Language features, textual coherence and reading

REFERENCES

• Carrell, Patricia. 1982. “Cohesion is not coherence.” TESOL Quarterly, 16: 479–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feathers. Karen. 1985. Semantic features of text: their interaction and influence on reading behavior. Ed. D. thesis, Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Freebody, Peter and Richard C. Anderson. 1981. Effects of differing proportions and locations of difficult vocabulary on text comprehension. Technical Report 202, University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Urbana, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Freebody, Peter and Richard C. Anderson. 1983. “Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension,” Reading Research Quarterly, 18: 277–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, Kenneth S. 1983. Text features as they relate to miscues: Determiners. Research Report 8, University of Arizona, Arizona Center for Research and Development. Program in Language and Literacy; Occasional Papers. Tucson, Arizona.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, Kenneth S. and Suzanne Gespass. 1983. Text features as they relate to miscues: Pronouns. Research Report 7, University of Arizona, Arizona Center for Research and Development. Program in Language and Literacy; Occasional Papers. Tucson, Arizona.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975. “Language as social semiotic: Towards a general sociolinguistic theory,” The First LACUS Forum, 1974. Adam Makkai and Valerie Becker Makkai, Eds. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam. Pp. 17–46.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1980. Text and context: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Working Papers in Linguistics 6. Tokyo, Japan: Sophia University.
   Google Scholar
• Hartnett, Carolyn. 1985. “Signals of sequence and thought,” Toward an understanding of language: Charles Carpenter Fries in perspective. Peter H. Fries and Nancy Fries. Eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 129–41.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1978. “Text in the systemic-functional model,” Current trends in text linguistics. Ed. Wolfgang U. Dressier. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pp. 228–46.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1979. “On the notion of text,” Text vs sentence: Basic questions of text linguistics. Ed. Janos S. Petofi. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Pp. 369–90.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1983. “Coherence and cohesive harmony,” Understanding reading comprehension: cognition, language, and the structure of prose. Ed. James Flood. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pp. 181–219.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. “The structure of the nursery tale: an essay in text typology,” Proceedings of the XVth Congress of the Societa Linguistica Italiana. Societa Linguistica Italiana.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, George R. 1963. The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. F. 1957. “The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica,” Hesperts: 31–71. (Reprinted in T. F. Mitchell. Principles of Firthian linguistics. London: Longman. 1975.)
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Jerry L. and Manfred B. Sellner. 1980. “Discourse and linguistic theory,” Theoretical Issues in reading comprehension: perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 165–200.
   Google Scholar
• Mosenthal, James H. and Robert J. Tierney. 1984. “Commentary: Cohesion: Problems with talking about text,” Reading Research Quarterly 19: 240–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchard, R. 1980. A study of the cohesion devices in the good and poor compositions of eleventh graders. Ph.D. thesis. University of Missouri.
   Google Scholar
• Roen, Duane H. “The effects of cohesive conjunctions, reference, response rhetorical predicates, and topic on reading rate and written free recall,” Journal of reading behavior 16: 15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, Robert J. and James H. Mosenthal. 1981. The cohesion concept's relationship to the coherence of text. Technical Report 221. University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Urbana, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Tuinman, J. Jaap and Mary Ella Brady. 1974. “How does vocabulary account for variance on reading comprehension tests? A preliminary instructional analysis,” Interaction: research and practice for college-adult reading. Twenty-third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Pp. 176–84.
   Google Scholar
• Yngve, Victor H. 1960. “A model and hypothesis for language structure,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association, 404: 444–46.
   Google Scholar