{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025385312783318223, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009066183136899365, 'mean_word_length': 5.065934065934066, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coherence Relations in Functional Discourse Grammar

Our purpose in this chapter is to account for coherence relations within the Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) framework. But before doing so, we shall first give an overview of previous work on coherence and coherence relations. There is no consensus on what coherence means, but the most widely held view is that it explains how hearers and readers construct relationships among the units in any piece of discourse. A coherent discourse is one where the hearer/reader can establish a relation between the current piece of discourse and previous pieces. This connection is often interpreted to be a connection among discourse units, but it can also refer to connections between the current piece of discourse and the context. In the Hallidayan tradition (Halliday / Hasan 1976), coherence is contrasted with cohesion. Cohesion is created through nonstructural relations such as reference, repetition, synonymy and the like, between presupposing and presupposed elements in a text. In example (1), from Halliday / Hasan (1976: 2), them in the second