Discourse coherence is an independent notion: A reply to Deirdre Wilson

Abstract The purpose of this reply is to further substantiate the claim that discourse coherence is an independent notion (cf. Giora, 1997). To do that, I show that discourses may be relevant in Sperber and Wilson's (1986/1995) sense, but incoherent. Such discourses challenge the claim that discourse coherence may be derived from relevance (as argued by e.g., Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995; Wilson, 1998). I further question the psychological reality of Sperber and Wilson's notion of relevance and the processing model their theory assumes.

[1]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? , 1982 .

[2]  R. Giora.  Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis , 1997 .

[3]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  The mechanism of suppression: a component of general comprehension skill. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Heather A. Stark.  What do paragraph markings do , 1988 .

[5]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  How Context Makes Metaphor Comprehension Seem 'Special' , 1989 .

[6]  Ofer Fein,et al.  Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. , 1998 .

[7]  W. Chafe.  Cognitive constraints on information flow , 1984 .

[8]  R. Giora.  On the so-called evaluative material in informative text , 1990 .

[9]  János S. Petöfi,et al.  Micro and macro connexity of texts , 1983 .

[10]  Marcelo Dascal,et al.  On the Roles of Context and Literal Meaning in Understanding , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  RAYMOND W. GIBBS,et al.  Literal Meaning and Psychological Theory , 1984, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  R. Giora,et al.  On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language☆ , 1999 .

[13]  R. Giora,et al.  Identification of written discourse topics by structure coherence and analogy strategies: General aspects and individual differences , 1996 .

[14]  A. Kasher.  Cognitive aspects of language use , 1988 .

[15]  Rachel Giora,et al.  Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory , 1997 .

[16]  J. Mahon.  The Poetics of Mind , 1996 .

[17]  Russell S. Tomlin,et al.  Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984 , 1987 .

[18]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[19]  Anna Papafragou,et al.  Figurative language and the semantics-pragmatics distinction , 1996 .

[20]  R. Gibbs.  On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. , 1986 .

[21]  Rachel Giora,et al.  On the Function of Analogies in Informative Texts. , 1993 .

[22]  RACHEL GIORA,et al.  A TEXT-BASED ANALYSIS OF NON-NARRATIVE TEXTS , 1985 .

[23]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding metaphor: the role of context , 1983 .

[24]  B. Keysar.  Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations , 1994 .

[25]  Sam Glucksberg,et al.  Metaphor and Communication , 1992 .

[26]  Rachel Giora,et al.  On the informativeness requirement , 1988 .

[27]  Robert E. Longacre,et al.  The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit , 1979 .

[28]  Regina Blass.  Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala , 1990 .

[29]  Marcelo Dascal.  Defending literal meaning , 1987 .

[30]  Mira Ariel.  The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar , 1991 .

[31]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Discourse, coherence and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora☆ , 1998 .

[32]  Begoña Vicente.  On the semantics and pragmatics of metaphor: coming full circle , 1996 .

[33]  R. Giora.  On irony and negation , 1995 .

[34]  B. Keysar.  On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. , 1989 .

[35]  Rachel Giora.  Segmentation and segment cohesion: On the thematic organization of the text , 1983 .

[36]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse , 1979 .

[37]  R. Giora,et al.  Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis , 1999 .

[38]  Rachel Giora,et al.  Notes towards a Theory of Text Coherence , 1985 .

[39]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Reading Skill and Suppression Revisited , 1995, Psychological science.

[40]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  The role of suppression in sentence comprehension , 1991 .

[42]  Mürvet Enç.  Topic Switching and Pronominal Subjects in Turkish , 1986 .

[43]  R. Gibbs.  A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse , 1982 .

[44]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  Studies in Turkish Linguistics , 1986 .

[45]  Sam Glucksberg,et al.  Metaphors in Conversation: How Are They Understood? Why Are They Used? , 1989 .

[46]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms: Some Effects of Context on Comprehension. Technical Report No. 93. , 1978 .

[47]  Talmy Givón,et al.  Discourse and syntax , 1982 .

[48]  Yo Matsumoto.  Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs , 1996 .

[49]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Language Comprehension As Structure Building , 1990 .

[50]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity. , 1990 .

[51]  Gregory B. Simpson,et al.  Understanding word and sentence , 1991 .

[52]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Pragmatics and modularity , 1986 .

[53]  S. Kemper,et al.  What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor comprehension? , 1987 .