1932

Abstract

The primary goal of coherence theory is to provide an explanation for the coherence properties of discourse: what properties distinguish a discourse from a mere collection of utterances, and what drives comprehenders to draw inferences in service of establishing coherence. However, the importance of coherence theory goes well beyond that; it also plays a crucial role in theories of a variety of discourse-dependent linguistic phenomena. This article surveys some ways in which coherence theory has been leveraged in this way, appealing to both Relational analyses and Question-Under-Discussion models. Theories of coherence establishment should therefore have a place in the linguist's toolbox as a source of explanation in linguistic theory.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357
2022-01-14
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allen JF, Perrault CR 1980. Analyzing intention in utterances. Artif. Intell. 15:3143–78
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AnderBois S. 2010. Sluicing as anaphora to issues. Proc. Semant. Linguist. Theory 20:451–70
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AnderBois S. 2014. The semantics of sluicing: beyond truth-conditions. Language 90:4887–926
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arregui A, Clifton C, Frazier L, Moulton K 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: the recycling hypothesis. J. Mem. Lang. 55:2232–46
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Asher N, Lascarides A. 2003. Logics of Conversation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Barros M. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis PhD Thesis Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, NJ:
  7. Büring D. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguist. Philos. 26:511–45
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson L. 1983. Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
  9. Cohen PR, Morgan J, Pollack ME 1990. Introduction. Intentions in Communication PR Cohen, J Morgan, ME Pollack 1–13 Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen PR, Perrault CR. 1979. Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cogn. Sci. 3:177–213
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie B. 1985. Tense Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. Dahl Ö 1974. How to open a sentence: abstraction in natural language Log. Gramm. Rep. 12 Univ. Göteborg Göteborg, Swed:.
  13. Dalrymple M 2005. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 81 Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech R Elugardo, RJ Stainton 31–55 Dordrecht: Springer NetherlandsPublished version of technical report circulated in 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Elliott PD, Nicolae A, Sudo Y 2014. The sticky reading: VP ellipsis without parallel binding. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24)640–55 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Frazier L, Clifton C. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguist. Philos. 29:3315–46
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fukumura K, van Gompel RPG. 2010. Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference?. J. Mem. Lang. 62:52–66
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ginzburg J 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialog. Language, Logic and Computation 1 J Seligman 221–37 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ginzburg J. 2012. The Interactive Stance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  19. Ginzburg J, Sag IA. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  20. Goldsmith J. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Papers from the Twenty-First Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society133–43 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grant M, Clifton C, Frazier L 2012. The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. J. Mem. Lang. 66:1326–43
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Grosz BJ, Sidner CL. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Comput. Linguist. 12:3175–204
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday M, Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English London: Longman
  24. Hardt D. 1992. Verb phrase ellipsis and semantic identity. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 2)145–61 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hardt D. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguist. Philos. 22:2187–221
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinrichs E. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguist. Philos. 9:63–82
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobbs JR. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cogn. Sci. 3:67–90
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hobbs JR. 1990. Literature and Cognition Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  29. Hobbs JR 1997. On the relation between the informational and intentional perspectives on discourse. Computational and Conversational Discourse EH Hovy, DR Scott 139–57 Berlin: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hobbs JR, Stickel ME, Appelt DE, Martin P. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artif. Intell. 63:69–142
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hume D. 1955 (1748. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding New York: Lib. Arts Press
  32. Jacobson P. 2016. The short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92:2331–75
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaiser E. 2011. On the relation between coherence relations and anaphoric demonstratives in German. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15337–51 Saarbrücken, Ger: Saarland Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaiser E, Cherqaoui B 2016. Effects of coherence on anaphor resolution, and vice versa: evidence from French personal pronouns and anaphoric demonstratives. Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution A Holler, K Suckow 51–78 Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kehler A. 1993. The effect of establishing coherence in ellipsis and anaphora resolution. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics62–69 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kehler A. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguist. Philos. 23:6533–75
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kehler A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  38. Kehler A. 2005. Coherence-driven constraints on the placement of accent. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 15)98–115 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kehler A. 2015. On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25)512–32 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kehler A 2019. Ellipsis and discourse. The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis J van Craenenbroeck, T Temmerman 314–41 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kehler A, Büring D 2008. Be bound or be disjoint!. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 38) 1 A Schardl, M Walkow, M Abdurrahman 487–501 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kehler A, Kertz L, Rohde H, Elman JL. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. J. Semant. 25:11–44
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kehler A, Rohde H. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theor. Linguist. 39:1–21–37
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kehler A, Rohde H. 2016. Evaluating an expectation-driven QUD model of discourse interpretation. Discourse Process. 54:219–38
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kehler A, Rohde H. 2019. Prominence and coherence in a Bayesian theory of pronoun interpretation. J. Pragmat. 154:63–78
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kertz L. 2008. Focus structure and acceptability in verb phrase ellipsis. Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics283–91 Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kertz L. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: the view from information structure. Language 89:3390–428
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kertz L, Kehler A, Elman JL. 2006. Grammatical and coherence-based factors in pronoun interpretation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society1636–41 Austin, Tex: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Keshet E 2013. Sloppy identity unbound. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 23) T Snider 412–31 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim C, Runner J 2009. Strict identity, coherence, and parallelism in VP ellipsis. Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 19)275–87 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kim C, Runner J 2011. Discourse structure and syntactic parallelism in VP ellipsis. UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Processing Linguistic Structure J Harris, M Grant 75–102 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuno S 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy—a reexamination of the relativization phenomena. Subject and Topic CN Li 419–44 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kuno S. 1987. Functional Syntax—Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
  54. Lakoff G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. CLS-22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second Annual Regional Meeting152–67 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lascarides A, Asher N. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations, and common sense entailment. Linguist. Philos. 16:5437–93
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Levin N, Prince EF. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Papers Linguist. 19:351–64
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Longacre RE. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse New York: Plenum
  58. Mann WC, Thompson SA. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: a theory of text organization Tech. Rep. RS-87-190, Inf. Sci. Inst., Univ. South. Calif. Marina del Rey
  59. Miller P, Hemforth B. 2014. VP ellipsis beyond syntactic identity: the case of nominal antecedents Work. Pap. , Paris Diderot Univ. Paris, Fr:.
  60. Miller P, Pullum GK 2014. Exophoric VP ellipsis. The Core and the Periphery: Data-Driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag P Hofmeister, E Norcliffe 5–32 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Nerbonne J. 1986. Reference time and time in narration. Linguist. Philos. 9:83–95
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Partee B. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguist. Philos. 7:243–86
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Polanyi L. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. J. Pragmat. 12:601–38
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Poppels T, Kehler A. 2019. Ellipsis and the QUD: evidence from sluicing with nominal antecedents Paper presented at the 8th Experimental Pragmatics Conference (XPRAG 2019 Edinburgh, UK: June 19–21
  65. Prasad R, Dinesh N, Lee A, Miltsakaki E, Robaldo L et al. 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)2961–68 Paris: Eur. Lang. Res. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Reichenbach H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic New York: Macmillan
  67. Roberts C 2012. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semant. Pragmat. 5:61–69Published version of draft circulated in 1996 and amended in 1998.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Rohde H. 2008. Coherence-driven effects in sentence and discourse processing PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. San Diego, La Jolla:
  69. Rohde H, Kehler A. 2014. Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 29:8912–27
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Rohde H, Kehler A, Elman JL. 2007. Pronoun interpretation as a side effect of discourse coherence. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2007)617–22 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Rosa EC, Arnold JE. 2017. Predictability affects production: thematic roles can affect reference form selection. J. Mem. Lang. 94:43–60
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Sanders TJM, Spooren WPM, Noordman LGM. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Process. 15:1–35
    [Google Scholar]
  74. SanPietro SA, Xiang M, Merchant J 2012. Accounting for voice mismatch in ellipsis. Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics32–42 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proc. Proj.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Schwarzschild R. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Nat. Lang. Semant. 7:141–77
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stalnaker R. 1979. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics P Cole 315–32 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  77. van Kuppevelt J. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality, and questioning. J. Linguist. 31:109–47
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Webber BL. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Comput. Linguist. 14:261–73
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Webber BL, Prasad R, Lee A, Joshi A. 2019. The Penn Discourse Treebank 3.0 Annotation Manual https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2019T05/PDTB3-Annotation-Manual.pdf
  80. Webber BL, Stone M, Joshi A, Knott A. 2003. Anaphora and discourse structure. Comput. Linguist. 29:4545–87
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Weir A 2014. Fragment answers and the question under discussion. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 38) J Iyer, L Kusmer 255–66 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Winograd T. 1972. Understanding Natural Language New York: Academic
  83. Wolf F, Gibson E. 2006. Coherence in Natural Language: Data Structures and Applications Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  84. Zhan M, Levy R, Kehler A 2020. Pronoun interpretation in Mandarin Chinese follows principles of Bayesian inference. PLOS ONE 15:8e0237012
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error