CoherenceinDiscourse语篇连贯

Louwerse, M.M. & Graesser, A.C. (2005). Coherence in discourse. In Strazny, P. (ed.),

Encyclopedia of linguistics. (pp. 216-218) Chicago, Fitzroy Dearborn.

Coherence in Discourse

Discourse is a communicative event in which language plays a prominent role. It

minimally requires a sender (writer, speaker), a receiver (reader, listener), and a message

that is being communicated. This message is not just a concatenation of clauses; it forms

a unified, coherent whole. Both the sender and receiver normally have the implicit

agreement that the message being communicated is coherent.

Coherence in discourse has been studied in a range of disciplines, including

linguistics, philology, sociology, philosophy, psychology, and computer science.

Linguists identify and analyze inventories of the linguistic markers of coherence that are

available in a language. Sociologists explore the production and comprehension of

coherent discourse in naturalistic conversations that involve different groups and cultures.

Psychologists collect data in experiments that test hypotheses about the effect of

coherence on cognitive processing and representations. Computer scientists design and

test computer models that attempt to produce and test coherent text.

The term coherence has been defined in various ways. Some researchers apply the

term cohesion to the surface structure of the text and the term coherence to the concepts

and relations underlying its meaning. Cohesion has sometimes been applied to smaller

units of language in the text, and coherence, to some general overall interrelatedness in

the text. Other researchers have defined cohesion as continuity in word and sentence

structure, and coherence as continuity in meaning and context. As in the case of

coherence, discourse has been defined in different ways. Several years ago, the term

discourse was reserved for dialogue, and text was reserved for monologue. In

1

contemporary research, discourse covers both monologic and dialogic spoken and written

language.

Somewhat more subtle distinctions are sometimes made. One can distinguish

between discourse-as-product (the linguistic construct) and discourse-as-process (the

communicative event). Coherence can be reserved for the conceptual relationships that

comprehenders use to construct a coherent mental representation accommodated by what

is said in the discourse. Cohesion is limited to the linguistic markers that cue the

comprehender on how to build such coherent representations. Cohesion emphasizes

discourse-as-product, and coherence emphasizes discourse-as-process.

Cohesion alone is not sufficient for the interpretation of the discourse.

Comprehenders generate inferences on the basis of background knowledge and discourse

constraints. Much of the background knowledge is experiential, so it involves common

procedures and activities (called scripts), social interactions, and spatial settings. For

instance, a narrative usually describes a setting, an action sequence with a conflict and

plot, and an outcome. A script for eating in a restaurant would furnish inferences and help

coherently tie together the explicit content of a narrative about a bad restaurant

experience. Although cohesion alone cannot fully account for coherence in discourse, the

psycholinguistic literature has shown that cohesion facilitates coherence.

Cohesion and coherence can be divided into local (microstructure) and global

(macrostructure). Local cohesion and coherence concern the interrelatedness between

adjacent discourse segments. Global cohesion and coherence concern the interrelatedness

of larger spans of discourse. For instance, scripted action sequences are globally

coherent. Also there are the rhetorical structures of narrative (such as setting + conflict +

2

plot + resolution), expository (such as claim + evidence, problem + solution), and other

discourse genres.

Cohesion and coherence can be grammar driven and vocabulary driven.

Grammar-driven cohesion refers to sentence structure, word structure, and the intonation

of the discourse segments. Vocabulary-driven cohesion refers to the lexical vocabulary of

the discourse segment. These cohesion cues activate vocabulary-driven (pre-grammatical,

knowledge-based) and grammar-driven (syntax-based) coherence. Vocabulary-driven and

grammar-driven coherence are not necessarily mutually exclusive but often support each

other, as illustrated below.

Consider the sentence The dean (i) read the New York Times (ii) in his office

(iii). A paraphrase with grammar-driven cohesion would reduce the discourse elements to

the grammatical necessities: He (i) always reads it (ii) there (iii). A vocabulary-driven

paraphrase, on the other hand, would find meaningful lexical alternatives, as in The man

(i) always reads the newspaper (ii) behind his desk (iii).

In addition to the distinctions between local and global and between grammar-

and vocabulary-driven cohesion, the types of cohesion discussed below have often been

recognized.

Conjunctions relate adjacent discourse segments. There have been several

classifications of these conjunctions in virtually every field. Most of these classifications

include additive (and, but), temporal (before, until), and causal (because, although)

conjunctions that are either extensive (and, before, because) or adversative (but, until,

although).

Coreference specifies that two expressions refer to the same entity. Often the

3

coreference is grammar-driven by the use of pronouns, both pronominal (he, she) and

reflexive (himself, herself). The interpretation of these pronouns is determined by their

antecedents, i.e., previously mentioned words referring to the same person or object. The

coreference can be both forward and backward. Anaphoric reference is a backward

reference to an antecedent noun phrase or clause that was introduced earlier in the

discourse (John kissed Mary because he loved her). Cataphoric reference is a forward

reference to a noun phrase or clause that will be mentioned later in the text (Because he

loved her, John kissed Mary).

With substitution, repeated forms, and ellipsis, a constituent of one expression is

replaced by a constituent of another (substitution), is repeated (repeated forms), or is

omitted (ellipsis). The intended meanings can be reconstructed from the preceding

discourse and from world knowledge.

Will we make it on time?

1. I think so (substitution of we will make it in time by so).

2. Yes, we will make it on time (repeated forms).

3. If we hurry (ellipsis: we will make it on time is omitted).

With lexical relationships, the type of cohesion is vocabulary driven. Two lexical

items are related to each other insofar as they mean the same thing (synonyms) or the

opposite thing (antonyms), stand in a superset/subset relationship (hypernym vs.

hyponym, respectively), or have some other conceptual relationship.

The tax collector sent another letter.

1. I don’t like this guy.

2. That monster never leaves us alone.

4

3. The sweetheart keeps asking for more each year.

With comparison, a constituent in an expression is compared with a constituent in

another expression (I like the oak cabinet. The pine desk is much nicer).

Discourse psychologists have extensively investigated five cohesion and

coherence relations that are related to the previously mentioned seven: referential, spatial,

causal, temporal, and additive relationships. They answer the questions of the who,

where, why, when, and what of the events described by the discourse. Explicit markers

facilitate the comprehension process.

Several classifications of relations have been proposed. Some focus only on the

closed set of grammar-driven cohesion, whereas others include vocabulary-driven

relations and relations that are reconstructed from world knowledge and the unique

situation conveyed in the text. Those classifications that go beyond grammar consider the

intentions of the producer of the communicative event. In written monologic discourse,

comprehenders can rely on linguistic cues to a great extent (although not completely).

However, in oral dialogic discourse, there are conversational cues that go well beyond

print, such as intonation, gestures, and the physical environment.

A complete theory of discourse coherence requires a harmonious layering of

several levels, including vocabulary, sentence structure, meaning, discourse context,

style, and world knowledge. When these levels lack coordination, the coherence is more

difficult. To get the message across, the sender will try to coordinate the levels. The

receiver assumes that the sender’s message is intended to be well formed and will make

every attempt to construct a coherent interpretation.

5

Max Louwerse and Art Graesser

Further Reading

Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang U. Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics.

Harlow: Longman, 1981.

Brown, Gillian and George Yule, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1983

Clark, Herbert H., Using Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996

Costermans, Jean & Michel Fayol, editors, Processing Interclausal Relationships. Studies in

the Production and Comprehension of Text. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, New York: Academic Press,

1994

Givón, Talmy, “Coherence in the Text and Coherence in the Mind”, in Coherence in

Spontaneous Text, edited by Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Talmy Givón, Amsterdam:

John Benjamins, 1995

Graesser, Arthur C. & Gordon H. Bower, editors, Inferences and Text Comprehension,

San Diego: Academic Press, 1990.

Halliday, Michael A. K. Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976

Knott, Alistair and Chris Mellish, “A Feature-Based Account of the Relations Signalled

by Sentence and Clause Connectives. Journal of Language and Speech 39 (1996)

Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a

functional theory of text organization,” Text 8 (1987)

6

Van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, New York:

Academic Press, 1983

7