Ad Sauca Anamaria Coherence Crp Ii 2019 2020 [605400]

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

COHERENCE

Sauca Anamaria -Mihaela
CRP II
25.05.2020

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

COHERENCE

Abstract :
Text coherence is one of the most important features of a text. When we say that a text is
coherent it means that the ideas transmitted through that text are logical, eas y to understand by the
reader, ther are expressed clearly and not in very long sentences, so that can easily understand what
that writer wanted to convey.
In addition to all those conditions that a text must meet in order to be called coherent,
coherence in turn has a number of conditions that it itself must meet. For example, coherence must
meet several semantic and pragmatic conditions for i t to be correct. At the same time, we have two
types of coherence, local coherence and global coherence, which will be presented in more detail
below.
In the end, in general, coherence is the characteristic of the text that is easy to understand
and analyze by the reader. Its information is logical, clear, precise and easy for the person to whom
the information reaches.

Introduct ion:
Defining coherence :
Coherence has several definitions throughout several books consulted, but some
definitions that caught my attention and that, at the same time, seem more interesting and
appropriate are:
• “The semantic property of discourses based on the interpretation of each indivi dual
sentence relative to the interpretation of other sentences. “
[van Djik (1977)]

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• “Procedures which ensure conceptual connectivity, including logical relations,
organization of events, objects and situations, and continuity in human experience. “
[Beaugra nde and Dressler, (1981)] (Hatim&Mason, 1990, 195)

• “Coherence is a quality of discourse supplied by any producer (or consumer) who produces
an interpretation of it in his or her own language (or in any other representational form). “
(Oller&Jonz, 1994, 31)

“[By this definition, coh erence is interactive, constructive, and dialectic. Meaningfulness
(alias coherence) in this light, is seen as something that is produced by a writer in the act
of discovery or by a reader in the act of inventing his or her own interpretation of someone
else’s or, in the case of the producer of a discourse, his or her own discourse.
Meaningfulness is dynamic, active, and productive in etiher case.] ” (Oller&Jonz, 1994, 31)
In other words, coherence is the ability of the author or writer to be cle ar and easy to
understand through what he wants to convey. T he ease with which the reader reads the information
results from the coherence coming from the lines written by the author. However, the task of the
writer/author is to convey clear, precise, coincise and coherent information.

Body :

Global coherence :
“In a programmatic way, Samet and Schank sketch the contents, goals and problems of a
general theory of coherence . According to Samet and Schank , intuitions of textual coherence are
a by-product, of our comprehension mechanisms. If they work smoothly when presented with a
text, then we think this text is coherent. The comprehension mechanisms work smoothly if the
representation of the text is prop erly formed and its parts are properly connected. Thus,
connectivity is at the heart of coherence . Samet and Schank concentrate on connectivity internal
to the discourse (as opposed to external connections between the discourse and the world). They
restric t their data to short, simple, narratives in the hope that what can be learned by investigating

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
these can serve as the basis for a more comprehensive study of discourse coherence ”. (Unger,
2016, 26).
“ A condition for connectivity is the existence of some form of semantic (or content) linkage
between the parts of a discourse representation. Intersentential content relations such as those
illustrated in (1) contribute crucially to connectivity, and hence to intuitions of coherence .”(Unger,
2016, 26).
a) Cause consequence: the eventuality described in the second sentence is a consequence of
the eventuality described in the first.
e.g.: Eliza didn’t water the flowers. Many flowers withered.

b) Temporal succession: the eventuality described in the second sente nce occurs after the
eventuality described in the first. (This relation is called ,,narration” in Fox 1987 and
Lascarides and Asher 1993).
e.g.: Many flowers almost withered. Eliza watered each one.

c) Reason -result: the eventuality described in the second sentence provides a reason for the
event described in the first.
e.g.: Eliza always takes care of the flowers. She loves them.
“The term global is pretty strong, even if we qualify it by s aying it refers only to the role
of cases and verdicts and their contributions to coherence. The consideration of all cases would
include even hypothetical cases. Someone might want to restrict the cases involved in coherence
calculations to those which an d individual has encountered in his or her lifetime. This is clearly
something less thasn global coherence, but the calculations involves in the coherence assessment
would still be more than we could expect someone to do in a lifetime – hence the expression non-
local coherence. “(Araszkiewicz & Šavelka , 2013, 197).

Micro and macro -speech acts:
“There are also the local and global levels of structure. The single sentences of the discourse
convey a chain of micro -speech acts. These micro -speech acts implement one ore more macro –

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
speech acts. These micro -speech acts, in turn, implement more global macro -acts, until finally the
core speech act of the discourse is accomplished. (Zhixin, 2016.) ”
“ However, the relationship between macro speech acts and the micro speech acts is not a
relation of condensation, in the same way that the sema ntic propositions are, but rather a means/end
relation. In other words, macro -speech acts are implemented through micro -speech acts. The
overarching goal of a discourse is realized through the achievement of a series of instrumental
subgoals. Similar to th e semantic interpretation, macro -speech acts can be identified from micro –
speech acts wirth the help of macrorules of deletion, generalization and reconstruction. In addition,
as explained in the previous parts related to functional coherence and textual s chema, this hierarchy
of speech acts also contributes to the local anf global coherence of discourse ”. (Zhixin, 2016.)
“For example, a micro -speech act, be it an assertive or a directive, has its own
characteristics, or properties; therefore, it c an be understood on its own terms without being
‘reffered up’ to any macro -speech acts. Its essential dimensions, such as the purpose of the act and
the direction of fit between words and the world, will remain intact regardless of what kind of
macro speec h act it belongs to. ” (Stein, 2011, 261)
“ On the other hand, although our conception and full understanding of any macro -speech
act within a discourse does, in one way or another, trace back to or call upon the meaning of low –
level micro -speech acts. It has its own cognitive ‘necessity’ (van Dijk 1981:210). In order to secure
overall discourse coherence, to comprehend local macro -speech, we have to mentally formulate
some macro -speech acts relative to the topic discourse but not necessarily derivable from each and
every micro -speech act. ” (Stein, 20 11, 262)

Semantic and pragmatic conditions:
“ Reinhart’s concept of coherence involves conditions of both a formal (connectedness)
semantic (consistency) and pragmatic (relevance) character. ” (Rickheit&Habel, 2011, 194).
“Coherence is not only semantic, but may also be determined by pragmatic conditions.
Clearly, connections between facts should be satisfied not only ‘objectivly’ but also relative
language users and communicative contexte. Similarly, the connections must rel ate not only facts
but also speech acts. Thus, one speech act may constitute a condition, component, or consequence
of another speech act. “ (cf. van Dijk, 1977) [Just&Carpenter, 1977, 6].

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
“A major pragmatic constraint on discourse is that it be informative; consequently,
information that the hearer already knows need to be expressed and asserted. Just as lexical
coherence (collocation) sets up collocation -chains in a text, linked as we have seen by logical and
pragmatic inferences, so does similarity -coherence (anaphora) set up reference -chaims, linking
together items by inferences about probable identity. ” (Werth, 2016).
“We take coherence. Therefore, to be essentially a matter of logical or pragmatic
relationship between semanti c-pragmatic configurations (including both semantic and pragmatic
inferences). ” (Werth, 2016).
“At the conceptual level, coherence lies within the logical -semantic range, ensuring the
maintenance of the topic or subject, the semantic structure, a nd the development of the topic of the
text, among others factors responsible for making sense. Basically, logical semantic
representations and pragmatic conditions ensure connectivity and good text structure. (Campos da
Costa, 2010, 57). ”
“ Hence , the notion of coherence of a semantic -pragmatic nature arises out of the sense a
text makes to the listener/reader. A simple sentence, a lively conversation, a newspaper article, a
literary piece of writing, the speech of a politician, a book, an officia l document, the report on an
event, that is, any kind of communication, regardless of its length, must have signification or, in
other words, must be coherent. ” (Campos da Costa, 2010, 57).

Local coherence:
“ The local coherence co nstruction and the local meaning assignment can/must to a great
extent rely on the capacity of local action oriented inferences for integration into inferences which
are directed to higher -order actions and to global action schemata. ”
(Heydrich&Neubauer&Pet ofi&Sozer, 1989, 207).
“Charolles (1978) distinguishes local coherence, which occurs in an inter -phrasal mode,
and global coherence, which is present in phrasal sequences. In both plans, linearity is understood
as a coherence factor. “(Campos da Costa, 2010, 56).
“When a discours is properly construed it will be coherent in the sense that the different
constitutive parts will follow each other in a natural, interpretable way. This holds both for the
local sequencing of clauses (lo cal coherence) and for the sequencing of more global discourse units
(global coherence). If either at the local or at the global level the principles of natural sequencing

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
are not observed, the discours will be, in that respect incoherent and difficult or impossible to
interpret. ” (Dik, 1989, 433).

Conclusion:
Finally, the coherence of the text is specific to the clear, correct information, which is
transmitted to the reader in a simple and easy way. If the reader manages to penetrate the
information as easily as possible, he understands at first what is said in the text, it means that the
text is coherent.

References:

Hatim, B & Mason, I Discourse and the Translator London: Longman, 1990.
Oller, J .W. & Jonz, J. Cloze and coherence . Cranbury, New Jersey: Bucknell University Press.
Unger, C. 2006 . Genre. Relevance and Global Coherence: The Pragmatics of Discourse Type , Palgrave Macmillan.
Araszkiewic z, M. & Šavelk a, J. 2013, Coherence: Insigh ts from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence .
Kindle Editio n.
Zhixin, P . 2017, Assessing Listening for Chinese English Learners: Developing a Communicative Listening
Comprehension Test Suite for CE T. Routledge
Stein, D . 2011, Cooperating with Written Texts : The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Text s. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter .
Rickheit, G. and C. Habel (eds.). 1995 . Focus and Coherence in Discourse Processing . Berlin & New York: de
Gruyter
Just, M. A. & Carpenter P. A. Cognitive processes in comprehension . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
(distributed by John Wil ey, New York and Chichester, Sussex), 1977 .
Werth, P. 2016 . Focus. Coherence. and Emphasis . Kindle Editio n, Routledge.
Campos da Costa, J. 20 10. Topics On Relevance Theor y. Edipucrs; Geral edition .
Heydric h, W. & Neubaue r, F. & Petöf i J. S. & Söze r, E., 1989 , Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of Text and
Discours e . De Gruyter .
Dik, S. C., 1989, Complex and Derived Constructions . Mouton de Gruyte r.