The Role of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing

390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Meta‐Analysis on the Effects of Text Structure Instruction on Reading Comprehension in the Upper Elementary Grades (2020, background): “In short, text structure influences how readers read and how writers write (Jiang & Grabe, 2007) and, hence, not only describes the text itself but also characterizes readers’ cognitive coherence representations (e.g., Meyer & Freedle, 1984; Sanders & Noordman, 2000).”
An analytic and cognitve parameterization of coherence relations (2002, methodology): “For instance, CAUSAL relations are processed faster than TEMPORAL ones, which are processed faster than ADDITIVE relations (Caron et al. 1988; Deaton and Gernsbacher, in press; Sanders and Noordman 2000).”
Structure Strategy Interventions: Increasing Reading Comprehension of Expository Text. (2011, background): “Text structures not only describe the text itself, but also characterize readers’ cognitive coherence representations (e.g., Meyer & Freedle, 1979, 1984; Sanders & Noordman, 2000).”
The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2 (2002, methodology): “Although several recent psycholinguistic studies have investigated the actual processing of connectives and lexical markers of text structure, there is still no consensus on the exact role of explicit discourse markers in text (for an overview, see Sanders & Noordman 2000; Sanders & Spooren 2001).”