Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 169–174 | Cite as

The processing of cohesion devices in text comprehension

  • Marie-France Ehrlich
Article

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.

Keywords

Cognitive Operation Mental Representation Reading Comprehension Word Order High Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Charolles, M. (1978). Introduction aux problèmes de la cohérence des textes.Langue française, 38, 7–41.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Charolles, M., Petöfi, J.-S., & Sözer, E. (1986).Research in text convexity and text coherence. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H., & Sengul, C. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns.Memory & Cognition, 7, 35–41.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Havell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitioe aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  12. Havell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (Ed.),Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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: WileyGoogle Scholar
  14. Garner, R. (1987).Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Garnham, A. (1987).Mental models as representations of discourse and text. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Garrod, S. (1986). Language comprehension in context: A psychological perspective.Applied Linguistics, 7, 226–238.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 15, 84–93Google Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science.Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Neubauer, F. (1983).Coherence in natural language texts. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  31. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Zabrucky, K. (1986). The role of factual coherence in discourse comprehension.Discourse Processes, 9, 197–220.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-France Ehrlich
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, CNRS URA 316Université René DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations