DOCUMENT RESUME

, ED 216 319 CS 006 636.

AUTHOR Roen, Duane H.TITLE The Effects of Selected Text-Forming Structures on

College Freshmen's Comprehension of ExpositoryProse. '

PUB .,DATE '81 -.

NOTE 32p.; Research prepared at The University of_Minnesota.' -, . ph

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Processes; *Coherence; *Cohesion (Written

Composition); College Freshmen; Higher Education;*Reading Comprehension; Reading Rate; *Readin9

.

Research; *Recall (Psychology);_*Surface StructureIDENTIFIERS Prose Learning; Schemata; *Text Structure- v.

ABSTRACTIn light of conflicting and limited results in the

assessment of the effects of text- forming structures, a studyinvestigated the effects of specific microlevel and macroleveltext-forming elements on readers' comprehension of selected passages ,of Scientific technical prose. More specifically, the study examinedthe individual and combined effects of intersentential'cbhesiveconjunctions; references leiical cohesion, and rhetorical predicateson college freshmen's comprehension'tlree recall and reading rate) ofthese pas§ages. Subjects for the experiment were 160 students infreshman'compobition classes. Each subject read one of 1'6 versions oftexts dealing wkth fairly technical scientific .topics. During the 12data gathering sessions, subjects were.askid.to read the passages attheir mortal reading rates, record their reading times, and write asmuch as fgeyicbuld recall of the passage. Adalyses of the. datarevealed no systematic effects of interseniential, cohesiveconjunctions, reference, lexical cohesion/ and rheiorical predicateson reading rate, and wtitten free recall., These -findings appear, tosupport the argument that'surface level linking*strUctures arenotcauses but symptoms or reflections of the underlying coherence of-connectiVity of text-knoWiedge and worldltnowledge. (RL):

o

WO

:t

4

4,

--)

G . . /

t****************************************************************** Repzoductions supplied by EI)RS are the best that can be made *A, ,. from the original document. *

**t*****************,y**************:********************************

r 't

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION- -

NATIONAe INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (MCIhis document has-been reproduced as

received from the person or organisationoriginating it

Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated In this docu

mentdonotnecessarOcialNIIEr-4 r Position or policy

r`rN

0- '4.0 The Effects of Selected,Text-Forming Structures.r-4 .

on College Freshmen's Comprehension

L.1.4

s

10'

krJ

of Expository Prose,

Duane H. RoenAssistant Professor

Department of Curriculum and InstructionUnOersity of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, Nebraska 68588(402) 472-2391

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS ,BEEN GRANTED BY

Duane H. Roen

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

c--

I'text- Forming Structures

1

The present study represents an +attempt to test some of the strong

claims about the text-forming effects of micro-level cohesive elements

on discourse. Claims for these structures have been made routinely

by rhetoricians (Crews, 1974; Daiker, Kerek, & Morenberg, 1979;

Graham, 1977; Guth, 1965; HairSton, 1974; Legget, Mead & Charvat,

1974; Winterowd, 1975). More'recently theoreAcally:based claims have

iibeen made by a number of linguis s (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hasan,

1968; Lyons,977). Additionally, the study tests counter claims

which argue that the 'effects of these micro-level cohesive elements

are less important, than those macro-level structures previously

described as rhetorical predicates (Meyer, 1975, 1979; Meyer,,.

Brandt, & Bluth, 1978; Meyer, Freedle, & Walker, 1977).(

Relations Between TeXtual Cohesion and Discourse Coherence:

Previous Work

Collesion/Cohetence

Theoretical considerations of cohesion /coherende. Those

linguistic features which have been given serious consideration as

text-forming devices or cohesive elements have been most thoroughly. -

'discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) They define cohesion as a. _

.

, r

'''.-_,9.1emInticrelationship betweentwo elements ina text, apresupposing'-.

element and a presupposed element, a relationship achieved by

refference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexi

ti

O

7

, I

Text-Forming Sentences

The relationship betwten these cohesive elements and overall

, discourse coherence has been differently posed. A number of

writers have employed a bottom-up processing model (decker, 1965;4

Cummings, Heruin, & Lybbert, 1971; Hairston, 1974; Holloway, 1981;

Lyons, 1977; Nelson & Stalter, 1.9'8; Pickering, 1978; Waimsley, 19774A .

Winterowd, 1970) which presumes overall discourse coherence as the %

result of'theinteraction of a set of micro-level (local) features of- e

a text. Others hive employed a,fop -down processing model (Crothers,

179; de Beaugrande,'197801980 CKintach & van Dijk, 1978; Morgan,

1978, 1980; Thorndyke, 1977; Turner & Greene,11977.; van Dijk, 1977,

1977a; Warren, Nicholas, & Trabasso, 1979) inwhich the effects of so-'4 .

./called eOpesIve structures are, mlnimal,,j.nasyh ak they are, .

.*,

4'.

I. . -_ - .-

modified and integrated into.tbe texts larger, macro-structures,)

e

which are.in turn modified by the reader's prior knowledge of the

Smworld, including knoweedge abou the s,tructure and organization, of

,texts. ,

'The extent to which micro-level.cohesive deVices contribute to)1 $?#.

local and global discourse coherence can only be hypothesized by'/

.

theory. More accurate predictions of the'effects of,conjunction,

reference, substitution, elltsis, an'd lexical result.,)4'.

! 1°only after the have been tested.exper/mentalIy. tt. e 41.. .( .

Experimental studies of cohesion/coherence. Mere havebeek : .

few-experimental investigations of the relationship between the

1 . . .

.

micro-level cohesive.device\ s 'miler consideration*in the pre1ent study.;,

., 0 .(conjunction, reference, and'lexipal, cohesion) arid factors of; local.

)es

Text-eofming4Structures

3

ateilobal discourse coherence. Of the few that have been conducted,

1some (Carpenter & Jus4, 1977; Clark, 1977; Drum,,1979 Jarvelld,

.

1973'; Moberly, 19,78; Pear;9n, 1974-75; Stone, 1979; Williams, Taylor,

k& Ganger, 1980) conclude by asserting a.strong relationship:" Others..

(Fishman, 1977; Hagerup-Neilson, 1977; Irwin, 1978; Kintsoh,

Kozminsky, Stipby, McKoon, & Keenan,.1975; Vipond, 1980) conclude

O that there is only,a weak relationship.

Theoretical and experimental studies of rhetorical predicates. A

.second aspect\of the present study deals with another class of struc-

tures, rhetorical predicates (RPs); considered text-forming. RPs are

statements that specify the structural relations of ideas that

constitute the content of a text (cf. Grime% 1975; Meyer, 1975).

They may also be viewed as-signals that explicitly illustrate a

writer's perspective on the content of a text. RPs are macro-level

text-forming elements pre6umed to assist readers in testing hypotheses

about a text's overall' structure.

Four types of. RPs have been, investigated- (Meyer et a1:,'1975,

1977, 1978): adversative, covariance, response, and attribution with

mixed results% In one study-'(Meyer, 1975), 'RPs did not facilitate

4recalf.as measured by the n ber of propoaitiods recalled; in still 14

another study (Meyer et al., 1978) the effeclis of RPs were mixed,-

facilitating recall of onekpassage buE n t-another, with facilitative

effectsshown to be greatest for low an average ability readers. a

Finally, Horowitz; Piche% andSaffiuels,(1980) examined the effects of

each of the four types of RPs on wpitten free recall for ninth gra"ders,

n

CP

c>\

.

and college freshmen. Results indicated that there was no significant

Text Forming Structures

effect on reading comprehension by type of RP, even though the type

of RP used to orgahize a text did affect., reading time for college.

freshmen. Mote recently, Meyer (1979)has suggested that types of

signaling, including RPs, do help readers with poor comprehension

skills. .These structures may also help better readers comprehend

0poorly organized texts. Clearly, more lbasic research is needed to"

integrate these variables-into amore complete processing model.

O

Considerations of the Pres t Study

In light of these eonfli ting and limited'results in the assess-. ,i .

ment of .the -jeffeCts of text-forvg,,structures, there is-a need for,

study of a wider range of structures, micro-'and macro - level, on a

widei range of populations.' Studies need to test the interactive

effects of thepe text features 'order to develop'a greater under-

standing of the relative importance of each and to ensure greater

ecological .validitY4',,there is a need for studies that employ longer

texts, texts that resemble those actually read by high school and

,college students.

/ It is in this context that the present study investigates theo

effects of specific micro- and macro-level text-forming elements oh

readers', comprehension of selected passages of scientific technical,

prose. ,More specifidallythe study examines the individual and. ,r Acombined effects ot-intersententiarcohesive.conj

,- --.A.....

(vis-a-vis lexical cohesion), an. Response

comprehension (as measure,

4.these passages.

unctions zeference

RPs on college freshmen's

rftten free recall and reading rate) of.

C

,

4

4

ftText-Forming Structures

: .5

Methods.

Subjects

T

Subjects for the'experiment were 160 students enrolled iq 12

sections of the first quarter.of efreshman composition sequence in

the Department of English at the University of Minnesota.'

Stimplus Materials

Each subject read 1 of 16 text versions. These texts dealt with

two topics: the con.troversy, over the evolutionary significance of

Neanderthal man (Trinkaus & Howells, 19795 and the anthropological

ksignificwg. of a Pre- Neolithic farming village recently unearthed in

southeastern Asia (goore, 1979). Each of 4te texts was a slightly

'modyied version of 4 much,longer text that had 4ppeared in Scientific

American '(1979). In ffecr, they were examples of fairly long

(745-02 words), fairly technical, scientific a position.4

Results of a pilltstudy indicated that although a cohesive

conjunction (CC) high-reference (REF) high treatment combination

facilitated reading rate, the CC high condition, as well as the CC-REF

high treatment combination; exerted` statistically significant negative..

,

effects on written free recall; which is likely to, be -4 more important\ . t

.0

.

m asureothan reading rate.

.0

0

.(

In order to avoid the negative effects of an extremely high.

. .:

.

fraquere ey of'CCs, the experimental passages employed in the final

study includedIa more mode ate-level of CCs.. In the CC high condition

the passage versions contai ed 19 C'es,iuch as%however, therefore,

Ar

4

-

TextiForming StrUctures

6

that is, and on the other hand, that did not occur in the CC low

condition. This number-was obtained by finding the,mean number of

such CCs appearing in 10 randomly selected excerpts from 10 randomly

selecteearticles,appearing in recent issues of Scientific American

from which the original versions of the experimental passages appeared.

Because the CCs served as intersentential connectors, sentence

structure remained constant across all eight versions of each of the

two basic texts. Sentence length was, of course, increased by the4.*

number of words that composed each of the 19 CCs.

The'16 passage versions employed in-the ,major study varied along

a third dimensipn. Specifically, 8 of the 16 passage versions included

025 personal pronouns or demonstratives that did not appear in the

.

other 8 passage versions'. In the remaining 8 passage versions those

25 nominal elements 'occurred as repetitions of nouns, synonyms, or

near synonyms. The two treatmentconditions are labeled referencet-

o(REF) high..and REF 16w, respeCtively.

,F

Finally',:pa'ssage versions varied along a.foutth dimeniion.

Half of the 16*pagSage versions contained explicit statements

(response rhetorical predicates) that indicated to readers that a

problem solution relationship existed among-the ideas`in those

passage versions. This treatment condition is labeled the response

rhetorical predicate present (RPP) condition., The remaining 8'versions

contained no RRP. This tteatment condition is labeled the RRP absent

-condition. ,

t

84

1

4

Text-formirigtructures

7

There were several reasons for the use8of an RRP in the

experimental passages. First,.a Meyer (1975), analysis of the content

.of each of the'passages revealed a problem-solution top-levels4

structure. There were ofcourse, other types of rhetorical struc4

tures (adversative, covariance, additive) embedded in the passages ht

various positions. Second, as Jordan (1980) argues, problem-solution

top-level structured are endemic to scientific-technical prose.

To assess the readability of each of the 16 passage'versions,

the Fry Readability Graph (Fry, 19-77) was used. Table 1 indicates

that the readability of these versions of these passages was substan

tially higher than grade 13, the grade level,Of all of the subjects in'

Insert Table 1 about here

tAis study. Further analysis indicates that the readability of 24

randomly selected 100-word excerpts taken from the-8 Neanderthal

passage vertions had a mean readability of grade 16 while 24 randomly

,selected 100-word excerpts taken from the 8 Pre-Neolithic Farming

passage versions had a mean readability of grade 17+. While Neanderthalti

excerpts had a mean of 6.98 sentences, Pre- Neolithic Farming excerpts

4had a mean of 7.42 sentences. Flirther, the Neanderthal passages had

'a mean of 179.67 syllables while Pre-NeoLhic Farming passages had aC--

mean of 183.42.syllables.

The selection of passages like these for stidy rests on two

assumptions: The first assumption is that texts, like these (fairly0 4

.1

. .

.`")

Text-Forming Structures

A.8

difficult technical, scientific prose) have a kind of face ecological

A -

validity, representing precisely the kind of texts which college and

university students encounter inn their-initial coursewdrk, coupled

4pith a demand that they be 'read with maximum compreheition. Secondly,

there Is some speculation that textual variables similaro thosee ,)

under consideration' here exert little effect on younger or older

skilled -readers Leading relatively, easy texts (Drum, 1979;1Aagerup-,

Neilsdn, 1977), warranting an Assumption that they are most likely

to exert an effect wherithey are entailed in 1pger; technically more'

difficult passages.

Procedures

Through the use of a table of random, numbers (Winter, 1971,00

pp. 881-882)

experimental

, al1.160 subjectsi were randomly assigned to 1 of 16

treatment conditions, which are summarized in Table 1.

All of the data for this study were gathered during the firSt

three weeks of N9vember in 1980. During each of the 12 data gathering

sessions, each subject received a,testviacket containing the following/

15

items: (1) a consent form to be retained by the subjects; (2) a

iTconsent form to be ,returned to the investigator; (3) a brief

questionnaire; (4)-a set pf directions; (5) a passage to read;

(6) f9ur pages of lined composition paper.

These test packets were distributed to.subjects as they entered'

. .

their regular composition classrooms. Subjects were told to read

and sign both consent forms and to keep one of them. They were told-

,

not to look atany pages that follsped the forms. After subjects had

0 -4to.

Co,

Text-Forming Structures

A 9

read and signed the consent forms, they were ask0 to complete.a brief

questionnaire that asked them tQ indicate their age, academic status,

and sex.,;

Directions were read aloud to subjects, asking them to read the

passage that followed and to record their reading times to the nearest

second. After doing that they were to recall as much of the passage

as possible. Their free recalls were to be written on lined composition

paper provided.

fat their normal

rcread.

Outcome Measures

The directions emphasized that subjects wereito read

rates and for the purpose of recalling what they had

The-written free recall preftocols were subjected to an analysis

of the number of idea units recalled. The rules for counting idea

units were egsentiarly those described and employed by Meyer (1975.

Specifically, in the current study, each of.theitexts was segmented .

into propositions in the order-in which they occurred...in the'text.

Each of.those0,prepositions was% in turn, divided into.its predicate

-and its arguments. Each argument was then given a label that indi-

cated its specific semantic relationship (role) with the predicate.'

Each experimental subject was given credit (one point) fot r,ecallidg

an idea unit if his/her written free recall protocol 'contained an 0-

exact copy or a recognizable palaphrase of that unit. Each subject

was given an additional point for eacrecalled arguMent if it had

the same role (semantic relationship) with respect to its predicate

that it held in the stimulus text.

p-1

v

Text-FO:mirig Strn6tures,/-- t

Twb graduate-student coders conducted the scoring' independently.

Each scored 80,recall protocols which had been randomly assigned.

Additionally, the two cOders-

scored 30 randomly assigned.

protocols in common i order to estimate ntercoder reliabilities.

Tie Pearson P ;oduct-Moment correlation coefficient between coders yeas.

:90 for the number of idea units counted.,

A net recall score for each subject was submitted to statistical.

analysis. That score was derived by first mounting the total. numbe

of idea units and role relationS rectIled by a subject. Idea units.

f`T

for CCs and Che RRP that were recalled were subtracted from the total

recall score to yield a net recall score. 1,1,is procedure Was followed

becauselqeyer (1977) has argued convincin 1y that. CCs and RRPs are

signals. As. such, they doinbt add new co tent; rather, they simply

make more explicit the information that i -aireadycontained in theT

passage. ,

Reading Rate

Results

The first dependent measure' to be submitted .toa 2 x 2 x 2 x.2 .

random factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was reading rate: This

analysis, as well d§ all otheri, was conducted with an a priori .05

.. .

level of significance. The ANOVA re plrs for,

reading rate, which are, ,

summarized in Table 2, indic&ted*that'there were no signiffcant pain1 .

. ,

1

4

/

kInsert Table-2 about here

1

4

I 9

r

`e,

.Text Forming. Structures

11

effects for topic, CC, REF, or RRP.' However, the main, effect for RRP

approached significance (p = .099). The mean reaciing rate al,

subjects who had read passage,yersiOns witha RPP was 156.11 words,

per minute while the mean reading rate for those who had read passage

versionswithouta RRP was 165.99. Across all passage versions the

.mean reading rate was 161.05 words per minute. Means for all of the

main effects bar reading rate appear in Table 3.

Insert Table 3 about here

None of the two*-way interactions for reading rate approached

statistical significance as Table 2 indicates.

While three of the three-way-interactions for reading rate did

not approach significance, the topic x CC x REF interaction was

significant (p = .025). The means for that interaction appear in

Table 4.

Insert Table 4 about here

A graphical inspection of that interaction, which a pears in

Figure1, indicates that reading rate for`subjects who h read the,

Neanderthals passage versions was highest 11 those version- had

Insert Figure 1 about here

,contained high levels°of CC and REF. Conversely, subj c s who had

read similar versions pf the Pre-Neolithic Farming pa s e, versions

13 4

r

e.

Text-Forming Structures.

12

with high levels Of CC and.REF, had the lowest reddingtes. .

Reading rate was further depressed for subjects who had read the

Neanderthal passage versions with high levels of CC.and loyilevels

of REF. In the Pre,-Neolithic Farming paSsage versions the same

condition, high levels of CC and low levels of REF, resulted in the

highest reading rate. Fo'r subjects who had read passage versions with

low levels of CC, the effects of REF were4less extreme;,they were also

in the opposite direction.

The foour-way interaction for reading rate, like the two way.

interactions described earlier, did not approach statistical signifi-

cance. The ANOVA res11,1,ts.for.that interaction appear'in Table 2.

Written Free Recall

A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed, that topic was highly significant

Neanderthal gaseage

than subjects who had

(RN = 76.3125, XP =

separate ANOVAs for

(p = .001). That is, subjects who had read the

versions recalled significantly more idea units

read the Pre Neolithic' Farming passage versions

58.4625). -As.a result of this difference, two

written free recall weiNINperformed, one for each topic.

.

0Written Free Recall for Neanderthal Passage Versions`

The ANOVA results for free recall of Neanderthal passage

which appear in Table 5 indicate that none of the main effects.

p Insert Table 5 about here

c.

versions,

9

TAxt-Forming Structures

13

approached the a priori level of statistical significance. The means

for those effects appear in Table 6..9 Similarly, none of o-waysem

or three-wax interactions were significant.

Insert Tab3#N6_ about here

Written Free Recall for Pre - Neolithic Farming Passage- Versions

While the results for written free recall of Pre-Neolithic Farming

passage versions indicate that there were no,significant main effects

for CC or REF, the main effect for RRP was statistically significant

,(p = .042). As Table 6 indicates, subjects who had read the Pre--

Neolithic-Farming passage version without a RRP recalled a mean of

64.600 idea units while those who had rea versions wit, a RRP recalled1 a

52.325 units.

The Relationship Between Written Free Recall and Reading Rate

To test the strength of the relationship between the rate at which

subjects, read and the number of idelpgkito they recalled, thtree Pearson

Product-Moment correlations were calculated. To calculate the first

correlation coefficient, the reading rate and written free recall

score for eich of the entire sample of ,160 subjects were included.

Results indicated that there was almost no relationship between a;

subject's reading Hate and written free recall score (r = .0012,

p = .988):,

.15

A.

Text- Forming Sutuctures

14 -

Since at earlier anal/sis had revealed a strong effect for topic,

I

\.two additional correlation coefficients were computed, one for each'of

J the two passage topicsi'Skle Pearson Product-Moment correlation for

the 80subject6 who had read the Neanderthal passage versions indicated

a

once again that there was almost no relationship between reading rate0

and the number of idea units recalled (r = -.0164, p:.= .885). The"

relationship hgtween reading rate and the number of idea units recalled

was similarly weak for subjects who had read the Pre-Neolithic

Farming passage versions (r p = .946):

Discussion

The effects of intersentential cohesive conjunctions on reading

rate and written-free recall. As a main effect the presence of

intersententfal cohesive eOnjunctions (CC). did little to increase

reading rate or written free recall. The absence ofany main effect40

raiseA question& about the psychological reality of the relationship

between quantitative differences in textual cohesion due to*CC and

quantitative differences in discourse coherence (Crothers, 1979;

Turner & Greene, 1977). RhetoriCianstXdiice to writers that they

use inte'rsententl.al cohesiveg conjunctions (transition words) to

produce more coherent expository writing (Crews, 1974; Daikerettal.,

1979, Graham, 19-77; Guth, 1965; Illeggett et al., 1974; Winterowd, 1975)

may heed qualification. Whife these rhetoricaIclaims,seem to have

intuitive credibility, expetimenta1 lts of prevtous studies46

(Hagerup-Neilson% 1977; Irwin, 1978; Vipoid, 1980), as well as the

present study, suggest that such claims have little empirical support.

1

1-

/Text-Forming Structures

15

The effects of reference on reading rate and written free

-:recall. There was no main effect for reference (REF) for eitherof'

..the two dependent measures. However, as Was previously described,

REF was included in one signifiCant interaction, topic x CC x REF,

for reading rate. Specifically, the Pre-Neolithic Farming passage

versions were read More rapidly when they incIId. a low level of REF '4

(or high level of LC) combined with a high level bf CC. Sincg REF

was so highry boun to context, Previous claims about the facilitative

of recurrences of items, or lexical cohesion (de Beaugrande,

1980; Kintsch, 1974), may need fiirther examination. More specifically,

the relationship between ease of processing versus depth of processing

information on texts may need to be clarified through furthe'Pexperi-

mental studies- Results of the current study do not support findings

(Carpenter & Just, 1977; Drums 1919) that searching for less. explicit

anaphoric referents is'a time- consuming inferential activity. NOrj6

the results Of the current study support Clark's (1977) finding that

this type of inferential activity requires additional processing

(de Beaugrande, 1980;, Drum, 1979)that results in gteater comprehension.

Thl general absence of effect for these so-called cohesive text'

structures tends to .support top-down models of discourse processing.

From such a model, it is assumed that a reader with normal inferencing

skills is able to form an explicit text base through the interaction

of'a more-or -less implicit texttext base and various types of prior./

knoWledge. Other researc rs make an even stronger argument

(de Beaugrande, 1981a; Morgan, 1978, 1980; Morgan & Sellner, 1980;

17

:3

Text-Forming'Structures

-16.4

Webber, 1980), concluding that Halliday and Hasap's .,(1976) micrp-level

cohesive devices do not enhance discourse coherence, but rather thaI/-

coherent discourse makes these devices possible. .What,is most

SW

important in the formation of a coherent discoUrse is- not the explicit-

ness'of micro-level textual information but the "underlying connectiv-

ity of text-knowledge and world-knowledge" (de Beaugraude, 1980,

p. 132) .

The effects of response rhetorical predicates op reading rate and

Awritten free recall. While the main eft ct for response rhrtorica

410'

predicates (RRPs) on reading rate was not significant,0df=1,144

2.754, p = ...099) the presehce_OT anRRP did result in a decrease in.

overall reading rate., Mothe.importently, the presence of a RRP

exerted a negative effect on written free recall, an effect which was

'significant for the Pre-Neolithic Farming passage versions. Difficult

texplaip, it may be that the effects of RRPs, as well as those of

other types of rhetoriCal predicates, are so highly context bound

that they cannot be pre'dieted across,different textt,types or topics.

Indeed, an examination of the results of previous studies (Meyer, 1975,

1977; Meyer et" al.,,,1977, 1978) suggests, that these effects cannot be

consistently predicted.

Gendral considerations of the effect of micro-level and macro-4

_level text-forming structures. The present study reveals no systematic

effects of intersentential cohesive, conjunctions, reference, lexical

cohesion, and'response rhetorical predicaIes'on reading rate and .

written free recall. These findings appear to support those Writers.

1 Q

Text-Forming Structure§ .

4.7

previously citedcited who argue that surface level linking structures are

not cause, but are rather. a symptom x reflection of the underlying- ,

coherence or Confiectivity of text-knowledge and world-knowledge.

When the underlying propositional 63ntent of a.text is coherent,

readers may proces6 discourse"without any benefit following from

explicit coheqive connections in the surface structure. The possibility

of a reader's achieving discourse coherence is increased if his/her

activated,macro-level,fraMes or schemata are appropfiate for the

tex"and if they are adequately developed to process the text:, That

is, it mast be possible for the reader,to readily integrate Blew

textual information into existing knowledge structures: Unfortunately,.1

the textual representation cif these conjunctive schemata remain

elasive.

It is Clear that much expdimdhtal work remains to be one in

mapping tl effects of micro-level and macro-level text-forming

structures like those under consideration .n the present study.

Approaching that work we will be well-advised to consider Fowler's (1977)

observation that:

. .-. the construction of an explanatorily adequatetext grammar for a specified example of one type ofdiscourse [is] a project of unattainable magnitudefor the imaginable future,if the criterion is tobe observed that a text grammar reflects readers',textual competence.. We simply know.too littleabout linguistic structure, thepsychology of the

,leading activity, etc. . . . The median level ofadequacy migh be the' appropriate aim--and thatlevel of adequacy only for some ch6sen aspect oftext structur .

IL 9

t

ft References

Text-Forming Structures

Bdtkei., A. L. A tagmemic approach to paragraph analysis. CollegeComposition -and Communication, 1965, 16, 237 -242.

Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M.A. Reading comprehension as the eyessee it. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitiveprocesses in comprehension. New York: Halsted Press, 1977.

Clark, H. H. ' Inferences in comprehension. In D. LaBerge &S., J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perceptionand comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: LawTence ErlbaumAssociates, 1977.

.

18

Crews, R. The Random House handbook. New York: Random House, Inc.,1974.

'N.

a

Crothers, E. J. Paragraph structure inference. Noiwood, N.J.:Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1979.

Cummings, D. W., Herum, J., & Lybbert,,' E. K. Semantic recurrencee and rhetorica form. Language au Style, 1979, 4, 195-207..

Daiker, D. A., Ker k, A., &Morenterg, M. , The writer's optiOps.:College sette e cambinin . New York: Eirper and Row,Publishers, Inc. 1979.

de Beaugrande, R.Informatinn, expettation, and processing.,

Poetics, 1978, 7(2), 3-44.

de Beaugrande, R. Text, discourse, and process; toward a multi- A.disciplinary science of texts. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex PublishingCorporation, 1980.

de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. Introduction to textlinguistics.New York: Longman, 1981.

Drum, P. A. StructurgLand thematic variations on fourth graders'types of reeenv q'aper presented.a.t the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francfgto, 1979.

Fishman, A. S. Elements of cohesion: The.effect of noun phraseorganizers and anaphoric reTerericea,on paragraph comprehension.(Doetoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1977).

. .

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 38, 3773A-5093A.(University MitrOfilms No. 7732301)

a

Text-Forming Structures

Fowler, F. Cohesive, progressive,, and localizing aspects of textstructure. In T. A. van Dijk A. Petofi (Eds,),'Grammars and descriptionS. ''New Yor1: Walter de Gruyter,

-Graham, S. Y. Harbrace college workbook: Form 8a. New York:'Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc 1977.

Grimes, J.. E. TAe thread of. 0discourse. The Hague: 'Mouton and

Company, 1975.

19

')

Gut , H. P. concise English handbook (2nd ed.:). Belmont, California:WIdsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1965..

, .

Hagerdp-Nielson, A. R. nig r of macrostructure's and linguisticconnectives in comprehending familiar and unfamiliar writtendiscourse. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,1977). Dissertation Abstracts Internatioial, 1978, 38,6361A-7617. (University Microfilms No. 7096 '4).-

t.

Hairston, M. A contemporary rhetoric. Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany,"1974. ,,_.'

,

%.m4

73. .

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. London:Longman Group Limited, 1976.

, -,...

6-

Hasan,; 14 'Grammatical, cohesion in spoken and written English, Part 1.Proitemme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Paper,. 7.

6Loddon: Longman, 19g8. . ,

Holloway, D. W: Semantic grammars: How.4ey can help us--teachwriting. College Composition and Communicakion, 1981, 32.205.-:218.

,

Horowitz, R., Piche,4G. & Samuels, S. J. The-effect of contrastedrhetorical predicates on'the processing and writtien recall ofexpository pose. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Reading Conference, San Diegd, 1980.1

Irwin, J. W. The effects of the interaction of syntactic complexityand the explicitness of'codnectiveRropositions on fifthgraders' comprehension of prose materials. (Doctoral dissertation,University of Wisconsin, Madison,.1978). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 1978, 39, 3883A-5183A. '(University MicrofilmsNo. 7820627)

Jordan, M. P. Short,texts to explain problem-solution structures--and vice versa; an analytical study of ingiist prose to show therelationship between clear writing and clear thinking.Instructional Science, 1980,.9,.221L252.

O

6

0 0.

k

Text- ing Structures

451 20

Kintsch, W. The representatioffi of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, 1974.

Kintsch, W:, Kozminsky, E., Streby, McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M.Comprehension and recall 'of text as a function of content,variables. Journal of Verbal Learning_and Verbal Behavior, 1975,14, 196-21:

, Kintsch, W. 'van Dijk, T.. A. Toward' a, model of textecomprehension i cand production.' Psychological Review1978, 85,, 363-394.

6

Leggett, G., Mead, C. D.', & Charvat, W:' Prentice -Hall handbook forwriters,(6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N:J.:.' Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1974.

Lyons, J. Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge pniversityPress, 1977.

Meyer,'B. J. F.Amsterdam:

tr.

The organization of .prose and its effects on memory.North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975.

Meyer,, B. J. F. What is remembered from prose:structure. Int. 0: Freedle (Ed.), Discour e production andcomprehension. Norwood, NiJ.: Ablex Publis ing Corporation, 1977.

, B. J. F. A selected i'etieW and discussion of basic, research onprose comprehension.: Arizona,State,University; Tempe, Arizbna:Department of Educatiopal Psychology. Prose Learning SeriesResearch Report No. 4., Spring, 1970%

Meyer

Meyer

Unction. of. passage 4

, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bl h, G. J. Use of author'stextual schema: Key for ninth ders' comprehension. Paperpresented at the meeting zfthe,American Educational ResearchAssociation, Toronto, Canada, March, 1978.

Meyer, B.-J. F.,AFreedle,k. 0., & Walker, C. H.type on the .recall of young and,,Old adults.

manuscript, Arizona State University, 1977.

Effects of diSodlutse-Unpublished

Moberly, P..G. C. Elementary children:s undustanding.of anaphoricrelationships in connected disCourse: 'Doctoral-dissertation,.NOrthwestern University, 1978). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 1979, 39,'3883A- 5183A4 (University MicrofilmsNo: 7903325)

Moore, A. M. T. A Pre-Neoiithi' farmers' village on the Euphrates...Sctentific American, 1979, (2);.62-70.r

Text-Forming StruCtures

21

Mouan, J. Toward a rational model of discourse comprehension.IP Theoretical Issues in natural language processing-2. Urbana,

Ill.: Coordinated Science Laboratory,UniverSity of Illinois,$ 1978.

Morgan, J. The role of language in discourse comprehension. Paperpresented at the annul meeting of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, Milwaukee; March, 1980.

Morgan, J. & Sellner, M..B. Discourse and linguistic theory.In R. Spiro, A. Bruch, & W. Brewer(Eds.), Theoretical issuesin reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaamAssociates, 1980.

Nelson, R. J., & Stalter, W.` Composing coherence andunity. 'Jourrha

of nglish,Teactiing Techniques, 1978, 5, 26-32.

Pearson, P.-D. The effects of gratmatical complexity on children'scomprehension, recall, and conception of certain semanticrelations.; Readitig"Research Quarterly, 1974-7, 10, 155 192.

Pickering, w./R., A framework for discourse analysis. (Doctoraldissertation, University of-Toronto, 1978.) Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 1978, 39, 3883A-5183A.

Stone, F.$.T. The effect of textual cohesion on the comprehensionNfconnected Ascourse. (Doctoral dissertation; University ofVirginia, 1979.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980,40, '4780A-5628A. (University Microfilms No. 8004584)

Thorndyke,.F./W. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory ofnarrative, discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 77-110.

Trinkaus, E., & Howells, W. W. The Neanderthals. Scientific American,1979,'241, 118-133.

(Turner, A., &Greene, E. The coBstruction and use of a' Propositional

text base. University of Colorado, Boulder, Cnorado: Institutefor the Study of Intellectual Behavior, April, 1977.,

van Dijk, T. A.T. A. van

, New York:

van Dijk, T. ,A.

discourseCognitiveand Sons,

Connectives in text grammar and text logic. InDijk & J. S. Petafi (Eds.), Grammars and description._,Walter de Gruyter,'1977.

`Semantic Macro- structures and knowledge frames Is.comprehension. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter ( .),processes in comprehension. New York: John Wiley1977A.

Text-Forming 'Structures'ti

22

Vipond, DA. 'Micro- and macroprocesses in text. comprehension. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 276-296.

Walmsley, S. Children's understanding of linguistic connectives: Areview of selected literature and implication for reading.research. In P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Reading: theory, research,and praetice. Twenty-sixtl Yearbook of the National ReadingConference, 1977.

Warren, W: H., Nicholas, D. W.; &NTrabasso, T. Eventchains andinferzIcesin understanding narratives. In R. 0. Freedle (Ed.) ,

New directions-in discourse processing. Norwood, N.J.: AblexPutlishing Corporation; 1979..,-

Webbilf, B. SyntaxB. Bruce, & W.comprehension1980.

beyond the sentence: klaphora. In R. Spiro,Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading ,

Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrefice Erlbaum Associates,-

*Y2

Williams, J., Taylor, M. B., & Ganger, S. The effect of structuraland lexical :variations in text op the comprehen:Sion'of simple,expository paragraphs. Unpublished manuscript, 19804

Winterowd, W. R. The grammar of coherence. College English,1970, 31, 828-835. Q

;

Winterowd, W. R. The contemporary writer; a practical r @tox'ic.New York:. Harcourt"Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1975.

a

o-

A

0,

Table

Summary of Passage Versions

TopkcCohesive

ConjanctionsAetoricial

Teference 'PredicateNumber

of wordsNumber of. Read-'sentences ability

Neanderthals

Neanderthals

Neanderthals

Neanderthals

Neanderthals

Neanderthals,

,Neanderthals

Neanderthals

Pre-Neolithic Farming.

Pre -Neolithic.Farming

Pre-Neolithic Farming

Pre-Neolithfc Farming

. Pre-Neolithic Farming

Pre-Neolithic Farming

Pre-Neolithic Farming

_Pre-Neolithic'Farmingc

Low

Low

Low

Low.

High

Ittgh.

High

High

'Low

Low

Low

Low

High

High

High

,High

Low

Low

High

High

Low

LOW'

Eigh

High

tow

Low

High

High'

Low

Low

High

.High

Absent

Present

Absent

787

843

745

59

63

59

16

17+

15

Pi-esent 792 63 16

Absent 826 59 16

Present 4362 63 17+

Absent 766 59 16

Present 832 63 fr 13

Absent 164 63 17+

Present 832 64 17+-Absent 749 63 15

Present . 784 614 17+

Absent 797 63 17+

Present 849- . 64 16

Abgent 748 63 17+

Present 808 64 17+

a

r ^t

ov

c+Ii()

N CD

W cn

Table 2

.Summary of ANOVA for Reading Rates

Text - Forming' Structures

24

.

, A

Source of Variation df F -Values

Topic (T)

CC

REP

RRP

.T x CC

1

1

,1

1

1

.186

.096

.013

2.754

.o79

L . T x REF 1 .424

T x RRP 1 1.048

CC) REF .805

CC x-RRP 4 .00p

REF x RRP ° 1 1.039

Tx.CC x REF 1 5.132*

T x CC x RRP' 1 .837

UT x REF x REP 1 .903

CC x REF x RRP 1 .613

T x'CC x REF ,x RRP 1 .128.

ot$

.*15<.0544

A 4 40

Text-Fdrming Structures0

Table 3

Means for Main Effects on Reading Rate

Variable Means

Topfc

CC

Neanderthals 162.3308Pre - Neolithic Farming 159.7673

Low 160.1285High 161.9695'

REF ft

LowHigh

RRP1 .

Absent . ,165.9825Present 156.1112

100,01;;?7060161.3920

Total

(n -%.166.) 161.0490'

.,

O

4

25

1}6

ti

4

O

'41

9s

Table 4

ik Text-Forming Structures

Means for the Significant Topic x CC x REF Interaction

Neanderthals Pre -N- itbic<Farming

5

CC' Low CC \Cpow CC High0

REF High 158.7830 0.4380 /67.4985. 148.8485

REF Low 162 0 15?":7380 '151.8685 170.8535

C.

A

ws.

26

Text-,Forming Structures

Table 5

Summary Of ANOVAs for Free Recall

4

Source of Variation

.(>

df

CC 1

REF 1

RRP 1

CC x REFe

1.....

CC k RRP -1

REF x RRP 1

CC x REF x RRP 1 e

F -Values

Pre-NeolithicNeanderthals Fatming

p<.05

O

30J

27

.012

.890

.610

.135

.026 4.296*

1.156 .027

'.204 .462

.007 .009

.341 1.159

A4

N

r

c.

vo.

Table 6

Text-Forming Structures.

Means for Main Effects' on Free Recall'

Variable

. Means

NeanderthalsPre-Neolithic

Farming

CC FLoi 76.6250 56.1500High 76.0000 e 66.7750

REFLow 79.0000 57.3750High 73.6250 59.5500

RRPAbsent 76.8500 64.6000Present 75.7750 % 52.3250

Total 76.3125 58.4625(n = 8o) (n = 80)

t

31

28

Reading

Rate

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164..

163

162

161

.160

159

158

157

,156 .

155

154

1537

152

151 -r

150

149

148

p

\

Text-Forming Structures

29

CC HighREF Low

/ CC LowV REF High

N.-

CC Low.

REF Low

CC HighREF High

Neanderthals Pre-Neolithic Farming

Figure 1

Significant 'Interaction Between Topic,

CC, and REF on Reading Rate

.

32