Local Coherence in Stream-of-consciousness Discourse: A Centering Approach
An evaluation metric comprising a battery of five-test criteria other than the standard Centering of “salience” and “cohesion” and Kibble’s version of “cohesion”, “salience”, “cheapness” and “no backward-looking center” is developed in this paper to involve “coherence”, “salience”, “cheapness”, “cohesion” and “no backward-looking center” in measuring the degree of coherence of different transition sequences in stream-of-consciousness (SOC) discourse on the premise of the distinction between coherence and cohesion. The addition of “coherence” and the distinction between lexical cohesion and cognitive and/or pragmatic coherence are crucial to the characterization of coherence in stream-of-consciousness discourse, which the Rule 2 of standard Centering cannot adequately capture. Cohesion mainly dwells upon semantic relatedness between two backward-looking centers, which can be resolved in frame semantics. Coherence cares more about relatedness between two backward-looking centers motivated by cognitive and/or pragmatic factors. In other words, two backward-looking centers may be semantically unrelated, but they strike up a relation with each other either temporarily or permanently due to cognitive and/or pragmatic factors.
Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W., & Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.155-162). Stanford, California.
Fais, L. (2004). Inferable centers, centering transitions, and the notion of coherence. Computational Linguistics, 30(2), 119-150.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203-225.
Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1998). Lost intuitions and forgotten intentions. In Walker et al. (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kibble, R. (2001). A reformulation of rule 2 of centering theory. Computational Linguistics, 27(4): 579-587.
Kibble, R. J., Richard, D., & Power, J. (2000). An integrated framework for text planning and pronominalisation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp.77-84).
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poesio, M. (2004a). The MATE/GNOME scheme for anaphoric annotation, revisited, Proceedings of SIGDIAL. Boston.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1997). Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science, 275, 1604-1610.
Strube, M., & Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering: Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics, 25(3), 309-344.
Taboada, M., & Zabala, H. (2008). Deciding on units of analysis within centering theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 63-108.
Walker, M. A., Iida, M., & Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 193-233.
- There are currently no refbacks.
If you have already registered in Journal A and plan to submit article(s) to Journal B, please click the CATEGORIES, or JOURNALS A-Z on the right side of the "HOME".
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
Address: 730, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138