medigraphic.com

2018, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Elec Psic Izt 2018; 21 (3)

Comprehension of conversation: contributions of studies on the establishment of discourse connections and studies on the formation of group memories

Cevasco J, Bermejo F, Muller F

Language: Spanish
References: 90
Page: 1183-1213
PDF size: 375.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper was to present a selection of studies that have examined the role of the establishment of discourse connections among statements and the formation of group memories during the comprehension of conversation. With this aim, we will first introduce studies that have focused on the establishment of causal connections or cause-effect connections among statements and the role of the presence of discourse markers in the construction of a coherent representation of spontaneous spoken discourse. Next, we will describe studies that have examined the importance of the conversational role (narrator-non narrator), the trustworthiness of the speaker (trustworthy-untrustworthy) and the prior knowledge of the comprehender (available-unavailable) in the formation of shared memories during group interactions. Finally, we will present preliminary studies that have examined the interplay among these variables. The presentation of these studies will allow us to highlight the contributions that both lines of research have made to the study of the comprehension of conversation, suggest applications of their conclusions to the delivery of lectures, and propose future directions.


REFERENCES

  1. Bransford, J.D., y Johnson, M.K. (1973). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.

  2. Brown, A., Coman, A. y Hirst, W. (2009). The role of narratorship and expertise in social remembering. Social Psychology, 40(3), 119-129.

  3. Caron, J., Micko, HC y Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory y Language, 27, 309-323.

  4. Cevasco, J. (2009). The role of connectives in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 56-65.

  5. Cevasco, J. (2010). El interjuego entre los temas de conversación y la conectividad causal de los enunciados conversacionales en el recuerdo del discurso oral espontáneo, Perspectivas en Psicología, 7, 1-7.

  6. Cevasco, J. y de Simone, J. (2016). Facilitación de la comprensión del discurso expositivo: aportes de los estudios acerca de la introducción de cambios en los textos y del efecto de la modalidad de presentación del material. Revista Electrónica Psicología Iztacala, 19(2), 601-621.

  7. Cevasco, J., y Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2013). The importance of studying prosody in the Comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45(1), 21-33.

  8. Cevasco, J. y Muller, F. (2009). Conectividad causal, rol conversacional y confiabilidad del hablante en el recuerdo de conversaciones. PsicologìaIberoamericana, 17(2), 33-40

  9. Cevasco, J., y Muller, F. (2011). Conectividad causal, rol conversacional y fuente del enunciado en el recuerdo de conversaciones. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala, 14(1),254-271.

  10. Cevasco, J., Muller, F. y Bermejo, F. (2013). El efecto del marcador del Discurso ‘después’ en la comprensión de cambios de tema de conversación. Poster presentado en la XIV Reunión de la Asociación Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

  11. Cevasco, J., Muller, F., y Bermejo, F. (2017). Facilitation of the comprehension of written and spoken discourse. Psychology and Education, 14(2), 1- 9.

  12. Cevasco, J., y van den Broek, P. (2008).The importance of causal connections in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Psicothema, 20(4), 801-806.

  13. Cevasco, J., y van den Broek, P. (2013). Studies on the establishment of Connections among spoken statements: What can they contribute to the promotion of students' construction of a coherent discourse representation? Psicología Educativa, 19(2), 67-74.

  14. Cevasco, J., y van den Broek, P. (2016).The effect of filled pauses on the processing of the surface form and the establishment of causal connections during the comprehension of spoken expository discourse. Cognitive Processing, 17, 185-194.

  15. Cevasco, J., y van den Broek, P. (2017). The importance of causality processing in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Ciencia Cognitiva, 11(2), 43-45.

  16. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  17. Cuc, A., Ozuru, Y., Manier, D. y Hirst, W. (2006). On the formation of collective memories: The role of a dominant narrator. Memory y Cognition, 34, 752- 762.

  18. Deaton, J. A., y Gernsbacher, M. A. (in press). Causal conjunctions and implicit causality cue mapping in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language.

  19. de Simone, J. y Cevasco, J. (2014). El rol de la conectividad causal de los enunciados y la modalidad de presentación del discurso (oral-escrita) en la generación de inferencias emocionales. Poster presentado en I Congreso de la Asociación para el Avance de la Ciencia Psicológica, Buenos Aires: Argentina.

  20. Espin, C.A., Cevasco, J., y van den Broek, P., Baker, S., y Gersten, R. (2007). History as narrative: The nature and quality of historical understanding for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 174-182.

  21. Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W. y Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory y Cognition, 33, 770-782.

  22. Ferreira, F. y Anes, M. (1994). Why study spoken language processing? In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  23. Flowerdew, J., y Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435–458

  24. Fox Tree, J.E. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 709-738.

  25. Fox Tree, J.E. (2001). Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory y Cognition, 29, 320-326.

  26. Fox Tree, J.E. y Clark, N.B. (2013). Communicative effectiveness of written versus spoken feedback. Discourse Processes, 50, 339-359.

  27. Fox Tree, J.E., y Schrock, J.C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280-295.

  28. Fraundorf, S.H., y Watson, D. G. (2011). The disfluent discourse: Effects of filled pauses on recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 161-175.

  29. Fraundorf, S. H., y Watson, D. G. (2014). Alice's adventures in um-derland: Psycholinguistic sources of variation in disfluency production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(9), 1083-1096.

  30. Gabbert, F., Memon, A. y Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533-543.

  31. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., y Wright, D. (2004). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 215–227.

  32. Gaviria, G. y Cevasco, J. (2012). El rol del cambio de la modalidad de presentación y la conectividad causal de los enunciados en la comprensión de discurso espontáneo. Poster presentado en el IV Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires: Argentina.

  33. Golding, J.M., Millis, K.K., Hauselt, J., y Sego, S.A. (1995). The effect of connectives and causal relatedness on text comprehension. In R.F. Lorch y E.J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp 127-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  34. Greene, E., Flynn, M., y Loftus, E. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 207- 219.

  35. Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. Le Ny y W. Kintsch (Eds.). Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam: North- Holland.

  36. Hall, J. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 145-166.

  37. Halliday, M. y Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman, London.

  38. Hirst, W., y Manier, D. (1996). Social influences on remembering. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering the past. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  39. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutation texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7–8), 699–714.

  40. Jung, E.H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87, 562-577.

  41. Kendeou, P., Muis, K.R., y Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383.

  42. Kendeou, P. y van den Broek, P. (2005). The role of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235-245.

  43. Kendeou, P. y van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory y Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.

  44. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., y Karlsson, A. K. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research y Practice, 29, 10-16.

  45. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.

  46. Mackie, J.L. (1980). The cement of the universe. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

  47. Maury, P., y Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 489–512.

  48. McCabe, D. P., y Smith, A. D. (2002). The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults. Memory y Cognition, 30, 1065- 1077.

  49. McNamara, D.S., y Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). New York: Elsevier.

  50. Meade, M. L. y Roediger, H. L. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory y Cognition, 30, 995-1009.

  51. Millis, K. K., Golding, J.M., y Barker, G. (1995). Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20, 29–49.

  52. Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. C., y Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of discourse markers on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317-339.

  53. Millis, K. K. y Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.

  54. Millis, K. K., y Magliano, J. P. (1999). The co-influence of grammatical markers and comprehender goals on the memory for short discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 183-198.

  55. Mouw J.M., van Leijenhorst L., Saab N., Danel M.S. y van den Broek P.W. (2017), Contributions of emotion understanding to narrative comprehension in children and adults, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1- 16.

  56. Muller, F. y Bermejo, F. (2012). El contagio social, la efectividad del narrador y la discusión como factor moderador. Perspectivas en Psicología: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 9, 44-51.

  57. Muller, F. y Bermejo, F. (2016). Los temas de la memoria colectiva del golpe de Estado de 1976 en Argentina en función de la ideología y las generaciones. Interdisciplinaria, 33, 41-63.

  58. Muller, F., y Bermejo, F. (2017). El contagio social y el recobro conversacional con distintos niveles de discusión. Psykhe, 26, 1–11.

  59. Muller, F., Bermejo, F., y Hirst, W. (2016). Argentines` collective memory of the military junta of 1976: similarities and differences considering generations and ideology. Memory, 24, 990 – 1006.

  60. Mulder, G. y Sanders, T.J.M. (2012). Causal coherence relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501-522.

  61. Muller, F, Bermejo,F,y Hirst,W. (2016). Argentines' collective memories of the military Junta of 1976: differences and similarities across generations and ideology. Memory, 24(7), 990-1006.

  62. Muller, F., y Hirst, W. (2010). Resistance to the influences of others: limits to the formation of a collective memory through conversational remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 608-625.

  63. Muller, F., y Hirst; W. (2014). Remembering stories together: Social contagion and the moderating influence of disagreements in conversations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 7-11.

  64. Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In F. Lorchy D. O' Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 75-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  65. Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: the role of continuity. Memory y Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.

  66. Noordman, L. G., Vonk, W., y Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 573- 590.

  67. O'Brien, E. J., y Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory y Cognition, 15, 419-427.

  68. Pavias M., van den Broek P.W., Hickendorff M., Beker K., y van Leijenhorst, L. (2016). Effects of social-cognitive processing demands and structural importance on narrative recall: Differences between children, adolescents, and adults. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 488-512.

  69. Radvansky, G., Tamplin, A., Armendarez, J., y Thompson, A. (2014). Different kinds of causality in event cognition. Discourse Processes, 51, 601-618.

  70. Schober, M. F., y Clark, H. H. (1989).Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211-232.

  71. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  72. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse.Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

  73. Segal, E., Duchan, J., y Scott, P. (1991). The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes, 14, 27-54.

  74. Sherif, M. (1996). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper-Row Stubbs.

  75. Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., y Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507-524.

  76. Sparks, J.R., y Rapp, D.N. (2010). Discourse processing: Examining our everyday language experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(3), 371- 381.

  77. Speer, S., y A. Blodgett. (2006). Prosody. In M. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, (2nd ed., pp. 505–537). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  78. Trabasso, T., y Sperry, L.L. (1985).Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595-611. Trabasso, T. y van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of Narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.

  79. van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: towards a process of inference generation in text comprehension. In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d’Arcais, and K. Rayner, Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423- 445). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.

  80. van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539- 588). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  81. van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.

  82. van den Broek, P., y Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351.

  83. van den Broek, P. y Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54, 360-372.

  84. vanSilfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., y Sanders, T. (2014). Establishing coherence in school book texts: How connectives and layout affect students' text comprehension. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 1-29.

  85. Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., y Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: how students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52, 47-76.

  86. Wagner, M., y Watson, D.G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 905–945.

  87. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind in action. NY: Oxford University Press.

  88. Wood, W., y Quinn, J. M. (2003). Fore-warned and Forearmed? Two Meta-analytic Syntheses of Forewarnings of Influence Appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138.

  89. Wright, D. B., Self, G. y Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 189-202.

  90. Zwaan, R. A., y Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. TraxleryM. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, (2nd ed., pp. 725- 764). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com