Comprehension Effects of Connectives Across Texts, Readers, and Coherence Relations

References

• Asr, F. T., & Demberg, V. (2012). Implicitness of discourse relations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of COLING 2012 (pp. 2669–2684), Mumbai. doi:10.1118/1.4704498
   Google Scholar
• 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, 26(3), 251–276. doi:10.2307/747763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1037/a0022824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canestrelli, A. R., Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozijn, R., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2011). Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475–500. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English‐only students? Journal of Research in Reading, 36(3), 241–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01501.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, D., & Taboada, M. (2017). Signalling of coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743–770. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degand, L., Lefèvre, N., & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1, 39–51. doi:10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15(7), 739–757. doi:10.1023/A:1020932715838
   Google Scholar
• EP-Nuffic. (2015). Education system the Netherlands: The Dutch education system described ( Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from: https://www.nuffic.nl/documents/459/education-system-the-netherlands.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2009). The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–854. doi:10.1017/S0305000908009227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 277–294. doi:10.2307/747389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(4), 331–346. doi:10.1080/10862968509547549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, J. M., Millis, K. M., Hauselt, J., & Sego, S. A. (1995). The effect of connectives and causal relatedness on text comprehension. In R. F. Lorch Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 127–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., & Murray, J. D. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, E., & Rutkowski, L. (2010). Principles of multiple matrix booklet designs and parameter recovery in large-scale assessments. IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 3, 125–156.
   Google Scholar
• 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, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 9, 239–249.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 323–345. doi:10.1080/01638530802145486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research: Essays in honor of Uppsala university‘s 500th anniversary (pp. 329–365). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Literacy Research, 8(2), 129–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijn, S. (2018). Clozing in on readability: how linguistic features affect and predict text comprehension and on-line processing. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2019). Cloze testing for comprehension assessment: The hytec-cloze. Language Testing. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/0265532219840382
   Google Scholar
• Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O’Donnell, M., & Mellish, C. (2001). Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 181–196). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169–1206. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.699076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4), 525–556. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C., Kemper, S., & Bovaird, J. A. (2009). Comprehension of health-related written materials by older adults. Educational Gerontology, 35(7), 653–668. doi:10.1080/03601270902885504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 489–512. doi:10.1080/01690960444000151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure, E., & Geva, E. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of adversative conjunctions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 6(4), 411–432. doi:10.1080/01638538309544575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. doi:10.3102/00028312021001121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 317–339. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 128–147. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, G. (2008). Understanding causal coherence relations. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch Jr. & E. J. O‘Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 107–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. doi:10.3758/BF03201114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4), 453–465. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90101-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2), 121–152. doi:10.1080/01638530709336895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oller, J. W., & Jonz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Cloze and coherence. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Van Den Heuvel, H. (2013). SoNaR user documentation. Version 1.0.4. Retrieved from https://ticclops.uvt.nl/SoNaR_end-user_documentation_v.1.0.4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 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(3), 228–242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pander Maat, H. L. W. (2001). Unstressed en/and as a marker of joint relevance. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 197–230). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pander Maat, H. L. W. (2002). Tekstanalyse. Wat teksten tot teksten maakt. Bussum, The Netherlands: Coutinho.
   Google Scholar
• Pander Maat, H. L. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2006). Connectives in text. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 597–607). London, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The penn discourse treebank 2.0. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08) (pp. 2961–2968). Marrakech, Morocco.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Paper presented at the Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (pp. 105–114). Toulouse, France.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. doi:10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & Pander Maat, H. L. W. (2006). Cohesion and coherence: Linguistic approaches. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 591–595). London, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. doi:10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–2026. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spyridakis, J. H. (1989a). Signaling effects: A review of the research—Part I. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(3), 227–240. doi:10.2190/UA49-PQ9K-H1MN-DYK9
   Google Scholar
• Spyridakis, J. H. (1989b). Signaling effects: Increased content retention and new answers—Part II. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(4), 395–415. doi:10.2190/493Q-703B-JBVD-E0T9
   Google Scholar
• Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 285–298. doi:10.2307/747969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M. (2009). Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 125–138). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(3), 481–497. doi:10.1080/027249897391982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2014). Establishing coherence in schoolbook texts: How connectives and layout affect students’ text comprehension. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1–29. doi:10.1075/dujal.3.1.01sil
   Google Scholar
• Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Til, A., & Van Boxtel, H. (2015). Wetenschappelijke verantwoording Toets 0 t/m 3, tweede generatie. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal-Abarca, E., & Sanjose, V. (1998). Levels of comprehension of scientific prose: The role of text variables. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 215–233. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00020-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar