This study investigated the effects of four textual variables on two dependent measures. Subjects, 240 university freshmen, each read one of 24 passage versions. The 24 versions included all possible combinations of four variables: topic (Neanderthals, Pre-Neolithic Farming), cohesive conjunctions (low, moderate, high), reference (high, low), and response rhetorical predicates (present, absent). The two dependent measures employed were reading rate and written free recall. Results revealed statistically significant differences in recall due to topic and cohesive conjunctions. Theoretical implications of the results are discussed.
References
1.
BrewerW. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension; perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
CarpenterP. A.JustM. A. (1977). Reading comprehension as the eyes see it. In JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
ClarkH. H. (1977). Inferences in comprehension. In LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
CrewsR. (1974). The Random House handbook. New York: Random House, Inc.
5.
CummingsD. W.HerumJ.LybbertE. K. (1979). Semantic recurrence and rhetorical form. Language and Style, 4, 195–207.
6.
de BeaugrandeR. (1980). Text, discourse, and process; toward a multi-disciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
7.
DillonG. L. (1981). Constructing texts; elements of a theory of composition and style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
DoyleA. E. (1982). The limitations of cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 390–393.
9.
DrumP. A. (1979). Structural and thematic variations on fourth graders' types of recall. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
10.
FowlerF. (1977). Cohesive, progressive, and localizing aspects of text structure. In van DijkT. A.PetöfiJ. A. (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
11.
FryE. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarification, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.
12.
GrahamS. Y. (1977). Harbrace college workbook: Form 8a. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
13.
GrimesJ. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton and Company.
14.
Hagerup-NeilsenA. R. (1977). The role of macrostructures and linguistic connectives in comprehending familiar and unfamiliar written discourse. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6361A–7617A. (University Microfilms No. 7809664).
15.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited.
16.
IrwinJ. W. (1978). The effects of the interaction of syntactic complexity and the explicitness of connective propositions on fifth graders' comprehension of prose materials. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3883A–5183A. (University Microfilms No. 7820627).
17.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
18.
LongacreR. E. (1976). An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse, Belgium: Peter de Ridder Press.
19.
MeyerB. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
20.
MeyerB. J. F. (1977). What is remembered from prose: A function of passage structure. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
21.
MeyerB. J. F.BrandtD. M.BluthG. J. (1978, March). Use of author's textual schema: Key for ninth graders' comprehension. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
22.
MeyerB. J. F.FreedleR. O.WalkerC. H. (1977). Effects of discourse type on the recall of young and old adults. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.
23.
MooreA. M. T. (1979). A Pre-Neolithic farmers' village on the Euphrates. Scientific American, 242(2), 62–70.
24.
MorganJ. (1978). Toward a rational model of discourse comprehension. Theoretical issues in natural language processing-2. Urbana, IL: Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois.
25.
PearsonP. D. (1974–1975). The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192.
26.
PickeringW. N. (1978). A framework for discourse analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3883A–5183A.
27.
RoenD. H.PichéG. L. (in press). The effects of selected text-forming structures on college freshmen's comprehension of expository prose. Research in the Teaching of English.
28.
RossR. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 1, 183–191.
29.
StoneF. V. (1979). The effect of textual cohesion on the comprehension of connected discourse. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4780A–5628A. (University Microfilms No. 8004584).
30.
TrinkausE.HowellsW. W. (1979). The Neanderthals. Scientific American, 241, 118–133.
31.
Vande KoppleW. J. (1982). Functional sentence perspective, composition, and reading. College Composition and Communication, 33, 50–63.
32.
VipondD. (1980). Micro- and macroprocesses in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 176–296.
33.
WalmsleyS. (1977). Children's understanding of linguistic connectives: A review of selected literature and implications for reading research. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice. Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.
34.
WinterowdW. R. (1975). The contemporary writer; a practical rhetoric. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
