Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix

Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-278

  McNamara, Danielle S ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b,c   McCarthy, Philip M ^a   Cai, Zhiqiang ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Memphis   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923557158     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511894664     Document Type: Book

References (278)

1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding. Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
3. Allen, J. F. (2009). Word senses, semantic roles and entailment. 5th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, September 17-19, 2009. Pisa, Italy.
4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
5. Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary development. New York: Guilford Press.
6. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 263-277.
7. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251-276.
8. Bell, C., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Using LIWC and Coh-Metrix to investigate gender differences in linguistic styles. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum- Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 545-556). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
9. Best, R., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2004). Self-explaining science texts: Strategies, knowledge, and reading skill. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 89-96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137-164.
11. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Biber, D. (1993). Register variation and corpus design, computational linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Boonthum-Denecke, C., McCarthy, P. M., & Lamkin, T. (Eds.). (2012). Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
15. Bormuth, J. R. (1971). Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Project No. 9-0237. Chicago: University of Chicago.
16. Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21, 543-566.
17. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
18. Brooks, C., & Warren, R. P. (1972). Modern rhetoric. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
19. Brun, C., Ehrmann, M., & Jacquet, G., (2007). A hybrid system for named entity metonymy recognition. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (ACL-SemEval)(pp. 23-24). Prague, Czech Republic.
20. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Bruss, M., Albers, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Changes in scientific articles over two hundred years: A Coh-Metrix analysis. Proceedings of the ACM 22nd International Conference on Computer Documentation(pp. 104-109). New York: ACM Press.
22. Cai, Z., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., Hu, X., Rowe, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). NLS: Non-latent similarity algorithm. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society(pp. 180-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429-441.
24. Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
25. Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). The effect of text organization (original vs. scrambled) on readers’ ability to search for information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791-799.
26. Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Proceedings of the First Conference on North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 132-139). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
27. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
31. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
33. Connor, C.M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early year: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464-465.
34. Conrad, F. G., & Schober, M. F. (Eds.). (2007). Envisioning the survey interview of the future. New York: Wiley.
35. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and finish university students. Written Communication, 39, 39-71.
36. Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 84-102.
37. Crossley, S.A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensive input: A case for intuitive approach. Language Teaching and Research, 16, 89-108.
38. Crossley, S.A., Dufty, D. F., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Toward a new readability: A mixed model approach. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 197-202). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
39. Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using psycholinguistic indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475-493.
40. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 15-30.
41. Crossley, S. A., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Discriminating between second language learning text-types. In D. Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 205-210). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
42. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing second language reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy, and McNamara (2007). Language Teaching, 41, 229-409.
43. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119-135.
44. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32 nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
45. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011a). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1236-1231). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
46. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011b). Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life, 21, 170-191.
47. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012a). Detecting the first language of second language writers using automated indices of cohesion, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity and conceptual knowledge. In S. Jarvis & S. A. Crossley (Eds.), Approaching language transfer through text classification: Explorations in the detection-based approach(pp. 106-126). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
48. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012b). Interlanguage Talk: A computational analysis of non-native speakers’ lexical production and exposure. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 425-437). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
49. Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. (pp. 438-440). Auckland, New Zealand: AIED.
50. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). LSA as a measure of coherence in second language natural discourse. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1906-1911). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
51. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59, 307-334.
52. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010a). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573-605.
53. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010b). The development of semantic relations in second language speakers. A case for Latent Semantic Analysis. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 55-74.
54. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010c). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18, 55-80.
55. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282-311.
56. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (1995). Proceedings of the Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
57. Day, R. S. (2006). Comprehension of prescription drug information: Overview of a research program. In Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation for Consumer Healthcare. Retrieved September 16, 2013, from http://www.aaai.org/Library/Symposia/Spring/2006/ss06-01-005.php
58. Dell, G., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphorix reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.
59. Dempsey, K. B., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using phrasal verbs as an index to distinguish text genres. In D. Wilson and G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 217-222). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
60. Dufty, D. F., Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Assigning grade level to textbooks: Is it just readability? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1251-1256). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
61. Dufty, D. F., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Automatic evaluation of aspects of document quality. In S. Tilley & S. Huang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Design of Communication: The Engineering of Quality Documentation(pp. 14-16). New York: ACM Press.
62. Duncan, B., & Hall, C. (2009). A coh-metrix analysis of variation among biomedical abstracts. In Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 237-242). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
63. Duran, N., Bellissens, C., Taylor, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Qualifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 233-238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
64. Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439-462.
65. Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Using Coh- Metrix temporal indices to predict psychological measures of time. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 190-195). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
66. Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 212-223.
67. Duran, N. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2006, July). It’s about time: Discriminating differences in temporality between genres. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, MN.
68. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
70. Freedman, A., & Ian, P. (1980). Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Composition and Communication, 31, 311-324.
71. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29-46.
72. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
74. Gildea, D. (2001). Corpus variation and parser performance. In D. Yarowsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing(pp. 167-202). Pittsburgh, PA: NAACL.
75. Gilhooly, K. L., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
76. Givón, T. (1995).Functionalism and grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
77. Graesser, A.C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
78. Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., Louwerse, M., & Daniel, F. (2006). Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A web facility that helps survey methodologists improve the comprehensibility of questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 3-22.
79. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612-618.
80. Graesser, A. C., Dowell, N., & Moldovan, C. (2011). A computer’s understanding of literature. Scientific Studies of Literature, 1, 24-33.
81. Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82. Graesser, A. C., & Hemphill, D. (1991). Question answering in the context of scientific mechanisms. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 186-209.
83. Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L., & Clark, L. F. (1980). Structural components of reading time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 135-151.
84. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Automatic analyses of language, discourse, and situation models. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 72-88). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
85. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., & Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298-322.
86. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y., & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15, 199-213.
87. Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398.
88. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223-234.
89. 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 Press.
90. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
91. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
92. Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 231-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
93. Graesser, A. C., & Ottati, V. (1996). Why stories? Some evidence, questions, and challenges. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 121-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
94. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
95. Greenfield, G. (1999). Classic readability formulas in an EFL context: Are they valid for Japanese speakers? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States (University Microfilms No. 99-38670).
96. Haberlandt, K., & Graesser, A.C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357-374.
97. Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Lee, D. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A Coh- Metrix assessment of American and English/Welsh Legal English. Coyote Papers: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 40-54.
98. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
99. Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23.
100. Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 515-521.
101. Healy, S.L., Weintraub, J.D., McCarthy, P.M., Hall, C., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Assessment of LDAT as a grammatical diversity assessment tool. In C.H. Lane & H.W. Guesgen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) International Conference(pp. 249-253). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
102. Hempelmann, C. F., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P., Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Using LSA to automatically identify givenness and newness of noun-phrases in written discourse. In B. Bara (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 941-946). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
103. Hempelmann, C. F., Rus, V., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Evaluating state-of-the-art treebank-style parsers for Coh-Metrix and other learning technology environments. Natural Language Engineering, 12, 131-144.
104. Herskovits, A. (1998). Schematization. In P. Olivier & K. P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 149-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
105. Hu, X., Cai, Z., Louwerse, M.M., Olney, A.M., Penumatsa, P., & Graesser, A. C. (2003). A revised algorithm for Latent Semantic Analysis. Proceedings of the 2003 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(pp. 1489-1491). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
106. Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47, 549-566.
107. Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57-84.
108. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2008). Speech and language processing. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
109. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 21-31.
110. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
111. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
112. Kallet H. (2004) How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory Care Services, 49, 1229-1232.
113. Kalyuga, S. (2012). Cognitive load aspects of text processing. In C. Boonthum-Denecke, P. McCarthy, & T. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 114-132). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
114. Kamil, M. L., Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge
115. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
116. Keil, F. C. (1981). Constraints on knowledge and cognitive development. Psychological Review, 88, 197-227.
117. Kieras, D. E. (1978). Good and bad structure in simple paragraphs: Effects on apparent theme, reading time, and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 13-28.
118. Kincaid, J., Fishburne, R., Rogers, R., & Chissom, B. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for navy enlisted personnel. Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Chief of Naval Training.
119. King, M., & Rentel, V. (1979). Toward a theory of early writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 243-255.
120. Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (2008). SPSS 15 made simple. New York: Psychology Press.
121. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological review, 95, 163-182.
122. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
123. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257-274.
124. Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 196-214.
125. Kintsch, W., & Van Djik, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
126. Kireyev, K., & Landauer, T. (2011). Word maturity: Computational modeling of word knowledge. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies(pp. 299-308). Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.
127. Klare, G. R. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
128. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.
129. Koslin, B. I., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effective measure in reading. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
130. Lamkin, T. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2012). The hierarchy of detective fiction. In C. Murray & P.M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 257-262). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
131. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
132. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 295-308.
133. Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
134. Lappin, S., & Leass, H. J. (1994). An algorithm for pronominal coreference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 20, 535-561.
135. Leahey, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1997). Learning and cognition (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
136. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
137. Lehnert, W. G., & Ringle, M. H. (Eds.). (1982). Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
138. Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communication of the ACM, 38, 32-38.
139. Lightman, E. J., McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2007a). The structural organization of high school educational texts. In D. Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 235-240). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
140. Lightman, E. J., McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2007b). Using computation text analysis tools to compare the lyrics of suicidal and non-suicidal song-writers. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1217-1222). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
141. Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., 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.
142. Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 1245-1470.
143. Long, M., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application(pp. 29-52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
144. Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348-352.
145. Lorch, R.F., Jr., Lorch, E.P., & Mogan, A.M. (1987). Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 24, 350-362.
146. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Sources of coherence in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
147. Louwerse, M. M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
148. Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
149. Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353-367.
150. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., The RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6, 131-154.
151. Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K. K., Muñoz, B. D., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 181-188.
152. Mann W. C., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
153. Marcu, D. (2000). The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
154. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
155. McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.). (2012). Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
156. McCarthy, P. M., Briner, S. W., Rus, V., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Textual signatures: Identifying text-types using latent semantic analysis to measure the cohesion of text structures. In A. Kao & S. Poteet (Eds.), Natural language processing and text mining (pp. 107-122). London: Springer-Verlag UK.
157. McCarthy, P.M., Dufty, D., Hempelmann, C., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Newness and givenness of information: Automated identification in written discourse. In P. M.McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 457-478). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
158. McCarthy, P. M., Guess, R. H., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations. Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 682-690.
159. McCarthy, P. M., Hall, C., Duran N. D., Doiuchi, M., Duncan, B., Fujiwara, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). A computational analysis of journal abstracts written by Japanese, American, and British scientists. The ESPecialist, 30, 141-173.
160. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). A theoretical and empirical evaluation of vocd. Language Testing, 24, 459-488.
161. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381-392.
162. McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S. (2013). From intrinsic to extrinsic issues of lexical diversity assessment: An ecological validation study. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 45-78).Amsterdam: Benjamins.
163. McCarthy, P.M., Lehenbauer, B.M., Hall, C., Duran, N.D., Fujiwara, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). A Coh-Metrix analysis of discourse variation in the texts of Japanese, American, and British Scientists. Foreign Languages for Specific Purposes, 6, 46-77.
164. McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Analyzing writing styles with Coh-Metrix. In Proceedings of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society International Conference(pp. 764-769). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
165. McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Are seven words all we need? Recognizing genre at the sub-sentential level. In D. S. McNamara and G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1295-1300). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
166. McCarthy, P. M., Myers, J. C., Briner, S. W., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Are three words all we need? A psychological and computational study of subsentential genre recognition. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 24, 23-55.
167. McCarthy, P. M., Renner, A. M., Duncan, M. G., Duran, N. D., Lightman, E. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research and Methods, 40, 647-664.
168. McCarthy, P.M., Rus, V., Crossley, S. A., Bigham, S. C., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Assessing entailer with a corpus of natural language. In D.Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 247-252). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
169. McCarthy, P. M., Rus, V., Crossley, S. A., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing forward-, reverse-, and average-entailment indices on natural language input from the intelligent tutoring system, iSTART. In D. Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference(pp. 165-170). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
170. McCarthy, P. M., Watanabe, S., & Lamkin, T. A. (2012). The Gramulator: A tool to identify differential linguistic features of correlative text types. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 312-333). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
171. McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
172. McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113-139.
173. McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 508-513). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
174. 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.
175. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
176. McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational methods to extract meaning from text and advance theories of human cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 1-15.
177. McNamara, D. S. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and the reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse Studies, 15, 1-17.
178. McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I.B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating selfexplanations in iSTART: Comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In T. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 227-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
179. McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., & Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Optimizing LSA measures of cohesion. In T. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 379-400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
180. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57-86.
181. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. D. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 499-515.
182. McNamara, D. S., & Dempsey, K. (2011). Reader expectations of question formats and difficulty: Targeting the zone. In M. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 321-352). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
183. McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 188-205). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
184. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89-116). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
185. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
186. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
187. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh- Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330.
188. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297-384). New York: Elsevier Science.
189. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465-482.
190. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 229-257.
191. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. (2006). Validating Coh- Metrix. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 573-578). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
192. McNamara, D. S., Raine, R., Roscoe, R., Crossley, S., Jackson, G. T., Dai, J., Cai, Z., Renner, A., Brandon, R., Weston, J., Dempsey, K., Lam, D., Sullivan, S., Kim, L., Rus, V., Floyd, R., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). The Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing strategies. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 298-311). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
193. Meadows, M., & Billington, L. (2005). A review of the literature on marking reliability. London: National Assessment Agency.
194. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners: Helping students take charge of their learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
195. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. New York: Elsevier.
196. Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347-375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
197. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235-244.
198. Miller, J. R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 335-354.
199. Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317-340.
200. Millis, K., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Todaro, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Assessing and improving comprehension with Latent Semantic Analysis. In T. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis(pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
201. Min, H. C., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Identifying varietals in the discourse of American and Korean scientists: A contrastive corpus analysis using the gramulator. In H. W. Guesgen & C. Murray (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference(pp. 247-252). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
202. Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. New York: Student Achievement Partners.
203. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Cognitive bases of children’s language comprehension difficulties. New York: Guilford.
204. Oakhill, J., Yuill, N., & Donaldson, M. L. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401-410.
205. Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31-39.
206. Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. M. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehensive disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation(pp. 69-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
207. O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200-1210.
208. O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1053-1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
209. O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
210. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition & Instruction, 25, 399-438.
211. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Contributions of selfexplanation to comprehension of high and low cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641-667.
212. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242.
213. Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Where’s the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1001-1015.
214. Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561-565.
215. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76 (3, Part 2).
216. Palmer, M., Kingsbury, P., & Gildea, D. (2005). The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31, 71-106.
217. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
218. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
219. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) (Version LIWC2001) [Computer software]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
220. Pennebaker, W. B. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. London: Bloomsbury Press.
221. Pentimonti, J. M., Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Informational text use in preschool classroom read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 63, 656-665.
222. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383.
223. Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Oxford: Blackwell.
224. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226.
225. Popken, R. (1991). A study of topic sentence use in technical writing. The Technical Writing Teacher, 18, 49-58.
226. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academic Press.
227. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289-312.
228. Rayner, K. (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
229. Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31-74.
230. Renner, A., McCarthy, P. M., Boonthum-Denecke, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Maximizing ANLP evaluation: Harmonizing flawed input. In P.M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution(pp. 438-456). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
231. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
232. Roscoe, R. D., Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Automated assessment of paragraph quality: Introductions, body, and conclusion paragraphs. In R. C. Murray & P. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference(pp. 281-286). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
233. Rowe, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Inhibition needs no negativity: Negativity links in the construction-integration model. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K.McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1777-1782). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
234. Rubin, D. C. (1995). Introduction. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 1-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
235. Rufenacht, R. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Lamkin, T. M. (2011). Fairy tales and ESL texts: An analysis of linguistic features using the gramulator. In R. C. Murray & P. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference(pp. 287-292). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
236. Rus, V. (2004). A first exercise for evaluating logic form identification systems. In Proceedings Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text (SENSEVAL-3), at the Association of Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting, July. Barcelona, Spain: ACL.
237. Rus, V., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2008). A study of textual entailment. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 17, 659-685.
238. Sanacore, J., & Palumbo, A. (2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of view. Educational Forum, 73, 67-74.
239. Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147.
240. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
241. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992).Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.
242. Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
243. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
244. Sekine, S., & Grishman, R. (1995). A corpus-based probabilistic grammar with only two nonterminals. In Fourth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (pp. 260-270). Prague/Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic.
245. Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229-255.
246. Singer, M., & Leon, J. (2007). Psychological studies of higher language processes: Behavioral and empirical approaches. In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 9-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
247. Singer M., & Ritchot, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733-743.
248. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
249. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
250. Spivey, M., McRae, K., & Joanisse, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
251. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-406.
252. Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Presented at the California Comparability Symposium, October, Durham, NC. Retrieved January 30, 2006 from http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=re
253. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
254. SwaIes, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
255. Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford.
256. Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1-21.
257. Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
258. ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense and aspect. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
259. Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
260. Tonjes, M. J., Ray, W., & Zintz, M. V. (1999). Integrated content literacy. New York: The McGraw-Hill Publishers.
261. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
262. Tweissi, A. I. (1998). The effects of the amount and the type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 191-206.
263. U.S. Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. (1985). U.S. air power: Key to deterrence. Montgomery, AL: U.S. Air Force.
264. Van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist approaches in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
265. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
266. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
267. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3-62.
268. Weston, J., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Towards a computational assessment of freewriting quality. In H. W. Guesgen & C. Murray (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference(pp. 283-288). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
269. Whitney, P., Ritchie, B. G., & Clark, M. B. (1991). Working-memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14, 133-145.
270. Williams, P. J. (2007). Literacy in the curriculum: Integrating text structure and content area instruction. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 199-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
271. Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process: Syntax. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
272. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. London: Blackwell.
273. Yano, Y., Long, M., & Ross, S. (1994). Effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189-219.
274. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173-186.
275. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
276. Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 20, 920-933.
277. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397.
278. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.