The Influence of Connectives on Young Readers' Processing and Comprehension of Text

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 103, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 429-441

  Cain, Kate ^a   Nash, Hannah M ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Children; Connectives; Reading comprehension; Text processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957828146     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0022824     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baker L. Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 1984, 76:588-597. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.588.
2. Barnes M.A., Faulkner H., Wilkinson M., Dennis M. Meaning construction and integration in children with hydrocephalus. Brain and Language 2004, 89:47-56. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00295-5.
3. Bloom L., Lahey M., Hood L., Lifter K., Fiess K. Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 1980, 7:235-261. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900002610.
4. Bridge C.A., Winograd P.N. Readers' awareness of cohesive relationships during cloze comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior 1982, 14:299-312.
5. Cain K., Patson N., Andrews L. Age- and ability-related differences in young readers' use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language 2005, 32:877-892. doi: 10.1017/S0305000905007014.
6. Caron J., Micko H.C., Thuring M. Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1988, 27:309-323. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90057-5.
7. Costermans J., Fayol M. Processing interclausal relationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
8. Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects 2010, Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association, [Appendix A] Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
9. Crosson A.C., Lesaux N.K., Martiniello M. Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics 2008, 29:603-625. doi: 10.1017/S0142716408080260.
10. Degand L., Sanders T. The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing 2002, 15:739-757. doi: 10.1023/A:1020932715838.
11. Evers-Vermeul J., Sanders T. The emergence of Dutch connectives: How cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 2009, 36:829-854. doi: 10.1017/S0305000908009227.
12. Ferstl E.C., von Cramon D.Y. The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11:325-340. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00007-6.
13. Gernsbacher M.A. Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. Processing interclausal relationship: Studies in the production and comprehension of text 1997, 3-21. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. J. Costermans, M. Fayol (Eds.).
14. Geva E., Ryan E.B. Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior 1985, 17:331-346.
15. Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development (T. Pownall, Trans.). New York, NY: Harvester.
16. Graesser A.C., Louwerse M.M., McNamara D.S., Olney A., Cai Z., Mitchell H.H. Inference generation and cohesion in the construction of situation models: Some connections with computational linguistics. Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes 2007, 289-310. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. F. Schmalhofer, C.A. Perfetti (Eds.).
17. Graesser A.C., McNamara D.S., Louwerse M.M. What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?. Rethinking reading comprehension 2003, 82-98. Guilford Press, New York, NY. A.P. Sweet, C.E. Snow (Eds.).
18. Graesser A., McNamara D.S., Louwerse M., Cai Z. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 2004, 36:193-202.
19. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English 1976, Longman, London, England.
20. Irwin J.W., Pulver C.J. Effects of explicitness, clause order, and reversibility on children's comprehension of causal relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology 1984, 76:399-407. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.399.
21. Johnson-Laird P.N. Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science 1980, 4:71-115. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0401_4.
22. Johnston J.R., Welsh E. Comprehension of 'because' and 'so': The role of prior event representation. First Language 2000, 20:291-304. doi: 10.1177/014272370002006004.
23. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A., Woolley J.D. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1982, 111:228-238. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228.
24. Kail M., Weissenborn J. Connectives: Developmental issues. Language bases... Discourse bases: Some aspects of contemporary French-language psycholinguistics research 1991, 125-142. Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. G. Piéraut-le-Bonniec, M. Dolitsky (Eds.).
25. Kamalski J., Sanders T., Lentz L. Coherence marking, prior knowledge and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes 2008, 45:323-345. doi: 10.1080/01638530802145486.
26. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
27. Knott A., Sanders T. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 1998, 30:135-175. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X.
28. McClure E., Geva E. The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes 1983, 6:411-432. doi: 10.1080/01638538309544575.
29. McNamara D.S., Kintsch W. Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 1996, 22:247-288. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544975.
30. Millis K.K., Golding J.M., Barker G. Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes 1995, 20:29-49. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544930.
31. Mouchon S., Fayol M., Gaonac'h D. On-line processing of links between events in narratives: Study of children and adults. Current Psychology of Cognition 1995, 14:171-193.
32. Murray J.D. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 1997, 25:227-236.
33. Oakhill J.V., Hartt J., Samols D. Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing 2005, 18:657-686. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.
34. Peterson C. Semantic and pragmatic uses of 'but.'. Journal of Child Language 1986, 13:583-590. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900006905.
35. Peterson C., McCabe A. The connective 'and': Do older children use it less as they learn other connectives?. Journal of Child Language 1987, 14:375-381. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900012988.
36. Roberts M.J., Russo R. A student's guide to analysis of variance 1999, Routledge, London, England.
37. Sanders T.J.M., Noordman L.G.M. The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 2000, 29:37-60. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3.
38. Schneider W., Eschmann A., Zuccolotto A. E-Prime user's guide 2002, Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
39. Segal E.M., Duchan J.F., Scott P.J. The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 1991, 14:27-54. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544773.
40. Spooren W., Sanders T. The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 2008, 40:2003-2026. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021.
41. Stevenson R.J., Pollitt C. The acquisition of temporal terms. Journal of Child Language 1987, 14:533-545. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900010278.
42. Traxler M.J., Bybee M.D., Pickering M.J. Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 1997, 50A:481-497. doi: 10.1080/027249897391982.
43. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 1994, 33:285-318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014.
44. van den Broek P.W. Discovering the cement of the universe: The development of event comprehension from childhood to adulthood. Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation 1997, 321-342. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. P.W. van den Broek, P.J. Bauer, T. Bourg (Eds.).