Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations
A central issue in linguistics concerns the relationship between theories and evidence in data. We investigate this issue in the field of discourse coherence, and particularly the study of coherence relations such as causal and contrastive. Proposed inventories of coherence relations differ greatly...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Presses universitaires de Caen
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Discours |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/discours/12075 |
| _version_ | 1797997053476864000 |
|---|---|
| author | Merel C.J. Scholman Vera Demberg Ted J.M. Sanders |
| author_facet | Merel C.J. Scholman Vera Demberg Ted J.M. Sanders |
| author_sort | Merel C.J. Scholman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A central issue in linguistics concerns the relationship between theories and evidence in data. We investigate this issue in the field of discourse coherence, and particularly the study of coherence relations such as causal and contrastive. Proposed inventories of coherence relations differ greatly in the type and number of proposed relations. Such proposals are often validated by focusing on either the descriptive adequacy (researcher’s intuitions on textual interpretations) or the cognitive plausibility of distinctions (empirical research on cognition). We argue that both are important, and note that the concept of cognitive plausibility is in need of a concrete definition and quantifiable operationalization. This contribution focuses on how the criterion of cognitive plausibility can be operationalized and presents a systematic validation approach to evaluate discourse frameworks. This is done by detailing how various sources of evidence can be used to support or falsify distinctions between coherence relational labels. Finally, we present methodological issues regarding verification and falsification that are of importance to all discourse researchers studying the relationship between theory and data. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T10:25:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-616ef950b1ee492299f4e99af47b07fb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1963-1723 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T10:25:52Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Presses universitaires de Caen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Discours |
| spelling | doaj.art-616ef950b1ee492299f4e99af47b07fb2022-12-22T04:29:34ZengPresses universitaires de CaenDiscours1963-17232022-09-013010.4000/discours.12075Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence RelationsMerel C.J. ScholmanVera DembergTed J.M. SandersA central issue in linguistics concerns the relationship between theories and evidence in data. We investigate this issue in the field of discourse coherence, and particularly the study of coherence relations such as causal and contrastive. Proposed inventories of coherence relations differ greatly in the type and number of proposed relations. Such proposals are often validated by focusing on either the descriptive adequacy (researcher’s intuitions on textual interpretations) or the cognitive plausibility of distinctions (empirical research on cognition). We argue that both are important, and note that the concept of cognitive plausibility is in need of a concrete definition and quantifiable operationalization. This contribution focuses on how the criterion of cognitive plausibility can be operationalized and presents a systematic validation approach to evaluate discourse frameworks. This is done by detailing how various sources of evidence can be used to support or falsify distinctions between coherence relational labels. Finally, we present methodological issues regarding verification and falsification that are of importance to all discourse researchers studying the relationship between theory and data.http://journals.openedition.org/discours/12075discoursecoherence relationscognitive plausibilitydescriptive adequacydiscourse theories |
| spellingShingle | Merel C.J. Scholman Vera Demberg Ted J.M. Sanders Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations Discours discourse coherence relations cognitive plausibility descriptive adequacy discourse theories |
| title | Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations |
| title_full | Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations |
| title_fullStr | Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations |
| title_short | Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible? Validating Distinctions between Types of Coherence Relations |
| title_sort | descriptively adequate and cognitively plausible validating distinctions between types of coherence relations |
| topic | discourse coherence relations cognitive plausibility descriptive adequacy discourse theories |
| url | http://journals.openedition.org/discours/12075 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT merelcjscholman descriptivelyadequateandcognitivelyplausiblevalidatingdistinctionsbetweentypesofcoherencerelations AT verademberg descriptivelyadequateandcognitivelyplausiblevalidatingdistinctionsbetweentypesofcoherencerelations AT tedjmsanders descriptivelyadequateandcognitivelyplausiblevalidatingdistinctionsbetweentypesofcoherencerelations |