Managing mental representations during narrative comprehension

Accessibility in Text and Discourse Processing: A Special Issue of Discourse Processes

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 145-164

  Gemsbacher, Morton Ann ^a   Robertson, Rachel R W ^a   Palladino, Paola ^b   Werner, Necia K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85078714269     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. De Beni, R., Palladino. P., Pazzaglia, F., & Comoldi, C. (1998). Inc.reases in intrusion errors and working memory deficit of poor comprehenders. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 5/A, 305-320.
2. Dell, G. S., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.
3. Emmorey, K. (1997). Non-antecedent suppression in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes. 12, 103-119.
4. Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. A., Gernsbacher, M.G., & Smith, S.D. (1997). In hibitory control during sentence processing in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain and Language, 57,225-253.
5. Gamham, A., Traxler, M. J., Oakhill, J. V., & Gernsbacher, M.G. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 517-543.
6. Gernsbacher, M.A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32,99-156.
7. Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of/earning and motivation (pp. 217-263). New York: Academic.
9. Gemsbacher, M.A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4, 294-298.
10. Gemsbacher, M.A. (1995). The Structure Building Framework: What it is, what it might also be, and why. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of text understanding (pp. 289-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Gemsbacher, M.A. (1997a). Attenuating interference during comprehension: The role of suppression. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 85-104). San Diego, CA: Academic.
12. Gemsbacher, M.A. (1997b). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.
13. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Faust, M. (199la). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
14. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Faust, M. (199lb). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 97-128). Amsterdam: North Holland.
15. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Faust, M. (1995). Skilled suppression. In F. N. Dempster & C. N. Brainerd's (Eds.), In terference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 295-327). San Diego, CA: Academic.
16. Gemsbacher, M.A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (in press). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 433-450.
17. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1619-1630.
18. Gemsbacher, M.A., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2000). The costs and benefits of meaning. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 119-137). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Shlesinger, M. (1997). The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation. In terpreting, 2, 119-140.
20. Gernsbacher, M.A., & Varner, K. R. (1988). The multi-media comprehension battery (Tech. Rep. No. 88-03). Eugene: University of Oregon, In stitute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences.
21. Gernsbacher, M.A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. (1990). In vestigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, I6, 430-445.
22. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Foster, K. L. (2000). Language comprehension and probe-list memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 766-775.
23. Lee, J. (1992). On-line processing of pronoun resolution in reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Korea University, Seoul, Koiea.
24. Long, D. L., & de Ley, L. (2000). Understanding anaphors in story dialogue. Memory & Cognition, 28, 731-738.
25. Long, D. L., Seely, M. R., & Oppy, B. J. (1999). The strategic nature ofless skilled readers' suppression problems. Discourse Processes, 27, 281-302.
26. MacDonald, M. C., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring inhibition and facilitation effects from pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 469-492.
27. Nordlie, J., Dopkins, S., & Johnson, M. (2001). Words in a sentence become less accessible when an anaphor is resolved. Memory & Cognition, 29, 355-362.
28. Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 344-354.
29. Sun, Y. (1997). The immediacy effects in pronoun resolution in Chinese comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.