Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 569–589 | Cite as

That noun phrase may be beneficial and this may not be: discourse cohesion in reading and writing

  • Scott A. Crossley
  • Dani Francuz Rose
  • Cassondra Danekes
  • Charles Wesley Rose
  • Danielle S. McNamara
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of attended and unattended demonstratives on text processing, comprehension, and writing quality in two studies. In the first study, participants (n = 45) read 64 mini-stories in a self-paced reading task and identified the main referent in the clauses. The sentences varied in the type of demonstratives (i.e., this, that, these, and those) contained in the sentences and whether the referent was followed by a demonstrative determiner and noun (i.e., an attended demonstrative) or a demonstrative pronoun (i.e., an unattended demonstrative). In the second study, 173 persuasive essays written by high school students were rated by expert judges on overall writing quality using a standardized rubric. Expert coders manually counted the number and types of demonstratives (attended and unattended demonstratives) in each essay. These counts were used to predict the human scores of essay quality. The findings demonstrate that the use of unattended demonstratives as anaphoric references is disadvantageous to both reading time and referent identification. However, these disadvantages become advantages in terms of essay quality likely because linguistic complexity is a strong indicator of high proficiency writing. From a text processing and comprehension viewpoint, the findings indicate, then, that anaphoric reference is not always beneficial and does not always create a more cohesive text. In contrast, from a writing context, the use of unattended demonstratives leads to a more linguistically complex text, which generally equates to a higher quality text.

Keywords

Text processing Text comprehension Essay quality Discourse cohesion Unattended demonstratives Attended demonstratives 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R305A080589 and IES R305G20018-02). Ideas expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IES. We thank our expert raters for their assistance in scoring the essays used in this study.

References

  1. Amaral, M. P. (1985). On the categories of textual cohesion and text complexity. Letras De Hoje, 18(60), 29–40.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A., Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. B., & Cooper, C. R. (2008). The St Martin’s guide to writing (8th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes.Google Scholar
  6. Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The Criterion online service. AI Magazine, 25, 27–36.Google Scholar
  7. Buswell, G. T. (1922). Fundamental reading habits: A study of their development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and Cognition, 7, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures of international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.Google Scholar
  10. Crossley, S. A., Allen, L. K., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Analyzing discourse processing using the simple natural language processing tool (SiNLP). Discourse Processes, 51(5–6), 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crossley, S. A., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and automatic n-gram approaches to assessing essay quality. In P. M. McCarthy & G. M. Youngblood (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th international Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) conference. (pp. 214–219). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). To aggregate or not? Linguistic features in automatic essay scoring and feedback systems. Journal of Writing Assessment, 8(1).Google Scholar
  13. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Text Cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods. Google Scholar
  14. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984–989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  15. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1236–1241). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  16. Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Using automatic scoring models to detect changes in student writing in an intelligent tutoring system. In McCarthy, P. M. & Youngblood G. M., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th international Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) conference. (pp. 208–213). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doyle, A. E. (1982). The limitations of Cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 16(4), 390–395.Google Scholar
  21. Ede, L. (2004). Work in progress (6th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronouns assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye-movements and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Faigley, L. (2007). Writing: A guide for college and beyond. New York: Pearson/Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Finn, S. (1995). Measuring effective writing: Cloze procedure and anaphoric “this”. Written Communication, 12(2), 240–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geisler, C., Kaufer, D., & Steinberg, E. (1985). The unattended anaphoric “this”: When should writers use it? Written Communication, 2(2), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gray, B., & Cortes, V. (2011). Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Himmelman, N. P. (1996). Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 205–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudson, S. B., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Dell, G. S. (1986). The effect of discourse center on the local coherence of a discourse. In Proceedings of the eighth annual conference of the cognitive science society, (pp. 96–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2005). Technical communication today. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(1), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kossowska, A. (2004). The anaphora-cataphora switch using pronouns, determinatives, and adverbs. Studia Linguistica, 23, 29–48.Google Scholar
  37. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically Assessing Lexical Sophistication: Indices, Tools, Findings, and Application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacDonald, M., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring inhibition and facilitation from pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markel, M. (2004). Technical communication (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.Google Scholar
  42. McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(3), 269–282.Google Scholar
  43. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1980). The comprehension processes and memory structures involved in anaphoric reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 668–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features of quality writing. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1994). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Römer, U., & Wulff, S. (2010). Applying corpus methods to writing research: Explorations of MICUSP. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rustipa, K. (2015). The use of demonstrative pronoun and demonstrative determiner this in upper-level student writing: A case study. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 158–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159–189. doi: 10.3102/00028312041001159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shillcock, R. (1982). The on-line resolution of pronominal anaphora. Language and Speech, 25, 385–402.Google Scholar
  54. Speelman, C. P., & Kirsner, K. (1990). The representation of text-based and situation-based information in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  56. Swales, J. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia, 11, 1–15.Google Scholar
  57. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  59. Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams, J. M. (1985). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  61. Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Witten, I. A., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data mining. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  63. Wulff, S., Römer, U., & Swale, J. (2012). Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 129–157.Google Scholar
  64. Yang, W. W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott A. Crossley
    • 1
  • Dani Francuz Rose
    • 1
  • Cassondra Danekes
    • 1
  • Charles Wesley Rose
    • 1
  • Danielle S. McNamara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Applied Linguistics/ESLGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Learning Sciences InstituteArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options