96 John Connolly
The hierarchical structure of discourse is indicated by means of horizon-
tal trees in Kroon (1997). In the outline example in Fig 1, A and B are
interlocutors in a dialogue:
move
Utterance act
exchangeA: Utterance actB: Utterance act moveFigure 1. Example of Kroon’s style of discourse representation
Kroon also, where appropriate, labels acts and/or moves as either central or
subsidiary.
Hengeveld (1997) employs a means of representing discourse which re-
flects his idea of upward layering. However, this will not be considered in
detail here, as it has been overtaken by Hengeveld’s more recent work, to
which we shall shortly return. Suffice to say that the method of discourse
representation in Hengeveld (1997) takes the form of a vertical tree struc-
ture. Steuten's notation takes the form not of a tree but of a table; see the
fifth chapter of Steuten (1998a). A simple and slightly adapted example is
seen in Table 1, which is based on the assumption that each illocutionary
act in the discourse has previously been identified and numbered in se-
quence.
In positing a non-linguistic part of the transaction in addition to the lin-
guistic discourse, Steuten particularly has in mind business conversations,
where the transaction could include, for instance, the exchange of goods
and money.
Gulla (1997) proposes a means of representing a combination of FG and
RST with the help of a bracketed structure. The design of this representa-
tion is illustrated in the outline example in Figure 2, which is based on a
stretch of discourse where two propositions occur in sequence, and propo-
sition 2 serves to elaborate proposition 1.