The Subjectivity of Lexical Cohesion in Text

Part of the The Information Retrieval Series book series (INRE, volume 20)


A reader’s perception of even an “objective” text is to some degree subjective. We present the results of a pilot study in which we looked at the degree of subjectivity in readers’ perceptions of lexical semantic relations, which are the building blocks of the lexical chains used in many applications in natural language processing. An example is presented in which the subjectivity reflects the reader’s attitude.


Lexical cohesion lexical semantic relations subjectivity inter-subject agreement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6. Bibliography

  1. Barsalou, L. (1989) Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (Eds.) Similarity and analogical reasoning. 6–121. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chaffin, R. and Herrmann, D. (1984) The similarity and diversity of semantic relations. Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 134–141.Google Scholar
  3. Cruse, D. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Evens, M., Markowitz, J., Smith, R., and Werner, O. (Eds.) (1983) Lexical semantic relations: A comparative survey. Linguistic Research Inc., Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Fellbaum, C. (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. Fillmore, C. (1968) The Case for Case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. (Eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. 1–88. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986) Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.Google Scholar
  8. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  9. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1989) Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hasan, R. (1984) Coherence and cohesive harmony. In Flood, J. (Ed.) Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose. 181–219. International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware.Google Scholar
  11. Hodgson, J. (1991) Informational constraints on pre-lexical priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(3), 169–205.Google Scholar
  12. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mann, W.C. and Thomson, S.A. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory. Text, 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
  14. McRae, K. and Boisvert, S. (1998) Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milstead, J.L. (2001) Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms. In C.A. Bean and R. Green (Eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 53–66. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Morris, J. and Hirst, G. (1991) Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 21–48.Google Scholar
  17. Neelameghan, A. (2001) Lateral relationships in multicultural, multilingual databases in the spiritual and religious domains: The OM Information Service. In C. Bean and R. Green (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 185–198. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Olson, D. (1994) The World on Paper. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roget, P. M. Roget’s International Thesaurus. Many editions and publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information StudiesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations