2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Primary and secondary discourse connectives: Constraints and preferences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our conclusions support the assumption that there is usually no pure one-to-one correspondence between connectives across languages, which makes difficult the efforts of NLP processing of discourse relations expressed by connectives across languages. This finding can also be considered a further proof of the fact that some connectives have a broader meaning or broader possibilities of use in texts than other connectives with similar meaning (as presented in [16]).…”
Section: -30%supporting
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our conclusions support the assumption that there is usually no pure one-to-one correspondence between connectives across languages, which makes difficult the efforts of NLP processing of discourse relations expressed by connectives across languages. This finding can also be considered a further proof of the fact that some connectives have a broader meaning or broader possibilities of use in texts than other connectives with similar meaning (as presented in [16]).…”
Section: -30%supporting
confidence: 52%
“…therefore) and secondary (e.g. for that reason), differing in the degree of grammaticalization as defined in [15] and described in detail in [16]). In this respect, we examine selected primary connectives, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. The expression that means would qualify as an AltLex in the PDTB(Prasad et al, 2007), and as a secondary connective according toRysová and Rysová (2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is associated with the instructional value of the neuter ello , which enables the reader to integrate the correct antecedent into a semantic relation, thus supporting the thematic progression and encapsulation requirements. Based on this, a pesar de ello is clearly not a grammaticalized connecting unit, but a complex phrasal construction or secondary discourse connective (Rysová & Rysová, 2018), whose value is constructed from two sources: one referential and one relational. In this binary complex construction, there is a double instruction to the reader, signaled concurrently by a neuter anaphoric pronoun and connective particles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%