Linguistic markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts

Information Design Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 219-235

  Sanders, Ted ^a   Land, Jentine ^a   Mulder, Gerben ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Coherence; Coherence markers; Document design; Ecological validity; Signaling; Text comprehension; Text structure

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249142479     PISSN: 01425471     EISSN: 1569979X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/idj.15.3.04san     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sinatra, G., & Loxterman, J. (1991). Revising social studies text from text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251-276.
2. Bowen, B.A. (1999). Four puzzles in adult literacy: Reflections on the national adult literacy survey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult literacy, 42, 314-323.
3. Degand, L., Lefèvre, N., & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1(1), 39-51.
4. Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15(7-8), 739-757.
5. 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.
6. Graesser, A. C., Higginbotham, M.W., Robertson, S.P., & Smith, W.R. (1978). A natural inquiry into the National Enquirer: Self-induced versus task-induced reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 1, 355-372.
7. Graesser, A.C., Millis, K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-89.
8. 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 Publications.
9. Hacquebord, H. (2004). Taalproblemen en taalbehoeften in het voortgezet onderwijs. Leerlingen en docentenvragenlijsten als instrument voor taalbeleid. [Language problems and language requests in secondary Education] Levende Talen, 5(2) 17-28.
10. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
11. Kamalski, J. (2007). Coherence marking, comprehension and persuasion. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht, LOT.
12. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (forthcoming). Coherence marking, prior knowledge and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes.
13. Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. A. (in press). The fore-warning effect of coherence markers in persuasion: offline and on-line evidence. Discourse processes.
14. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., Lentz, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2007). How to assess situation model representations. On the validity of text comprehension tasks. Manuscript Utrecht institute of Linguistics.
15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension : individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
16. Land, J., Sanders, T., & Van den Bergh. H. (2007). Effectieve tekststructuur voor het vmbo. Een corpus-analytisch en experimenteel onderzoek naar tekstbegrip en tekstwaardering van studieteksten door vmbo-leerlingen. [Effective text structure for vocational education.] Pedagogische Studieën.
17. Linderholm, T., Everson, M., Van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more-and less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525-556.
18. Loman, N., & Mayer, R. (1983). Signalling techniques that increase the understanding of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402-412.
19. Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489-512.
20. Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [First edition published in 2003.]
21. 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.
22. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse processes, 22, 247-288.
23. Merriënboer, van J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitieve load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
24. Montgomery, J.W. (2003). Working memory and comprehension in children with specific language impairment: what we know so far. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 221-231.
25. Neisser,U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
26. 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: Erlbaum.
27. Oostendorp, H. van & Zwaan, R.A. (1994). Naturalistic text comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
28. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, highknowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43 (2), 121-152.
29. Rendell, P.G., & Thomson, D.M. (1999). Aging and prospective memory: Differences between naturalistic and laboratory tasks. Journal of Gerontology, 4, 256-269.
30. Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
31. Rickards, J. P., Fajen, B., Sullivan, J., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, notetaking and field independence/dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508-517.
32. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60.
33. Sanders, T., & Pander Maat, H. (2006), Cohesion and Coherence. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam etc.: Elsevier, pp. 591-595.
34. Sanders, T., & Spooren, W. (2001), Text representation as an interface between language and its users. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds), Text representation: Linguis tic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35. Sanders, T., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1-35.
36. Schram, D. (2002). Moeilijke tekst en moeilijke lezer? [Difficult text and difficult reader?] In A. Raukema, D. Schram, & C. Stalpers (Eds.), Lezen en leesgedrag van adolescenten en jong volwassenen (pp 107-119). Delft: Eburon.
37. Singer, M. (1982). Comparing memory for natural and laboratory reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 331-347.
38. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publishers.
39. Spyridakis, J.H. (1989a). Signaling Effects: A Review of the Research-Part I. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(3), 227-240.
40. Spyridakis, J.H. (1989b). Signaling Effects: Increased Content Retention and New Answers-Part II. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(4), 395-415.
41. Spyridakis, J.H. (1991). An Emerging Model of Signaling Effects. Technical Communication, 38(4), 600-603.
42. Spyridakis, J.H., Mobrand, K.A., Cuddihy, E., & Wei, C.Y. (2007). Using structural cues to guide readers on the internet. Information Design Journal, 15(3), xxx-xxx
43. 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.