| { |
| "paper_id": "J78-3022", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T03:04:48.946586Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Toward a Rat iona 1 Model o f Discourse Comprehens i o n", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Morgan", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "The essence o f language i s human a c t i v i t y-a c t i v i t y on the p a r t o f one i n d i v i d u a l t o make h i m s e l f understood by another, and a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h a t o t h e r-t o understand what was i n the mind o f the t i rs t.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J78-3022", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The essence o f language i s human a c t i v i t y-a c t i v i t y on the p a r t o f one i n d i v i d u a l t o make h i m s e l f understood by another, and a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h a t o t h e r-t o understand what was i n the mind o f the t i rs t.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "These two I n d i v i d u a l s , the producer and the r e c i p i e n t o f language, o r as we may more conv e n i e n t l y c a l l them, the speaker and t h e heare r , and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s t o one another, should never be l o s t s i g h t o f i f we want t o understand the n a t u r e o f language and o f t h a t p a r t o f language which i s d e a l t w i t h i n grammar. But i n former times t h i s was o f t e n overlooked, and words and forms were o f ten t r e a t e d as i f they were t h l n g s o r n a t u r a l o b j e c t s w i t h an e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i r own--a conception which may have been t o a g r e a t e x t e n t f o s t e r e d through a tbo exc lus l v e preoccupat i o n w i t h y r i t t e n o r p r i n t e d words, b u t which i s fundam e n t a l l y f a l s e , as w i I 1 easl l y be seen w i t h a l i t t l e r e f l e x l o n . (p. 17) Speakers d e f i n e , qual i f y , and modify T h i s c o n f u s i o n i s so t e m p t i n g t h a t i t i s pervas i v e i n every f i e l d t h a t s t u d i e s language, a t any l e v e l .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "I t I S almost u n i v e r s a l i n l i n g u i s t i c s . We f i n d i t , f o r example, i n the f o l l o w~n g from Hal l i day and ttasan ( 1976) , who probably know b e t t e r L e t us s t a r t w i t h a stmple and t r i v t g l examp l e Suppose we f i n d the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u ct i o n s i n the cookery bobk.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 145, |
| "end": 152, |
| "text": "( 1976)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "[ I 11 Wash and core S I X cooking Apples. There a r e two s e r l o u s confusions here. F i r s t , words do n o t reTer; speakers r e f e r t o t h i n g s by u s i n g words. The word them does n o t r e f e r t o a n y t h i n g a t a l l , o b v i o u s l y SB s i n c e i t can be used t o r e f e r t o any s e t one wants t o r e f e r t o . There i s n s p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f e n t i t l e s t h a t one can say t h e word them r e f e r s t o . But one can use i t t o r e f e r t o s e t s o f t h i n g s , when o n e ' s intended r e f e r e n t w i l l be r e c o v e r a b l e i n some way by the h e a r e r .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The second confusion i s the i d e a t h a t words \" r e f e r back\" t o o t h e r words, The muddle here i s obvious Whether ~t i s people o r w o r d s t h a t r e f e r , i t I S t h i n g s , n o t ( u s u a l l y ) o t h e r words, t h a t they r e f e r t o . Thus I n H a l l i d a y and Hasan's example : I , i t i s n o t the words -S I X c o o k i n q apples t h a t them i s used t o r e f e r t o , one I S n o t b e i n g i n s t r u c t e d t I y . o b j e c t i~n t osuch d e s c r i p t i o n s i s n o t based merely on a n i gg l i n g concern w i t h sloppy language.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "passage f rom Hal l i day and Hasan. They say t h a t i t i s some r e l a t i o n between sentences i n a t e x t t h a t g i ves i t \"cohes ion\", t h a t renders I t coherent , \"so t h a t we i n t e r p r e t them as a whole; the two sentences together const i tute a t e x t .I1 The r el a t i o n t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o t h i s cohesion i s t h a t them i n one sentente \" r e f e r s back\" t o the s i x cobking apples i n a previous sentence. l f T i n t e r p r e t this phrase c h a r i tab1 y, then the quest i o n i r i s e s , how do we know what-them r e f e r s t o ?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "I f i t were, one m i g h t respond t h a t i t ' s c l e a r what Hal 1 iday and Hasan mean h e r e , so my complaint i s b e s i d e t h e p o i n t . Rather, I t h i n k t h e p e r v a s i v e confus i o n on j u s t t h i s p o i n t i s a symptom of a s e r i o u s comceptual c o n f u s i o n t h a t renders a l o t o f the r e l a t e d work useless. T h i s i s the case w t t h t h e", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "How do we knov t h a t i t r e f e r s t o t h e apples, and not t a two or the w r i t e r ' s bachelor uncles? W e c a n ' tknow such 3 t h i n g . W e can o n l y assume t h a t the w r i t e r i s r a t i o n a l , and t h a t t h e r e c i p e i s coherent. I f t t i s coherent, we are j u s t i f i e d i n assuming t h a t i t i s the apples t h a t a r e r e f e r r e d t o bythem. But there i s a v i c l o u s c i r u l a r i t y here. The r e c i p e has cohesion, i s -a coherent t e x t , j u s t i n case them r e f e r s t o the apples. But we a r e only j u s t i f i e d i n i n f e r r i n g t h a tthem r ef e r s to the apples i f we assume t h a t the t e x t i s ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "I f i t were, one m i g h t respond t h a t i t ' s c l e a r what Hal 1 iday and Hasan mean h e r e , so my complaint i s b e s i d e t h e p o i n t . Rather, I t h i n k t h e p e r v a s i v e confus i o n on j u s t t h i s p o i n t i s a symptom of a s e r i o u s comceptual c o n f u s i o n t h a t renders a l o t o f the r e l a t e d work useless. T h i s i s the case w t t h t h e", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ", Speech a c t s a r e not sentences, nor \" l o g i c a l forms,\" nor p r o p o s i t i o n s , i n s p i t e of occasional attempts to define them i n these terms, They are acts, j u s t as t h e term imp1 ies.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Speech a c t s . The t h i r d k i n d of t h i n g i n v o l v e d , i n t e x t s i s s t h e \"speech a c t \" (by t h i s term 1 mean t o i n c l u d e as a sub-case a c t s o f l i n g u i s t i c communication by w r i t i n g )", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Re 1 a t ions be tween the speech a c t s i nvol ved i n a t e x t a r e j u s t those t h a t can hold between a c t s i n general. F~r s t , since an a c t i s a subtype of event, t h e r e l a t i o n s t h a t can h o l d between events can, i n general, ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Speech a c t s . The t h i r d k i n d of t h i n g i n v o l v e d , i n t e x t s i s s t h e \"speech a c t \" (by t h i s term 1 mean t o i n c l u d e as a sub-case a c t s o f l i n g u i s t i c communication by w r i t i n g )", |
| "sec_num": "3." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A must conclude t h a t S has asserted p because he wants A t o take p as t r u e and modify h i s model o f the world a c c o r d i n g l y .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The raw datum o f comprehension, then, i s n o t the sentence or t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , b u t the f a c t t h a t a c e r t a i n speech a c t has occurred. I n comprehens i o n , people do n o t process sentences as a b s t r a c t formulae; they observe t h a t sdmesne has s a i d some t h i ng t o them, and a t tempt t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t a c t and i t s consequences, which may i n c l u d e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r model o f the world. The process o f m o d i f y i n g the model according t o what i s s a i d i s not d i r e c t , b u t the r e s u l t o f s e v e r a l steps o f e v a l u a t i o n . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an a s s e r t i o n might go r o u g h l y l i k e t h i s , from the v i e w p o i n t o f t h e hearer (where S i s the speaker, A the addressee, addressee and hearer may be i d e n t i c a l ) : S has s a i d x t o A. Saying x a u n t s as a s s e r t i n g p. S knows t h a t saying x counts as a s s e r t i n g p . S knows t h a t t h e r e f o r e h i s saying x i s l i k e l y t o be i n t e r p r e t e d by A as an a s s e r t i o n o f p. S has done n o t h i n g t o prevent A from making t h i s conclusion. Therefore S ' s i n t e n t i o n i s t h a t h i s saying x be taken by A as an a s s e r t i o n of p . Then i f S i s s i n c e r e S b e l i e v e s t h a t P i s true.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) John i s here. He has a dog w i t h him.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "But I n the case o f ( 2 ) , 1 am not so much concerned w i t h the second asserted f a c t i n i t s e l f , but w i t h the goal t h a t f r o m concluding t h a t i t i s true, the hearer w i l l be more l i k e l y t o b e l i e v e the f i r s t , since 1 i n t e n d t h a t he take the second f a c t as evidence t h a t my source I s rel.iable.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) The w o r l d i s f l a t .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "i t says so i n t h e Encyclopedia. Gricean r u l e s o f conversation support these i nf e r e n t i a l s t r a t e g i e s i n the f o l l o w i n g way: The hearer knows t h a t the speaker knows the hearer i s l i k e l y t o make inferences according t o these and other s t r a t e g i e s . The speaker has done n o t h i n g t o prevent the hearer from making them. Theref o r e the hearer i s J u s t i f i e d i n i n f e r r i n g t h a t the speaker intends f o r the inference t o be made. goals and purposes a t ev&y l e v e l , gfom i nf e r r i n g the purpose o f r e f e r r i n g expressions t o i n f e r r i n g the speaker's o v e r a l l goal i n cons t r u c t i n g t h e t e x t , One can understand every sentence i n a t e x t , y e t come away puzzled a t what i t was the speaker was t r y i n g t o say, o r what the parts of the t e x t had to do w i t h each other.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To understmid the purpose o f a speech a c t i s t o understand how i t r e l a t e s t o a goal, how i t i s a step toward the achlevement o f t h a t g a l . The There are a l a r g e number o f goals a speaker can have i n c o n s t r u c t i n g a t e x t , i n c l u d i n g many t h a t a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o comprehension: 6, From speech a c t s and t h e i r purposes taken j o i n t l y , he must c o n s t r u c t a hypothesis of the speaker's goal i n the t e x t , and o f the p l a n t h a t the speaker i s f o l l o w i n g i n a d v a n~i n g toward t h a t goal. A t each step the purpose o f a given speeah a c t must somehow be construed as c o n s i s t e n t wieh, and a c t u a l l y advancing t h a t plan, o r the plan hypothesis must be modified so t h a t i t can.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "From PTyp~theses about the speaker's plan4 and goals i n the t e x t , the hearer w i l l form expectations: hypotheses about what the speaker i s l i k e l y t o do next i n advancing toward the goal of the t e x t . From t h i s sketch we can d e r i v e a p i c t u r e of where things can go wrong i n comprehension, g i v i n g some i n s i g h t perhaps i n t o notions l i k e \"Aext relevance. A c t u a l l y there a w two senses o f the word i n o r d i n a r y usage. One can speak o f relevance-as a r e l a t i o n between f a c t s . One f a c t i s r e l e v a n t t o another when the t r u t h o f one depends in'some way on the t r u t h o f the other. But 1 t h i n k more o f t e n , l i n g u i s t s who speak o f \"relevance1' as a problem o f text, comprehension have i n mind a problem t h a t 1s best t r e a t e d i n terms o f purposes behlnd speech acts. Given a hypothesis about the goal and plans o f a speaker i n a t e x t , a given \"sentence\" ( i . e . speech a c t ) i s taken t o be i r r e l e v a n t when the hearer i s unable t o see how i t functions w~t h i n the p l a n t o advance toward the gaal . Relevance under t h i s 20 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , then, i s a r e l a t i o n between an a c t and a goal, n o t a r e l a t i o n between sentences, i f i n recounting my r e c i p e f o r Wienerschnitzel describe my new driveway, i t ' s not t h a t the sentences are i r r e l e v a n t ; r a t h e r , I have done something i r r e l e v a n t . The same passage may count as f u l l o f i r r e l e v a n c i e s , r e l a t i v e t o one goal, b u t u n i f o r m l y r e l e v a n t , r e l a t i v e t o another goa 1 .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Task 6 i s probably t h e most complex and d i f f i c u l t , and the one ~e know l e a s t about. But I suspect t h a t i t i s a 1 i k e l y source o f progress i n understanding such important but e l u s i v e notions as Hcoherence,ll \" t e x t structure,\" dnd 18topic.\" I n understanding a t e x t , the hearer unconscidusly searches o u t a primary goal behind the t e x t , and t r i e s t o construe every p a r t o f the t e x t as a purposeful step toward t h a t goal, according t o some plan. I f the heaker i s unable I f i t should t u r n o b t t h a t the coherente of t e x t s c o r r e l a t e s w i t h the number o f pronouns, i t would be a mistake t o conclude t h a t l o t s of pronouns makes a t e x t coherent. Rather, i t would s h w t h a t coherent t e x t s tend t o be ones where the speaker says a l o t about one o r two t o p i c s , r a t h e r than saying bne t h i n g about 32 topics, I t i s the coherence o f M a t the speaker i s doing i n the t e x t t h a t gives r i s e t o the abundance o f pronouns; the formal property of having a l o t o f pronouns does not g i v e r i s e t o coherence.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A t .least some aspects o f \" t e x t s t r~c t u r e '~ can a l s o be t r e a t e d i n these terms. A n idea1 u n i f i e d paragraph, f o r example, i s a u n i t o f f u n c t i o n , not of form; the speaker forrdulates a subgoal as a step toward the brimary goal of the t e x t and sets about t o achieve t h a t goal i n a s e r l e s of speech acts, Insofar as the hearer i s able t o discover t h i s , the s e r i e s o f speech a c t s w i l l be judged t o be a u n i t ; but a u n i t of f u n c t i o n , not o f form, d e f i n e d n o t i n terms o f sentences o r propositions, but communicative a c t s of some person, who uses those sentences t o c0nut.y those propositions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ": t i s l i k e l y t h a t an understanding o f task 6 w i 1 1 lead t o an understandtng o f \"topic\" as w e l l , A t present, there are n e a r l y as many d e f i n i t i o n s of titopfcil as there are l i n g u i s t s , and none o f the d e f i n i t i o n s i s c l e a r enough t o be usable. For some l i n g u i s t s the t o p i c i s a c e r t a i n WP i n a sentence; f o r o t h e r s a t o p i c i s something a sentence has, though the NP may n o t be present i n the sentences. For some every sentence has a t o p i c ; f o r others, o n l y some sent ces have t o p i c s . But I suspect t h a t a.11 7 o f t ese attempts miss Q a wide mark. F i r s t , i t i s not NP1s t h a t are topics, but the t h i n g s i n the world they r e f e r to. Second, I suspect t h a t such d e f i n i t i o n s can never be made sense o f i n t h a t i t I s speakers, n o t sentences o r even t e x t s , t h a t have topics.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "I f so, then the proper t h e o r e t i c a l treatment o f fittop ic\" would be framed I n terms o f a theory o f complex communi cat i ve acts, not formal l i n g u i s t i c properties. I V . Conclusion I n t h i s speculative paper I have proposed a way o f looking a t the comprehension o f connected t e x t that i s counter t o the I i n g u i s t ' s usual way o f looking a t language. My main p o i n t i s that c e r t a i n notions are more l i k e l y t o receive adequate treqtment i n a theory t h a t incorporates a theory ~f speech acts, a theory o f plans and goals, and a theory of inference, i n place o f a theory t h a t looks f o r answers i n terms o f formal propert i e s of texts. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "But t h e d e c i s i o n t o b e l j e v e p, i.e. modify h i s nwdel o f the w o r l d t o i n c l u d e p, i s a m a t t e r o f choice on H's p a r t , n o t ad automatic consequence o f process i ng t h e \"sentence .I1 The steps i n v o l ved i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e e q u a l l y complex, i n v o l v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l w o r l d j u s t l i k e t h e r e a l one except t h a t p i s t r u e , t o e v a l u a t e the consistency and p l a u s ib i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d , and so on. Some o f t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e asserted w i l l r e l a t e t o t h i s d e c i s i o n -m a k~n g process. For example, i n saying ( I ) my goal i s most l i k e l y t h a t t h e hearer come t o b e l i e v e t h a t b o t h f a c t s asserted a r e t r u e .", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "How t o do things w i t h words", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Austin", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1962, |
| "venue": "Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Austin, J. How t o do things w i t h words. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1962.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "The phi losophy o f grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jespersen", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1965, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jespersen, 0. The phi losophy o f grammar. New York: Norton, 1965.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Jresuppositions, and lmplicatures. A r l i n g t o n , Va.: Center f o r Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 1977. Footnote This research was supported by the National I n s t i t", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I* A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rogers", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Wall", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Murphy ; E C !~. ) I Ves", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "I* A. Rogers, R. Wall , a~d J. Murphy ( E C !~. ) i ves, Jre- suppositions, and lmplicatures. A r l i n g t o n , Va.: Center f o r Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 1977. Footnote This research was supported by the National I n s t i t u t e o f Education under Contract No. US-NiE-C-400-76-0116.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "But t h e temptation t o t h i n k o f language as pure form I S g r e a t , Jespersen h i m s e l f s l i p s i n t o t h i s metaphor a few pages l a t e r , . . . we always f l n d t h a t t h e r e i s one word o f supreme importance t a which t h e o t h e r s a r e j o i n e d as s u b o r d~n a t e s T h~s c h i e f k o r d i s def i ned (qual i f i ed, modi f i ed) by another word, which i n i t s t u r n may be d e f i n e d ( q u a l i f i e d , modified) by a t h i r d word, e t c . (p. 96) But wordsdo n o t d e f i n e , modify, o r qua1 i f y o t h e r words.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "Put them i n t o f i r e p r o o f d i s h . I t i s c l e a r t h a t them i n t h e second sen-tence r e f e r s back t o ( i s AHAPHORIC t o ) t h e s i x cooking apples i n the f i r s t sentence. -T h i s ANAPHORI C f u n c t i o n o fthem g i v e s cohes i o n t o the two sentences , so t h a t we i n t e rp r e t them ag a whole; t h e two sentencks t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e ,.a t e x t . Or r a t h e r , they form p a r t o f t h e same t e x t , t h e r e may bg more o f i t t o f o l l o w . The t e x t u r e i s p r o v i d e d by the cohesive RELA-TION t h a t e x i s i s between them ands i x cooking _a_p1esSSS I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o make t h i s p o i n t , because w e s h a l l be c o n s t a n t l v f o c u s i n g a tt e n t i o n on t h e items, such asthem, which t y p i c a l l y r e f e r back t o something t h a t has gone befbre; b u t t h e cohesion 1 s -e f f e c t e d n o t by t h e presence the referring i tern alone b u t by t h e presence o f b o t h the r e f e r r i n g item and t h e i tem i t r e f e r s t o (p. 2 ) .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "text": "t o p u t t h r e e words i n a f i r e p r o o f d i s h . The wordthem i s used t o r e f e r t o c e r t a i n apples t h a t were p r e v i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o by use of t h e wordss i x c o o k i n q W l i s .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": "coherent. Thus, i n s p i t e o f H a l l i d a y and Hasan's claim, i t i s n o t the anaphoric f a c t s t h a t g i v e r i s e t o cohesion; r a t h e r , the assumption t h a t the t e x t i s coherent gives r i s e t o the infkrence t h a t them r e f e r s t o the apples. --This kind o f confusion, i t seems t o me, a r i s e s from t h e l i n g u i s t ' s h a b i t o f l o o k~n g a t every aspect o f language i n terms o f l i n g u i s t i c forms and r e l a t i o n s between them. Thus i n t h l s case the mistaken c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f reference as a r e l a t i o n between words, and o f coherence as a p r o p e r t y of an a b s t r a c t l i n g u i s t i c o b j e c t c a l l e d a t e x t . I n the: r e s t o f t h i s b r i e f paper I want t o sketch an opposing view, and t o c l a i m t h a t n o t ions 1 i ke ''reference ,\" \" t e x t s t r u c t u r e ,\" \"re 1 evance\" and \"coherence\" a r e best t r e a t e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , i n terms o f communicative a c t s and the plans and goals o f speakers/wri t e r s who perform such a c t s . 1 1 . Three Wavs o f Lookina a t a Text Assum f o r t h e moment t h a t we know what a t e x t ( o r a l o r w r i t t e n ) i s , and can t e l l a coherent t e x t f rornaa random t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f Engl i sh sentences ( I w i 1 1 r e t u r n t o what counts as a coherent t e x t l a t e r ) . Then t h e r e are ( a t l e a s t ) fhree kinds of things and r e l a t i o n s involved i n a t e x t . 1. Sentences. F i r s t , conventional wisdom i n l i n g u i s t i c s has i t t h a t r e x t s c o n s i s t o f sentences. I s h a l l accept t h i s f o r the momen t , though a b i t l a t e r I w i l l %show cause t o modify i t . But what k i n d o f * \" t h i n g l ' i s a sentence? I t i s , i f anything i s , an a b s t r a c t l i n g u i s t i c o b j e c t , a u h i t o f form. I t i s r~u t a p r o p o s i t i o n , nor a f a c t , though i t i s a means by w h~r h such t h i n g s are assert-ed, denied, ques-tioned, e t c . Nor i s a sentence a speech a c t , though a speech a c t w i l l u s u a l l y be performed by means of the utterance o f a sentence. But a sentence and an utterance o f a sentence a r e d i f f e r e n t ktnds o f t h i ngs. A sentence i s n o t the k i n d o f t h i n g t h a t i s t r u e o r fa1 se; o r llproposi tions,\" t h a t sentences can be used t o express, a r e t r u e o r false. Or perhaps i t would be more a p p r o p r i a t e t o speakaof a s s e r t i o n s as being t r u e o r false. At any r a t e , i t i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t i t i s nonsense t o speak o f sentences as t r u e o r -f a l s e , as evidenced by t h e f a m i l i a r p r o b l e~ o f i n d e x i c a l expressions . A sentence, then, may be used t o a s s e r t t h a t something i s t r u e , o r f a l s e , o r has occurred, but the sentence i t s e l f i s not t r u e o r f a l s e , and does n o t occur. Thus r e l a t i o n s l i k e causat i o n , order i n time, e n t a i l m e n t , and so on, do not h o l d between sentences. I t I s n o t c l e a r what k i n d o f r e l a t i o n can accurately be s a i d t o h o l d between the sentences of a t e x t . 2. \" F a~t s .~' . The second k i n d o f \"thing\" involved i n a t e x t ' i s what I s h a l l c a l l M f a c t s . u (~o t i c e t h a t I do n o t say t e x t s c o n s i s t o f o r c o n t a i n f a c t s , merely t h a t they somehow i n v o l v e f a c t s . ) The term \" f a c t u i s a b i t misleading--though I can t h i n k o f no b e t t e r term--in t h a t I wish t o include a5 f a c t s events, s t a t e s , and so f o r t h t h a t do not a c t u a l l y h p l d i n the r e a l world; I'propositions ,\" more o r l e s s . Relations among the llfacts'l involved i n a t e x t , then, c o n s i s t o f two classes: f i r s t , the same r e l a t i o n s t h a t h o l d between f a c t s i n the r e a l world--causat ion, r e l a t i o n s o f temporal order, m o t i v a t i h , and so f o r t h ; second, those rel'ations t h a t have t o do w i t h l o g i c and hypot h e t i c a l & f a c t s , l i k e entailment and c o n t r a d i ct i o n . I t -m a y be necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h f a c t s on the one hand and p r o p o s i t i o n s on t6e o t h e r , on grounds t h a t l e l a t i o n s between f a c t s a r e o f a k i n d d i f f e r e n t from r e l a t i o n s between proposit i o n s , but I N i l 1 ignore the problem here.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "h o l d between a c t s , thus between speech a c t s : r e l a t i o n s o f temporal order, f o r example. Second, s i n c e a speech a c t i s a sub-type o f a c t , r e l a t i o n s t h a t can hold between a c t s can, i n general, h o l d between speech a c t s . The most important r e l a t i o n i n t h i s regard i s the r e l a t i o n o f purpose: one does such-andsuch i n o r d e r t h a t such-and-such; or one performs -a c e r t a i n a c t i n order thereby t o perform a second a c t , Long chains o f these r e l a t i o n s can h o l d between a c t s .I may throw a s w i t c h rn order t o t u r n on a 1 i g h t i n o r d e r t o f r i g h t e n away a b u r g l a r i n o r d e r t o save t h e f a m i l y jewels. 1 may t e l l my f r l e n d t h a t t h e r e i s a charging b u l l behind him i n o r d e r t h a t he r e a l i z e that he i s i n danger, i n o r d e r t h a t he g e t o u t of the way.I t i s a rnjstake t o ask whether my speech a c t was an a s s e r t i o n o r a warning, s i n c e t h i s presupposes that the two a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . I t was both; I asserted something and thereby warned somebody, j u s t as I threw t h e s w i t c h and thereby turned on the l i g h t s . I may make a c e r t a i n mark on a piece of paper, thereby marking my b a l l o t f o r , Smith, thereby c a s t i n~a v o t e f o r Smith.I may a s s e r t t h a t I w i l l do t h e dishes, thereby volunt e e r i n g t i do the dishes. And so on.I t i s c o m p l y the case t h a + a c t s a r e l i n k e d by compl,,ex r e l a t i o n s o f purpose and g o a l , i n c l u di n g t h e case where one a c t i s perfarmed by means o f ~e r f o r m i n g another a c t . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f communicative a c t s . There are several s u b v a r i e t i e s o f speech acts, f o r d i c h sgveral taxonomies have been p r oposed; A u s t i n (1962), McCawley (1977) , f o r example. One important d i s t i n c t i o n i n k i n d i s the d i s t i n c y t i o n between the a c t of saying a sentence, and the a c t one thereby performs. I n performing aq a c t o f saying the E n g l i s h sentence \"Your h a i r i s i n my yogurta1 I may, ir, t h e r i g h t circumstances, thereby i n f o r m someone t h a t t h e i r h a i r i s i n my yogurt. The f i r s t k i n d o f a c t , the a c t o f sayjng, i n c l u d e s making sounds i n a way t h a t conforms t o the conventions f o r what counts as a 'saying o f a sentence, o r making v i s i b l e marks I n a way t h a t counts as a saying o f a sentence. Texts, then, do n o t r e a l l y c o n s i s t o f sentences, b u t o f sayings (\"uses\") o r sentences ; o r i n the case o f ~r i t t e n t e x t s , o f a permanent k i n d o f record o f uses o f sentences. I I I. The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Te.xts A. Speech acts. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c f a t e x t , then, c o n s i s t s o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s r e c o r d of sayings o f sentences. Each saying i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f some speech a c t ( s ) performed by saying a g i v e n sentence. (Henceforth by \"speech act1' I w i l l mean the comraunicative a c t one performs by saying a sentence, as opposed t o the a c t o f say i ng i t s e l f. ) There a r e t h r e e aspects t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f speech a c t s . the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what speech a c t s a r e performed-assertion, promising, d e n i a l , q u e s t i o n i n g , warning, etc.--by the saying o f t h e sentence; t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what \" f a c t s \" a r e asserted, denied, etc., and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e speaker's purpose and goal i n p e r f o r m~n g the speech a c t . As an a s i d e I should mention the s p e c i a l instance where n o t h i n g i s d i r e c t l y asserted, denied, etc.: t h e case o f speech a c t s o f r e f e rence. An a c t o f a s s e r t i n g , e t c . ( f o r b r e v i t y I w i l l h e n c e f o r t h use a s s e r t i o n as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a1 1 speech a c t s types) , wi 1 l usual 1 y i n c l u d e an a c t o f r e f e r r i n g as a subpart; a r e f e r e n c e t o the e n t i t y o f which samething i s asserted. But a c t s o f r e f e r r i n g can occur independently. For example, I might say \"The door!\" t o someone under a number o f circumstances, t o g e t them t o open i t , c l o s e i t , shoot the bad guy standing i n I t , o r merely observe what b e a u t i f u l hardwood i t i s made o f . I t wou 1 d be a m i stake to say t h a t \"The door!\" means any o f these things, o r t h a t 1 have performed ( d i r e c t l y ) any k i n d o f speech a c t beyond merely r e f e r r i n g . I have o n l y ref e r r e d t o the door, thereby t o c a l l my h e a r e r L s a t t e n t i o n t o i t , w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t when he t u r n s h i s a t t e n t i o n t o the door he w i l l r e a l i z e what i t i s I want him t o do about i t . The t y p i c a l immediate goal associated w i t h speech a c t s o f a l l k i n d s i s the same: t h a t t h e hearer modify h i s model o f a c e r t a i n \"world\" ( i n t h e sense o f 8 t p o s s i b l e worlds1') i n a way t h a t i n v o l v e s t h e \" f a c t s 1 I t h a t a r e asserted, e t a , i n the speech a c t . The w o r l d involved may be the r e a l world, o r , i n t h e case o f s t o r y -t e l l i n g , f o r example, some imaginary world. The m o d i f i c at i o n may I n c l u d e the c o n s t r u c t i o n ex q i h i l o of some h y p o t h e t i c a l o r imaginary worm. The r e l at i o n bhkween the 18fiacts\"-of the speech a c t and the intended m o d l f i c a t i o n v a r y w i t h the n a t u r e o f the speech a c t ; but i n a l l cases some m o d i f fc a t i o n i s Involved. The s i m p l e s t case i s t h a t o f a s s e r t i o n ; n o r m a l l y the immediate goal o f ana s s e r t i b n Is t h a t the h e a r e r modlfy the w o r l d under d i s c u s s i o n i n a f a s h i o n t h a t makes t h e asserted f a c t t r u e i n t h a t world.I n the case of yes-no questions, the goal i s t h a t the h e a r e r modify h i s model o f the w o r l d such t", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "text": "Matters t h a t a r e sometimes construed as r h e t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s between sentences f a l l i n t o t h i s category.Sope f a c t I s asserted not because i t i s Important i n I t s e l f , b u t because i t bears on H's e v a l u a t i o n o f some,other asserted f a c t , Thhs the r e l a t i o n i s n o t one between sentences, but between speech acts. One speech a c t i s performed i n o r d e r t o I n f l u e n c e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n o f another. A t any r a t e , my poP@t here i s t h a t i n comprehending a t e x t i n the serious sense, comprehension proceeds not from some d i sembodied a b s t r a c t o b j e c t c a l l e d a \"sentence ,\" nor from a 'lproposi tion,\" but f om the perceived f a c t t h a t S has satd such-and-such, and t h a t so r a y i n g counts as a speech a c t o f a c e r t a i n type.There i s another way i n which m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the world model i s n o t a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f the asserted f a c t : t h e widely s t u d i e d problem o f ihference. Given t h e h e a r e r ' s acceptance o f & a t the speaker has asserted, i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the f a c t s i n t o the model o f the world~rnay i n v o l v e more than merely adding the asserted f a c t s . There i s , f o r example, a general principle o f c e t e r i s p a r i b u s t h a t comes i n t o p l a y i n considerat i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e worlds. Roughly, when cons t r u c t i n g a model o f a world a l t e r n a t i v e t o some point-of-reference w o r l d * ( u s u a l l~ t h e r e a l one), the hearer w i 11 assume, l a c k i n g evidence (from a s s e r t i o n o r inference) t o the c o n t r a r y , t h a t the a l t e r n a t i v e w o r l d i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e point-ofi reference world i n a1 1 r e l e v a n t respects, To take an extreme example, i f sonSeone i s t e l l i n g me about l i f e on Arcturus, I w i l l assume t h a t the laws o f physics are t h e same t h e r e as on e a r t h , unless something the speaker says leads me t o be1 i e~e otherwise.I n the same way, hearers wi 11 assume, l a c k i n g counter-evidence, t h a t what i s t y p i c a l i n the point-of-reference ( e e g . real) world i s a l s o t y p i c a l i n the a l t e r n a t i v e world. They w i l l a l s o assume t h a t t h i n g s o f a given type have the p r o p e r t i e s t y p i c a l o f things o f t h a t type.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "text": "these and o t h e r s t r a t e g i e s , then, the hearer modifies h i s model o f one o r more worlds, based not on detached sentences o r p r o p o s i t i o n s f l o a t i n g i n some a b s t r a c t semantic space, b u t on h i s observation t h a t a c e r t a i n person has performed a c e r t a i n speech a c t . 6. Relations among speech a c t s . But t h e r e i s more t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a t e x t than i u s t --d -the interpretation of i n d i v i d u a l speech acts. A speech a c t i s performed f o r some purpose, w i t h some goal i n mind. And mmplete understanding o f a t e x t i n v o l v e s the a b i l i t y t o i n f e r such", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "text": "most a p p r o p r i a t e k i n d o f theory for t & i s aspect o f a t e x t i s a theory o f plans, i n which purposes, goals, a c t s , and i n t e n t i o n s p l a y a c r u c i a l ml e.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "text": "t o d e r i v e r o y a l t i e s , f o r example, o r t o confuse an enemy by f u r n i s h i n g misinformation. A proper theory o f t e x t comprehension must d i s t i n g u i s h goals l i k e these from those t h a t are c e n t r a l t o communication and comprehension, probably by means of condi t i o n s 1 i ke those Grice . (1957) proposes as c r i t e r i a f o r meaning. C. What can go wrong. Then we can SKetch the task o f t e x t comprehension as f o l l o w s 1. From t h e sounds o r markings, H must recover what sayings a r e recorded i n the t e x t , i n what order. 2, From t h i s H must recover what speech a c t s have been performed, i n what o r d e r . 3. From each speech a c t H must reccver what f a c t s a r e being asserted, denied, promi sed, e t c . 4. From t h i s H must i n f e r what rnodificat i o n s he is lntehded t o make i n h i s model of the world, and how t o make them i n t h e most c o n s i s t e n t way; t h i s i s n o t a d i r e c t f u n < t i o n o f t h e f a c t s , as discussed e a r l i e r . 5. For each speech a c t H must i n f e r a purpose t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t H the purposes he i n f e r r e d f o r e a r l i e r speech acrs; or he must r e v i s e e a r l i e r hypotheses about purposes accordlngly. Questions H must i n f e r answers t o are, \"Why d i d the speaker perform t h i s p a r t i c u l a r speech act, a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n the t e x t ? \" and \"Why does he want me t o have t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f a c t j u s t now?\"", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF9": { |
| "text": "These matters do n o t proceed i n separate compartments, o f course, but feed each other. The p l a n one has constructed so f a r can influence decisions about what speech a c t i s performed i n a given utterance, f o r example, and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f pronouns can be influenced by hypotheses about the speaker's goals, j u s t as a decision about what a r e f e r r i n g expression i s being used t o r e f e r t o can i n f l u e n c e the process o f i n f e r r i n g a plan, and expectation9 about what the speaker w i l l do next can i n f l u e n c e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what he a c t u a l l y does.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF10": { |
| "text": "s t i u c t u r e ,I1 'Ire levance ,\" and \"coherence. \"The hearer can have d i f f i c u l t y i n tasks through 3 , of course, but t h e mattenr seems straightforward, so I w i l l not discuss i t . D l f f ic u l t i e s can a r i s e i n task 4 i n a t l e a s t -t w o ways.F i r s t , the world described may be so f a c t u a l l y o r l o g i c a l l y b i z a r r e , o r so inconsistent w j t h t h e hearer's be1 i e f s (a d e s c r i p t i o n o f plng pong i n a black hole, f o r example), t h a t t h e hearer i s unable t o c s t r u c t a consistent model w i t h any degree o f 2 e t a i I . The term \"incoherent\" n i g h t be applied t o such cases, b u t I t h i n k t h i s i s n o t what l j n g u i s t s mean by \" t e x t u a l coherence,\" which I w i l l discuss-below. A second k i n d o f d i f f i c u l t y w i t h task 4 aris_es when the f a c t s are consistent, but the hearer l acks the know1 edge netessary t o f i gure ~t how t o construct a consistent model t h a t incorporates those f a c t s , For example, i f I describe i n d e t a i l a walk thraugh the South Side o f Chicago, a person who has been there before w i l l be able t o construct a much more r i c h l y det a i l e d model o f my walk than a person who has n o t . D i f f i c u l t i e s can a r i s e w i t h task 5, i n s o f a r as the hearer i s able t o understand c l e a r l y what's being asserted, but unahle t o determine the speaker's purpose i n asserting i t . Here i s the place t o look f o r an adequate def i n i t i on o f", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF11": { |
| "text": "t o reconstruct the goal o r plan, o r indeed decides there i s none, .the t e x t wi 1 1 be judged \"incoherent.\" Coherence i s not a formal property o f t e x t s , nor o f \" l o g i c a l Structures\" o f t e x t s , but a f u n c t i o n o f the hearer's a b i l i t y t o r e l a t e p a r t s o f the t e x t t o a p l a n f o r achieving some goal.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF12": { |
| "text": "I t rema-ins, o f course, t o develop such theories toka l e v e l where my claims can be r i gorous 1 y tested, The construct ion o f such theories should be a prime goal o f t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
