[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/scholman-2016-categories-coherence-relations-discourse-annotation/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation

# Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation

**Authors:** Merel C. J. Scholman, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Ted J. M. Sanders · **Year:** 2016 · **Venue:** Dialogue & Discourse 7(2) **Link:** [aclanthology.org/2016.dnd-7.7](https://aclanthology.org/2016.dnd-7.7/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

[**21** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W24302395) openalex · 2026-10-18[**8** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/scholman-2016-categories-coherence-relations-discourse-annotation/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Dialogue & Discourse](https://aclanthology.org/volumes/2016.dnd-7/)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2016.dnd-7.7/)
- [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2016.dnd-7.7.pdf)
- [DOI 10.5087/dad.2016.201](https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.201)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W24302395)

**Authors (3)**

1. [Merel C.J. Scholman](https://openalex.org/A5081914412) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0223-8464) · h 11 · 394 citations · 132 works
2. Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
3. [Ted J.M. Sanders](https://openalex.org/A5052775775) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8212-7336) · h 41 · 6410 citations · 331 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper tests whether untrained annotators can label coherence relations when the decision is split into the four cognitive primitives of Sanders et al. (CCR): *polarity* (positive, or negative when one segment is the negation of the expected consequence, as with *but/although*), *basic operation* (causal, conditional, additive, temporal; non-causal for negatives), *source of coherence* (objective, between described situations, vs subjective, involving the speaker's reasoning or a speech act) and *order* (cause/argument first = basic, or after = non-basic). Forty Dutch humanities students annotated 36 relations from the DiscAn corpus with a flowchart, half with plain instructions and half with substitution tests («Can you use *but* / *because* / *if* / *then* / *and* here?») and paraphrase tests. Agreement with the expert labels: polarity kappa 0.86, order 0.61, basic operation 0.49, source 0.31; the tests helped polarity, operation and order but not source. Temporal was most confused with additive (temporal F 0.34–0.51).

## Ideas

- I1. Describe each Mova discourse link by the four primitives instead of by a name: `cause` = causal/positive, `next` = temporal/positive, `cond` = conditional/positive. The missing concession of *although/but* (chapter 36 §11.1 example, §11.6) then is simply causal/negative: «Although the crow was angry, she said nothing» links the two frames with the expectation denied. A field in the link struct of `prag/src/frames.rs` costs little and lets *why*-questions skip negative links. Measure on the frame bench and on course questions with *although/but*.
- I2. Use the substitution tests as the operational definition of `next` in the frame bench gold and in the teacher prompt: a pair gets `next` only if *then* can join the two clauses without changing the meaning; plain *and* that only passes the *and* test is additive. The paper's main confusion (temporal vs additive) is exactly Mova's weakest role (`next` dev F1 .23, gold narrower than *and*). Re-check a sample of bench gold with the test and measure how many `next` disagreements it settles.
- I3. Mark the source of coherence where English shows it cheaply (a cause clause attached to a Say frame, to an evaluation, or to *must/surely* = subjective), as in `bunt-2020-iso-standard-dialogue-act-annotation` I3; the paper's low agreement on source (0.31) argues for only marking clear cases and leaving the rest unspecified.

## For Mova

[36. Discourse relations and coherence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/36-discourse-relations/) §2 (the families), §11.1, §11.6. Code: `prag/src/frames.rs` (link primitives), the frame bench gold (`world frames bench-make`), `prag/src/infer.rs`. Measures: frame bench next/cause F1, course questions with *although/but*.

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/discourse-analysis/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.5087/dad.2016.201](https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.201)

```
@inproceedings{scholman2016categories,
  title = {{Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation}},
  author = {Scholman, Merel C.J. and Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline and Sanders, Ted J.M.},
  booktitle = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.5087/dad.2016.201},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2016.201}
}
```

- [← previous Comparing Rule-based and SMT-based Spelling Normalisation for English Historical Texts](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/schneider-2017-comparing-rule-based-smt-based/)
- [next → DiscoGeM: A Crowdsourced Corpus of Genre-Mixed Implicit Discourse Relations](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/scholman-2022-discogem-crowdsourced-corpus-genre-mixed/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

57 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Omar Alonso and Stefano Mizzaro (2012). Using crowdsourcing for TREC relevance assessment. Information Processing and Management, 48(6): 1053-1066. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Omar+Alonso+and+Stefano+Mizzaro+%282012%29%2E+Using+crowdsourcing+for+TREC+relevance+assessment%2E+Information+Processing+and+Management%2C+48%286%29%3A+1053%2D1066%2E)
2. Amal Al-Saif and Katja Markert (2010). The Leeds Arabic discourse treebank: Annotating discourse connectives for Arabic. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner & D. Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010): 2046-2053, Malta.Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34(4): 555-596. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Amal+Al%2DSaif+and+Katja+Markert+%282010%29%2E+The+Leeds+Arabic+discourse+treebank%3A+Annotating+discourse+connectives+for+Arabic%2E+In+N%2E+Calzolari%2C+K%2E+Choukri%2C+B%2E+Maegaard%2C+J%2E+Mariani%2C+J%2E+Odijk%2C+S%2E+Piperidis%2C+M)
3. Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nicholas+Asher+and+Alex+Lascarides+%282003%29%2E+Logics+of+Conversation%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
4. Lois Bloom, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter and Kathleen Fiess (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7(2): 235-261. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lois+Bloom%2C+Margaret+Lahey%2C+Lois+Hood%2C+Karin+Lifter+and+Kathleen+Fiess+%281980%29%2E+Complex+sentences%3A+Acquisition+of+syntactic+connectives+and+the+semantic+relations+they+encode%2E+Journal+of+Child+Language)
5. Thorsten Brants (2000). Inter-annotator agreement for a German newspaper corpus. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (LREC). Seattle, WA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thorsten+Brants+%282000%29%2E+Inter%2Dannotator+agreement+for+a+German+newspaper+corpus%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Sixth+Conference+on+Applied+Natural+Language+Processing+%28LREC%29%2E+Seattle%2C+WA%2E)
6. Anneloes R. Canestrelli, Willem M. Mak and Ted J.M. Sanders (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9): 1394-1413. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anneloes+R%2E+Canestrelli%2C+Willem+M%2E+Mak+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282013%29%2E+Causal+connectives+in+discourse+processing%3A+How+differences+in+subjectivity+are+reflected+in+eye%2Dmovements%2E+Language+and+Cognitive+P)
7. Jean Carletta (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2): 249-254. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jean+Carletta+%281996%29%2E+Assessing+agreement+on+classification+tasks%3A+the+kappa+statistic%2E+Computational+Linguistics%2C+22%282%29%3A+249%2D254%2E)
8. Lynn Carlson and Daniel Marcu (2001). Discourse Tagging Reference Manual. Available online via [http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf](http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf). [↗](http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf)
9. Lynn Carlson, Daniel Marcu and Mary E. Okurowski (2003). Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith (eds.), Current Directions in Discourse and Dialogue: 85-112. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lynn+Carlson%2C+Daniel+Marcu+and+Mary+E%2E+Okurowski+%282003%29%2E+Building+a+Discourse%2DTagged+Corpus+in+the+Framework+of+Rhetorical+Structure+Theory%2E+In+J%2E+van+Kuppevelt+and+R%2E+Smith+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Current+Directions) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/carlson-2001-building-discourse-tagged-corpus-framework/)
10. Susan Conrad (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22: 75-95. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Susan+Conrad+%282002%29%2E+Corpus+linguistic+approaches+for+discourse+analysis%2E+Annual+Review+of+Applied+Linguistics%2C+22%3A+75%2D95%2E)
11. Liesbeth Degand and Henk Pander Maat (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A. Verhagen and J. van de Weijer (eds.), Usage-based Approaches to Dutch: 175-199. Utrecht: LOT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liesbeth+Degand+and+Henk+Pander+Maat+%282003%29%2E+A+contrastive+study+of+Dutch+and+French+causal+connectives+on+the+Speaker+Involvement+Scale%2E+In+A%2E+Verhagen+and+J%2E+van+de+Weijer+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Usage%2Dbased+Approa)
12. Liesbeth Degand (2001). Form and Function of Causation: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of Causal Constructions in Dutch. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liesbeth+Degand+%282001%29%2E+Form+and+Function+of+Causation%3A+A+Theoretical+and+Empirical+Investigation+of+Causal+Constructions+in+Dutch%2E+Leuven%3A+Peeters%2E)
13. Oswald Ducrot (1980). Essai d’application: MAIS - les allusions à l’énonciation – délocutifs, performatifs, discours indirect. In: H. Parret (ed.), Le langage en context: Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique : 487-575. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Oswald+Ducrot+%281980%29%2E+Essai+d%E2%80%99application%3A+MAIS+%2D+les+allusions+%C3%A0+l%E2%80%99%C3%A9nonciation+%E2%80%93+d%C3%A9locutifs%2C+performatifs%2C+discours+indirect%2E+In%3A+H%2E+Parret+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Le+langage+en+context%3A+Etudes+philosophiques+et+ling)
14. Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul (2005). The development of Dutch connectives; change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Ph.D. dissertation. Utrecht: LOT. Available online via [http://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/110_fulltext.pdf](http://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/110_fulltext.pdf). [↗](http://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/110_fulltext.pdf)
15. Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and Ted J.M. Sanders (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives: how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4): 829-854. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jacqueline+Evers%2DVermeul+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282009%29%2E+The+emergence+of+Dutch+connectives%3A+how+cumulative+cognitive+complexity+explains+the+order+of+acquisition%2E+Journal+of+Child+Language%2C+36%284%29%3A+829%2D8)
16. Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3): 175-204. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Barbara+J%2E+Grosz+and+Candace+L%2E+Sidner+%281986%29%2E+Attention%2C+intentions+and+the+structure+of+discourse%2E+Computational+Linguistics%2C+12%283%29%3A+175%2D204%2E)
17. Michael A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Michael+A%2EK%2E+Halliday+and+Ruqaiya+Hasan+%281976%29%2E+Cohesion+in+English%2E+London%3A+Longman%2E)
18. Jerry R. Hobbs (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3(1): 67-90. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jerry+R%2E+Hobbs+%281979%29%2E+Coherence+and+coreference%2E+Cognitive+Science%2C+3%281%29%3A+67%2D90%2E)
19. Jerry R. Hobbs (1985). On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. CSLI Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jerry+R%2E+Hobbs+%281985%29%2E+On+the+Coherence+and+Structure+of+Discourse%2E+CSLI+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+and+Information%2C+Stanford+University%2E)
20. Andrew Kehler (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Andrew+Kehler+%282002%29%2E+Coherence%2C+Reference%2C+and+the+Theory+of+Grammar%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
21. Alistair Knott and Robert Dale (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18: 35-62. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alistair+Knott+and+Robert+Dale+%281994%29%2E+Using+linguistic+phenomena+to+motivate+a+set+of+coherence+relations%2E+Discourse+Processes%2C+18%3A+35%2D62%2E)
22. Alistair Knott and Ted J.M. Sanders (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 135-175. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alistair+Knott+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%281998%29%2E+The+classification+of+coherence+relations+and+their+linguistic+markers%3A+An+exploration+of+two+languages%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics%2C+30%3A+135%2D175%2E)
23. Klaus Krippendorff (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Klaus+Krippendorff+%281980%29%2E+Content+Analysis%3A+An+Introduction+to+Its+Methodology%2E+Beverly+Hills%2C+CA%3A+Sage%2E)
24. Ewald Lang (1984). The semantics of coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ewald+Lang+%281984%29%2E+The+semantics+of+coordination%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
25. Fang Li, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul and Ted J.M. Sanders (2013). Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin: A corpus-based investigation. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1): 74-119. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fang+Li%2C+Jacqueline+Evers%2DVermeul+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282013%29%2E+Subjectivity+and+result+marking+in+Mandarin%3A+A+corpus%2Dbased+investigation%2E+Chinese+Language+and+Discourse%2C+4%281%29%3A+74%2D119%2E)
26. William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3): 243-281. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=William+C%2E+Mann+and+Sandra+A%2E+Thompson+%281988%29%2E+Rhetorical+structure+theory%3A+Towards+a+functional+theory+of+text+organization%2E+Text%2C+8%283%29%3A+243%2D281%2E)
27. Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi and Bonnie Webber (2004). Annotating discourse connectives and their arguments. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Corpus Annotation 2004 NAACL/HLT Conference Workshop, Boston. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Eleni+Miltsakaki%2C+Rashmi+Prasad%2C+Aravind+Joshi+and+Bonnie+Webber+%282004%29%2E+Annotating+discourse+connectives+and+their+arguments%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Frontiers+in+Corpus+Annotation+2004+NAACL%2FHLT+Conferen)
28. Megan Moser and Johanna D. Moore (1996). On the Correlation of Cues with Discourse Structure: Results from a Corpus Study. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center. Available online via homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jmoore/papers/rda.ps. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Megan+Moser+and+Johanna+D%2E+Moore+%281996%29%2E+On+the+Correlation+of+Cues+with+Discourse+Structure%3A+Results+from+a+Corpus+Study%2E+University+of+Pittsburgh%2C+Learning+Research+and+Development+Center%2E+Available)
29. Megan Moser, Johanna D. Moore and Erin Glendening (1996). Instructions for Coding Explanations: Identifying Segments, Relations and Minimal Units. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center. Available online via [http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jmoore/papers/rda-instr.ps](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jmoore/papers/rda-instr.ps). [↗](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jmoore/papers/rda-instr.ps)
30. Leo G.M. Noordman and Femke de Blijzer (2000). On the processing of causal relations. In: E. Couper Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leo+G%2EM%2E+Noordman+and+Femke+de+Blijzer+%282000%29%2E+On+the+processing+of+causal+relations%2E+In%3A+E%2E+Couper+Kuhlen+%26+B%2E+Kortmann+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Cause%2C+Condition%2C+Concession%2C+Contrast%3A+Cognitive+and+Discourse+Perspec)
31. Leo G.M. Noordman and Wietske Vonk (1998): Memory-‐based processing in understanding causal information, Discourse Processes, 26(2-3): 191-212. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leo+G%2EM%2E+Noordman+and+Wietske+Vonk+%281998%29%3A+Memory%2D%E2%80%90based+processing+in+understanding+causal+information%2C+Discourse+Processes%2C+26%282%2D3%29%3A+191%2D212%2E)
32. Stefanie Nowak and Stefan Rüger (2010). How reliable are annotations via crowdsourcing: A study about inter-annotator agreement for multi-label image annotation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval (MIR), Philadelphia, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stefanie+Nowak+and+Stefan+R%C3%BCger+%282010%29%2E+How+reliable+are+annotations+via+crowdsourcing%3A+A+study+about+inter%2Dannotator+agreement+for+multi%2Dlabel+image+annotation%2E+Proceedings+of+the+International+Confe)
33. Henk Pander Maat and Ted J.M. Sanders (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. Topics in English Linguistics, 33: 57-82. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Henk+Pander+Maat+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282000%29%2E+Domains+of+use+or+subjectivity%3F+The+distribution+of+three+Dutch+causal+connectives+explained%2E+Topics+in+English+Linguistics%2C+33%3A+57%2D82%2E)
34. PDTB Research Group (2007). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 Annotation Manual. Available online via [http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/PDTBAPI/pdtb-annotation-manual.pdf](http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/PDTBAPI/pdtb-annotation-manual.pdf). [↗](http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pdtb/PDTBAPI/pdtb-annotation-manual.pdf) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/miltsakaki-2004-penn-discourse-treebank/)
35. Mirna Pit (2007). Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast, 7(1): 53-82. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mirna+Pit+%282007%29%2E+Cross%2Dlinguistic+analyses+of+backward+causal+connectives+in+Dutch%2C+German+and+French%2E+Languages+in+Contrast%2C+7%281%29%3A+53%2D82%2E)
36. Emily Pitler and Ani Nenkova (2009). Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference: 13-16, Singapore. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Emily+Pitler+and+Ani+Nenkova+%282009%29%2E+Using+syntax+to+disambiguate+explicit+discourse+connectives+in+text%2E+Proceedings+of+the+ACL%2DIJCNLP+2009+Conference%3A+13%2D16%2C+Singapore%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/pitler-2009-syntax-disambiguate-explicit-discourse-connectives/)
37. Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein (2005). The reliability of anaphoric annotation, reconsidered: Taking ambiguity into account. Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations ii: Pie in the sky: 76-83.Rashmi Prasad and Harry Bunt (2015). Semantic relations in discourse: The current state of ISO 24617-8. In H. Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (isa-11): 80-91. Tilburg: TiCC, Tilburg University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Massimo+Poesio+and+Ron+Artstein+%282005%29%2E+The+reliability+of+anaphoric+annotation%2C+reconsidered%3A+Taking+ambiguity+into+account%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Workshop+on+Frontiers+in+Corpus+Annotations+ii%3A+Pie+in+)
38. Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi and Bonnie Webber (2008). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6 th International Conference of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rashmi+Prasad%2C+Nikhil+Dinesh%2C+Alan+Lee%2C+Eleni+Miltsakaki%2C+Livio+Robaldo%2C+Aravind+Joshi+and+Bonnie+Webber+%282008%29%2E+The+Penn+Discourse+Treebank+2%2E0%2E+Proceedings+of+the+6+th+International+Conference+of+La) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/disc-2008-prasad-penn-discourse-treebank-2-0/)
39. Ted J.M. Sanders (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24: 119-147. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%281997%29%2E+Semantic+and+pragmatic+sources+of+coherence%3A+On+the+categorization+of+coherence+relations+in+context%2E+Discourse+Processes%2C+24%3A+119%2D147%2E)
40. Ted J.M. Sanders and Leo G.M. Noordman (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29: 37-60. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+and+Leo+G%2EM%2E+Noordman+%282000%29%2E+The+role+of+coherence+relations+and+their+linguistic+markers+in+text+processing%2E+Discourse+Processes%2C+29%3A+37%2D60%2E)
41. Ted J.M. Sanders and Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren (2009). Causal categories in discourse: Converging evidence from language use. In: T.J.M. Sanders and E. Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+and+Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+%282009%29%2E+Causal+categories+in+discourse%3A+Converging+evidence+from+language+use%2E+In%3A+T%2EJ%2EM%2E+Sanders+and+E%2E+Sweetser+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Causal+categories+in+discourse+and)
42. Ted J.M. Sanders and Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren (2015). Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1): 53-92. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+and+Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+%282015%29%2E+Causality+and+subjectivity+in+discourse%3A+The+meaning+and+use+of+causal+connectives+in+spontaneous+conversation%2C+chat+interactions+and+written+text%2E+)
43. Ted J.M. Sanders, Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren and Leo G.M. Noordman (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15: 1-35. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders%2C+Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+and+Leo+G%2EM%2E+Noordman+%281992%29%2E+Toward+a+taxonomy+of+coherence+relations%2E+Discourse+Processes%2C+15%3A+1%2D35%2E)
44. Ted J.M. Sanders, Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren and Leo G.M. Noordman (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2): 93-133. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders%2C+Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+and+Leo+G%2EM%2E+Noordman+%281993%29%2E+Coherence+relations+in+a+cognitive+theory+of+discourse+representation%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+4%282%29%3A+93%2D133%2E)
45. Ted J.M. Sanders, Kirsten Vis and Daan Broeder (2012). Project notes of CLARIN project DiscAn: Towards a Discourse Annotation system for Dutch language corpora. Project notes. Utrecht: Utrecht University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders%2C+Kirsten+Vis+and+Daan+Broeder+%282012%29%2E+Project+notes+of+CLARIN+project+DiscAn%3A+Towards+a+Discourse+Annotation+system+for+Dutch+language+corpora%2E+Project+notes%2E+Utrecht%3A+Utrecht+Univers)
46. William A. Scott (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3): 321-325. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=William+A%2E+Scott+%281955%29%2E+Reliability+of+content+analysis%3A+The+case+of+nominal+scale+coding%2E+Public+Opinion+Quarterly%2C+19%283%29%3A+321%2D325%2E)
47. Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren and Liesbeth Degand (2010). Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2): 241-266. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+and+Liesbeth+Degand+%282010%29%2E+Coding+coherence+relations%3A+Reliability+and+validity%2E+Corpus+Linguistics+and+Linguistic+Theory%2C+6%282%29%3A+241%2D266%2E)
48. Wilbert P.M.S. Spooren and Ted J.M. Sanders (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 2003-2026. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilbert+P%2EM%2ES%2E+Spooren+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282008%29%2E+The+acquisition+order+of+coherence+relations%3A+On+cognitive+complexity+in+discourse%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics%2C+40%3A+2003%2D2026%2E)
49. Manfred Stede (2004). The Potsdam Commentary Corpus. Proceedings ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation. Pennsylvania: ACL. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Manfred+Stede+%282004%29%2E+The+Potsdam+Commentary+Corpus%2E+Proceedings+ACL+Workshop+on+Discourse+Annotation%2E+Pennsylvania%3A+ACL%2E)
50. Ninke M. Stukker and Ted J.M. Sanders (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives. A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2): 169-190. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ninke+M%2E+Stukker+and+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+%282012%29%2E+Subjectivity+and+prototype+structure+in+causal+connectives%2E+A+cross%2Dlinguistic+perspective%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics%2C+44%282%29%3A+169%2D190%2E)
51. Ninke Stukker, Ted J.M. Sanders and Arie Verhagen (2008). Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 40:1296-1322. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ninke+Stukker%2C+Ted+J%2EM%2E+Sanders+and+Arie+Verhagen+%282008%29%2E+Causality+in+verbs+and+in+discourse+connectives%3A+Converging+evidence+of+cross%2Dlevel+parallels+in+Dutch+linguistic+categorization%2E+Journal+of+P)
52. Kai-Ming Ting (2010). Precision and Recall. In: C. Sammut and G.I. Webb (eds.), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning. New York: Springer US. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kai%2DMing+Ting+%282010%29%2E+Precision+and+Recall%2E+In%3A+C%2E+Sammut+and+G%2EI%2E+Webb+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Encyclopedia+of+Machine+Learning%2E+New+York%3A+Springer+US%2E)
53. Matthew J. Traxler, Michael D. Bybee and Martin J. Pickering (1997). Influences of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(3): 481-497. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Matthew+J%2E+Traxler%2C+Michael+D%2E+Bybee+and+Martin+J%2E+Pickering+%281997%29%2E+Influences+of+connectives+on+language+comprehension%3A+Eye%2Dtracking+evidence+for+incremental+interpretation%2E+Quarterly+Journal+of+Exp)
54. Matthew J. Traxler, Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked and Linda M. Moxey (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1): 88-101. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Matthew+J%2E+Traxler%2C+Anthony+J%2E+Sanford%2C+Joy+P%2E+Aked+and+Linda+M%2E+Moxey+%281997%29%2E+Processing+causal+and+diagnostic+statements+in+discourse%2E+Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology%3A+Learning%2C+Memory%2C+and+Cogni)
55. Nynke van der Vliet, Ildikó Berzlanovich, Gosse Bouma, Markus Egg and Gisela Redeker (2011). Building a discourse-annotated Dutch text corpus. In: S. Dipper and H. Zinsmeister (eds.), Proceedings Beyond Semantics (DGfS workshop). Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 3: 157–171. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nynke+van+der+Vliet%2C+Ildik%C3%B3+Berzlanovich%2C+Gosse+Bouma%2C+Markus+Egg+and+Gisela+Redeker+%282011%29%2E+Building+a+discourse%2Dannotated+Dutch+text+corpus%2E+In%3A+S%2E+Dipper+and+H%2E+Zinsmeister+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+Beyo)
56. Yannick Versley and Anna Gastel (2012). Linguistic tests for discourse relations in the TüBa-D/Z corpus of written German. Dialogue and Discourse, 4(2): 142-173. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yannick+Versley+and+Anna+Gastel+%282012%29%2E+Linguistic+tests+for+discourse+relations+in+the+T%C3%BCBa%2DD%2FZ+corpus+of+written+German%2E+Dialogue+and+Discourse%2C+4%282%29%3A+142%2D173%2E)
57. Sandrine Zufferey (2012). “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2): 138-153. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sandrine+Zufferey+%282012%29%2E+%E2%80%9CCar%2C+parce+que%2C+puisque%E2%80%9D+revisited%3A+Three+empirical+studies+on+French+causal+connectives%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics%2C+44%282%29%3A+138%2D153%2E)