Language comprehension involves analysis at the level of the word, sentence, and message and the integration of message meaning with the prior discourse and world knowledge. Contemporary research converges on another facet of comprehension: the validation of message consistency. Existing evidence already favors several principles in validation of reading and listening. Validation is initiated immediately and is routine rather than requiring intentional strategies. Successful validation is a precondition to updating the situational representation of the message. Validation applies to discourse inferences as well as explicit assertions. Finally, the memory-retrieval processes that enable validation closely resemble those of intentional discourse memory. Competing observations of people’s validation failures are proposed to systematically stem from features of the message, understander, and comprehension task. Therefore, theoretical analysis that accommodates both successful and deficient language validation ought to be attainable.
AlbrechtJ. E.MyersJ. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459–1468.
2.
BarghJ. A. (1994). The Four Horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition. In WyerR.Jr.SrullT. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
BartonS. B.SanfordA. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.
CarpenterP. A.JustM. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45–73.
6.
CohenG. (1979). Language comprehension in old age. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 412–429.
7.
CookA. E.MyersJ. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.
8.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
9.
FergusonM. J.ZayasV. (2009). Automatic evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 362–366.
10.
FerreiraF.BaileyK. G. B.FerraroV. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
11.
FerrettiT. R.SingerM.HarwoodJ. (2013). Processes of discourse integration: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Discourse Processes, 50, 165–186.
12.
FerrettiT. R.SingerM.PattersonC. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the time-course of verifying text ideas. Cognition, 108, 881–888.
13.
GlenbergA. M.WilkinsonA. C.EpsteinW. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.
14.
HannonB.DanemanM. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes, 37, 187–204.
15.
IsbernerM.-B.RichterT. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15–22.
16.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.
17.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
18.
KnoeferleP.UrbachT. P.KutasM. (2011). Comprehending how visual context influences incremental sentence processing: Insights from ERPs and picture-sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 48, 495–506.
19.
MatsukiK.ChowT.HareM.ElmanJ. L.ScheepersC.McRaeK. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 913–934.
20.
MitroffS. R.SimonsD. J.LevinD. T. (2004). Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1268–1281.
21.
NieuwlandM. S.KuperbergG. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218.
22.
NoordmanG. M.VonkW.KempffH. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 573–590.
23.
O’BrienE. J.AlbrechtJ. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777–784.
24.
O’BrienE. J.LorchR. F.MyersJ. L. (Eds.) (1998). Memory-based text processing [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 26(2–3).
25.
O’BrienE. J.RizzellaM. L.AlbrechtJ. E.HalleranJ. G. (1998). Updating a situational model: A memory based text processing review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
26.
RappD. N.KendeouP. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1–24.
27.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.
28.
RinckM.HahnelA.BeckerB. (2001). Using temporal information to construct, update, and retrieve situation models of narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 67–80.
29.
SanfordA. J.GarrodS. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.
30.
SanfordA. J.GraesserA. C. (2006). Shallow processing and under specifications. Discourse Processes, 42, 99–108.
31.
SchroederS.RichterT.HoeverI. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237–255.
32.
SchroyensW. J.SchaekenW.d’YdevalleG. (2001). The processing of negations in conditional reasoning: A meta-analytic case study in mental model and/or mental logic theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 7, 121–172.
33.
SingerM. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.
SmallwoodJ.McSpaddenM.SchoolerJ. W. (2008). When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1144–1150.
39.
StaubA.RaynerK.PollatsekA.HyonaJ.MajewskiH. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1162–1169.
40.
TulvingE. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
41.
van BerkumJ. J. A.ZwisterloodP.HagoortP.BrownC. M. (2003). When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 701–718.
42.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
43.
WyerR. S.Jr.RadvanskyG. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social information. Psychological Review, 106, 89–118.
