Skip to main content
Log in

Organizing factors in the comprehension and recall of connected discourse

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experiment is based on the theory that, in reading, one uses cues in order to activate an organizing system as an aid in reading the material. The variables introduced into the experiment include (1) the form of organization (meaningful, scrambled, and pseudo) and (2) the choice of material (descriptive, abstract, and technical). Having read a paragraph, subjects read a list of words including some from the paragraph and some not and were asked to check those words that they remembered as belonging to the paragraph. Accuracy is highest when subjects have been most successful in activating an appropriate organizing system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., and Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas.Cogn. Psychol. 2:331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillenbaum, S. (1973).Syntactic Factors in Memory. Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A., and Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity.Percept. Psychophys. 2:289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. J. (1969).Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. J. (1971). Perceptual learning and the theory of word perception.Cogn. Psychol. 2:351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladney, T. A., and Krulee, G. K. (1967). The influence of syntactic errors on sentence recognition.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 6:692–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, A. M. (1961). Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency.J. Exp. Psychol. 61:23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M., and Swets, J. A., (1966).Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, D., and Rodgers, T. S. (1965). An exploration of psycholinguistic units in initial reading. InProceedings of the Symposium on the Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process, Wayne State University, Detroit.

  • Hasan, R. (1968).Grammatical Cohesion in Spoken and Written English, Part I, Paper No. 7, Nuffield Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Longmans, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, P. R. (1973). Social class, the nominal group and reference In Bernstein, B. (ed.),Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 2, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1970).Learning Memory, and Perceptual Processes, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1972). Notes on the structure of semantic memory. In Tulving E., and Donaldson, W. (eds.),Organization of Memory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 247–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krulee, G. K., and Ramsburg, R. E. (1974). Semantic anomalies and sentence recognition.Percept. Motor Skills 8:1275–1286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krulee, G. K., and Schwartz, H. (1975). Scanning processes and sentence recognition.J. Psycholing. Res. 4:141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucera, H., and Francis, W. W. (1967).Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English, Brown University Press, Providence, R.I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E., and Miller, G. A. (1964). The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English sentences.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 3:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, P. D. (1972). Recognition memory: How complex a retrieval system.C. J. Psychol. 26:19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychol. Rev. 63:81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., and Selfridge, J. A. (1950). Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material.Am. J. Psychol. 63:176–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960).Plans and the Structure of Behavior, Holt, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., Lindsay, P. H., and Norman, D. A. (1972). A process model for long term memory. In Tulving, E., and Donaldson, W. (eds.),Organization of Memory, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 6:156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. (1973). Semantic networks: Their computation and use for understanding English sentences. In Schank, R. C., and Colby, K. M. (eds.),Computer Models of Thought and Language, Freeman, San Francisco, pp. 63–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoehr, K. T., and Smith, E. E. (1973). The role of syllables in perceptual processing.Cogn. Psychol. 5:71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tharp, A., and Krulee, G. K. (1969). Using relational operators to structure long-term memory. InProceedings International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Conference, Washington, D.C., pp. 579–586.

  • Winer, B. J. (1971),Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krulee, G.K., Fairweather, P.G. & Bergquist, S.R. Organizing factors in the comprehension and recall of connected discourse. J Psycholinguist Res 8, 141–163 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067488

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067488

Keywords

Navigation