1887
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper argues for a pragmatically based reconsideration of cohesion-based approaches to information retrieval during comprehension, suggesting that a Relevance-based approach is preferable on both descriptive and explanatory grounds. It outlines a number of descriptive and explanatory problems dating back to Halliday and Hasan’s (1976, 1985; Hasan 1984) early view of cohesion, which seem to call for pragmatic solutions, and argues that and utterances raise serious questions as to the text-constitutive potential of cohesion. It goes on to discuss a number of cases that seem to pose problems for purely cohesion-based approaches but are straightforwardly explained by the Relevance-Theoretic account.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.1.03kol
2015-03-01
2019-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asher, N. , and A. Lascarides
    (2003) Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakemore, D
    (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning; The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blass, R
    (1990) Relevance Relations in Discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586293
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586293 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, R
    (2000) The relationship between generative grammar and (Relevance-Theoretic) pragmatics. Language and Communication20: 87-103. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00020‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00020-8 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  7. Charolles, M
    (1985) Text connexity, text coherence and text interpretation processes. In E. Sözer (ed.), Text Connexity, Text Coherence: Aspects, methods, results. Hamburg: Buske, pp.1-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1989) Coherence as a principle in the regulation of discourse production. In W. Heydrich et al. (eds.), Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.3-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coates, J
    (1995) The negotiating of coherence in face-to-face interaction. In M.A. Gernsbacher , and T. Givón (eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.41-58. doi: 10.1075/tsl.31.03coa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31.03coa [Google Scholar]
  10. Danes, F
    (1989) Report of Roger van de Velde’s paper ‘Man, verbal text, inferencing, and coherence’. In W. Heydrich et al. (eds.), Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.228-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Beaugrande, A. , and W. Dressler
    (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dijk, T.A. van
    (2006) Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies8: 159-177. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059565
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dressler, W
    (1978) Current Τrends in Τextlinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110853759
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853759 [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T
    (1995) Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M.A. Gernsbacher , and T. Givón (eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.59-115. doi: 10.1075/tsl.31.04giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31.04giv [Google Scholar]
  15. (2002) Towards a neuro-cognitive interpretation of ‘context’. Pragmatics and Cognition9: 175-201. doi: 10.1075/pc.9.2.02giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.9.2.02giv [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenbaum, S
    (1969) Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grosz, B. , and C. Sidner
    (1986) Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics12: 175-204.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grosz, B. , A.K. Joshi , and S. Weinstein
    (1995) Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics21: 203-225.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gutwinski, W
    (1976) Cohesion in Literary Texts: A study of some grammatical and lexical features. The Hague: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783111352176
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111352176 [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M.A.K. , and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1985) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hart, C
    (2011) Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration. Discourse Studies13: 751-769. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasan, R
    (1984) Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension. Delaware: International Reading Association, pp.181-219.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heydrich, W. , F. Neubauer , J.S. Petofi , and E. Sorer
    (1989) Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110854831
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110854831 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hobbs, J. , M. Stickel , D. Appelt , and P. Martin
    (1993) Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence63: 69-142. doi: 10.1016/0004‑3702(93)90015‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lascarides, A. , and N. Asher
    (2009) Agreement, disputes and commitment in dialogue. Journal of Semantics26: 109-158. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffn013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffn013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lascarides, A. , A. Copestake , and T. Briscoe
    (1996) Ambiguity and coherence. Journal of Semantics13: 41-65. doi: 10.1093/jos/13.1.41
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lascarides, A. , and M. Stone
    (2009) Discourse coherence and gesture interpretation. Gesture9: 147-180. doi: 10.1075/gest.9.2.01las
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.9.2.01las [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lundquist, L
    (1985) Coherence: From structures to processes. In E. Sözer (ed.), Text Connexity, Text Coherence: Aspects, methods, results. Hamburg: Buske, pp.151-175.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Maillat, D. , and S. Oswald
    (2009) Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics1: 348-370. doi: 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  32. Marti, L
    (2006) Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy29: 135-166. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑005‑4740‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-4740-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Matsui, T
    (2000) Bridging and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benhamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.76
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.76 [Google Scholar]
  34. Oswald, S
    (2011) From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies13: 806-814. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360e
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360e [Google Scholar]
  35. Petöfi, J.S
    (1973) Studies in Text Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2636‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2636-9 [Google Scholar]
  36. Petöfi, J.S. , and E. Söze
    (1983) Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Quirk, R. , S. Greenbaum , G. Leech , and J. Svartik
    (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sanjose, V. , E. Vidal-Abarca , and O.M. Padilla
    (2006) A connectionist extension to Kintsch’s Construction-Integration model. Discourse Processes42: 1-35. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4201_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4201_1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Saussure, L. de
    (2007) Procedural pragmatics and the study of discourse. Pragmatics and Cognition15: 139-159. doi: 10.1075/pc.15.1.10sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.10sau [Google Scholar]
  41. (2011) Discourse analysis, cognition and evidential. Discourse Studies13: 781-788. doi: 10.1177/1461445611421360b
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360b [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1981) Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp.295-318.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90: 1-25. (Reprinted in Wilson and Sperber 2012: 149-163.) doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Stanley, J
    (2002) Making it articulated. Mind and Language17: 149-168. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0017.00193
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00193 [Google Scholar]
  46. Toolan, M.J
    (2000) Language in Literature. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Unger, C
    (2007) Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence: The pragmatics of discourse type. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Velde, R.G. van de
    (1981) Textuality and human reasoning. Text1: 395-406.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1989) Man, verbal text, inferencing, and coherence. In W. Heydrich et al. (eds.), Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.174-217.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Webber, B. , A. Knott , M. Stone , and A. Joshi
    (2003) Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics29: 545-588. doi: 10.1162/089120103322753347
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120103322753347 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson, D
    (1998) Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora. Journal of Pragmatics29: 57-74. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00012‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00012-X [Google Scholar]
  52. (2011) The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal , M. Leonetti , and A. Ahern (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and perspectives. Bingley: Emerald, pp.3-31. doi: 10.1108/S1472‑7870(2011)0000025005
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, D. , and T. Matsui
    (1998) Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics10: 173-200. (Reprinted in Wilson and Sperber 2012: 187-209.)
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilson, D. , and D. Sperber
    (2004) Relevance theory. In G. Ward , and L. Horn (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.607-632.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2012) Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.1.03kol
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error