This paper investigates the complexity of dependencies at the discourse level, in particular the dependencies between discourse connectives and their argu-ments. Our study is based on data from the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB) and is therefore an exploration into the ways treebanks can inform linguistic issues. We observe that, unlike in syntax, there is more uncertainty and flex-ibility with regards to the location and extent of discourse arguments. This leads to a variety of possible patterns of dependencies between pairs of dis-course relations, including nested, crossed and a range of other non-tree-like configurations. Nevertheless, our main conclusion is that the types of dis-course dependencies are highly restricted since the more complex cases can be factored out by appealing to discourse notions like anaphora and attribu-tion. We conjecture that the complexity of dependencies is far more restricted at the discourse level as compared to the syntactic level. 1