Centering ↔ Coherence Bridge — Combined Predictions #
@cite{grosz-joshi-weinstein-1995} @cite{kehler-2002} @cite{poesio-stevenson-eugenio-hitzeman-2004}
The connection between Centering's transition typology and @cite{kehler-2002}'s coherence-relation typology, lifted to the level of Rule 2's pair-of-transitions preference.
The basic mapping CoherenceRelation.preferredTransition lives in
Theories/Discourse/Centering/Coherence.lean. This bridge is one level
up: it joins that mapping with the pair-of-transitions ranking from
Rules.lean to give a coherence-pair preference prediction. The
upshot: any pair of utterances connected by a continuation-licensing
relation is more coherent (in Rule 2's sense) than any pair connected
by a shifting-licensing relation, with retaining-licensing relations in
between.
This sits in the pragmatics-discourse interface because Centering is typically classified as a pragmatic theory of local coherence whereas @cite{kehler-2002}'s coherence relations are discourse-structural.
The Rule-2 score implied by a pair of consecutive coherence relations: convert each to its preferred transition and sum the transition ranks.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A pair of explanation/result relations achieves the maximum Rule-2 score (both transitions are continuations).
A pair of contrast/correction relations achieves the minimum nonzero Rule-2 score (both transitions are shifts).
The combined prediction: causal/elaborative coherence pairs are Rule-2-preferred over substitution coherence pairs.