpus of connectives. The second step is to organize this corpus into a hierarchical taxonomy of synonyms and hyponyms, using a pre-theoretical substitution test. The final step, upon which we concentrate in this paper, is to impose a theoretical interpretation on the taxonomy. The taxonomy lends itself to an analysis of intersentential / interclausal relations in terms of a number of orthogonal multivalued features; connectives are then seen as signaling the values of one or more of these features.
COHEN, P., & PERRAULT, C. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177–212.
2.
COHEN, R. (1984). A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 251--258). Stanford, CA.
3.
DELIN, J., HARTLEY, A., PARIS, C., SCOTT, D., & VANDER LINDEN, K. (1994). Expressing procedural relationships in multilingual instructions. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 61--70). Kennebunkport, Maine.
4.
DI EUGENIO, B. (1992). Understanding natural language instructions: The case of purpose clauses. Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 120--127). Delaware.
5.
DIJK, T.A. van. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456.
6.
ELHADAD, M., & McKEOWN, K.R. (1990). Generating connectives. Proceedings of COLING-90: The 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 97--101). Helsinki.
7.
GLASBEY, S. (1995). ‘When,’ discourse relations, and the thematic structure of events. Proceedings of the Workshop on Time, Space and Movement (pp. 91--104). Toulouse.
8.
GROTE, B., LENKE, N., & STEDE, M. (1995). Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. Proceedings of the Fifth European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 11--32). Leiden, The Netherlands.
9.
HALLIDAY, M., & HASAN, R. (1976). Cohesion in English.London: Longman.
10.
HEINäMäKI, O. (1978). Semantics of English temporal connectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
11.
HOBBS, J., STICKEL, M., APPELT, D., & MARTIN, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 69–142.
12.
HOVY, E. (1993). Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 341–385.
13.
HOVY, E.H. (1988). Planning coherent multisentential text. Proceedings of the 26th ACL Conference (pp. 163--169). Buffalo.
14.
KARTTUNEN, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 169–193.
15.
KEENAN, E. (1971). Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In C. Fillmore & D. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 45–54). New York: Holt.
16.
KLOPP, A. von. (1993). Negation: Implications for theories of natural language. Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.
17.
KNOTT, A. (1996). A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
18.
KNOTT, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, (1), 35–62. (Also Tech. Rep. No. RP-34. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh, Human Communication Research Centre, 1992.)
19.
KÖNIG, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In E. Closs Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, & C. J. Ferguson (eds.), On conditionals: Areas of contrast, overlap, and neutralisation (pp. 229–246). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LASCARIDES, A., & ASHER, N. (1991). Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 55--63). Berkeley, CA.
21.
LASCARIDES, A., & OBERLANDER, J. (1993). Temporal connectives in a discourse context. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 260--268). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
22.
LASCARIDES, A., ASHER, N., & OBERLANDER, J. (1992). Inferring discourse relations in context. Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1--8). Delaware.
23.
LONGACRE, R. (1983). The grammar of discourse: Notional and surface structures.New York: Plenum Press.
24.
MAIER, E., & HOVY, E.H. (1991). Ametafunctionally motivated taxonomy for discourse structure relations. Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 38--45). Judenstein, Austria.
25.
MANN, W.C., & THOMPSON, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. (Also Tech. Rep. No. RR-87--190. Marina del Rey, CA: USC Information Sciences Institute).
26.
MARTIN, J. (1992). English text: System and structure.Amsterdam: Benjamins.
27.
MOENS, M., & STEEDMAN, M. (1987). Temporal ontology in natural language. Proceedings of the 25th ACL Conference (pp. 1--7). Stanford, CA.
28.
MOORE, J.D., & PARIS, C.L. (1989). Planning text for advisory dialogues. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 203--211). Manchester, UK.
29.
MOORE, J.D., & PARIS, C.L. (1993). Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Linguistics, 19, 651–694.
30.
OVERSTEEGEN, E. (1993). Dutch temporal connectives. (Tech. Rep. No. R1.3.2a).Tilburg/Nijmegen: The DANDELION Consortium, CLS.
31.
OVERSTEEGEN, E. (1995). Causal and contrastive connectives. (Tech. Rep. No. R1.1.3b). Tilburg/Nijmegen: The DANDELION Consortium, CLS.
32.
PERRAULT, C.R., & ALLEN, J.F. (1980). A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6 (3), 167–182.
33.
ROSS, J. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 222–272). Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.
34.
SANDERS, T.J. M., SPOOREN, W.P. M., & NOORDMAN, L.G. M. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.
35.
SEARLE, J.R. (1969). Speech acts.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SPOOREN, W. (1989). Some aspects of the form and interpretation of global contrastive coherence relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
37.
SWEETSER, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
