Trans Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 16. Nr. August 2006

6.4. Innovations in Psycholinguistics: A Step to Innovations in Brain, Culture, Cognition and Communication Research
Herausgeberin | Editor | Éditeur: Elly Brosig (Institut für Linguistik/Germanistik Universität Stuttgart)

Dokumentation | Documentation | Documentation

Asyndetic subordination in interpreting: The case of concessive markers

Andrzej Łyda (University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland)



In recent years a body of studies has been growing in the area of interpreting that focuses on the psycholinguistic aspects of the activity. One of the intriguing questions concerns the problem of how interpreters solve the problem of textual cohesion and coherence in their TL (Target Language) production. Previous studies by Shlesinger (1995) and Łyda and Gumul (2002) concentrated on the problem of recognizing cohesive links present in the SL (Source Language) and their rendering in the TL (Target Language). However, in the process of interpreting from one language to another it is often the case that some individual elements or occasionally portions of text escape the interpreter’s attention due to a variety of factors (speed of delivery, noise etc.)

This study concentrates on the problem of recognizing these missing elements in the SL and their reconstruction and representation in the TL. More specifically, the study undertaken aims at analysing the effects of omitting (jamming) connectors in concessive sentences and strategies applied for the interpretation and rendition of such sentences. The analysis is based on a corpus of texts interpreted into Polish by Polish students of translation and interpreting.


1. Asyndetic constructions

The term asyndetic used in the title refers most often to asyndetic coordination, i.e. a kind of coordination with no overt coordinating conjunction, which in the English language would mean the absence of and, or, and but. This restrictive understanding of asyndeton is reflected, for example, in Quirk et al (1985:1472), where the notion is discussed as a type of coordination. Nevertheless, these authors seem to allow for the possibility of ‘subordinating’ interpretation of asyndetic clauses when they analyse sentence (1) as yielding a possible reading (2):

(1) He ate too much for dinner. He was ill the next day.

(2) Because he ate too much for dinner, he was ill the next day.

Less often, but more explicitly, asyndetic is employed to denote a juxtaposition of any two clauses, coordinate or subordinate, without any connective or any other marker of connection ( cf. Barth-Weingarten 2003:94). This is the understanding of asyndetic adopted in the present paper, as the objective of this study is to assess the impact of missing concessive connectives on the performance of English interpreters, concessive clauses being traditionally considered subordinate ones. Before I move to the discussion of asyndetic constructions, it is, however, necessary to ask a question about the role of connectives, often referred to as discourse markers in the comprehension of the text, as well as possible mechanisms of text comprehension with explicit exponents of coherence, in order to see what kind of information can be lost when the clauses are juxtaposed asyndetically.


2. Syndetic constructions: discourse markers

The problem with connective or discourse markers lies in the multitude of senses they acquired in different theoretical approaches. If we were, however, to focus on major approaches to discourse markers, the dividing line would probably run between a coherence-theoretic approach and a relevance-based one.

The proponents of the latter claim that all human communication is governed by the principle of relevance, and discourse markers are used to indicate how the speaker intends their utterances to achieve relevance. By contrast, the role of discourse markers in the coherence-theoretic approach (see e.g., Mann and Thompson 1986; Sanders, Spooren and Noordman 1993; Knott and Dale 1994), is, as said above, different, because the comprehension of text consists in establishing its coherence through a bundle of predefined coherence relations. To make such coherence relations explicit ‘cue-words’ are employed.

Different as the approaches might appear at first, they exhibit some similarities, of which as Rouchota observes (1996:6) the constraining function of is the key-one:

For coherence theorists connectives constrain the relational propositions which express the coherence relations the hearer needs to recover in order to interpret a discourse. For relevance theorists connectives constrain the interpretation process by guiding the hearer towards the intended context and contextual effects. On both accounts connectives play a facilitating role.

For Carston (1993), similarly to Rouchota, the recovery of the connection between two segments signaled by a connective is inferential, because it involves an interaction of the semantics of utterances with ‘general knowledge assumptions about the way things connect up and relate in the world’ (Carston 1993:28). Secondly, the inferences or, to be precise, the process of inferencing is affected by the signals functioning as instructions guiding and facilitating the interpretation process. This idea of connectives as constraints on the implicatures of an utterance, originally put forward by Sperber and Wilson (1986) and later developed by Blakemore (1987, 1992) is well represented in the following account of a handful of English connectives:

[...] connectives should be seen as linking not so much an utterance and a context but rather an utterance and a specific inferential process: very simply put, but is linked to the inferential process of contradicting and eliminating an assumption, so is linked to the inferential process of drawing a conclusion, whereas is linked to the inferential process of parallel processing leading to contrasting conclusions, moreover is linked to the inferential process of parallel processing leading to the confirmation of the same conclusion, etc. [Rouchota 1996:13]

Apart from the relevance-theoretic account of connectives, the literature contains many different classifications of discourse markers based on a wide range of evidence. Louwerse [2001] enumerates among others classifications in terms of: textual cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976), hypotactic conjunctions (Martin, 1992), cognitive plausibility (Sanders et al., 1992), substitutability (Knott, 1996), as well as psycholinguistic experiments (Louwerse, 2001). However, what all these classifications have in common is that none of them is a fully complete one, partly because of the large number of elements to sort out, partly because of ‘the terminological chaos obscuring the borderlines of the studied category’ (Kryk-Kastovsky 2002:117).

Finally, as Hutchinson (2004:685) observes, there is a still a substantial gap between the number of discourse markers already identified as such and the number of discourse markers included in the subsequent classifications. For example, the list of discourse markers in Knott (1996) comprises about 350 markers, but in his classification only 150 have been accounted for. This discrepancy follows partly from the functional versatility of many items regarded as discourse markers(1) and lack of reliable methods of their classification.


3. Concessive constructions

The term ‘Concession’ has been used in a variety of senses to define a kind of relation of contrast. For some linguists the relation is simply determined by a set of connectives, such as although, however, even though, though etc. Others, such as Grochowski (1976), would rather claim that concession is only a traditional umbrella term for at least three types of interclausal semantic relations, as exemplified by (1) although p, q, (2) even if p, q and (3) does not depend on q

In this study Concession is understood as one of numerous rhetorical relations identified by Mann and Thompson within a framework known as the Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann & Thompson 1986, 1987 and Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (1999). Concession is defined there as a nucleus-satellite (N-S) relation between two spans of texts, whose size ranges from a clause to units above the clause. The essence of the relation lies in the speaker’s acknowledgement of "apparently incompatible" i nformation followed by the nucleus span. The definition below emphasises the fact of dual simultaneous perception of the nucleus and satellite situations, regarded as apparently incompatible but actually compatible:


constraints on N: W has positive regard for the situation presented in N

constraints on S: W is not claiming that the situation presented in S doesn’t hold

constraints on the N + S combination:

W acknowledges a potential or apparent incompatibility between the situations presented in N and S; W regards the situations presented in N and S as compatible; recognizing the compatibility between the situations presented in N and S increases R's positive regard for the situation presented in N

the effect: R's positive regard for the situation presented in N is increased

locus of the effect: N and S

The relation is exemplified by (3):

(3) Although it was raining (S), she went out (N)

Although the sentence represented in (3) contains the conjunction although, the identification of the rhetorical relation of Concession is not conditioned by the presence of any overt markers. Their presence in either span is possible, yet not obligatory. Less common as they are, asyndetic subordination(2) links serve the W(riter)’s intention to bring about the same effect of increasing R(eader)’s positive regard for N as effectively as although-satellites or paratactic but-nuclei.

For the purpose of our study it was, however, necessary to establish a list of concessive markers that were t o be removed in the texts designed for interpreting.

Let us first have a look at a group of connectives that have most often been treated as concessive markers. This is particularly important, because in the heterogeneous group of connectives, defined by Braunwald (1985: 513) as

[...] the linguistic means to organize one’s knowledge of the world into larger interrelated chunks of information and to express qualitative distinctions in the nature of that interrelationship,

it is relatively difficult to identify a group of connectives employed specifically and uniquely to mark the relation of concessivity. This difficulty stems from the fact that seldom are particular connectives restricted in their use to one and only one semantic relation and, as Spooren observes, the semantics of connectives used to indicate a link between segments of text does not necessarily ‘match the semantics of the relation that is intended by the speaker or writer’ (Spooren 1997:150). Another often cited reason, partly related to the multifunctionality of connectives, is the high degree of underspecification of relations indicated by connectives, which can be tested by substituting a more explicit connective for the underspecified one (Givon 1990:828), as for example the exchange of because for and in:

(4) She had killed her husband and she was put in prison for 27 years.

(5) She was put in prison for 27 years because she had killed her husband.

where, should the sentences be interpreted in the same way, the idea of causality (cause-and-effect) replaced by the relation of temporality (earlier-later) conveyed by and has to be enriched through the inference of a specific causal relation.

And is a particularly instructive example of a connective that lends itself to a great variety of relations holding between states of affairs in two segments of a text linked by the connective. As Carston (1993:27) demonstrates in her relevance-theory based analysis of and , a wide range of possible relations can be found to exist in the sentences below:

(6a) It’s spring in England and it’s autumn in New Zealand.

(6b) He handed her the scalpel and she made the incision.

(6c) We spent the day in town and I went to Harrods.

(6d) She fed him poisoned stew and he died.

(6e) I left the door open and the cat got in.

[Carston 1993:27]

These include various temporal and cause-consequence relations. It would not be particularly difficult to think of two clauses conjoined by and that could be interpreted also concessively, as in the following example:

(7) I dropped the china vase from the Eiffel tower and the vase did not break.

(8) Although I dropped the china vase from the Eiffel tower, the vase did not break.

However, and is not listed among the traditional repertoire of concessive markers, although Quirk et al (1985:1616) mentions and as it occurs in and yet as an conjunction prompted "if there is a contrast", and Quirk (1954) admits that but has become the most common marker of concessive meaning.

One of the most exhaustive and systematic descriptions of the relation of concession in the sense of Mann and Thompson (1987) has been undertaken by Grote, Lenke and Stede (1997), as shown in Fig. 1. Aware of other classifications for concessive markers, these authors produce their analysis against the criterion of the function of markers in discourse and the character of the bond between constituents. In this way they identify three such types,

  1. a cohesive bond, where concessive markers relate a clause to the preceding portion of the text. This is accomplished by conjunctive adjuncts and coordinating conjunctions if they occur in sentence-initial position;

  2. an interdependency relation between paratactic clauses, which is signalled by co-ordinating conjunctions, occasionally accompanied by conjunctive adjuncts, which unlike the former do not create any interdependency relation;

  3. a dependency relation between clauses, which is marked by either subordinating conjunctions or prepositions.

These lexical and syntactic possibilities are illustrated in sentences below, with the underlined lexical items identified therein as concessive markers:

(9) I don’t feel fine; { nevertheless / nonetheless/ however/ still / yet} I will take part in the contest.

(10) I don’t feel fine, but I will take part in the contest anyway.

(11) Despite the fact that I don’t feel fine, I will take part in the contest.

(12) Notwithstanding the fact that I don’t feel fine, I will take part in the contest.

(13) Although I don’t feel fine, I will take part in the contest.

Fig . 1: Classification of concessive discourse markers (based on Grote, Lenke and Stede 1997)


4. Asyndetic concessive constructions

Although the role of connectives in marking coherence relations cannot be ignored, especially in concessive constructions, for which Taboada (2004) has found the frequent use of discourse markers to signal the relation one of its characteristic features, concession can also be marked asyndetically. Barth-Weingarten (2003) has demonstrated that in her corpus of English interviews the syndetic concessions with a conjunction or a connective conjunct in the TCU-initial position amounted to 84% of all concessive constructions, the remaining 16% being asyndetic. Yet it is worth remembering that in her approach asyndetically marked concession counts as such, even when the clauses contain correlates understood as a broad class including both correlatives and other means significantly increases the number of asyndentically marked instances of concession. Actually, Barth-Weingarten makes a finer distinction between ‘markerless asyndetic constructions without any connective and correlate at all’ and ‘quasi-asyndetic ones with a correlate, such as a correlative conjunct, in other than TCU-initial position’ (Barth-Weingarten 2003: 95). This distinction given, the number of the truly asyndetic concessions in her corpus equals one. All other instances of asyndetic constructions represent actually quasi-asyndetic juxtaposition, where the idea of concessivity is signaled by secondary markers, corresponding loosely to Grote et al’s (1997) conjunctive adjuncts.

This is particularly significant, since in the present study all concessive exponents were omitted, transforming the clauses into (potentially) truly asyndetic constructions.


5. Processing of asyndetic constructions

Although Brown and Yule (1983:66) claim that "human beings do not require formal textual markers before they are prepared to interpret a text [and] they naturally assume coherence, and interpret the text in the light of that assumption that ‘truly asyndetic concessive constructions, unlike causal or temporal ones, are very rarely found in real speech’.

This seems to follow from several factors, related to the logical and thus cognitive complexity of the relation. In their attempts to capture the mechanisms of conceding König claims the existence of a relation between concessives and causal constructions, such that concessives should be regarded as dual (the external negation of its internal negation) of causal adverbials. The idea of causality as underlying concession appears also in the study by Di Meola (1998). Contrary to previous studies, in which concessive relations have been thought to involve one causal relation, Di Meola proposes that two such relations be identified.

Whatever the explanation could be, concessive relation belongs to the cognitively most complex relations. It finds its confirmation also in the order of acquisition of connectives in English speaking children: concessive/adversative ones are almost unanimously reported to be the last to be acquired in L1. For example Bloom et al (1980) claim that the order of acquisition of different types of connectives follows their relative order of complexity:

additive < temporal < causal < adversative

It is then relatively late that children are able to grasp the underlying relations, and although data are controversial in this respect, it can be generally accepted that at the age of 6-8 children fully realize the logical implications of concessive connections ( cf. Wing and Scholnick 1981).

A study undertaken by de Vega (2005) demonstrated also that the rate of processing/reading of adversative / concessive sentences is lower than in the case of causal or temporal ones, if a connective is replaced with an inadequate one.

Undoubtedly, asyndetic constructions reduce the cognitive effort of the speaker but they simultaneously increase the cognitive effort for the hearer, in our case the interpreter. Consequently, the absence of processing instruction provided by a connective may lead to misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the source language text (TL) in the target language (TL), or, which is especially important for interpreters, increase the processing time, and thus, increase the EVS (ear-voice span). If we recall Gile’s theory of efforts involved in the act of interpreting, then it should not be surprising that asyndetic concession can be a real challenge for an interpreter, who, by putting too much effort to listening and processing, can have no resources left to produce a TL equivalent.


6.1. Methods and goals

The problem that I addressed in this study concerned the ways of rendering English sentences, originally connected by concessive markers, once the markers had been made unavailable to the interpreter. This was meant to reflect the not so rare cases, in which a portion of a text is not readily obtainable by the interpreter for a number of reasons such as noise, muffled speech, lack of concentration on the part of the interpreter etc. In the experiment, instead of a simple removal of concessive markers from the sound track, which would have produced an unnatural pause in the text production, the markers were jammed with a microphone-speaker reflux sound.

Since concession, whether marked or not, is relatively rare in speech, the number of muffled concessive connectors in the text could not exceed the norm (see e.g. Barth-Weingarten 2003) so as not to suggest indirectly what the intended object and goal of the study was. For this reason the participants’ performance was observed in the task of interpreting authentic texts containing concessive constructions. Secondly, the texts were of the same genre as other texts with which the student participants had practiced interpreting during their course of study , i.e. political speeches. Such a selection of texts seems to be in agreement with Brauße’s (1983:28) idea of asyndetic constructions as conveying information that is unexpressed, but needs to be understood. As such asyndetic constructions are often employed by skillful public speakers burdening the hearers with the task of reconstruction of implicit rhetorical markers, thus increasing the rhetorical effect of their speeches (for the use of asyndeton in conclusion see e.g. Aristotle Rhetoric, Book III, Chapter 19)

The participants were not told that their output would be analysed in respect of the means of coherence marking because, as might have been expected, they would shift their attention to particular aspects of SL rather than concentrate on producing TL texts as complete as possible with an acceptable fluency of the output.

The recordings were made with two small groups of students: four female students in May 2005 and five female students in October 2005. At the time of recording they were the 5 th and the 4 th year students respectively. The SL texts were in English and the mode of interpreting was simultaneous. The texts included:

Text 1: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2004 Republican National Convention Address;

Text 2: Ronald Reagan’s Gdańsk Shipyard Speech, 1990, and

Text 3: Aleksander Kwaśniewski Address at New Year’s Eve Meeting with the Diplomatic Corps, 2000 (an English version read out by the present author)

The ten concessive markers to be analysed are shown in ten extracts from the three texts:

Text 1.

  1. You see, they hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. And they hate the liberating breeze of democracy. (But) ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America’s decency.

  2. Now don’t misunderstand me: I love Austria and I love the Austrian people. (But) I always knew that America was the place for me.

  3. And I have been a Republican ever since! And trust me - And trust me in my wife’s family, that’s no small achievement. (But) I am proud to be with the Party of Abraham Lincoln, the Party of Teddy Roosevelt ...

  4. That’s what’s great about this country. Here - - Here we can respectfully disagree and (still) be patriotic, (still) be American, and (still) be good Republicans.

Text 2:

  1. Economic reform and democracy, (although) important, will only flourish if the free peoples of Central and Eastern Europe are also secure

  2. At this moment, in fact, Poland faces what may fairly be described as its best prospects for peace and security in 350 years. (And yet), as you have taught us, we must not forget the lesson of history.

  3. There appears to be no immediate or short-term threat to Polish sovereignty, history and geography caution us not to take this moment for granted, (though).

  4. I have learned another Polish phrase, which, (even though) it is in my tortured accent, well describes our goal for a more secure, democratic and prosperous Poland. Równi z równymi, wolni z wolnymi

  5. The Uprising ended in ruin. Some of its heroes perished; others escaped. (Yet), amidst the flame and the rubble, a lone radio signal could be heard in the West - "immortal is the nation that can muster such universal heroism

Text 3 :

  1. (Although) Samuel Huntington’s global forecasts do not necessarily have to be accepted, his insights in viewing the world cannot be questioned.


6.2. Results and discussion

After collecting the data in the interpreting tests presented in Table 1, a quantitative analysis was performed in terms of several criteria intended to show the interpreters’ choice of strategies in rendering the English sentences.

Table 1. Texts 1-10 in English - Polish simultaneous interpreting task


Clause order

No. of markers untranslated

No. of mistranslations

No. of markers rendered by Polish concession markers

Other means


X (but) Y



jednak/however (2)



X (but) Y



ale/but (5)



X (but) Y




i (and) (1)


X still Y



i nadal / i wciąż / and still (7)



X-, (although) Y,



choć/although (1)

› partitioning ›są ważne i będą
(are important and will ...) (5)

›są ważne. Będą (are important.
They will.. (2)

And yet

X yet Y



i jednak /and still (2)

jednak/however (1)

mimo to /in spite of this (1)



X Y though


jednak/however (2)

mimo to / /in spite of this (1)


even though

X- (even though) Y -X


pomimo/ /in spite of this (2); chociaż/although (1)

? partitioning into a new sentence (2)


X yet Y


wówczas (1)

wtedy (1)

a jednak/ and still (1); a / i mimo to / and in spite of this (1);



Although X, Y


ponieważ (1)

i /and (2)

ale/but (1)

jednak/however (1)


These strategies were divided into several categories based on the assessment of the interpreters’ production:

  1. failure to provide a concessive marker;

  2. mistranslation (recognition of another relation, e.g. causality);

  3. providing a concessive interpretation, and

  4. other means (e.g. partitioning a complex sentence into simple sentences).

These data allow a number of observations:

In the test designed for simultaneous interpreting, the total number of English connectives of concessive (adversative) type was 10. With 9 interpreters this amounted to the total of 90 connectives. From a purely theoretical point of view, this could have produced an identical number of their Polish counterparts. However, as can be seen in Table 1, generally, the results obtained support the claim that asyndetic concessives are difficult to process by simultaneous interpreters. The intended concessive meaning was identified as such only in 29 cases out of 90 (in Text 4 the three stills were not treated separately), while in 46 cases no connective was provided, which occasionally led to ungrammaticality or incoherence.

It is interesting to note in the data received that the number of concessive markers that were not "reconstructed" by the interpreters was highest in these cases in which their omission did not lead to ungrammaticality, e.g. in Text 2, repeated below for convenience:

  1. And they hate the liberating breeze of democracy. (But) ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America’s decency.

In other words, it can be hypothesized that the major factor that triggers the search for a connective is the recognition of ungrammaticality of the SL text, e.g. in Text 5, where the verbless concessive clause was inserted interclausally, only one interpreter resorted to omission. All other interpreters either inferred the concessive relation and marked it with an appropriate Polish expression, or attempted to maintain the grammaticality (and coherence) of their output by other means.

Generally, the highest number of omissions was reported for the coordinating connective but, signaling a kind of contrast between propositions of the two clauses. Consequently, the reconstruction of the rhetorical relation was contingent on the interpreters’ ability to notice this contrast. However, their success in this respect depended not only on the structure of the sentences, but also on their general knowledge of the context. If in Texts 1 and 2 the idea of contrast requires just a general knowledge about how-things-are-in-the-world, then Text 3 makes it indispensable for the interpreter to realize that not all members of Governor Schwarzenegger’s family are Republicans. To use the terms from the Toulmin Model of argumentation (Toulmin 1958) , it can be said that in Text 3 the interpreter lacked a w arrant, i.e. the speaker’s (interpreter’s) justification for inference from the grounds of a person’s claim. It is not surprising then that in cases like Text 3, retracting from an explicit interpretation was found the safest strategy by the interpreters. In other words, the task of determining the relation between the two sentences was delegated to the hearer. In this way the cognitive load of processing was shifted away by leaving the coherence relation implicit by most of the interpreters.

It is evident from Table 1, that the number of misrepresentations of the concessive relation by replacing it with another one is not significant. Actually, this was found in only two texts: 9 and 10. As it seems, the idea of contrast is not sufficiently implicated there by the context. As text 9 develops with amidst the flame and the rubble , the interpreter may anticipate a kind of elaboration rather than incompatibility. This finds its confirmation in the interpreters’ use of wówczas/ wtedy (then) The success of the interpreter depends in this case on the length of EVS. Since in simultaneous interpreting, the interpreter has the only effective access to the SL text via texture, whereas the context and structure become available in portions, longer EVS enables the interpreter to comprehend larger spans of text and determine a kind of coherence relation between them. The operation of this mechanism can also be observed in text 10, in which the subordinating conjunction although seems to be a crucial signal of the concessive relation. In its absence, the concessive reading can be reconstructed as such, only if the EVS is sufficiently long for the interpreter to determine a possible relation between the clauses on the basis of their propositional content (and context). Nevertheless, it should be remembered that since simultaneous interpreting involves an overlap of SL reception and TL production, too long EVS may lead to the oversaturation of processing capacity, especially in the case of ‘informationally rich’ texts.

Finally, it is worth noting that the interpreters resorted also to the same strategies that had been identified in Łyda (2005) in a study on English-Polish consecutive translation of concessive sentences. These strategies include:

  1. chunking the complex sentence into simple sentences, where the adversative relation is not expressed explicitly by a connective but by means of and . In the present study this strategy was employed as many as 10 times, in Texts 2, 5 and 8 (e.g. ›są ważne i będą (are important and will ...) . This may induce a concessive interpretation (cf. Section 3 above).

  2. using temporal clauses / phrases that imply the concomitance of seemingly incompatible events, as in Text 4, in which the contrast is signaled by i nadal / i wciąż / and still.

Overall, this tends to indicate that in doubtful cases, i.e. in the absence of overt lexical signals, simultaneous interpreters refrain from making a concessive interpretation of a relation holding between two clauses or sentences. Instead, they recourse to semantically less complex relations, such as addition (and) and temporality (when). In this way they decrease their own processing load which enables them to handle the oncoming SL text and shift the responsibility for the text interpretation and ‘making the most’ of it on their hearers.

The present study is far from conclusive, considering the size of the experiment group and the fact that the subjects were still novice interpreters. It can be expected that investigating concession as well as other relations of contrast in experiments involving more respondents of different expertise should bring more definite results.

© Andrzej Łyda (University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland)


(1) For a discussion see Kryk-Kastovsky (2002: 116 -127)

(2) RST proposes that the traditional term subordination be replaced by hypotaxis and embedding (Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992:66).


Barth-Weingarten, D., 2003: Concession in Spoken English. On the Realisation of a Discourse-Pragmatic Relation, Tübingen: Narr

Blakemore, D., 1987: Semantic Constraints on Relevance, Oxford: Blackwell.

Blakemore, D., 1988: "So' as a constraint on relevance,", In Kempson. R.M. (ed) Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Blakemore, D. 1989: ‘Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of but", Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 15-37.

Bloom, L., M., Lahey, L. Hood, Lifter, K. & Fiess, K., 1980: "Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode", Journal of Child Language 7, 235-261

Brauße, U., 1983: "Konnektive als Indikatoren fur Bewertungen von Argumenten". In Linguistische Studien 112, 28-35

Braunwald, S. R., 1985: "The Development of Connectives’, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 513-525

Brown, G., and Yule, G., 1983: Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Carston, R., 1993: ‘Conjunction, Explanation and Relevance’, Lingua 90: 27-48

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S.A., 1999: "On the Concessive Relation in Conversational English’. In F. W. Neumann and Schuelting, S. (eds) Anglistentag 1998 Erfurt: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag

Di Meola, C., 1997: Der Ausdruck der Konzessivität in der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache: Theorie und Beschreibung anhand eines Vergleichs mit dem Italienischen, Tübingen: Niemeyer

Fraser, B., 1998: "Contrastive Discourse Markers in English’, in Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins

Givon , T., 1990:Syntax. vol II., Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins

Grochowski, M., 1976: "O Strukturze Semantycznej Przyzwolenia". In M. R. Mayenowa (ed) Semantyka Tekstu i Języka, Wrocław: Ossolineum

Grote, B., Lenke, N. and Stede, M., 1997: "Ma(r)king Concessions in English and German", Discourse Processes 24: 87-117

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R., 1976: Cohesion in English, London: Longman.

Hutchinson, B., 2004:"Acquiring the meaning of discourse markers". In the Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2004), Barcelona, pp. 685-692

Knott, A., & Dale, R., 1994: "Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a set of Coherence Relations", DiscourseProcesses 18: 35-62

Knott, A., 1996: A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence. Relations. Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh

König, E., 1994: "Concessive Clauses". In Asher, R.E. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford: Pergamon

Kryk-Kastovsky, B., 2002: Synchronic and Diachronic Investigations in Pragmatics, Poznań: Motivex

Louwerse, M., 2001: "An Analytic and Cognitive Parameterization of Coherence Relations", Cognitive Linguistics 12-3 : 291-315

Łyda, A. and Gumul, E., 2002: "Cohesion in Interpreting". In"Cohesion in interpreting". In Stanulewicz, D. (ed.) PASEPapers in Language Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the

Study of English, Gdansk, 26-28 April 2000. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego. 349-356

Łyda, A., 2005: "Last to acquire. On the relation of Concession", paper presented at the 17 th ICSFLA, Szczyrk, Poland

Mann, W. C. and Thompson S. A., 1986: "Relational Propositions in Discourse", Discourse Processes 9: 57-90

Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A., 1987: "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of text organization", Technical Reports ISI/RS: 87-190

Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S.A., 1988: "Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization", Text 8: 243-281

Martin, J. R., 1992: English Text: System and Structure, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Quirk, R., 1954: The Concessive Relation in Old English Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech G. and Svartvik J., 1985: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman

Rouchota, V., 1996: "Discourse Connectives. What do They Link?", UCLWorking Papers, 8

Sanders, T., Spooren, W. and Noordman, L., 1993: "Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations", Discourse Processes 15, 1-35

Shlesinger, M., 1995: ‘Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting", Translator 1(2): 193-212

Sperber D. and Wilson D., 1986: Relevance. Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell

Taboada, M., 2004: Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Toulmin, S. E., 1958: The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Vega. M., 2005: "El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales", Cognitiva 17: 85-108

Wing, C.S. and Scholnick, E. K. 1981: "Children’s comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in ‘because’, ‘although’, ‘if’ and ‘unless’", Journal of Child Language 8, 347-365

6.4. Innovations in Psycholinguistics: A Step to Innovations in Brain, Culture, Cognition and Communication Research

Sektionsgruppen | Section Groups | Groupes de sections

TRANS       Inhalt | Table of Contents | Contenu  16 Nr.

For quotation purposes:
Andrzej Łyda (University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland): Asyndetic subordination in interpreting: The case of concessive markers. In: TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 16/2005. WWW:

Webmeister: Peter R. Horn     last change: 1.8.2006      INST