Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 501–520 | Cite as

The given-new strategy of comprehension and some natural expository paragraphs

  • William J. Vande Kopple
Article

Abstract

Three experiments tested whether Clark and Haviland's given-new strategy operates in the processing and retention of natural expository paragraphs read as wholes. The first indicated that a paragraph that facilitates the given-new strategy is easier to process than a paragraph that has the same truth value but that frustrates the given-new strategy. The second indicated that a facilitating paragraph has advantages in memory over its variant. And the third both largely confirmed the findings of the second test and suggested that subjects add new information to the memory node holding the given information. Therefore, these experiments extend the tested applicability of the given-new strategy to the readability and retention of some natural expository paragraphs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chafe, W.Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  2. Chafe, W. Language and memory.Language, 1973,49, 261–281.Google Scholar
  3. Chafe, W. Language and consciousness.Language, 1974,50, 111–133.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.),Semantics, an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Pp. 183–216.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H. Inferences in comprehension. In D. Laberge & S.J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1977. Pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. Psychological processes as linguistic explanation. In D. Cohen (Ed.),Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1977. Pp. 91–124. (a)Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Roy O. Freedle (Ed.),Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood: Ablex, 1977. Pp. 1–40 (b)Google Scholar
  8. Clifton, C., Jr., & Slowiaczek, M. L. Integrating new information with old knowledge.Memory and Cognition, 1981,9, 142–148.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, Ö. Topic-comment structure in a generative grammar with a semantic base. In F. Daneš (Ed.),Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague. Mouton, 1974. Pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
  10. Daneš, F. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneš (Ed.),Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Pp. 106–128.Google Scholar
  11. De Beaugrande, R. Psychology and composition.College Composition and Communication, 1979,30, 50–57.Google Scholar
  12. Firbas, J. Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In F. Daneš (Ed.),Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
  13. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977,16, 77–90.Google Scholar
  14. Greeno, J. G., &: Noreen, D. L. Time to read semantically related sentences.Memory and Cognition, 1974,2, 117–120.Google Scholar
  15. Gundell, J.The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: II.Journal of Linguistics, 1067,3, 199–244.Google Scholar
  17. Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,13, 512–521.Google Scholar
  18. Keenan, E. O., & Schieffelin, B. B. Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topics in the conversation of children and adults. In C. Li (Ed.),Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Pp. 335–384.Google Scholar
  19. Kieras, D. E. Good and bad structure in simple paragraphs: Effects on apparent theme, reading time, and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978,17, 13–28.Google Scholar
  20. King, D. J. On the accuracy of written recall; a scaling and factor analytic study.Psychological Record, 1960,10, 113–122.Google Scholar
  21. Kuno, S. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English.Linguistic Inquiry, 1972,3, 269–320.Google Scholar
  22. Kuno, S. Gapping: A functional analysis.Linguistic Inquiry, 1976,7, 300–318.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. On generative semantics. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.),Semantics, an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, Pp. 232–296.Google Scholar
  24. Lyons, J.Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  25. Mithun, M., & Chafe, W. Recapturing the Mohawk language. In T. Shopen (Ed.),Languages and their status. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop, 1979, Pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
  26. Neisser, U.Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. Sachs, J. S. Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.Perception and Psychophysics, 1967,2, 437–442.Google Scholar
  28. Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., & Benešová, E.Topic, focus and generative semantics. Kronberg Tannus: Scriptor Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Van Dijk, T. A.Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Vande Kopple
    • 1
  1. 1.Calvin CollegeGrand Rapids

Personalised recommendations