Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out

Discourse Processes

Volumn 45, Issue 4-5, 2008, Pages 323-345

  Kamalski, Judith ^a   Sanders, Ted ^a   Lentz, Leo ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 47249105193     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530802145486     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and knowledge texts (pp. 243-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Birkmire, D. P. (1985). Text processing: The influence of text structure, background knowledge, and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 314-325.
3. Blanc, N., & Tapiero, I. (2001). Updating spatial situation models: Effects of prior knowledge and task demands. Discourse Processes, 31, 241-262.
4. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 126-148.
5. Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text. Building mental structures to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641-674). San Diego, CA: Academic.
6. Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51-61.
7. Degand, L., Lefevre, N., & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1, 39-51.
8. Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15, 739-757.
9. Gilabert, R., Martínez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15, 45-68.
10. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford.
11. Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.
12. Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and Coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
13. Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. A. The fore-warning effect of coherence markers in persuasion: Evidence from processing and persuasion. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., Lentz, L., & van den Bergh, H. (2007, in press). How to assess situation model representations. On the validity of text comprehension tasks. Discourse Processes.
15. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge in text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468-481.
17. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 78-93.
18. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
19. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
20. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
21. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
22. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
23. Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion. Theory and research (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
26. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E. T. H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
27. Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 79-89.
28. Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147.
29. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
30. Sanders, T., & Pander Maat, H. (2006). Cohesion and coherence. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 591-595). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2006). Discourse and text structure. In H. Cuyckens & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 916-941). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
32. Sanders, T., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.
33. Schellens, P. J., & de Jong, M. (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18, 295-323.
34. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 285-298.
35. van Wijk, C. (2000). Toetsende statistiek: Basistechnieken. Een praktijkgerichte inleiding voor onderzoekers van taal, gedrag en communicatie [Experimental statistics: Basic techniques. A practical introduction for research on language, behavior, and communication]. Bussum, The Netherlands: Coutinho.
36. Voss, J. F., & Ney Silfies, L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45-68.