Explicitness and implicitness of discourse relations in a multilingual discourse bank

Proposals such as continuity and causality-by-default relate the level of expectedness of a relation to its linguistic marking as an explicit or implicit relation. We investigate these two proposals with regard to the English transcripts of six TED Talks and their Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish translations in the TED-Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB), annotated for discourse relations, following the Penn Discourse Treebank style of annotation. Our data shows that the discontinuous relations contrast and concession are indeed frequently explicit in all languages. But continuous relations show differences per relation and language. For instance, cause is frequently conveyed implicitly in English and Portuguese, but not in Lithuanian and Turkish. We explore temporal continuity by analysing whether the forward-order sense result is more frequently implicit than the backward-order reason. The hypothesis is confirmed by English and Portuguese, but not Lithuanian and Turkish. However, in Turkish, the arguments of the backward-order relation reason are frequently presented by the reversed order of arguments, retaining the linear order of events even in the presence of the connective. The causality-by-default hypothesis is not confirmed, as cause is not the most frequent implicit relation in the four languages.

[1]  Markus Egg,et al.  Continuity in discourse relations , 2023, Functions of Language.

[2]  Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė,et al.  An Exploratory Analysis of TED Talks in English and Lithuanian, Portuguese and Turkish Translations , 2022, Contrastive Pragmatics.

[3]  Amália Mendes,et al.  TED Multilingual Discourse Bank (TED-MDB): a parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB style , 2019, Language Resources and Evaluation.

[4]  Fatemeh Torabi Asr,et al.  Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related , 2018 .

[5]  Sandrine Zufferey,et al.  Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study , 2017 .

[6]  J. Ludewig,et al.  TED Talks as an Emergent Genre , 2017 .

[7]  Sandrine Zufferey,et al.  Factors Influencing the Implicitation of Discourse Relations across Languages , 2015, ACL 2015.

[8]  Emanuela Cresti,et al.  La parataxe dans le parlé spontané et dans l’écrit littéraire , 2015, CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos.

[9]  D. Adger,et al.  Syntax , 2014, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[10]  J. Spenader,et al.  RESULT and PURPOSE relations with and without 'so' , 2014 .

[11]  Vera Demberg,et al.  Implicitness of Discourse Relations , 2012, COLING.

[12]  Karsten Schmidtke-Bode,et al.  A Typology of Purpose Clauses , 2009 .

[13]  Livio Robaldo,et al.  The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. , 2008, LREC.

[14]  Pekka Kujamäki,et al.  Translation universals: do they exist? , 2004 .

[15]  Dirk Noël,et al.  Translations as evidence for semantics: an illustration , 2003 .

[16]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Reference to abstract objects in discourse , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.

[17]  B. Altenberg CAUSAL LINKING IN SPOKEN AND WRITTEN ENGLISH , 1984 .

[18]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Speaking Rationally: Uniform Information Density as an Optimal Strategy for Language Production , 2008 .

[19]  Anna Mauranen,et al.  Will 'translationese' ruin a contrastive study? , 1999 .

[20]  J. House,et al.  Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation , 1996 .

[21]  Leo G. M. Noordman,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations , 1992 .

[22]  E. M. Segal,et al.  The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories , 1991 .