English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Moser and Moore (1995, to appear) carried out a corpus study of discourse cues in tutorial dialogue. Their annotation uses Relational Discourse Analysis (RDA), which distinguishes core elements (nuclei-like) from contributors (satellite-like). In their discussion of these results, Moser and Moore propose that clauses in the contributor±core order are harder to understand than clauses in core±contributor order, but do not attempt to explain why the ``hard'' order is ever used. Here, we recruit evidence from work by Stevenson and her collaborators, which substantiates the empirical claim. We then suggest that by distinguishing information structure (given±new) from intentional structure (core±contributor), we can explain why hard orders are surprisingly frequent. We note, however, that this cannot be the whole story, and show how the hierarchical RDA structure helps account for dierences between discourse cues such as since, so, this means, and therefore.

Discourse cues: Further evidence for the corecontributor distinction