<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0306">
  <Title>trast and Violated Expectation, Sanders et al.'s Contrastive Cause-Consequence, Contrastive Consequence-Cause, Contrastive Argument- Claim, Contrastive Clalm-Argument, Oppo-</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Both in written and in spoken language, discourse relations may or may not be signalled by lexical material. In this paper we present the results of two experiments which were intended to answer some questions concerning the relationship between discourse relations and their lexical markers. Assuming that, in any case, discourse relations are inferred by the addressee/interpreter, the question arises about what suggests to the speaker/writer the strategical decision of using rather than not using explicit signals, such as connectives or cue phrases. In order to answer this main question, the following subquestions need to be answered: first, which role do discourse markers play in the task of reconstructing the discourse relation which was originally intended by the speaker/writer. Second, to what extent the lexical signalling of the relation is essential for the relation to be inferred. Third, whether there are coherence relations that are always lexically signalled and whether there are any that are never lexically signalled. Finally, if the different access that addressees have to the linguistic context in spoken and written language affects the kind of relations employed in the construction of text and/or in the realization of the relations.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>