Summary
The cognitive operations involved in the processing of surface-cohesion devices for the construction of a coherent mental representation is a major issue in text comprehension. An experiment was carried out with two narratives presented in two versions: a high-cohesion version and a low-cohesion version derived from the high version with the use of several devices — two anaphoric markers, changes in the temporal connective and word order, omission of the thematic sentence - without modification of the text content. The subjects read and immediately recalled a high-cohesion text and a low-cohesion text. The results showed that lowering cohesion produced an insignificant increase (8%) in reading time, but a highly significant decrease (25%) in recall performance. It appears that the subjects did not execute the processing required by the cohesion devices. The results are discussed with respect to models of sentence comprehension in comparison with text comprehension and metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacMnnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.),Metacognition, cognition and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 155–205). New York: Academic Press.
Charolles, M. (1978). Introduction aux problèmes de la cohérence des textes.Langue française, 38, 7–41.
Charolles, M., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (1991). Aspects of textual continuity: Linguistic approach. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.),Text and text processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Charolles, M., Petöfi, J.-S., & Sözer, E. (1986).Research in text convexity and text coherence. Hamburg: Buske.
Clark, H., & Sengul, C. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns.Memory & Cognition, 7, 35–41.
Ehrlich, M.-F. (1982). An experimental study of the relationship between comprehension and memorization of a text. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Language and comprehension. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Ehrlich, M.-F. (1989). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Theoretical and methodological problems. Paper presented at the Third European Conference For Research on Learning and Instruction. Madrid.
Ehrlich, M.-F., & Cahour, B. (1991). Contrôle métacognitif de la compréhension: cohésion d'un texte expositif et autoévaluation de la compréhension. In J. Beaudichon & E. Cauzinille (Eds.), Les processus de contrôle dans la résolution de tâches complexes.Bulletin de Psychologie, 44, 147–155.
Ehrlich, M.-F., & Charolles, M. (1991). Aspects of textual continuity: Psycholinguistic approach. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.),Text and text processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye movements and immediacy of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 75–87.
Havell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitioe aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Havell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (Ed.),Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.
Frederiksen, C.-H. (1972). Effects of task-induced cognitive operations on comprehension and memory processes. In J.-B. Carroll & R.-O. Freedle (Eds.),Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 211–245). New York: Wiley
Garner, R. (1987).Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood: Ablex.
Garnham, A. (1987).Mental models as representations of discourse and text. New York: Wiley.
Garrod, S. (1986). Language comprehension in context: A psychological perspective.Applied Linguistics, 7, 226–238.
Garrod, S.-C., & Sanford, A.-J. (1981). Bridging inferences and the extended domain of reference. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and perfornance IX. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garrod, S.-C., & Sanford, A.-J. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases.Journal of Semantics, 1, 21–41.
Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 15, 84–93
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haviland, S.-E., & Clark, H.-M. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 512–521.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science.Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.),Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lesgold, A. M., Roth, S. E., & Curtis, M. E. (1979). Foregrounding effects in discourse comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 291–308.
Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.
Miller, J.-R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology and Human Learning Memory, 6, 335–354.
Neubauer, F. (1983).Coherence in natural language texts. Hamburg: Buske.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Zabrucky, K. (1986). The role of factual coherence in discourse comprehension.Discourse Processes, 9, 197–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ehrlich, MF. The processing of cohesion devices in text comprehension. Psychol. Res 53, 169–174 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371825
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371825