Segmentation markers as trace and signal
of discourse structure 1
Yves Bestgen
Fonds national de la recherche scientifique
Université catholique de Louvain
Place du Cardinal Mercier, 10 B1347 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgique
[email protected]
ABSTRACT.
This paper focuses on the functions of segmentation markers, like punctuation,
pauses, connectives and referential expressions. They highlight continuity and discontinuity
in discourse. These markers can be signals to improve comprehension, but also traces of
production difficulties that occur when a new topic is introduced. Data are presented to
support this double role of signal and trace. We focus on the connective and. Making
production more difficult increases the proportion of and just before a topic shift. When used
as a signal of high continuity, this connective is not affected by a manipulation of production
difficulty.
.
William coughed politely. "Er... hm..." he said. This is what
he did when he wanted to introduce a new subject. He
managed to do it gracefully because it was his habit — and
I believe this is typical of the men of his country — to
begin every remark with long preliminary moans, as if
starting the exposition of a completed thought cost him a
great mental effort. Whereas, I am now convinced, the
more groans he uttered before his declaration, the surer he
was of the soundness of the proposition he was expressing.
U. Eco, The Name of the Rose, p.145
1) Introduction
William's "Er... hm..." is a marker that help organize a conversation by signaling
an intention to take the floor. Whether in conversation or in monologue (for their use
in a monologue see U. Eco, ibid, p. 352), they are also segmentation markers that
highlight a topic shift. Oral and written discourse contains numerous linguistic and
1
Yves Bestgen is Research Associate of the Belgian National Scientific Foundation.
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
2
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
paralinguistic devices, like punctuation, pauses, connectives, adverbial phrases and
referential expressions, that specifically mark continuity and discontinuity (Bestgen
and Costermans, 1994; Clancy, 1980; Costermans and Bestgen, 1991; Fayol and
Abdi, 1988; Fox, 1987; Lehiste, 1979; Longacre, 1979; Virtanen, 1992; Vonk,
Hustinx, and Simons, 1992). Some of these segmentation markers belong to the
general class of discourse markers (Grosz, Pollack and Sidner, 1989; Redeker, 1991;
Schiffrin, 1987), but others do not, because they are not words or because they make
a direct semantic contribution to an utterance.
Punctuation is the prototype of these segmentation markers. Writers use a wide
range of punctuation marks to highlight continuity and discontinuity in their texts
(Bestgen and Costermans, 1994; Chanquoy, 1989; Fayol and Abdi, 1988). One case
in point is the paragraph indentation (or alinéa in French). It is actually so tied up
with the structure of the text that the word 'paragraph' has become equivocal
(Virtanen, 1992, p.130). 'Paragraph' initially referred to a graphical symbol that
marked the boundaries of textual units but it came to refer to the textual unit itself.
Pauses and hesitations are the oral counterpart of punctuation (Butterworth, 1975;
Chafe, 1979, 1980). Chafe, for instance, observed that readers asked to paragraph an
oral transcript systematically insert an indentation where the speaker pauses for a
long time.
The function of referential expressions and connectives as segmentation markers
has also been demonstrated. Speakers and writers refer to already mentioned entities
using numerous linguistic devices like zero anaphora (ellipsis), pronouns, nouns
(Givón, 1983). Among the various factors determining the author's choice of a given
anaphoric device, the presence of an episode/paragraph break is very important;
authors use devices that are more explicit than needed when there is a discourse unit
boundary (Clancy, 1980; Fox, 1987; Tomlin, 1987; Vonk et al., 1992). Connectives
and adverbial phrases are also segmentation markers (Costermans and Bestgen,
1991; Virtanen, 1992). In narratives for instance, Segal, Duchan and Scott (1991)
observed that the connectives and and then express a variation in coherence between
contiguous sentences, the former highlighting continuity and the latter discontinuity.
Similar observations were provided by Schiffrin (1987) and Fayol (1986).
Studying segmentation markers should help determine how speakers and writers
signal the beginning and end of large and small discourse units and how listeners
and readers recognize these units. This is a central question for the study of
discourse (Grosz et al., 1989; van Dijk, 1982). As soon as the language sciences
expanded their research area beyond the sentence, researchers tried to demonstrate
the existence of these units larger than the sentence and shorter than the text; they
started looking for linguistic and paralinguistic marks that highlight the boundaries
of these units (Gee, 1986; Lehiste, 1979; Longacre, 1979). The interest for a
cognitive model of language understanding directed the attention to devices that
would facilitate the integration of large amount of information. Markers highlighting
the organization of discourse in chunks are well designed to fulfill this function
(Gernsbacher, 1990; Graesser, Millis, and Swaan, in press; Hofmann, 1989; van
Segmentation markers as trace and signal
3
Dijk, 1982). Finally, as the duty of introducing these markers in the discourse rests
on the author/speaker, the way they are used should inform about the mechanisms of
discourse production, the contextual factors that control it, and the resources devoted
to it by the speakers and writers.
Trace of discourse segmentation
Segmentation markers can be seen as traces of the difficulties speakers
encounter when they have to introduce of topic change in their discourse. For Chafe
(1979, 1980), this kind of trace can be observed when people try to retell a story .
The content is not recovered in the form of a coherent and cohesive text, but as
chunks of closely related events. The chunk boundaries are a locus of significant
change in time, space and casting (Bestgen and Costermans, 1994). Updating all
these constituents and retrieving the next chunk is costly in terms of cognitive effort
and causes the occurrence of traces of segmentation. In written production, one
should also expect to observe some traces of text segmentation provided that they
are not removed by the author's editing work. This should specifically be the case
for novice writers who, according to Scardamalia and Bereiter's knowledge-telling
strategy (1987), try to generate chunks of ideas linked to the topic of the text and
produce them in bursts as soon as they become available.
Signal of discourse segmentation
William's "Er... hm" are not always the trace of difficulties in generating a topic
shift, but can be intentionally introduced to inform the addressee about the presence
of a topic shift. Understanding a text is an incremental process in which new
sentences are integrated with the preceding ones to construct a coherent mental
representation. It has been suggested that this process rests, by default, on what is
called the nextness principle (Ochs, 1979), or the principle of continuity: "readers
assume, by default, that continuity is maintained" (Segal et al., 1991, p.32).
According to the given-new contract theory (Clark and Haviland, 1977), authors are
expected to produce their discourse in such a way that readers can apply the
nextness principle. However, each time a new topic is introduced in the discourse
they have to explicitly prevent the application of this principle. According to the
Gricean maxims of communication, speakers and writers are expected to inform the
addressees that continuity is not preserved, that there is a topic shift, and that special
action should be taken (Bestgen and Costermans, 1994). This is definitely an
important pragmatic function of the segmentation marker.
Signal and trace
This distinction between trace and signal finds most of its roots in Quasthoff's
work (1979), and seems theoretically sound. Yet, it is very difficult to find
4
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
segmentation markers that would function exclusively as a trace or as a signal. Let
us briefly consider the four markers introduced above.
At first glance, punctuation, and more precisely the paragraph indentation, seems
to be the prototype of a signal. However, paragraph marks can also be the trace of
breaks in the production of a text. Such use of paragraph marks and punctuation has
been observed by Fayol (1986) with novice writers. A similar but opposite analysis
fits the use of pauses in oral discourse. At first glance, they appear to be trace of
discourse segmentation, but the empirically ill-defined distinction between hesitant
pause and rhetorical pause (Deese, 1980), the work by Van de Water and O'Connel
on reading aloud (1986), and the empirical study by Good and Butterworth (1980)
on intentional hesitancy as a conversational resource reinforce an interpretation as
signal.
Assigning a trace/signal function to a specific lexico-syntactic marker is in no
way easier. The function of overspecified referential expressions as segmentation
markers is controversial (Clancy, 1980; Tomlin, 1987; Vonk et al., 1992). In her
seminal work, Clancy (1980, p.172) gave a twofold answer to this question. These
segmentation markers can find their roots in a listener-oriented strategy which is
equivalent to the signal conception, but there is also a speaker-based explanation.
The resource consuming task of retrieving (or building) what is to be said could
deactivate the referent or give a flavor of newness, and so force the
renominalisation. The same story can be told about connectives. As Caron-Pargue
and Caron (1989, p.10) wrote: "Ce sont les mêmes marques linguistiques qui
fonctionnent à la fois comme traces de l'activité cognitive du sujet sur sa
représentation, et comme instructions contrôlant, chez l'auditeur, la construction
d'une représentation analogue."
Two conceptions but only one phenomenon.
The major problem with the theoretical distinction between signal and trace of
discourse structure was clearly pointed out by Clancy (1980) in her discussion of the
speaker-based and the listener-oriented strategies. When applied to the segmentation
markers described above, these two conceptions lead to the same prediction about
the distribution of these markers: Whether they are trace or signal, segmentation
markers occur where there is a thematic break. Should we then conclude that this
distinction is only a question of point-of-view, the trace conception putting the
accent on the author and on production, the signal conception on the addressee and
on comprehension? Such a conclusion implies that it would be hopeless to ask how
children learn to use segmentation markers as a signal or to ask what pragmatic
factors determine the use of each type of markers (context in which the discourse is
produced, medium of communication).
We will try to show that there is at least one segmentation marker that behaves
differently depending on its function as a signal or as a trace. We suggest that the
Segmentation markers as trace and signal
5
connective and can be a signal of high continuity and a trace of production
difficulties due to a topic shift. We show that it is possible to manipulate the
discourse production situation in such a way that one can predict when the and as a
trace should or should not be observed.
And is obviously a marker of continuity (Bestgen and Vonk, 1995; Peterson and
McCabe, 1987; Schiffrin, 1986) whose function is to signal that two or more
sentences make up a chunk of highly related sentences. And nevertheless seems to
fulfill other functions. It is very often introduced just before the last sentence of a
text (Fayol, 1986). And is also used to connect two sentences that lack coherence
(Jisa, 1985; Peterson and McCabe , 1987). In this case, and is not a signal of high
continuity, but the trace of some difficulties encountered in the production of a
thematic break. If this analysis is correct, increasing the discourse production
difficulties should increase the proportion of and as trace; that is the and inserted
just before a topic shift when production is most exacting. By contrast, and as a
signal of high continuity should not be affected by this manipulation.
To test these hypotheses, we deviced a task allowing to study the strategies
speakers followed when producing a discourse (Costermans and Bestgen, 1991;
Tomlin, 1987). Participants were asked to transform a list of common activities into
a description of what somebody is doing. By constructing the list of activities, we
were able to set an identical segmentation in each of the narrative produced by the
subjects (see Bestgen and Costermans (1994) for an empirical study of the structure
of such narratives). It was expected that speakers would introduce some and
connectives, the occurrence of which could be related to the segmentation of the
narrative.
Participants had to produce the narrative three times: twice with the list and then
once without the list. We expected that the second trial would be the easiest and the
corresponding narrative would show few segmentation markers as trace of
production difficulties.
We also wanted to gauge the sensitivity of and to the discourse difficulty
manipulation by contrasting it to the sensitivity of the sequential markers to this
same manipulation. Sequential markers are connectives like then, after, and next that
signal the presence of a topic shift (Bestgen and Vonk, 1995; Fayol, 1986; Segal et
al., 1991). Whether the production of a discourse is easy or difficult should not
interfere with their function of highlighting a topic shift. Sequential markers should
be quite frequent before a topic shift sentence disregarding the easiness of the
discourse production.
2) The narrative production experiment
The material consisted in a list of sentences that set out a sequence of activities
on a Sunday (see Figure 1). The activities were selected in such a way as to be easily
grouped and organized hierarchically.
6
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
4
3
2
1
Je me suis levé
Je me suis lavé
J'ai déjeuné
Je suis monté dans ma chambre
J'ai étudié de la physique
J'ai étudié de la chimie
J'ai lu une bande dessinée
J'ai pris l'apéritif avec mes parents
J'ai dîné avec mes parents
Je suis allé jouer au tennis
J'ai perdu le premier set
J'ai gagné les deux suivants
J'ai été me promener avec mon partenaire
Nous avons bu un verre dans un café
Je suis rentré à la maison
J'ai soupé
J'ai regardé les nouvelles à la TV
J'ai regardé un film
Je suis allé dormir
Figure 1: Verbal material used for eliciting the narratives. The postulated
hierarchical structure, indicated on the left, was not presented to the
participants.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the postulated structure has four different levels: the
first level corresponds to a shift between two closely linked sentences, and the
fourth level to those breaks that segment the list into three main episodes.
A pre-test was conducted to make sure that this postulated structure would
Segmentation markers as trace and signal
7
coincide well with that perceived by the speakers. Ten subjects who did not
participate to the main part of the study were asked to determine the structure they
perceived in the list of activities. The 'textometer' procedure was used (Bestgen,
1992b). Each activity was typewritten on a 19 by 1 cm cardboard strip. The strips
were put in the correct order in the middle of a board on which they could glide.
Participants had to read the whole list and then space the cards in order to describe
the structure they perceived in the list of activities. A large distance between two
cards meant an important break in the activities, a short distance a small break.
Participants were not allowed to change the order of the cards.
As observed in previous studies (Bestgen, 1992a, b; Bestgen and Costermans,
1994), the distances perceived by the 10 subjects were very similar (Kendall’s W
coefficient of concordance was .77, p<.0001). The average structure gathered by
collapsing the ten individual structures correlated almost perfectly with the
postulated structure (r = .96). Furthermore, the mean correlation between each of the
ten subjective structures and the postulated structure was .71 (min r=.56; max
r=.87). In conclusion, when asked to indicate in a metacognitive task the structure of
this experimental list, participants fully endorsed the a priori structure.
Thirty French speaking subjects took part in the main part of the study, all
students at the University of Louvain (LLN). They were shown the list of activities.
It was explained to them that they had to turn it into a continuous narrative. They
were permitted to change the sentences, adding anything that was necessary to
obtain a discourse that would seem natural, but they had to respect the list order.
They were also told that they would have to do the same task three times, although
the last one without the list.
3) Markers analysis
The temporal markers were coded by distinguishing two categories : sequential
markers (puis/then, ensuite/next, après/after), and the connective et/and. Each
narrative was analyzed to detect the connectives that introduced the first sentences
referring to one of the 19 activities. When both a sequential marker and an and were
introduced in the same sentence, both were coded. The markers used in the very first
and the very last utterances were not taken into account because the first statement
of a narrative usually does not contain a sequential marker or an and, and because
the last statement often contains an and that signals the end of the whole narrative.
For each participant, the mean percentages of sequential connectives and of and
were computed for each break level and for each trial. Table 1 gives the mean
percentages across all the participants. At trial 1, we observed, for instance, that
20% of the first sentences which referred to an activity very close to the preceding
one (i.e., break level 1) were introduced by an and.
Break Levels
8
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
Trial
AND
SE
1
2
3
4
1
20
15
17
22
2
26
14
7
13
3
25
15
15
18
1
41
55
72
52
2
35
49
72
67
3
34
55
72
68
Table 1: Mean percentages across all the participants of AND and of sequential
connectives (SC) for each break level (4 = highest level, major break; 1 = minor
level) and for each
As stated above, it was expected that the use of sequential markers would depend
on the level of the break. We expected more sequential markers in sentences that
immediately followed an important thematic break, and fewer sequential markers in
sentences that were in high continuity with the preceding sentences. This prediction
held be confirmed for the three trials because sequential markers should highlight a
thematic break irrespective of their trace or signal function.
As it can be seen in Table 1, sequential markers are very frequent. As expected,
they are still more frequent at level 3 and 4 than at level 1 and 2, and this is true for
all three trials. A Friedman's nonparametric analysis of variance for each trial
showed that the frequencies of the sequential markers are significantly different
across the break levels (X2(3) = 17.47 for trial 1, X2(3) = 30.80 for trial 2 and X2(3)
= 24.60 for trial 3, all significant at the 0.001 level).
Regarding the connective and, our hypothesis was more intricate. And as trace
should only to be observed when discourse production is very resource consuming,
that is when people do not quite know what they are going to say. This will
particularly be the case when discourse is unplanned and when a new topic has to be
introduced. By contrast, and as a signal should appear when people know very well
what they are going to say, that is in case of topic continuity.
More precisely, it is only at trial 2 that this connective should not be a trace of
the difficulty met when a topic shift has to be expressed and so that it should be
associated with loci of high continuity and absent in loci of high discontinuity.
During the first trial, speakers did not know very well what they had to say and how
to say it, especially when there was an important break in the list of activities. It
follows that and should appear as a signal of high continuity, but also as a trace of
production difficulties. During the third trial, when speakers no longer had access to
the list, they should be in the same situation as during trial 1. And should be
observed in locus of high continuity and high discontinuity. The mean proportions
follow these predictions. It is only at trial 2 that the frequencies of and are different
Segmentation markers as trace and signal
9
across the break levels (X2(3) = 23.65, p<0.001). For trial 1 and 3, there is no
significant difference (X2(3) = 3.77 for trial 1 and X2(3) = 3.78 for trial 3, p>0.25).
Looking more closely at Table 1, it is worth noting that, even at trial 2, and is
relatively frequent in the sentences that follow a very important break (level 4). It
seems that having produced the narrative once before was not enough for the
speakers to discover how to manage the deepest thematic breaks online.
4) Discussion and conclusion
This paper focuses on the discourse function of segmentation markers. It is
proposed that they can be a trace of discourse production difficulties and a signal
intended to improve comprehension. The distinction has theoretical implications,
since according to the function they stress, researchers will focus on discourse
production or discourse comprehension . However, the major "problem" with the
signal and trace conception is that it is very difficult to empirically distinguish
between these two functions. Data are presented that support this double nature of
segmentation markers. The connective and as trace of difficulties speakers meet
when they shifting topic is less frequent when the production of the same discourse
is made easier. When the speaker's task is then made more difficult again, and as
trace reappears. The sequential markers like then show a very different pattern. They
occur before thematic discontinuities irrespective of the difficulty or the ease of the
discourse production.
The question we should address now is whether there are two different ands. Our
analysis shows that and can be used to signal topic continuity or can be the trace of
difficulties speakers encounter in case of topic discontinuity. One way to reconcile
these two functions is to consider with Schiffrin that and is a discourse coordinator
that can signal ideational continuity, but also marks a pragmatic relation, working as
a marker of speaker-continuation when there is a transition to a new topic (Redeker,
1991; Schiffrin, 1986).
Simultaneously taking into account different segmentation markers could help
discriminate between these two functions. For instance, one can think that and as a
trace will be preceded and followed by a pause while a signal and will not.
However, as pointed out in the introduction, pauses are ambiguous in nature. The
following excerpt from Good and Butterworth (1980, p. 145), which mirror Eco's
citation, is quite explicit : "...it being proposed that, whilst speakers may well need
to hesitate more when faced with a heavy task demand, they may also increase the
relative amounts of hesitation in their speech to achieve some interactional goal,
even though the difficulty of the particular utterance would not directly necessitate
the change."
Further research should seek corroboration for the findings reported here with
other types of narratives and other types of discourses. One should also consider the
possibility that other segmentation markers could play the double function of trace
10
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
and signal. It is doubtful however that this quest will be successful because the
double status of and seems to come from its main function as a signal of continuity.
When and is a trace, it is used instead of William's "Er...Hum" which serves as
pause fillers. Introduced in a locus of disfluency, it warns the addressee that the
discourse will continue sooner or later. Because of its signal of continuity function,
the connective and is particularly well designed for this situation. However, the
study of other segmentation markers could also benefit from the experimental
procedure used here. For instance, a similar study could address the segmentation
function of the renominalization of anaphora. If a renominalization is only a trace of
discourse production difficulties, its occurrence at an episode shift should become
less and less frequent as the production gains in smoothness. Generally speaking, the
procedure allows to identify segmentation markers that specifically function as a
signal. This makes it possible to study what linguistic, cognitive and pragmatic
abilities are involved. In particular, one can postulate that the use of a segmentation
marker as a signal requires at least some ability to take the audience into account.
References
Bestgen, Yves, 1992a. Structure cognitive et marquage linguistique de la narration : étude
développementale. Archives de Psychologie 60: 25-44.
Bestgen, Yves, 1992b. Le textomètre : un outil pour l'étude de la structure du discours et de
son marquage. Psychologica Belgica 32: 141-167.
Bestgen, Yves and Jean Costermans, 1994. Time, space, and action : Exploring the narrative
structure and its linguistic marking. Discourse Processes 17: 421-446.
Bestgen, Yves and Wietske Vonk, 1995. The role of temporal segmentation markers in
discourse processing. Discourse Processes 19: 385-406.
Butterworth, Brian L. 1975. Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 4: 75-87.
Caron-Pargue, Josiane and Jean Caron, 1989. Processus psycholinguistiques et analyse des
verbalisations dans une tâche cognitive. Archives de Psychologie 57: 3-32.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givón, ed.,
Syntax and Semantics, XII: Discourse and Syntax, 159-182. New York: Academic Press.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In
W. L. Chafe, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative
production, 9-50. Norwood: Ablex.
Chanquoy, Lucile 1989. La description de l'emploi du temps d'une semaine scolaire par des
enfants de CE2 : étude de la ponctuation et des connecteurs. Etudes de Linguistique
appliquée, 73: 47-56.
Clancy, Patricia M. 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In
W. L. Chafe, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative
production, 127-198. Norwood: Ablex.
Segmentation markers as trace and signal
11
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Haviland, 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract.
In R. O. Freedle, ed., Discourse production and comprehension, 1-40. Norwood: Ablex.
Costermans, Jean and Yves Bestgen, 1991. The role of temporal markers in the segmentation
of narrative discourse. CPC: European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology 11: 349-370.
Deese, James, 1980. Pauses, prosody, and the demands of production in language. In H.W.
Dechert and M. Raupach, eds., Temporal variables in speech, 70-84. The Hague: Mouton.
Eco, Umberto, 1984. The Name of the Rose. Translated from Italian by W. Weaver. London:
Picador Edition.
Fayol, Michel, 1986. Les connecteurs dans les récits écrits. Pratiques 49: 101-114.
Fayol, Michel and Hervé Abdi, 1988. Influence of script structure on punctuation. CPC:
European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology 8: 265-279.
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Morpho-syntactic markedness and discourse structure. Journal of
Pragmatics 11: 359-375.
Gee, James P. 1986. Units in the production of narrative discourse. Discourse Processes 9:
391-422.
Gernsbacher, M. Ann, 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Givón, Talmy, 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón, ed., Topic
continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Good, David A. and Brian L. Butterworth, 1980. Hesitancy as a conversation resource: Some
methodological implications. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach, eds., Temporal variables
in speech, 145-152. The Hague: Mouton.
Graesser, Arthur C., Keith. K. Millis and Rolf A.,Zwaan (in press). Discourse comprehension.
Annual Review of Psychology.
Grosz, Barbara J., Martha E. Pollack and Candace L. Sidner, 1989. Discourse. In M.I. Posner,
ed., Foundations of Cognitive Science, 437-468. Cambridge: MIT press.
Hofmann, Thomas R. 1989. Paragraphs, & anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 239-250.
Jisa, Harriet, 1985. French preschoolers'use of 'et pis' ('and then'). First Language 5: 169-184.
Lehiste, Ilse, 1979. Sentence boundaries and paragraph boundaries - perceptual evidence. In
P.R. Clyne, W.F. Hanks and C.L. Hofbauer, eds., The elements: A parasession on
linguistic units and levels, 99-109. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Longacre, Robert E. 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In T. Givón, ed., Syntax and
Semantics, XII: Discourse and Syntax, 115-134. New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, Elinor, 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón, ed., Syntax and
Semantics, XII: Discourse and Syntax, 51-80. New York: Academic Press.
Peterson, Carole and Allyssa McCabe, 1987. The connective 'and': Do older children use it
less as they learn other connectives? Journal of Child Language 14: 375-381.
Quasthoff, Uta M. 1979. Verzögerungsphänomene, Verknüpfungs- und Gliederungssignale in
12
Version finale dans Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 753-763
Alltagsargumentationen und Alltagserzählungen. In H. Weidt, ed., Die Partikeln der
deutschen Sprache, 39-57. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Redeker, Gisela, 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of
Pragmatics 14: 367-381
Redeker, Gisela, 1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172.
Scardamalia, Marlene and Carl Bereiter 1987. Knowledge telling and knowledge
transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg, ed., Advances in Spplied
Psycholinguistics, II, 142-175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1986. Functions of 'and' in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 41-66.
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segal, Erwin M., Judith F. Duchan and Paula J. Scott, 1991. The role of interclausal
connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple
stories. Discourse Processes 14: 27-54.
Tomlin, Russel S. 1987. Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. In R.S. Tomlin, ed.,
Coherence and grounding in discourse, 455-479. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van de Water, Donna A. and Daniel C. O'Connel, 1986. From page to program: Some
typographical and temporal variables in radio homilies. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 15: 525-538.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1982. Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, ed., Analysing
discourse: text and talk, 177-195. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Virtanen, Tuija, 1992. Discourse functions of adverbial placement in English. Åbo: Åbo
Akademi University Press.
Vonk, Wietske, Lettica G.M.M Hustinx and Wim H.G. Simons, 1992. The use of referential
expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes 7: 301-333.