<?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="6" start_page="41" end_page="41" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The Experiments shown in the previous sections suggest that lexical marking of discourse relations is not entirely optional but is at least partially constrained by the type of relation signalled and the means of expression. Thus, contrastive relations obligatorily need a connective both in comprehension and in production, while lexical marking does not appear to be as necessary for additive and consequential relations. Although the data do not allow to conclude that there are discourse relations that are never lexically signalled, additive relations appear to be only sparsely marked; in addition, lexical marking does not significatively improve the comprehension for this class of relations. The means of expressions constrains lexical marking in that spoken discourse requires a higher number of cue phrases than it is necessary for written discourse. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of a difference between speaking and writing in the marking of relations according to type.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>