Coherence

[Bill Mann]

I want to reply to Viatscheslav Iatsko's message of 17 Dec 1999 on
coherence.

Contrasting my description of cohesion to coherence, it says:

" ...

Coherence, in his opinion, "has to do with
an impression of wholeness".
May I draw you attention to the fact that this definition of coherence is
rather general and has neither linguistic nor logical distinctions. ... "

Yes, that is true of both this formulation and the longer one that
started the discussion.  I think that such a description is entirely
appropriate.

It seems easier to provide a long reason than a short one here.  Thinking
of scientific theories, models, logical rules and the like as explaining
some observed phenomena, they can be criticized on at least two sorts of
grounds:  1) their internal consistency, plausibility and completeness,
and 2) how well they explain the observed phenomena that they are offered
to explain.

Definitions are useful both for creating clear questions (the phenomena)
and for creating clear answers (the theories, models, etc.)  Sometimes,
but not here, it is important to describe the phenomena themselves in
terms of a technical framework in which they arise.  But we cannot
require that every phenomeon to be explained be defined in terms of a
technical model that is justified in terms of what it explains.  If we
did, we would have a problem of recursion.  Every phenomenon would have
to be found in a framework that was justified by explaining another
phenomenon.  Perhaps there is a way out of that puzzle, but I am not
taking that route.

The above remarks apply widely to technical studies.  Concerning
coherence, I see coherence as one of the pretheoretic phenomena to be
explained.

That sort of conception actually seems to be embodied in Iatsko's
message.  It goes on:

" ... A more specific treatment of coherence was suggested by Russian and
German scholars
(see, e.g. Fleischer, W., (1977), Michel, G. Stilistik der deutschen
gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut). According to it
coherence is based upon logical relations between sentences, such as
synchronic, diachronic, and causative-consecutive. ... "

Here, the logical relations seem to be on the theory side, a kind of
model, and coherence seems to be on the phenomenon side, being explained.

There is more in Iatsko's message to respond to, but I must stop here.

I look forward to seeing how this view fares.

Bill Mann