FANDOM


Models of reading according to Perfetti and Stafura (2014)[1]:

  • Reader's situation model (Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983): "concerning an enriched level of comprehension beyond the literalmeaning of a text"
  • Construction-integration (C-I) model (Kintsch, 1988): "about the cognitive dynamics of text comprehension"
Reading-systems-framework

Reading Systems Framework -- Figure 1 in Perfetti and Stafura (2014)

Processes during reading Edit

The first principle: reading is organized into multiple cycles

From Kintsch (1988)[2]: "Text comprehension is assumed to be organized in cycles, roughly corresponding to short sentences or phrases (for further detail, see Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978[3]; Miller & Kintsch, 1980[4]). In each cycle a new net is constructed, including whatever is carried over in the short-term buffer from the previous cycle. [...] The highly activated nodes constitute the discourse representation formed on each processing cycle. In principle, it includes information at many levels: lexical nodes, text propositions, knowledge-based elaborations (i.e., various types of inferences), as well as macropropositions."

Second principle (or rather supported assumption): immediacy

From Perfetti et al. (2007)[5]: " the evidence suggests that a reader processes each word immediately, to the extent possible, rather than taking a ‘wait and see’ approach. The immediacy assumption, derived from studies of eye movements during reading, expresses this immediate processing idea at a general level (Just & Carpenter, 1992). At the level of syntax, very different theories about how words are attached to syntactic structures (Frazier & Clifton, 1996; MacDonald, Perlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994) agree on the conclusion that each word is immediately attached to a syntactic phrase. Referential integration of a word’s meaning with a semantic representation of the text, which maintains comprehension of the situation described by the text, may also be achieved by immediate attachment."

Third principle: two levels of representation -- text-base and situation model

From O'Brien and Cook: "Within all current models of discourse comprehension there is the assumption that readers generate at least two levels of representation of a text."

Coherence Edit

Local vs. global coherence Edit

From O'Brien and Cook:

Coherence-01

To maintain global coherence, two theories make diverging prediction:

  • Strategy-based models: readers actively search long-term memory for relevant information
  • Memory-based models: inactive information is activated by a passive resonance mechanism

Evidences strongly support memory-based models (O'Brien and Cook).

Devices of coherence Edit

  • Coreference by Repetition: to establish overlapping arguments
    Example from Perfetti et al. (2007)[5]: "The flight attendant had just served a completely full glass of red wine to the passenger when suddenly the plane hit turbulence which spilled the wine. The spilled wine stained the passenger’s pants."
  • Coreference by Pronoun: see Garnham (1999); Tyler & Marslen-Wilson (1982)
  • Coreference by Semantic paraphrase:
    Example from Perfetti et al. (2007)[5]: "The flight attendant had just served a completely full glass of red wine to the passenger when suddenly the plane hit turbulence that emptied the glass. The spilled wine stained the passenger’s pants."
  • Coreference by noun phrase (not paraphrase but somehow specify the entity):
    Example from Gerber and Chai (2012)[6]: "Carpet King sales are up 4% this year,” said owner Richard Rippe. He added that the company has been manufacturing carpet since 1967."
  • Inference making: full glass of wine + turbulence = spilled wine
    Example from Perfetti et al. (2007)[5]: "The flight attendant had just served a completely full glass of red wine to the passenger when suddenly the plane hit turbulence. The spilled wine stained the passenger’s pants."

References Edit

  1. Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
  2. Kintsch, W. (1988). The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension - a Construction Integration Model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. http://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.95.2.163
  3. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
  4. Miller, J. R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 335-354.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Perfetti, C., Yang, C., & Schmalhofer, F. (2007). Comprehension Skill and Word-to-Text Integration Processes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(December 2006), 1057–1075. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp
  6. Gerber, M. S., & Chai, J. Y. (2012). Semantic role labeling of implicit arguments for nominal predicates. Computational Linguistics, 38(4), 755–798. http://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00110