DISCOURSE PROCESSING
ADVANCES IN PSYCHOLOGY 8 Editors G. E. STELMACH P. A. VROON
NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD
DISCOURSE PROCESSING Edited by
August FLAMMER Department of Psychology University of Fribourg Switzerland and
Wa1ter KINTSCH Department of Psychology University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado, U S A
1982 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD
c North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, strored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic. mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN: 0 444 865 15 2
Publishers: NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM. NEW YORK . OXFORD
Sole distributors f o r the U.S.A.and Canada: ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 52 VANDERBILT AVENUE NEWYORK,N.Y. 10017
PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS
V
PREFACE
Research on d i s c o u r s e ( o r t e x t ) p r o c e s s i n g has o n l y r e c e n t l y come i n t o i t s own. I t b u i l d s , o f course, on t h e work on t e x t a n a l y s i s which has a l o n g and d i s t i n g u i s h e d h i s t o r y ; b u t modern developments i n psychology (e.g., memory r e s e a r c h ) , a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , l i n g u i s t i c s and p h i l o s o p h y have c o n t r i b u t e d t o i t s emergence i n t h e l a s t decade as a l i v e l y and p r o m i s i n g research area.
As y e t , however, t h e domain o f d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g s t i l l has f l e x i b l e boundaries and l a c k s a s t a b l e p r o f i l e . One o f t h e purposes o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on T e x t P r o c e s s i n g i n F r i b o u r g 1981 was t o probe whate v e r consensus was b e g i n n i n g t o emerge i n t h a t r e s e a r c h domain, and t o t a k e a l o o k a t t h a t f i e l d now t h a t t h e g r o p i n g f i r s t s t e p s have been t a k e n and a more mature and o r d e r l y s t a g e o f development has been reached. A second purpose o f t h e Symposium, t h e importance o f which became f u l l y c l e a r o n l y d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l conference i t s e l f , was t o b r i n a t o g e t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s on d i s c o u r c e p r o c e s s i n g f r o m d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n a l i t i e s . The e v e n t t o o k p l a c e i n S w i t z e r l a n d ; h a l f o f t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s were Eurooean f r o m v a r i o u s l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds, a few were f r o m A s i a and A u s t r a l i a , and t h e r e s t came f r o m N o r t h America. Several o f us, t h e o l d - t i m e r s and e x p e r t s i n c l u d e d , were s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d o u t how much v a l u a b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g r e s e a r c h i s b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t i n h e r e t o f o r e unsuspected p l a c e s . Thus, t h e most i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n o f t h i s book m i g h t be t o permanently open up channels of communication across t h e b a r r i e r s o f c o n t i n e n t s and language. B r i n g i n g t h e p e o p l e t o g e t h e r i s one t h i n g ; p u b l i s h i n g t h e i r C o n t r i b u t i o n s i n a common language i s a n o t h e r . We r e g r e t t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e papers g i v e n a t t h e Symposium had t o be excluded f r o m t h i s p u b l i t a t i o n , though t h e a b s t r a c t s o f t h e s e papers as w e l l as t h e addresses o f t h e i r a u t h o r s a r e r e D r i n t e d here. Thus, t h e f i n a l book c o n t a i n s 46 c o n t r i b u t i o n s , grouped t o p i c a l l y i n t o e i g h t c h a p t e r s . The g r o u p i n g was made a c c o r d i n g t o problem a r e a and n o t a c c o r d i n g t o methodology w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o t h e r e b y focus on t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s i n t h e f i e l d o f d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g , and t o show how d i v e r s e approaches c o n t r i b u t e t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e problems i n v o l v e d . Obviously, t h i s book i s m e r e l y t h e f i n a l stage o f a m a j o r e n t e r p r i s e which s t a r t e d i n 1978 when t h e d e c i s i o n t o l a u n c h t h e Symposium was made. Many People have made s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g though o n l y a few i n s i d e r s may be a b l e t o s p o t t h e i r t r a c e s i n t h e book i t s e l f . FranGois S t o l l , Z u r i c h , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e Swiss P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , which backed t h e Symposium, has h e l p e d us i n numerous ways on many occasions. On t h e s c i e n t i f i c committee f o r t h e Symposium we e n j o y e d t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f Urs Aeschbacher, F r i b o u r g ; Beat K e l l e r , F r i b o u r g ; FranGois Stall, Z u r i c h ; and Marianne Tauber, F r i b o u r g . The b u l k o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l work was done by Ruth L u t h i , F r i b o u r q , whom we c o r d i a l l y thank f o r t h e c a r e f u l and r e l i a b l e p l a n n i n g , e x e c u t i o n and debugging o f a thousand o p e r a t i o n s . Warm thanks a r e a l s o extended t o K e r r i e Oeuvray, R u t h ' s second hand, and t h e i r h e l p e r s t h e r e : I r e n e Weber, S t e f a n i e
vi
PREFACE
S t a d l e r , Andr& K a i s e r , and Raymond Geismar. F o r s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s b e f o r e and d u r i n g t h e Symposium we thank those s t a f f members o f t h e F r i b o u r g Deoartment o f Psychology who w i l l i n g l y assumed an e x t r a workload: A n i t a B u t t i k e r , C h r i s t i a n e S c h r o e t e r , U l l a Werren, Hansruedi K a i s e r . Besides a l l t h i s , t h e Symposium needed money, rooms and f a c i l i t i e s . We acknowledge t h e f i n a n c i a l h e l p o f o u r sponsors, t h e Swiss Academy o f Human Sciences, t h e S t a t e , t h e C i t y and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i b o u r g , Siemens AG, Z i i r i c h , t h e Swiss P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , and t h e Swiss Federal O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n and Sciences. We a r e g r a t e f u l f o r t h e moral and m a t e r i a l a s s i s t a n c e o f Bernhard Schnyder, R e c t o r o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f F r i b o u r g , Pascal Ladner, Vice-Rector, and Hans B r U l h a r t , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i r e c t o r . Above a l l , o f course, we thank o u r a u t h o r s f o r t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , t h e i r enthusiasm and t h e i r p a t i e n c e . Our s p e c i a l a p p r e c i a t i o n goes t o those whom we had t o ask t o w r i t e t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n a f o r e i g n language, i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l communication. A l l papers a r e now i n E n g l i s h t h e common language o f t h e Symposium. Yet, i t i s h a r d t o see how t h i s would have been p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e most e f f e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f E i l e e n K i n t s c h , who a c t e d as t e x t e d i t o r and v e r y o f t e n as t e x t r e v i s e r f o r t h e papers w h i c h were more o r l e s s c l o s e apDroximations t o formal E n g l i s h . We a r e a l s o g r a t e f u l f o r t h e e f f i c i e n t and f l e x i b l e a s s i s t a n c e o f D r . K. M i c h i e l s e n , N o r t h - H o l l a n d P u b l i s h i n g Company, Amsterdam. On s i t e , t h e b u l k o f t h e work was done b y A n i t a B u t t i k e r , U l l a Werren and Vinzenz Morger, F r i b o u r g , and P e r l e Bochet, Boulder, Colorado. Both e d i t o r s a r e happy t o acknowledge t h e s u p p o r t o f r e s e a r c h sponsors who made some of t h i s work p o s s i b l e : t h e Swiss N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n ( G r a n t No. 1.714-0.78), t h e N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Mental H e a l t h ( G r a n t No. 15872), and t h e Center f o r Advanced Study i n t h e B e h a v i o r a l Sciences ( s u p p o r t e d by NIMH Grant No. 5132 MH14581-06 and t h e Spencer F o u n d a t i o n ) which p r o v i d e d s h e l t e r and a c o n g e n i a l atmosphere t o f i n i s h t h i s p r o j e c t . F r i b o u r g and B o u l d e r 30 June, 1982
August F1 ammer Walter Kintsch
v ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
v
TEXT STRUCTURE
1
Plans and Goals i n Understanding Episodes Gordon H . Bower What Makes a Good S t o r y ? Towards t h e P r o d u c t i o n o f Conversational Narratives Uta M. &uasthoff, and Kurt Nikolaus T e x t D i v i s i o n s and S t o r y Grammars Hans Christopk Micko C h i l d r e n ' s Knowledge o f S o c i a l A c t i o n : E f f e c t s on Comprehension and R e c a l l o f Simp7e S t o r i e s Hans Strohner, Gert R i c k h e i t , and Riidiger Weingarten L e v e l s o f F u n c t i o n i n g i n Semantic Memory and L e v e l s of Comprehension o f T e x t s StBphane E h r l i c h , Jean-Michel Passerault and Georges Personnier T h a t ' s I m p o r t a n t b u t i s i t I n t e r e s t i n g ? Two F a c t o r s i n Text Processing Suzanne H d i , W i l l i a m Baird and Angela Hildyard Expectancy S t r u c t u r e s i n Prose Reading Margret Rihs-Middel How do D i f f e r e n t Readers L e a r n w i t h D i f f e r e n t T e x t Organizations? Wolfgang Schnotz COHERENCE
2
16 29
42
53
63 76
87
99
Towards a P r o c e s s i n g Account o f Reference Anthony J . Sanford, and Simon C. Garrod
100
Towards a Model o f M a c r o s t r u c t u r e Search U l r i c h Glowalla, and Hans Colonius
111
A c c e p t a b i l i t y o f Story Continuations Riidiger F . Pohl
124
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Semantic D i s c o n t i n u i t i e s as T e x t P r o d u c t i o n S t r a t e g i e s Vanda L. Zammtiner INFERENCE
137
151
How Do You F i l l i n t h i s xxx? On some I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Processes Yvonne Waern
152
I n f e r e n c e Processes i n D i s c o u r s e Comprehension Measured by Sentence Reading Times KarZ F. Vender
166
Answering Q u e s t i o n s from T e x t : A Process Model ?%furraySinger MEMORY
172
185
Memory f o r T e x t Wa I t er Kint sch
7 86
Knowledge U p d a t i n g i n T e x t Processing Steen F. Larsen
205
R e t r i e v a l Cues and t h e Remembering o f Prose: A Review Ronald E. Johnson
21 9
Working Memory and C o n t e x t u a l Processing i n Reading Maryanne Martin
239
Age, Reading A b i l i t y , and Semantic I n t e g r a t i o n : An I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g Model John R. Kirby
251
The M o d a l i t y E f f e c t on T e x t P r o c e s s i n g as a F u n c t i o n o f Organ?z a t i on Machiko Sannomiya
263
Remembering what You S a i d versus Remembering what You Wrote: C h i l d r e n ' s R e c a l l o f t h e i r own O r a l and W r i t t e n Narratives AngeZa HiZdyard, and Suzanne Hidi E f f e c t s o f V e r b a l and P i c t o r i a l C o n t e x t Cues on F r e e R e c a l l and C l u s t e r i n g o f T e x t Themes Eugen Hinder
269
2 79
TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTENTION AND CONTROL Allocation of Attention During Reading
ix 291 292
Richard C. Anderson
Intentional Learning in Text Processing
306
Gery d'YdewaZle, Eddy M . Degryse, and An Swerts
Recall and Flexibility of Linguistic Processing
314
Gregory V . Jor.es, and Martin S . Payne
Activation and Restructuring of Prior Knowledge and their Effects on Text Processing
325
Henk G . Schmidt
Metacognitive Regulation of Text Processing: Aspects and Problems Concerning the Relation between SelfStatements and Actual Performance
339
Peter M . Fischer, and Heinz Mandl
Metacognitive Variables in the Learning of Written Text
352
F r e d i P. Bichel
GOAL PERSPECTIVES The Role of Problem Orientations and Goals in Text Comprehension and Recall
361 362
Norbert A . S t r e i t z
Changing the Reader's Perspective
379
August F l m e r , and Marianne Tauber
Influences of Titles on the Recall of Instructional Texts
392
N e h t M . Niegernann
The Impact of Prior Knowledge on Accessibility and Availability o f Information from Prose
400
Samuel R. Mathews 11
INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS Pictures as Prose-Learning Devices
41 1 412
Joe2 R. Levin
Instructional Variables in Text Processing Richard E . Mayer
445
TABLE
X
OF CONTENTS
Concrete A n a l o g i e s as A i d s i n L e a r n i n g f r o m T e x t
462
P. RobertJan Simons S u b j e c t i v e versus O b j e c t i v e P r e - I n f o r m a t i o n as a Determinant o f S t u d e n t s ' Choices o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l T e x t s and t h e i r Subsequent L e a r n i n g Therefrom K a r l J . Klauer E f f e c t s o f E l a b o r a t i o n on R e c a l l o f Texts
472 482
Heinz Mandl, and Steffen-Peter BaZZstaedt Argument i n T e x t and Reading Process Peter Whalley S e l f - R e g u l a t e d versus Teacher-Provided Sequencing o f I n f o r m a t i o n i n L e a r n i n g from T e x t Hans G.L. C. Lodewij k s Text Processing: A Comparison o f Reading and L i s t e n i n g Marcel L. GoMschid, Pierre Moessinger, Tamar Ferber-Stern, And& Koerffy, and Jan Rozmuski The I n f l u e n c e o f W i t h i n - and Between-Sentence V a r i a b l e s on t h e Comprehension o f Newspaper A r t i c l e s by Two Reader Groups Marianne Tauber, and Francois StolZ Development and E v a l u a t i o n o f a T e x t Mapping S t r a t e g y
495
509 521
527 536
Donald F. Dansereau, and CharZes D. HoZZey Q u e s t f o r an " A " : A Case Study o f a U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t ' s Text Processing
555
Anthony M. Owens EXTENSIONS Processing Dream Texts
563 564
Ruedi Seitz Comprehending t h e D i s c o u r s e o f P o e t r y W. john Hmker
570
ABSTRACTS OF THE R E M A I N I N G CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TEXT PROCESSING IN FRIBOURG 1981
583
AUTHOR INDEX
59 3
SUBJECT INDEX
605
ADDRESSES OF CONTRIBUTORS
609
TEXT STRUCTURE
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammerand W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Atblishing Company, 1982
PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES Gordon
H. Bower
Department o f Psychology Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a
P e o p l e ' s judgments about i m p o r t a n t elements i n n a r r a t i v e episodes were s t u d i e d . S u b j e c t s chose t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ' s goal as most i m p o r t a n t , t h e n a c t i o n s , outcomes, c o m p l i c a t i o n s , and l a s t l y background and m o d i f i e r s . A s t a t e m e n t ' s importance c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l and i n c l u s i o n i n a summary. R e l a t i n g episodes t o a P l a n schema, f u r t h e r experiments found t h a t r e a d e r s t a k e l o n g e r t o comprehend an a c t i o n i n l i g h t of a goal t h e g r e a t e r t h e " d i s t a n c e " between them i n a goal h i e r a r c h y . Furthermore, t h e t i m e t o comprehend a c h a r a c t e r ' s a c t i o n i n c r e a s e s t h e more independent goals the reader i s monitoring f o r t h a t character. INTRODUCTION T h i s symposium i s concerned w i t h how p e o p l e understand t e x t s , r e c a l l them, paraphrase them, summarize them, and answer q u e s t i o n s about them. The f a c t t h a t t h i s symposium i s b e i n g sponsored by a Psychology Department a t t e s t s t o t h e p r o g r e s s b e i n g made i n c o g n i t i v e psychology. P s y c h o l o g i s t s ' concern w i t h t e x t p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t . E i g h t y e a r s ago a symposium l i k e t h i s c o u l d n o t have taken p l a c e because t h e r e s i m p l y was n o t enough r e s e a r c h on t h e t o p i c . But s i n c e 1974 t h e r e ' s been an i n c r e a s i n g stream o f r e s e a r c h on t e x t p r o c e s s i n g , a t t e s t e d t o by conferences and s p e c i a1 ized r e s e a r c h j o u r n a l s
.
Several y e a r s ago when I f i r s t began s t u d y i n g t e x t comprehension w i t h my student, P e r r y Thorndyke (see Bower, 1976; Thorndyke, 1977), we adopted t h e story-grammar approach t h e n proposed by Dave Rumel h a r t ( 1 975) and Tuen van I have come t o r e a l i z e o v e r t h e e n s u i n g y e a r s t h a t my D i j k (1972). i n t e r e s t i s n o t so much i n s t o r i e s as i n how p e o p l e understand episodes and a c t i o n sequences. S t o r i e s have episodes, o f course, and t h e t e l l i n g of t h e episodes i s arranged s o as t o arouse suspense, s u r p r i s e , mystery, humor, o r i r o n y , t h u s t o e n t e r t a i n and h o l d t h e r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n . B u t I have n o t been s t u d y i n g t h e s e a f f e c t i v e , e n t e r t a i n i n g f e a t u r e s o f s t o r i e s ; r a t h e r , I ' v e s t u d i e d o n l y how p e o p l e understand and remember episodes and e v e n t sequences. I t t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e c e n t r a l p a r t o f s t o r y grammars i s t h e way t h e y analyze s i m p l e episodes. N e a r l y a l l t h e s t o r y grammars assume t h a t an i n t e r e s t i n g episode must have a t l e a s t f o u r p a r t s : a goal f o r t h e p r o t a g o n i s t , some o b s t a c l e o r c o m p l i c a t i o n t o a t t a i n m e n t o f t h a t g o a l , some a c t i o n s designed t o overcome t h o s e o b s t a c l e s , and some outcome o f these 2
PLANS AND GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
3
actions. Another way t o say t h i s i s t h a t an episode c o n s i s t s of a problem and i t s resolution. The problem can be characterized as stemming from the p r o t a g o n i s t ' s goal plus a complication or obstacle; the resolution i s comprised of the p r o t a g o n i s t ' s action plan plus i t s outcome. To describe these elements more f u l l y , the complications t y p i c a l l y a r i s e e i t h e r from physical o b s t a c l e s , o r from the c o n f l i c t of several goals within t h e same individual, or the c o n f l i c t o f goals between two competing individuals or teams. The resolution of an episode describes e i t h e r the winning, losing, o r compromising of a goal, abandoning i t , or regaining a l o s t s t a t e of b l i s s . I n order f o r t h e episode t o be i n t e r e s t i n g , the problem must be s i g n i f i c a n t and the resolution must be novel o r unexpected. Dull episodes deal e i t h e r with small problems or ones which have r o u t i n e , f a m i l i a r solutions. The s t o r y grammars assume t h a t people have acquired an i m p l i c i t schema o r prototype about episodes. This schema has various uses. One function of the schema i s as a source of questions f o r readers. In h i s theory of question-asking, August Flammer (1980) suggests t h a t people ask questions about gaps o r c r i t i c a l s l o t s in the episode schema t h a t a r e not f i l l e d in by, o r i n f e r a b l e from, the t e x t . I t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t the schema helps readers i d e n t i f y the c r i t i c a l elements of a t e x t . I f episode schemas a r e used in analyzing t e x t s and in parsing episodes i n t o s i g n i f i cant c o n s t i t u e n t s , then subjects should be able t o r e l i a b l y i d e n t i f y these allegedly important elements from a mass of t e x t . Certainly, i f naive readers do not agree with t h e s t o r y grammars about what a r e the e s s e n t i a l , important elements in an episode d e s c r i p t i o n , then we a l l have surely been following the wrong leads. After a brief survey of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e , however, I was unable t o find much d i r e c t empirical study of which p a r t s of episodes readers consider t o be important and necessary. IDENTIFYING EPISODE CONSTITUENTS The question I asked i s whether college readers will i d e n t i f y a s important those elements of n a r r a t i v e episodes which s t o r y grammars claim t o be c r i t i c a l . Furthermore, I wondered whether people would summarize t h e episode and r e c a l l i t l a r g e l y in terms of these same c r i t i c a l elements. As I noted, the elements a r e the problem (with constituents of goal and comp l i c a t i o n ) and the resolution (with constituents of actions and outcome). I n order t o study r e a d e r ' s i n t u i t i o n s , we wrote two six-episode n a r r a t i v e s and had people read them, judge them, and r e c a l l them. The s i x d i s t i n c t episodes were printed one per page in a booklet. Each episode was written t o s e t f o r t h a d i s t i n c t goal, complication, actionplan, and outcome, these comprising four sentences. Among these we mixed f o u r f u r t h e r statements which s e t f o r t h d e s c r i p t i v e information, giving background o r elaborating on the properties o f the other c o n s t i t u e n t s . From t h e viewpoint of s t o r y grammars these d e s c r i p t i v e elaborations were i n e s s e n t i a l f i l l e r s , although they tended t o make t h e prose somewhat more readable and natural. One of the s t o r i e s was about a male university student, Paul, and h i s Problems in paying f o r his schooling, g e t t i n g good grades, holding down a Part-time job, and having an a c t i v e social l i f e . Here, f o r example, i s the f i r s t episode in the Paul s t o r y .
4
TEXT STRUCTURE
(Goal ) ( F i 1l e r ) (Compl ic a t i on)
Paul wanted t o go t o c o l l e g e . He decided on a u n i v e r s i t y i n C a l i f o r n i a . B u t he d i d n ' t have enough money f o r expenses.
(Filler)
He had o n l y $535 i n a savings bank.
(Action)
He a p p l i e d f o r a f o o t b a l l s c h o l a r s h i p .
(Filler)
He had p l a y e d h a l f b a c k i n h i g h s c h o o l .
(Outcome)
A f t e r r e v i e w i n g h i s case, t h e coaches g r a n t e d him an award e n a b l i n g h i m t o go t o s c h o o l .
(Filler)
Paul hoped he c o u l d p l a y f i r s t s t r i n g .
The second s t o r y was about a female u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t , G a i l , who had a c o n v e n t i o n a l s e t o f problems--making f r i e n d s , l o s i n g w i e g h t , g e t t i n g more e x e r c i s e , b r e a k i n g up w i t h a b o y f r i e n d . We had two groups of 30 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s r e a d t h e s e s t o r i e s . Some subj e c t s s i m p l y r e a d t h e s t o r i e s , a t 45 seconds p e r episode, t h e n 15 m i n u t e s l a t e r r e c a l l e d b o t h s t o r i e s when cued w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r s ' names. O t h e r s u b j e c t s r a n k - o r d e r e d t h e e i g h t statements i n each episode a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r importance o r s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h i n t h e episode. A f t e r t h e y ' d s o ranked a l l statements, t h e y r e - r e a d them and w r o t e a summary o f each episode i n two o r t h r e e sentences, u s i n g l e s s t h a n 15 c o n t e n t words. They were i n s t r u c t e d t o imagine composing a t e l e g r a m t o r e l a y t h e e s s e n t i a l g i s t o f t h e episode i n as few i n f o r m a t i v e phrases as p o s s i b l e w h i l e r e m a i n i n g f a i t h f u l t o t h e l i t e r a l events. (This i n s t r u c t i o n prevented people f r o m composing a b s t r a c t morals as summaries.) These two groups o f s u b j e c t s t h u s assessed each s t a t e m e n t f o r i t s import a n c e r a n k i n g w i t h i n t h e episode, i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f i n c l u s i o n i n a summary f o r t h a t episode, and i t s l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e s t o r y . The t e x t grammar h y p o t h e s i s c l a i m s t h a t t h e statements w i t h i n each e p i s o d e can be d i v i d e d i n t o two s e t s , those t h a t a r e i r r e l e v a n t o r n o t e s s e n t i a l versus t h o s e t h a t a r e e s s e n t i a l p a r t s of any e p i s o d e t h a t has a p o i n t namely, t h e g o a l , c o m p l i c a t i o n , planned a c t i o n , and outcome. The hypothes i s does n o t p r e d i c t whether elements w i t h i n t h e " e s s e n t i a l " s e t w i l l v a r y i n importance. The main r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y a r e shown i n Table 1 g i v i n g t h e average importance r a n k i n g , p r o b a b i l i t y o f b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n a summary, and proba b i l i t y of r e c a l l f o r each t y p e of statement, averaged o v e r t h e s i x episodes w i t h i n each s t o r y . The f o u r background f i l l e r s were combined i n these s t a t i s t i c s . Table 1 contains several i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , t h e d e s c r i p t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n s were indeed j u d g e d as i r r e l e v a n t and unimport a n t , were l e a s t l i k e l y t o be r e c a l l e d , and l e a s t l i k e l y t o be i n c l u d e d i n Summaries of t h e episodes. Thus, s u b j e c t s ' i n t u i t i o n s about what a r e e s s e n t i a l elements i n an e p i s o d e agree w i t h o u r t h e o r y o f t h e episode schema.
A second c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i s t h a t s u b j e c t s u s u a l l y r a t e t h e g o a l s t a t e ment as t h e most i m p o r t a n t statement i n t h e episode. T h i s average o r d e r i n g arose f o r e l e v e n of t h e t w e l v e episodes ( t w o s t o r i e s each w i t h s i x e p i s o d e s ) . T h i s i s n o t s i m p l y a " f i r s t sentence" e f f e c t : h a l f t h e e p i sodes had some background f i l l e r s b e f o r e t h e g o a l , y e t even i n t h o s e cases
PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
5
s u b j e c t s s t i l l r a t e d t h e g o a l h i g h e s t i n importance. Table 1 Importance r a n k i n g , p r o b a b i l i t y o f i n c l u s i o n i n a summary,and p r o b a b i l i t y o f r e c a l l by statement t y p e , averaged o v e r t h e s i x episodes i n each s t o r y . Importance s c a l e d f r o m 1 (most i m p o r t a n t ) t o 8 ( l e a s t ) STATEMENT TYPE Goal
Complication
A c t i o_ n ~
PAUL STORY
Importance Rank Summary I n c l u s i o n Free R e c a l l
1.75 .57 .65
2.82 .51 .66
3.83 .50 .79
Outcome _ _ 3.62 .83 .76
F i l l e_ rs _ 5.57 .10 .53
Importance Rank Summary I n c l u s i o n Free R e c a l l
1.71 .74 .82
4.33 .18 .63
3.85 .67 .79
3.81
GAIL STORY
5.57 .16 .54
_
.__________________-_-------__-----------_---------------------................................................................... .63 .59
________________________________________-----------------
A t h i r d f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h e importance o r d e r i n g o f t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n , act i o n , and outcome v a r i e d across t h e two s t o r i e s . Thus, t h e d a t a do n o t s u p p o r t t h e o r i e s which a s s i g n importance t o t h e s e elements s i m p l y on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r r o l e i n t h e e p i s o d e s t r u c t u r e . I n r e v i e w i n g o u r two s t o r i e s , I n o t i c e d a n o t h e r f a c t o r t h a t seemed c r i t i c a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e importance r a t i n g s u b j e c t s gave t o t h e non-goal elements of t h e episode. T h i s o t h e r f a c t o r was how i n f o r m a t i v e , nonredundant, o r unusual a g i v e n s t a t e m e n t was i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e c h a r a c t e r ' s g o a l . Some C o m p l i c a t i o n s o r A c t i o n s were v e r y r o u t i n e and expected; s t a t i n g them conveyed l i t t l e new i n f o r m a t i o n beyond what one c o u l d a l r e a d y i n f e r from t h e c o n t e x t . Consider a few o f o u r C o m p l i c a t i o n s : an example o f an i n f o r m a t i v e C o m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t P a u l ' s p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l f r u s t r a t e s h i s goal of d o i n g w e l l i n h i s c l a s s e s ; an example o f a r o u t i n e , r e d u n d a n t C o m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t G a i l l a c k e d m o t i v a t i o n t o g e t more e x e r c i s e ; a n o t h e r i s t h a t G a i l d i d n ' t know what t o do t o become l e s s shy, so she asked a f r i e n d who sugg e s t e d an a s s e r t i v e n e s s c l a s s . Among American c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s G a i l ' s " C o m p l i c a t i o n s " a r e so s t a n d a r d and r o u t i n e t h a t t h e y a r e h a r d l y w o r t h men t i o n i ng.
I t h o u g h t t h a t t h i s redundancy f a c t o r would i n f l u e n c e t h e importance People assigned t o t h e e s s e n t i a l episode elements. So I had some new subj e c t s r a t e t h e elements w i t h i n each episode on a s c a l e o f i n f o r m a t i v e n e s s o r u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n c o n t e x t . T h i s enabled us t o s e p a r a t e t h e episode elements somewhat more. Thus, C o m p l i c a t i o n s j u d g e d t o be " i n f o r m a t i v e " had e a r l i e r r e c e i v e d mean importance r a n k i n g s of 2.93 ( r e c a l l , 1 i s t h e most I m p o r t a n t ) whereas C o m p l i c a t i o n s j u d g e d as more p r e d i c t a b l e and redundant had r e c e i v e d average importance r a n k i n g s o f 5.08, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower. A s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e i n importance r a n k i n g s was found f o r A c t i o n s r a t e d as i n f o r m a t i v e (3.60) versus t h o s e r a t e d as redundant (4.77) w i t h t h e Goal o r C o m p l i c a t i o n . Outcomes d i d n o t d i f f e r o f t e n enough i n redundancy r a t i n g s f o r us t o compare t h e importance assigned t o h i g h vs. l o w redundant outcomes. The c o n c l u s i o n f r o m t h i s post-hoc a n a l y s i s i s t h a t t h e importance assigned t o a C o m p l i c a t i o n o r A c t i o n w i l l u s u a l l y be h i g h e r t h e more unexpected and i n f o r m a t i v e i t i s i n l i g h t o f t h e goal and t h e o t h e r elements.
6
TEXT STRUCTURE
Consider now the likelihood t h a t d i f f e r e n t episode elements a r e included in the telegraphic summaries ( s e e l i n e s 2 and'4 of Table 1 ) . I r r e l e v a n t f i l l e r s hardly appear a t a l l i n summaries; Actions, Complications, and Outcomes a r e l i k e l y t o appear, b u t t h e i r exact ordering v a r i e s . For example, Complications appear in summaries of the Paul s t o r y b u t hardly ever in summaries of the Gail s t o r y . This difference probably r e f l e c t s again the predictable versus unpredictable nature of the complications in the two s t o r i e s . Across the two s t o r i e s , Complications rated as highly informative were included in episode summaries 74 percent of t h e time, whereas Complications judged t o be redundant and predictable were included only 15 percent of the time. Thus, deletion of predictable Complications in summaries seems t o follow G r i c e ' s Conversational Postulate--that i s , one should be brief and not say w h a t your audience can readily i n f e r . Table 1 a l s o shows t h a t f r e e r e c a l l percentages were r e l a t e d t o the importance ranking of the elements of the episode. We computed the Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t among the three v a r i a b l e s - - r e c a l l , summary, a n d importance--across the f i v e categories and two s t o r i e s ( s o N=10). The r e s u l t s show moderately strong c o r r e l a t i o n s : importance c o r r e l a t e s .72 with likelihood of inclusion in a summary and .62 with f r e e r e c a l l ; and the likelihood of inclusion in a summary c o r r e l a t e s .70 with likelihood t h a t the statement will be r e c a l l e d . While much common variance i s being captured by these measures, the variance unaccounted for s t i l l always exceeds 50 percent. Some of t h i s i s due t o uncontrolled differences in content, in redundancy of the s t r u c t u r a l elements of the several episodes, and so on. However, perhaps we should be s a t i s f i e d with ihe conclusion t h a t t o a f i r s t approximation, readers may be viewed as identifying and assigning g r e a t e s t importance t o statements s t i p u l a t i n g the goal, the complications encountered, the actions undertaken, and the outcome, whereas they devalue and skip over background statements, d e s c r i p t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n s , and d e t a i l s . Readers then use these s t r u c t u r a l l y c r i t i c a l elements they've i d e n t i f i e d in order t o reconstruct the t e x t in r e c a l l . EPISODES ELABORATE UPON PLAN SCHEMATA
One may notice t h a t the c o n s t i t u e n t s of episodes which we have i d e n t i f i e d a r e almost the same as t h e elements of a Plan schema underlying intentional actions. Plans have goals, a c t i o n s , outcomes, and may encounter complicat i o n s . Thus, people's knowledge of n a r r a t i v e episodes c e r t a i n l y includes t h e i r knowledge about Plans. I n t h i s view, readers use t h e i r general Plan schema t o understand intentional action sequences, and t h e Plan organizes behaviors according t o t h e i r goals. Studies by John Black and I (1980) and Edward Lichtenstein and William Brewer (1980) have found t h a t action Plans have a hierarchical s t r u c t u r e , t h a t goal-directed actions a t higher-levels of the goal-tree a r e remembered b e t t e r than non-goal-directed actions a t lower, more d e t a i l e d l e v e l s . Also, people do best a t processing and r e c a l l i n g a t e x t when i t mentions the Plan elements in t h e i r s t e r e o t y p i c order. I want t o examine more closely now how plans and goals a r e used by readers in processing n a r r a t i v e s . This topic i s discussed in d e t a i l in t h e book by Roger Schank and Bob Abelson, (1977) and t h e i r student, Bob Wilensky, (1978), wrote a computer simulation program which understands plan-based s t o r i e s . The program was c a l l e d PAM, the i n i t i a l s standing f o r Plan Applying Mechanism. T h e basic assumption i s t h a t people understand events o r statements in n a r r a t i v e s by trying t o explain them. Thus, actions a r e
PLANS AND GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
7
t o be understood by reference t o the a c t o r ' s plan; plans a r e understood by reference t o the goal they serve; goals a r e understood by reference e i t h e r t o a superordinate goal, or a s t a t e or theme t h a t gives r i s e t o t h e goal. Wilensky's PAM program follows a s p e c i f i c algorithm in understanding each event as i t occurs. F i r s t , i t checks whether t h e action s a t i s f i e s an on-going expectation--for example, whether i t f i t s i n t o a known plan f o r the a c t o r . I f so, then t h a t ' s the explanation of the event and i t i s thus incorporated i n t o the r e a d e r ' s developing representation of the s t o r y . Second, i f t h e immediate predictions f a i l f o r t h i s a c t i o n , then the reader t r i e s t o i n f e r a plan which includes t h i s a c t i o n , then checks t o see whether t h i s plan serves a known goal. Third, i f a goal i s s t a t e d or inf e r r e d , the reader supposedly checks whether i t i s c o n s i s t e n t with a higher goal o r theme the a c t o r has. THE DISTANCE EFFECT IN GOAL-ACTION PAIRS You might have noticed t h a t some actions will be psychologically close t o a
given goal b u t f a r t h e r away from other goals. That i s , a given action may r e l a t e t o i t s goal e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h several i n t e r mediate s t e p s or sub-goals. This i n t u i t i v e notion of the logical distance between a goal and an action can be explained using t h e idea of a goalsubgoal hierarchy o r a goal-reduction t r e e . A goal reduction t r e e decomposes a top-level goal i n t o subgoals, and those i n t o f u r t h e r subgoals or actions t h a t can be performed. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s p a r t of a goal reduct i o n t r e e f o r someone's knowledge about how t o s t e a l money, which can be done, l e t ' s say, through embezzlement, armed robbery, or s t e a l t h y burglary. To carry out armed robbery, one should have a gun, a get-away plan, and s e l e c t a s u i t a b l e t a r g e t l i k e a bank. To rob a bank requires t h a t you get information about the bank's cash reserves, what kind of s e c u r i t y systems STEAL they have, and so on.
YOU1
FIX
Figure 1
8
TEXT STRUCTURE
I n such a goal-reduction t r e e , "understanding an action in l i g h t of a goal" would mean finding or computing a connecting l i n k of the c o r r e c t kind between the two elements in the t r e e . Notice t h a t c e r t a i n goal-to-action p a i r s a r e q u i t e close in the t r e e whereas others a r e f a r t h e r away. When someone thinks about t h i s plan or goal-reduction t r e e , i t would not be a v a i l a b l e in a c t i v e memory a l l a t once; r a t h e r , i t would be r e t r i e v e d piecemeal from long-term memory. We may think of t h e links in t h i s f i g u r e as a s e t of one-step productions in memory which encode r u l e s of the form " I F you want t o achieve goal G , THEN do subgoals or actions A , B , and C . " T h u s , i f one wants t o f i n d a connection between a goal and some a c t i o n , the productions s t a r t i n g from t h a t goal will be f i r e d , entering i t s subgoals i n t o a c t i v e memory, and these i n t u r n will f i r e t h e i r productions, entering t h e i r subgoals i n t o a c t i v e memory. I f in t h i s expanding a c t i v a t i o n process the s p e c i f i e d action i s encountered, then a connection has been found, so we can say t h a t the reader has understood the action in terms of t h e plan. I f the r e t r i e v a l and a c t i v a t i o n of each link in the goal-tree takes time, then comprehension o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n time should take longer f o r those action-goal p a i r s t h a t a r e f a r t h e r a p a r t in the network. For instance, an action l i k e "John checked out t h e s e c u r i t y guards a t t h e bank" w o u l d be understood quickly when preceded by a Near goal l i k e "He wanted t o r o b a bank" b u t more slowly when preceded by a Far goal l i k e "He wanted t o s t e a l some money". DISTANCE EFFECT WITH NATURAL GOAL TREES
A Stanford student, Carolyn Foss, and I performed a n experiment t o see whether t h i s analysis was worthwhile. F i r s t , we had t o make up many p a i r s of goals and actions which were psychologically Near o r Far from one another according t o a plausible goal-reduction t r e e . Unfortunately these materials could only be chosen informally, by guessing about prototypical goal t r e e s f o r many standard plans of our s u b j e c t s . A principled way t o s e l e c t Near versus Far goal-action p a i r s i s t o choose t h r e e elements along a goal-reduction chain, as in the example above of a top-goal ( " s t e a l i n g " ) , a subgoal ("armed robbery"), and a lower action ("check o u t s e c u r i t y guards"). I n our experiment, we fixed the action and then preceded i t e i t h e r with a Near subgoal o r with a Far, higher goal. Thus, the Near subgoal-action p a i r was nested within the Far goal-action p a i r , with a s h o r t e r distance. Subjects were timed as they read each statement within a number of fourl i n e episodes. They read f o r comprehension and had t o answer a question a f t e r reading each episode. The subject pressed a button t o present hims e l f with each successive statement of the t e x t on a CRT. Subjects were not aware t h a t they were being timed f o r line-by-line reading. The time between button-presses presumably measures t h e time t h e subject required t o read the statement, comprehend i t , and i n t e g r a t e i t i n t o h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t e x t . We expect t h a t actions will be understood f a s t e r when they follow Near r a t h e r t h a n Far goals. I ' v e discussed only the case where the goal precedes t h e a c t i o n , and where we measure t h e time required t o understand the a c t i o n . However, i f understanding simply requires connecting u p a goal with a n a c t i o n , then one might expect a s i m i l a r distance e f f e c t when the goal follows t h e action and we measure t h e time required t o comprehend t h e goal and i t s connections t o t h a t p r i o r action. Thus, t h e subject would be timed on the second sentence
PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
9
as he r e a d t h e Near sequence "John decided t o r o b a bank. He wanted t o s t e a l some money" versus t h e F a r sequence "John checked o u t t h e s e c u r i t y guards a t t h e bank. He wanted t o s t e a l some money." Presumably, when t h e a c t i o n i s s t a t e d f i r s t , t h e person i n f e r s a p l a n and goal f o r i t ; then when t h e t a r g e t goal i s read, i t w i l l produce e i t h e r a r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t match t o t h e p r e d i c t e d goal i n t h e Near case o r w i l l r e q u i r e s e v e r a l s t e p s of i n f e r e n c e i n o r d e r t o l i n k up t h r o u g h s u b o r d i n a t e g o a l s i n t h e Far case. T h e r e f o r e , we p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f d i s t a n c e on comprehension would be about t h e same whether t h e s u b j e c t were comprehending t h e a c t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e goal, o r v i c e versa. To t e s t t h i s , we had o u r s u b j e c t s r e a d f o u r - l i n e episodes where t h e m i d d l e l i n e s were e q u a l l y o f t e n i n t h e a c t i o n goal o r d e r and i n t h e g o a l - a c t i o n o r d e r . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment a r e shown i n F i g u r e 2, which d e p i c t s t h e average t i m e r e q u i r e d t o comprehend a t a r g e t sentence. The t o p l i n e d e p i c t s
I Figure 2
I NEAR
I
FA~R
t h e t i m e t o understand a goal f o l l o w i n g a Near o r F a r a c t i o n ; t h e bottom l i n e i s t h e t i m e t o understand an a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a g o a l . The f i r s t conspicuous r e s u l t i s t h a t a t a r g e t sentence t h a t i s Near t o i t s p r e c e d i n g c o n t e x t sentence i s comprehended about o n e - t h i r d second f a s t e r t h a n a r e t a r g e t s t h a t a r e F a r f r o m t h e i r p r e c e d i n g c o n t e x t . So, t h i s i s t h e d i s t a n c e e f f e c t we were seeking. A second r e s u l t i n F i g u r e 2 i s t h a t r e a d e r s a r e about one h a l f second f a s t e r i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g an a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a goal t h a n i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a goal f o l l o w i n g an a c t i o n . T h i s g o a l - t h e n - a c t i o n sequence i s , of course, t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l as w e l l as causal o r d e r o f t h e s e elements i n t h e P l a n schema. Thus, we may conclude t h a t p e o p l e more q u i c k l y understand s t a t e ments when t h e y o c c u r i n t h e same o r d e r as t h e s l o t s i n t h e schema used t o encode t h e sequence. F i g u r e 2 shows no i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e o r d e r o f t h e goal and a c t i o n , and t h e d i s t a n c e between them. The two f a c t o r s have a d d i t i v e e f f e c t s on comPrehens ion t i me. DISTANCE EFFECT WITH SPECIALLY TRAINED GOAL TREES A l t h o u g h t h i s experiment succeeded i n d e m o n s t r a t i n g d i s t a n c e e f f e c t s , C a r o l y n Foss and I were b o t h e r e d t h a t we had no measure o f t h e d i s t a n c e between a goal and a c t i o n e x c e p t o u r i n t u i t i o n s , which a t b e s t p r o v i d e o n l y an o r d e r i n g o f more o r l e s s d i s t a n c e w i t h i n a g i v e n goal-subgoal c h a i n . Our i n t u i t i v e guesses m i g h t be wrong about t h e goal t r e e o f many of o u r s u b j e c t s . A l s o , i t ' s n o t c l e a r t o what e x t e n t t h e i n t u i t i v e sense of
TEXT STRUCTURE
10
goal-action distance we were using was j u s t a s s o c i a t i v e strength of connect i o n between the two predicates. Thus, t o take j u s t one example, " s t e a l " and "rob bank" a r e more c l o s e l y associated than a r e " s t e a l " and "gun". To counter-argue t h i s point, i f one accepts the idea t h a t people s t o r e plans, then "associations" a r e j u s t the consequence of the causal order of these events in the Plan.
For such reasons, we decided t o stop using n a t u r a l i s t i c materials of u n known organization and instead have the subject learn a novel goal hierarchy which we could specify precisely. Therefore, Carolyn F o s s and I ran a second experiment i n which we f i r s t had s u b j e c t s read a t e x t describing a novel procedure; then, a f t e r they had thoroughly learned the goal-tree o f t h a t procedure, subjects made a number of timed judgments using t h e i r knowledge of t h i s t r e e . The t e x t the subjects studied described the procedure f o r joining a f i c t i t i o u s Top Secret Club., The goal-hieraichy i m p l i c i t in the t e x t i s shown in Figure 3 below. JOIN TOP SECRET CLUB
DO INITIATIONRITES
SPY ON ZERO CLUB
INFILTRATE
GET OUTSIDE INFO
BLUE M A W M
CUJRAGEOUS Wssy)w
DRIW
M T O
STUNT
CRAC%
LOCATE
METINOS
REOS
CRYPTIC
HIDDEN
LUGE
CODE
EARN
FLU0
I 1
S E
S€CY
FWD
LEARN
I eRIBE VP.
DESIGNATED
IN OtlRGE OF
SrrE
STRANGE STUFF
PAY rssoC. TREASURER
FIGURE 3 GOAL-STRUCTURE
FOR
EXPERIMENT 2
PLANS A N D GOALS IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
11
Thus, in order t o j o i n the Top Secret Club, the candidate must spy on i t s enemy, the Zero C l u b , and perform several i n i t i a t i o n r i t e s . To spy on the Zero C l u b , the candidate has t o i n f i l t r a t e the club and a l s o get some outs i d e information about i t . To get t h a t required t h a t he crack a c r y p t i c code and l o c a t e t h e i r treasury in a hidden barn, and so on. This goal-tree c o n s i s t s of 16 subgoals nested along s i x branches. I t was rendered i n t o prose resembling i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r imaginary games l i k e "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Startrek" with which most of our subjects were f a m i l i a r . The subjects never saw the goal t r e e as s e t f o r t h in Figure 3. Rather, they studied t h e t e x t u n t i l they learned i t well before t h e t e s t i n g phase began. For the t e s t phase, subjects were t o l d t h a t some CIA agents had f o u n d burned and shredded copies of the procedure for joining the club, and they were t r y i n g t o piece together the original complete procedure. These agents would formulate a plan and submit i t f o r evaluation t o the s u b j e c t , since he was the expert; he was t o decide quickly whether o r not the proposed plan was well formed. The proposed plans were formatted as two separate clauses: f i r s t , a clause would appear on t h e CRT such as "In order t o ( i n f i l t r a t e the Zero Club)"; a f t e r the person read t h a t , he pushed a button which showed the second clause, somcbhing l i k e "John had t o see t h e secretary". The subject had t o decide whether t h e a c t i o n i n the second clause was a subordinate o r descendant o f the goal mentioned i n the f i r s t clause. Thus, i t i s proper t o say t h a t " I n order t o i n f i l t r a t e the Zero club, John had t o see the secretary"--that i s a c o r r e c t plan because the action in the second clause f a l l s below the goal in the f i r s t clause. An Incorrect plan i s one where t h e second clause r e f e r s t o an action t h a t i s e i t h e r above i t in the t r e e or on a s i d e branch from the f i r s t clause. Thus, i t i s incorrect t o say t h a t " I n order t o see the s e c r e t a r y , John i n f i l t r a t e d the Zero Club" or " I n order t o i n f i l t r a t e t h e Zero Club, John had t o carry out a courageous mission". Training our subjects on t h i s novel goal hierarchy provides several theoret i c a l advantages. Importantly, we know what t h e goal s t r u c t u r e i s , and know t h a t i t ' s roughly the same f o r each subject. Also we know t h a t the degree of learning of the various l i n k s in the t r e e i s about the same, so a s s o c i a t i v e strengths w o n ' t be varying randomly. F i n a l l y , we now have a simple measure of distance between any two nodes in the network as well as the amount of branching o r fanning t h a t occurs between two nodes. This measure enables us t o p l o t parametric functions. I n the experiment subjects judged 56 plans once, then repeated the t e s t s e r i e s . There were s l i g h t l y more Correct than Incorrect plans, and half o f each type were Near or Far goal-action p a i r s . The basic r e s u l t i s shown in Figure 4 . Importantly, t h e time t o decide t h a t a goal-action plan i s c o r r e c t i n creased nearly l i n e a r l y w i t h the number of s t e p s between the elements i n the hierarchy. Each step increased reaction time by about half a second. Such a function would be expected i f t h e person searched l i n k s downward from t h e goal a t about half a second per s t e p . Second, Figure 4 shows t h a t subjects answer quicker the second time t h r o u g h the t e s t s . This would occur e i t h e r i f the subject i s strengthening and f a c i l i t a t i n g the same l i n k s he'd used before, o r i f he i s learning d i s t a n t goal-action dependencies, accessing them d i r e c t l y , and by-passing derivat i o n of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p the second time.
12
TEXT STRUCTURE
Figure 4
100
Dl3'ANCt
I
I
I
Y
1
2
3
4.5
A t h i r d e f f e c t n o t shown i n F i g u r e 4 was an i n t e r f e r e n c e o r f a n e f f e c t of s l o w e r search due t o b r a n c h i n g : f o r a g i v e n s t e p - d i s t a n c e between t h e g o a l and a c t i o n , t h e d e c i s i o n t i m e was l o n g e r t h e g r e a t e r t h e b r a n c h i n g a l o n g t h e p a t h c o n n e c t i n g them. T h i s would r e s u l t if t h e l i n k - s e a r c h i n g process i s slowed by d i v i d i n g i t s r e s o u r c e s a t b r a n c h i n g p o i n t s . T u r n i n g t o t h e F a l s e judgments, we were s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d no d i f f e r e n c e whatsoever between Near, Far, o r L a t e r a l F a l s e p a i r s . Mean RT f o r t h e Near, Far, and L a t e r a l f a l s e s were 2212, 2162, and 2132, r e s p e c t i v e l y . These do n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . A downward search a l g o r i t h m f o r t h e g o a l - t r e e i m p l i e s no d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e s e cases. Downward search means t o s t a r t from t h e goal i n t h e f i r s t c l a u s e and r e t r i e v e i t s descendants below i n successive g e n e r a t i o n s ; i f any o f them matches t h e a c t i o n i n t h e second clause, respond " C o r r e c t " ; i f none of t h e descendants match, respond " F a l s e " . T h i s downward search a l g o r i t h m e x p l a i n s t h e l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e Near, Far, and L a t e r a l f a l s e s because i n t h i s experiment t h e y a l l had t h e same average number o f descendants. However, I should p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s was n o t a planned o r c o n t r o l l e d comparison i n t h i s experiment, so we a r e n o t c e r t a i n about o u r c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g F a l s e d e c i s i o n s . As noted, we can r e p r e s e n t t h e p r o c e d u r a l h i e r a r c h y i n t h i s experiment as a s e t of one-step p r o d u c t i o n s i n memory t h a t l i n k g o a l s t o subgoals. The process of s e a r c h i n g t h r o u g h t h e graph s t r u c t u r e would t h e n be s i m u l a t e d by t h e f i r i n g of p r o d u c t i o n s , whereby a goal a c t i v a t e s i t s immediate descend a n t s , which f i r e t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n s , a c t i v a t i n g t h e i r descendants. Thus w i l l a c t i v a t i o n spread across g e n e r a t i o n s . T h i s i s one way t o implement t h e node-search procedure t h a t i s s o f a m i l i a r i n semantic networks. To summarize, we've found t h a t t h e t i m e t o d e c i d e t h a t an a c t i o n i s p l a u s i b l e i n l i g h t o f a goal i n c r e a s e s almost l i n e a r l y w i t h t h e d e r i v a t i o n a l d i s t a n c e between t h e two i n t h e goal t r e e . B r a n c h i n g slows down t h e search, and r e p e t i t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r pathways s t r e n g t h e n s them and speeds up t h e search.
PLANS AND GOALS I N UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
13
FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON GOAL-HIERARCHIES T h i s e x p e r i m e n t w i t h a novel goal h i e r a r c h y has y i e l d e d o r d e r l y r e s u l t s on t h e t i m e p e o p l e t a k e t o p e r f o r m memory search and v e r i f i c a t i o n . The t e c h n i q u e can be e x p l o i t e d t o examine a number o f q u e s t i o n s , some of which we p l a n t o pursue. F i r s t , we p l a n t o l o o k a t r e a d i n g t i m e f o r t h e second c l a u s e r a t h e r t h a n d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p r o p e r p l a n s ; r e a d i n g comprehension s h o u l d be q u i c k e r f o r s h o r t e r g o a l - a c t i o n pathways. Second, t h e g o a l - t r e e i t s e l f can be v a r i e d s t r u c t u r a l l y s o t h a t one can s t u d y more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t h e e f f e c t s o f branching i n the goal tree. Third, the t e s t could l i s t a c o n j u n c t i o n o f a c t i o n s and ask t h e s u b j e c t t o decide whether a l l of them were necessary and s u f f i c i e n t t o achieve some s u p e r o r d i n a t e g o a l . Fourth, i n t h e Foss experiment, t h e s u b j e c t l e a r n e d one l a r g e g o a l - t r e e and t h e t e s t s checked t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o r e t r i e v e d i f f e r e n t segments o f t h e t r e e ; no novel compositions o r arrangements were r e q u i r e d . The r e q u e s t f o r nov e l t y i n p l a n n i n g suggests f u r t h e r experiments i n which we f i r s t t e a c h t h e s u b j e c t s e v e r a l p i e c e s o f d i s j o i n t p l a n h i e r a r c h i e s , and t h e n measure how l o n g he t a k e s on t a s k s t h a t r e q u i r e him t o r e t r i e v e and assemble t h e p l a n pieces i n a p a r t i c u l a r order. CURRENT EXTENSIONS ON GOAL MONITORING I w i l l b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e two e x t e n s i o n s o f o u r g o a l - a c t i o n r e s e a r c h . One p r o j e c t concerns how t h e r e a d e r m o n i t o r s s e v e r a l g o a l s f o r t h e a c t o r . Imag i n e t h a t t h e opening of a s t o r y d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a l separate, independent g o a l s t h a t t h e a c t o r wants t o achieve as t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r i s e . We conc e i v e o f t h i s as t h e r e a d e r s e t t i n g up a g o a l - l i s t f o r t h a t c h a r a c t e r i n s h o r t - t e r m memory, and t h e n m o n i t o r i n g f o r an a c t i o n r e l e v a n t t o any o f these a c t i v e g o a l s . L a t e r when t h e t e x t d e s c r i b e s an a c t i o n , we imagine t h a t t o understand i t , t h e r e a d e r t r i e s t o connect i t up t o some one of t h e a c t i v e g o a l s f o r t h i s c h a r a c t e r . We may l i k e n t h i s process t o S t e r n b e r g ' s memory-scanning t a s k i n w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t searches f o r a probe d i g i t amongst a memory l i s t . Therefore, one p r e d i c t s a s e t - s i z e e f f e c t : t h a t i s , t h e more independent g o a l s one has t o keep i n mind f o r a c h a r a c t e r , t h e l o n g e r i t s h o u l d t a k e t o d e c i d e t h a t an a c t i o n f i t s i n t o a p l a n f o r some one of t h e s e g o a l s . The m a t e r i a l s o f t h i s experiment a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 5. The e x p e r i mental s u b j e c t reads many s m a l l v i g n e t t e s i n which a l i s t of 1, 3, o r 5 g o a l s i s i n t r o d u c e d , t h e n 0 o r 3 i r r e l e v a n t i n t e r p o l a t e d sentences o c c u r t o produce d i f f e r i n g amounts o f d e - a c t i v a t i o n , t h e n an a c t i o n s t a t e m e n t occurs. The s u b j e c t decides as q u i c k l y as he can whether t h e t e s t a c t i o n i s p l a u s i b i l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h some one o f t h e g o a l s . F i g u r e 5 i l l u s t r a t e s a t r i a l w i t h 3 goals, w i t h 3 i n t e r p o l a t e d sentences, and shows an example of a True a c t i o n as w e l l as a F a l s e a c t i o n ( o n l y one would be p r e s e n t e d p e r tri a1 )
.
f a r t h e r e s u l t s a r e c o n f i r m i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s . D e c i s i o n t i m e f o r an act i o n i n c r e a s e s w i t h t h e number o f a c t i v e g o a l s , and t h e s l o p e ( i n c r e a s e p e r g o a l ) i s l e s s f o r True t h a n f o r F a l s e a c t i o n probes. The s t e e p e r s l o p e f o r F a l s e s would a r i s e i f each g o a l - a c t i o n comparison t a k e s much l o n g e r t o decide mismatch t h a n t o d e c i d e match due t o s e a r c h i n g f o r e v e r more remote connections between mismatching elements. We a r e a l s o f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i n t e r p o l a t e d m a t e r i a l slows down a l l d e c i s i o n t i m e s and i n c r e a s e s e r r o r s ; t h i s was p r e d i c t e d s i n c e i n t e r p o l a t e d m a t e r i a l d e a c t i v a t e s t h e goal e l e ments, so t i m e i s needed t o r e a c t i v a t e t h e g o a l s t o compare t o t h e a c t i o n Probe. SO
TEXT STRUCTURE
14
J W WANTED
TO CATCH A FISH, LISTEN TO PIJSIC, TELEPHONE SALLY )
JOHii IS A H A R V MnN, ~~ HARVARD IS I N CAMBRIDGE, I T HAS ABOUT 6ooo UIlJlERGRADUATES, SO, JOHN GOT OLJT [HIS PHONOGWH] (OR) [HIS CHAINSAW ]
I
INTERPOLATED FILLERS
TRUE ACTION FALSE ACTION
Figure 5 I n sum, t h i s e x p e r i m e n t seems t o be w o r k i n g r a t h e r w e l l , w i t h r e s u l t s as expected. We p l a n t o e x t e n d i t t o s t u d y t h e e f f e c t s o f keeping t r a c k o f two c h a r a c t e r s ' goal l i s t s , d e l e t i n g g o a l s from t h e l i s t as t h e y ' r e achieved, u s i n g a c t i o n probes t h a t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s a t i s f y s e v e r a l o f t h e g o a l s , and so on. The e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm seems useful f o r answering many q u e s t i o n s about how p e o p l e t r a c k m u l t i p l e g o a l s and up-date t h e a c t i v e g o a l - l i s t f o r p a r t i c u l a r characters i n a s t o r y .
A second e x t e n s i o n C a r o l y n Foss and I a r e c u r r e n t l y e x p l o r i n g i s t o measure comprehension and d e c i s i o n t i m e u s i n g g o a l - h i e r a r c h i e s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c t u a l s t o r i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , most of t h e f a i r y t a l e s C a r o l y n examined had v e r y s h a l l o w g o a l - t r e e s , which a r e n o t i d e a l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g causal d i s t a n c e e f f e c t s . One s t o r y t h a t i s n o t o r i o u s f o r h a v i n g a l o n g c h a i n o f subgoals i s "The O l d Farmer and H i s Stubborn Donkey" (Rumelhart, 1975), s o we a r e u s i n g t h a t i n a c u r r e n t experiment. The e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s a r e b e i n g t i m e d w h i l e d e c i d i n g t h e t r u t h o f causal i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e f o r m " I n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e X, t h e f a r m e r d i d Y " . As before, t h e b a s i c q u e s t i o n i s whether d e c i s i o n t i m e w i l l i n c r e a s e w i t h t h e d i s t a n c e between t h e goal and t h e a c t i o n i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . I ' m hoping t h a t t h e r e s t i l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l c o n f i r m o u r e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s b u t w i t h a goal h i e r a r c h y t h e s u b j e c t has learned w i t h i n a r e a l s t o r y . CONCLUDING REMARKS I t i s t i m e t h a t I b r i n g t h i s paper t o a c l o s e . I have been d i s c u s s i n g episodes and t h e p l a n - g o a l a n a l y s i s o f a c t i o n s , and have i n v e s t i g a t e d how p e o p l e comprehend a c t i o n s i n t i g h t o f goals, o r g o a l s i n l i g h t of a c t i o n s . The g u i d i n g theme i s t h a t r e a d e r s search f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f n a r r a t i v e e v e n t s , and t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f comprehension, and hence r e a d i n g t i m e , i n c r e a s e s t h e g r e a t e r t h e d e r i v a t i o n a l d i s t a n c e between a goal and a r e l e v a n t a c t i o n i n a p l a n n i n g space. A l s o , t r a c k i n g t h e g o a l s o f a c h a r a c t e r
15
PLANS A N D GOAL IN UNDERSTANDING EPISODES
can be thought of as maintaining those goals in a c t i v e memory a s explanatory sources f o r l a t e r events, with t h e time t o find a given goal-to-action linkage depending on how many goals a r e a c t i v e , how long i s t h e l i n k u p , how activated a r e the c o r r e c t versus incorrect goals, and so on. These findings a r e n o t e s p e c i a l l y s u r p r i s i n g given the t h e o r e t i c a l analysis of the comprehension tasks in terms of goal hierarchies and memory search t h r o u g h activated elements in short-term memory. B u t the power o f such ideas from cognitive psychology i s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o explain d i f f e r e n t phenomena. The value of a t h e o r e t i c a l framework i s sometimes j u s t t o enable us t o think systematically about c e r t a i n phenomena and t o frame questions about them in such manner t h a t the answers seem almost obvious. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , researchers' f e e l i n g of understanding events in nature by s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l expectations runs almost exactly p a r a l l e l t o readers' f e e l i n g of understanding s t o r y events because they s u b s t a n t i a t e predictions t h e y ' r e made about the characters. This seems e n t i r e l y f i t t i n g since b o t h the s c i e n t i s t and t h e comprehender a r e j u s t t r y i n g t o explain events t h a t engage t h e i r a t t e n t i o n .
FOOTNOTE Research reported here was supported by a grant MH-13905 t o the author from the United S t a t e s N . I . M . H . REFERENCES Black, J . B. & Bower, G . H . Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 1980, 9,223-250. Bower, G. H . Experiments on s t o r y understanding and r e c a l l . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976, 8, 511-534.
Quarterly
ammer, A. Toward a theory of question-asking. Research B u l l e t i n , Nr. 2 2 , University of Fribourg, Psychologisches I n s t i t u t , Fribourg, CH. 1980. chtenstein, E. H. & Brewer, W . F. Memory f o r goal-directed events. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 412-445. Rumelhart, D. E. Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . I n : D. Bobrow and A. Collins ( E d s . ) , M r e s e n t a t i o n and understanding. New York: Academic Press, 1975, P p . 237-272. Schank, R. C . & Abelson, R. P . S c r i p t s , plans, goals, and understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. 1977. Thorndyke, P. W . Cognitive s t r u c t u r e s in comprehension and memory of n a r r a t i v e discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 2, 77-110 van Dijk, T .
Some aspects of t e x t grammars.
The Hague:
Mouton.
1972.
Wilensky, R . Understanding goal-based s t o r i e s . P h . D . D i s s e r t a t i o n , Research Report 11140, Computer Science Dept., Yale University, 1978.
DISCOURSE PROCESSLNC A . Flammerand W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY? Towards t h e production of conversational narratives'
Uta M . Quasthoff and Kurt Nikolaus Freie Universi t a t Berlin Fachbereich Germanistik Habelschwerdter Allee 45 1000 Berlin 33 This paper presents l i n g u i s t i c c r i t e r i a f o r the evaluation of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . These c r i t e r i a a r e derived from a theory of n a r r a t i v e t e x t s which i s based on a d e s c r i p t i v e mapping of t h e process of planning a n d producing a non-fict i o u s s t o r y in conversation. The theory includes not only aspects of discourse s t r u c t u r e , b u t a l s o s i t u a t i o n a l and functional v a r i a b l e s . The empirical basis of the study i s a l a r g e tape-recorded corpus of everyday s t o r i e s in natural conversation ( i n German).
1 . PRODUCTION OF CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES Though well in l i n e with the t r a d i t i o n derived from B a r t l e t t (and o t h e r s ) , o u r own approach t o t e x t processing d i f f e r s from mainstream cognitive s c i ence in t h r e e major r e s p e c t s : a ) Since discourse production i s l o g i c a l l y p r i o r t o discourse comprehens i o n , we deal with t h e former aspect of processing r a t h e r than t h e 1a t t e r . b ) Since written t e x t s r e l y on basic forms encountered in everyday communication, we focus on oral discourse. (Moreover, written language i s subject t o a higher degree of normative r i g i d i t y , whereas everyday speech i s much more variable and f l e x i b l e . ) c ) Since laboratory experiments do n o t provide an easy basis f o r general i z i n g t o "normal" l i f e , we t r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e discourse production in natural s e t t i n g s . 1 . 1 . The notion of "conversational n a r r a t i v e "
As linguists,we focus on t h e sometimes s u b t l e s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between d i f f e r e n t kinds of t e x t s . So we tend t o l i m i t our subject t o r a t h e r s p e c i f i c discourse u n i t s : i . e . , we shall deal only with w h a t we have called "conversational n a r r a t i v e s " .
+This
research was supported by a grant of the Volkswagen-Stiftung f o r our research p r o j e c t "Kognitive u n d sprachliche Entwicklung am Beispiel des frzahlens in naturlichen Interaktionssituationen". The c r i t e r i a were developed t o enable the ranking of c h i l d r e n ' s n a r r a t i v e s . 16
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?
17
A conversational n a r r a t i v e i s a n o r a l l y realized discourse u n i t , which emerges spontaneaously in conversation. I t i s a communicative way of forming experience a n d coping with i t . I t i s constrained by t h e following semantic and formal conditions: Semantic conditions:
-
The r e f e r e n t of the n a r r a t i v e discourse i s some fragment of r e a l i t y in the p a s t , in our c u l t u r e , a sequence of actions and/or events. This r e f e r e n t i s c a l l e d "episode". The episode i s uniquely i d e n t i f i a b l e by a c e r t a i n point in time and a c e r t a i n place. I t i s not a habitual happening o r behavior. The episode i s reportable (Labov and Waletzky 1967 and Labov 1972). The r e p o r t a b i l i t y of an episode i s the r e s u l t of an a t l e a s t minimal unusualness r e l a t i v e t o the expectations o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t in t h e episode and/ or expectations t h a t a r e based on general norms or frames. The n a r r a t o r i s i d e n t i c a l with one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ( " c h a r a c t e r s " ) in the episode (agent, p a t i e n t , o b s e r v e r . . . ) .
Formal conditions: Compared t o other forms of representing past experience ( e . g . , the r e p o r t ) the conversational n a r r a t i v e i s a vivid replaying (Goffman, 1974) r a t h e r t h a n a matter-of-fact presentation of the episode. As a consequence of t h i s form of representation, the following l i n g u i s t i c means a r e typical of conversational n a r r a t i v e s :
-
Evaluative and expressive l i n g u i s t i c forms Direct speech, including imitation of the c h a r a c t e r s ' voices (accent, p i t c h , intonation + speech rhythm) - A high degree of d e t a i l in presenting t h e s t o r y , "atomization" of thecontinuum of actions and events ( a t l e a s t in some parts of t h e n a r r a t i v e ) - The use of h i s t o r i c a l present ( a t l e a s t in the atomized p a r t of t h e narrative). Please note t h a t t h e term "episode" - in c o n t r a s t t o t h e term "narrative" i s used t o r e f e r t o a non-linguistic, non-mental, n o n - f i c t i t i o u s , r e a l world e n t i t y ; whereas n a r r a t i v e s c o n s i s t of utterances, episodes a r e by def i n i t i o n made u p of s t a t e s , events, and a c t i o n s . (Following v . Wright (1963), we take an event t o be the t r a n s i t i o n from one s t a t e of a f f a i r s t o another and an action t o be the intentional bringing about o r preventing of an event.) 1 . 2 . Production schema
Since 1974, we nal n a r r a t i v e s such a s t h e s e , nal n a r r a t i v e s Figure 1 ) . Our
have been c o l l e c t i n g a large corpus o f (German) conversatioa s defined above. S e t t i n g out from purely observational data we t r i e d t o develop a d e s c r i p t i v e model of how conversatioa r e produced by a n a r r a t o r on a p a r t i c u l a r occasion ( s e e production schema r e s t s on t h e following assumptions:
a ) Discourse production i s a cognitive process t h a t c o n s i s t s i n the format i o n and r e a l i z a t i o n of cognitive plans. We use t h e concept of "plan" as proposed by Miller, Galanter & Pribram (1960), without presupposing any conscious i n t e n t i o n s .
18
TEXT STRUCTURE Fi Q U W 1 : PRODUffION SCHEMA FOR CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES episode
1
t h e period to
0
-
tire 0 period
j
L
ol in in 0, 0,
rn
in
c. c1.
inrt
ti rL in in
ts
2 2. n
rn
:: ,& CI
x
ZzlII
0
z
results i n
a
%
relational structure i s made co!c!etL
I
by
i n f o m t i o n a l structur I
selects
.
,
.
paning a r t one of textual 1) (proposition grammatical /phonJloLi c a l realization' I
p form a r t one of textual (utterance 7)
9
leads to
-
1
I
___---_ = v a r i a b l e processes = necessary processes -.-. -. -. - = processes n o t included i n n a r r a t i v e production
I
situation 2
I
I
10
I
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?
19
b ) T h i s planning process can be described a s 3 s e r i e s of decisions on seve-
C)
r a l l e v e l s of information processing t h a t a r e h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ordered, such t h a t every s t e p in t h i s process i s b o t h controlled by the higherlevel s t e p s and e x e r t s control over the lower-level ones. Every subplan i s continuously monitored so a s t o conform t o t h e pragmat i c context within which the n a r r a t i v e i s being t o l d . This context includes both t h e social s i t u a t i o n (assumptions a b o u t l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge, s t a t u s , personality e t c . ) and the aims and i n t e n t i o n s of t h e speaker .
Figure 1 provides a crude v i s u a l i z a t i o n of the production of n a r r a t i v e s , s t e p s being denoted by rectangals and processes by arrows. The sequence of s t e p s and processes i s logical r a t h e r t h a n psychological o r temporal. The overall coherence of the production process i s provided by means of feedback loops (some of which have been omitted f o r the sake of s i m p l i c i t y ) . Some explanations may help in reading t h e diagram: The term " s i t u a t i o n " covers a l l t h e pragmatic aspects o f language use (soc i a l context, spatio-temporal surroundings, personal and social r e l a t i o n s between speaker and l i s t e n e r , t h e i r mutual knowledge, and the l i k e ) . You may read t h i s label a s a kind o f dummy symbol f o r any kind of information t h a t may be needed f o r t h e reconstruction or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r n a r r a t i v e a c t . (Some s i t u a t i o n a l aspects a r e specified a s names of t h e feedback loops connecting " s i t u a t i o n " with t h e other s t e p s of t h e production schema.) Each a n d every aspect of n a r r a t i v e production (or, f o r t h a t matter, of discourse production in general) depends o n , i s influenced by, and influences many pragmatic f a c t o r s . Since these e f f e c t s , unfortunately, a r e not e a s i l y controlled in experiments on t e x t processing, they a r e usually neglected. Secondly, by "cognitive s t o r y " we wish t.o r e f e r t o whatever mental representation of the real-world episode i s r e t r i e v e d (or reconstructed) from memory a t t h e time o f the n a r r a t i o n . This r e f l e c t s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between what t h e n a r r a t o r r e c a l l s about what happened a n d what r e a l l y happened; i t a l s o r e f l e c t s the d i s t i n c t i o n between what the narrator r e c a l l s and what he/she a c t u a l l y t e l l s . As f a r as the d i s t i n c t i o n between communicative and i n t e r a c t i v e function/ goal i s concerned, we a r e well aware of t h e f a c t t h a t tllis terminology i s a b i t awkward; f o r lack of anything b e t t e r , we will use these terms in t h e following sense: Communicative functions r e l y on t h e c o n t e n t of a narrative, whereas i n t e r a c t i v e functions r e l y on i t s l i n g u i s t i c form, i . e . , the type 6: discourse u n i t i t s e l f ( f o r example, "report" vs. " n a r r a t i v e " ) . Obviously, some functions of conversational n a r r a t i v e s - 1 i ke argumentation self-aggrandizement - depend primarily on what i s told in t h e p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y . These a r e t h e functions t h a t a r e subsumed under the heading of "communicative functions". On t h e other hand, the very a c t of conversational narration (no matter what t h e subject i s ) may serve the function of creating an atmosphere of intimacy and t h u s help the narrator t o express and Promote h i s view of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n , namely "We're engaged in an lnformal context with a r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e personal r e l a t i o n s h i p " . Therefore,
Or
20
TEXT STRUCTURE
we c a l l t h i s l a t t e r function of a conversational n a r r a t i v e and the corresponding intention of t h e narrator " i n t e r a c t i v e " .
The intended f u n c t i o n ( s ) , the cognitive s t o r y , and t h e i r appropriateness must be constantly checked against one another and the s i t u a t i o n ; t h i s f i n a l l y r e s u l t s in a decision t o t e l l a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y ( o r t o r e f r a i n from doing s o ) . Once t h i s decision has been achieved, every b i t of information a b o u t the episode t h a t i s a c c e s s i b l e in t h e memory s t o r e i s retrieved (and missing l i n k s a r e reconstructed). This r e c a l l i s guided by n a r r a t i v e schemata t h a t a r e probably c u l t u r e - s p e c i f i c . The process of r e c a l l i n g f i n a l l y r e s u l t s i n an informational s t r u c t u r e which i s embedded i n a r e l a t i o n a l net, the d e t a i l s of which cannot be given here. This complex semantic s t r u c t u r e then i s s e r i a l i z e d : i . e . , a t i n y fragment a t a time i s s e l e c t e d , verbalized, and f i n a l l y u t t e r e d . Of course, even the planning of the l i n g u i s t i c form of the u t t e r a n c e ( s ) i s dependent on a l l t h e preceding s t e p s in t h e production schema. With t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of the f i r s t utterance and l i s t e n e r r e a c t i o n s , a new s i t u a t i o n i s created so t h a t the planning cycle s t a r t s a17 over again.
I n our reconstruction of conversational n a r r a t i o n , we have emphasized t h e integration of b o t h s t r u c t u r a l and functional aspects of l i n g u i s t i c behavior. However, our production schema does not y e t include e x p l i c i t c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating n a r r a t i v e s . From our d e s c r i p t i v e modeling of the production process, we can derive such c r i t e r i a on a t h e o r e t i c a l basis and in a nonnormative way. Our basic hypothesis i s t h a t s t r u c t u r e s and functions have t o correspond, and be appropriate with regard t o the s i t u a t i o n . 2 . CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVES
2.1. Pragmatic c r i t e r i a The basic c r i t e r i a f o r "good" n a r r a t i v e s can be explained in terms of those s t e p s in our production schema t h a t precede the n a r r a t o r ' s decision t o t e l l a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y . These c r i t e r i a specify what s t o r y ( i f any) i s going t o be t o l d , in c o n t r a s t t o i t ' s going t o be t o l d . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e narrat o r ' s task in t h i s s t a g e of t h e production process i s t o coordinate t h e cognitive s t o r y he has in mind, the f u n c t i o n ( s ) he intends t o be f u l f i l l e d by the n a r r a t i v e , and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n held by himself and the l i s t e n e r ( s t e p s 1-4 of Figure 1 ) .
2.1 . l . Appropriateness of t h e conversational n a r r a t i v e t o t h e social situation Of course, one of the basic c r i t e r i a f o r good conversational n a r r a t i v e s has t o be s i t u a t i o n a l appropriateness: 1 . Production of conversational n a r r a t i v e s r e q u i r e s t h a t both speaker and l i s t e n e r be a t ease ( i n a l e i s u r e l y mood), must know something about each o t h e r , and a r e not busy otherwise.
WHAT HAKES A GOOD STORY?
21
Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : Trying t o t e l l a conversational n a r r a t i v e t o a stranger who i s chasing a bus v i o l a t e s a l l t h r e e aspects of c r i t e r i o n 1 ; or take a witness in court who t e l l s a long conversational n a r r a t i v e evaluating his observations a n d expressing h i s personal opinions instead of giving a genuine s h o r t r e p o r t . This l a s t v i o l a t i o n shows t h a t a relaxed mood i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important: I t i s t h i s c r i t e r i o n t h a t makes conversational n a r r a t i v e s inadequate in i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d contexts. There a r e a few exceptions t o t h i s r u l e , however. Conversational n a r r a t i v e s will be encouraged i f (and only i f ) a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p has been or i s being established between t h e representative of an i n s t i t u t i o n and a c l i e n t . This i s the case in therapeutic sessions. If the s i t u a t i o n does n o t f u l f i l l t h e above-mentioned requirements, i t does not favor the production of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . To a c e r t a i n degree, however, s t o r y t e l l i n g may be used as a device f o r redefining and changing the s i t u a t i o n ; we habe labeled t h i s as one of the i n t e r a c t i v e functions of conversational n a r r a t i v e s . 2 . 1 . 2 . S u i t a b i l i t y of the cognitive s t o r y f o r the intended f u n c t i o n ( s )
The cognitive s t o r y selected f o r narration must be compatible with t h e funct i o n ( s ) intended by t h e n a r r a t o r . Among t h e communicative functions, we d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the following kinds:
a ) functions t h a t a r e primarily speaker oriented (such a s psychological or communicative unburdening and self-aggrandizement) b ) functions t h a t a r e primarily hearer oriented (such as amusement/enter-
tainment and giving information) c ) functions t h a t a r e primarily context oriented (such as supporting an a r gument o r providing an explanation). Normally, these functions do not occur in i s o l a t i o n , b u t in combination (with one of them c l e a r l y dominating in most c a s e s ) . For most of t h e funct i o n s , t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e kind of episode t o be r e l a t e d (hence the cognitive s t o r y t h a t represents t h e episode) a r e abvious: 2 . a ) In the case of self-aggrandizement, the episode must contain elements
which would enhance the ( p o s i t i v e ) image of t h e narrator/agent. b ) In the case of entertainment, the episode must be a t l e a s t mildly
amusing with regard t o the expectations of t h e addressee; t h i s imp l i e s t h a t i t i s n o t t o o shocking, t r a g i c , e t c . c ) When t h e function of the n a r r a t i v e i s t o give information, i t must a t l e a s t add d e t a i l s t o t h e l i s t e n e r s ' previous knowledge. d ) When supporting an argument or providing a n explanation, t h e point of t h e episode must lend p l a u s i b i l i t y t o the claim being supported or explain the behavior a t s t a k e . Examples of violations a r e obvious, though r a r e .
As f a r as unburdening i s concerned, t h i s function i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from t h e r e s t : I t s f u l f i l l m e n t i s guaranteed by the a c t of s t o r y - t e l l i n g I t s e l f , no matter what t h e l i s t e n e r ' s reactions may be. Since narratives with t h a t function a r e purely s u b j e c t i v e l y motivated, they allow f o r any
22
TEXT STRUCTURE
kind of episode that affected the emotional well-being of the narrator. Personal experiences that are accompanied by strong emotions always tend to result in conversational narratives with an unburdening function; if the corresponding emotions are very strong, they may even overcome social and contextual constraints and result in narratives that seem out of place, thus violating criterion 1 , situational appropriateness. 2.1.3. Reportability of the episode Apart from the communicative functions, any episode that is to be related must satisfy certain general conditions: 3. a) The episode must be reportable and interesting (i.e., something unexpected must have happened). Furthermore, it must not violate any cultural taboos. b) In addition, the cognitive story as a representation of the episode must be complete (i.e., it can be molded into a narrative structure to be discussed below). Example of a violation: A story that is trivial according to the expectations of the listener and/ or of which essential parts have been forgotten. Please note that a story is not interesting by itself, but becomes SO only with respect to a particular addressee in a particular context (see criterion 1). This context may serve as a recall cue for retrieving from longterm memory the episodes that are momentarily relevant. 2.1.4. Compatibility between functions and situations Certain communicative functions are restricted to certain kinds of conversa tional contexts:
4. a) Narratives with the context-oriented functions of explanation or gumentation are embedded in larger discourse segments (e.g., discussions); for that reason, any narrative designed to fulfill these functions must be thematically relevant to the topic that is being discussed. b) Amusement/entertainment is relatively independent of the surrounding discourse, but it does require a sociable situation. c) Psychological and communicative unburdening require special circumstances, namely a close personal relationship between narrator and listener, as has already been noted. d) Self-aggrandizement, by contrast, is not subject to any such restrictions; it is an aspect encountered in almost any conversational narrative where the narrator is a protagonist in the episode. Exampl es of viol a tions : A narrative about a holiday in Switzerland as part o f a discussion about the progress of linguistics in America; or telling funny stories at a burial.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?
23
I n t h e case of t h e context-oriented f u n ct i o n s , some of the c ha ra c te rs or a c t io v s contained i n t h e s t o r y must belong t o an already e sta blishe d "universe of d i sc o u r s e" ( i . e . , they must have already been mentioned). The speaker-oriented a n d t h e hearer-oriented f u n ct ions, however, allow f o r a s h i f t i n t o p i c much more than the context-oriented func tions d o . For a n a r r a t i v e t o be "good" o r "bad", i t i s a necessary ( b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t ) condition t h a t i t must not v i o l a t e any of the se pragmatic re quire ments, otherwise i t i s l e s s l i k e l y t o f u l f i l l t h e intended f u n c t i o n ( s ) . So communicative e f f i c i en cy i s a valuable c r i t e r i o n f o r judging how "good" a n a r r a t i v e i s . The means, however, a r e a t l e a s t as important a s t h e ends; so now we s h a l l turn t o t h e d e t a i l s of t h e v er ba liz a tion process in which th e p a r t i c u l a r content of t h e s t o r y has t o be communicated, i t s s t r u c t u r e marked a n d i t s function indicated i n a way t h a t i s comprehensible t o the addressee. 2 . 2 . I n t e r a c t i o n between pragmatic and s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s
This s e c t i o n d e a l s with t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t e p s 1 t o 4 of the production schema - subsumed under t h e heading of "pragmatic f a c t o r s " a n d s t e p s 6 t o 9 , cal l ed " s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s " . Please note t h a t our concept o f s t r u c t u r e i s a dynamic one, which includes t h e semantic s t r u c t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e a s well a s t h e l i n g u i s t i c s u r f ace. Agreement between the pragmatic f a c t o r s and the d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l as p ect s i s considered a c r i t e r i o n f o r a good conversational n a r r a t i v e . 2 . 2 . 1 . Correspondence between pragmatic f a c t o r s and r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , i . e . , t h e r e l a t i o n a l l y ordered n a r r a t i v e schema, c l a s s i f i e s n a r r a t i v e s i n t o t h r e e semantic types, distinguishe d according t o t h r e e types of unusualness ( c f . Quasthoff 1980) and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of conversational n a r r a t i v e given above:
a ) agent r e a c t s t o unexpected act i o n s / ev en t s ; b ) observer witnesses unusual act i o n s / ev en t s ; C ) agent performs act i o n s unusual according t o general norms. The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e includes semantically a n d pragmatically oriented r e l a t i o n s ; t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e pragmatic r e l a t i o n s i s optional and depends, f o r i n st a n c e, on the s p e a k e r ' s assumptions about the l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge, e x p e c t a t i o n s , e t c . - i n short, on t he n a r r a t x ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p a r t of t h e s i t u a t i o n . So we can d es cr i b e the f i r s t pragmatic-structural correspondence as follows: 5. The r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e includes l i s t e n e r o r i e n t i n g p a r t s , i f a n d oniy i f 1 i s t e n e r lacks necessary information about s e t t i n g a n d background of t h e episode. Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : liarrator f a i l s t o give information about time, pla c e , c h a r a c t e r s , a n d "background" of the episode, a1 t h o u g h 1 i s t e n e r ' s episodic memory or i n f e r e n t i a l c a p a c i t y do n o t a c t i v a t e t h i s information.
24
TEXT STRUCTURE
The opposite c a se , i n which the given information i s already a v a i l a b l e t o the l i s t e n e r , i s a l s o a v i o l a t i o n . Accordingly, c o r r e l a t i o n s can be assumed between the othe r pragmatic s t e p s of t h e production schema and t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . This s t r u c t u r e cont a i n s a c e n t r a l element - the r e l a t i o n PLAN DISRUPTION. This r e l a t i o n r e f e r s t o a c t i o n s a n d / o r events which a r e unexpected with regard t o t h e "plan" of t h e narrator/observer/"generalized o t h e r " , (depending on t h e semantic type of t h e n a r r a t i v e ) . T h u s , t h e co gnitive s t o r y corresponds t o the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e in two ways:
6 . The c o g n i t i v e s t o r y must involve a PLAN DISRUPTION. Example of a v i o l a t i o n : The d e s c r i p t i o n of a chain of act i o n s which follows t h e "normal course of events" would be a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s correspondence r u l e ("Yesterday I g o t u p , brushed my t e e t h , had b r eak f as t , l e f t f o r work . . . " i s n o t a good s t o r y ) . 7 . The n a r r a t o r must be involved i n t h e co g n i t ive s t o r y in one of t h e t h r e e ways which d i s t i n g u i s h semantic n a r r a t i v e types, a n d which a r e r e f l e c t e d in t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Example of a v i o l a t i o n : The t e l l i n g of a movie would n o t be a conversational n a r r a t i v e in the defined sense. The correspondence between the communicative goal and the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e connects t h e s p e c i f i c communicative function of a n a r r a t i v e with the semantic type of t h e n a r r a t i v e and t h e pragmatically orie nte d p a r t s of th e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e : 8. The semantic type of the n a r r a t i v e and i t s communicative function must be compatible.
Example of a v i o l a t i o n :
The communicative function of self-aggrandizement normally cannot be performed in a n a r r a t i v e of the observer type i n which the n a r r a t o r ' s r o l e i s r e s t r i c t e d t o mere observation. 9 . Orienting and e v al u at i v e parts of t h e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e have t o sel e c t or q u a l i f i y the given information according t o the communicative function.
Example of a v i o l a t i o n : A n a r r a t i v e which i s intended t o serve a s evidence f o r a c e r t a i n f a c t should not give information t h a t could be judged a s counterevidence f o r t h i s part i c u l a r f a c t . I f such information i s given, i t has t o be q u a l i f i e d in a way t h a t prevents such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( e . g . , a s an e xc e ption).
The i n t e r a c t i v e goal governs the s p e c i f i c d i s course pa tte rn in which a p a r t i c u l a r fragment of r e a l i t y i s verbalized. Since n a r r a t i v e s and re ports
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?
25
have different relational structures, it is the combination o f situation and interactive goal that triggers the narrative-specific relational structure as a whole: 10. If the definition of the situation does not favor or even excludes the verbal activity of telling a narrative, the relational structure of a narrative can still be evoked if the speaker intends (and is able) to change the definition of the situation.
Example of a violation: In a bureaucratic encounter, someone engages in telling conversational narratives instead of giving a report, with no intention of changing the formal relationship with his interlocutor to a more personal one. For lack of space, we will not present examples from our corpus. 2.2.2. Correspondence between pragmatic factors and informational structure The informational structure of a narrative is the set of propositions which the text (explicitly) contains or (implicitly) entails. This set of propositions is ordered by the relational structure. The informational structure differs from the cognitive story in two important respects: a) The cognitive story is restricted by mode and capacity of cognitive information processing. The informational structure, on the other hand, is dependent on the narrator's assumptions about the situation and the (communicative and interactive) functions of the narrative. So the information in the cognitive story will normally be selected (or even a l tered) to form the informational structure. b) The order in which information is stored and activated is primarily a psychological one for the cognitive story, about which we know relatively little. The order of components of the informational structure is primarily a linguistic one, and can be specified in terms of the discourse-specific relational structure. Please note that both sets of information are not conceived of as being in a linear order. The informational structure i s ordered relationally without the implication of a fixed sequence. Consequently, the etements of the informational structure have to be serialized for verbalization in later phases of the planning process. The hierarchical order of the informational structure can be conceptualized in terms of different layers of information which represent different degrees of detail. The underlying chain of actions and/or events can be chopped up in large or small units ("John sold his car" vs. "John put an ad in the paper, talked to several potential buyers on the phone, made arrangements for meeting with Mr. X, Y and Z..."). An inappropriate degree of detail in a narrative results either in incomprehensibility or in an absolutely boring narrative. A more important violation is presented by those narratives which do not vary the degree o f detail in accordance with the relational structure. So we can formulate the following pragrnaticstructural correspondence as a maxim for a good narrative:
26
TEXT STRUCTURE
1 1 . D o n ' t be more or l e s s d e t a i l e d t h a n i s required by l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge a n d i n f e r e n t i a l c a p a c i t y , your communicative and i n t e r a c t i v e goals and the r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e n a r r a t i v e .
Examples o f v i o l a t i o n s : Narratives which a r e too d e t a i l e d will usually not be finished because of interventions of the l i s t e n e r . Narratives in which the s e t t i n g contains d e t a i l s t h a t a r e not relevent t o t h e main parts of the s t o r y a r e bad n a r r a t i v e s . They a r e even worse when t h e narrator proceeds t o give very l i t t l e information in t h e complication s e c t ion. 2 . 2 . 3 . Correspondence between cognitive planning a n d verbalization
I t i s only in t h i s " l a s t " p a r t of the production schema ( s t e p s 8 and 9) t h a t t h e actual wording a n d the sequential order of t h e n a r r a t i v e i s established. As s t a t e d above, our s t r u c t u r a l description of discourse, which i s semantically based, has t o include s e r i a l i z a t i o n r u l e s ( c f . Bartsch & Vennemann 1972). Since application of these r u l e s i s highly dependent on the conversational c o n t e x t , they have t o be conceptualized a s v a r i a b l e r u l e s (Labov 1969; Cedergren & Sankoff 1974). One o f the p r i n c i p l e s underlying t h i s s e r i a l i z a t i o n process, f o r example, i s t h e p r i n c i p l e "sequence of utterances maps sequence of events", which was so important t o Labov & Waletzky (1967). In olur version, t h i s categorical principle becomes a variable rule: "Sequence of utterance should map sequence of events, unless embedding in the conversational context, l i s t e ner i n t e r v e n t i o n s , building u p t h e point of the s t o r y e t c . advise otherwise." This transformation from categorical p r i n c i p l e s i n t o variable r u l e s i s considered t o be a transformation from normative t o d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of narratives. I n order t o generate a n a r r a t i v e t e x t from the r e l a t i o n a l and informational s t r u c t u r e , t h e n a r r a t o r not only has t o s e r i a l i z e information. He a l s o has t o s t r u c t u r e t h e l i n g u i s t i c surface of h i s n a r r a t i v e ( a n d mark t h i s s t r u c t u r e a s w e l l ) . For t h e speaker himself, the s e r i a l i z e d order of the u t t e rances i s derived from t h e underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s and t h u s well ordered. B u t the l i s t e n e r has t o reconstruct these underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s on t h e b a s i s of the surface of the incoming t e x t , so t h i s surface has to give i n d i c a t i o n s a s t o t h e underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e s . These indications a r e normally given in the form of discourse markers (Wald 1978) o r contextualization cues (Gumperz 1978).
T h u s a c r i t e r i o n f o r a good n a r r a t i v e i s not only: 1 2 . S e r i a l i z e your utterance according t o t h e v a r i a b l e s e r i a l i z i n g r u l e s ; but also:
WHAT MAKES A GOOD STORY?
27
13. Be s u r e t o mark your n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e with relevant discourse markers and contextualization cues. Examples of v i o l a t i o n s : Relating several episodes within a s i n g l e n a r r a t i v e without c l e a r l y delimiting them; or r e l a t i n g out-of-the-ordinary events a s i f they were ordinary ones, without commenting on t h e i r unusualness. 3. PRINCIPLES FOR EVALUATING NARRATIVES We have shown how a d e t a i l e d , non-normative description of the production of n a r r a t i v e discourse can be transformed i n t o the formulation of c r i t e r i a f o r good n a r r a t i v e s . For t h e practical evaluation of everyday conversational n a r r a t i v e s , however, we s t i l l need t o r a n k these c r i t e r i a along t h e dimension "more important - l e s s important". The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the c r i t e r i a r e l a t e s t o our production schema in a very simple way: The lower the v i o l a t i o n in the production schema, the l e s s severe i t i s (and the e a s i e r t o r e p a i r i n conversation). To make t h i s ranking p l a u s i b l e , here a r e j u s t a few examples: The wrong sequence of two utterances, with respect t o the s e r i a l i z a t i o n r u l e s , does n o t turn an otherwise good n a r r a t i v e i n t o a bad one. This minor e r r o r i s e a s i l y repaired l o c a l l y . B u t i f t h e knowledge of the l i s t e n e r i s underestimated by the n a r r a t o r , the whole narration can f a i l . Possible repair i s a t l e a s t very complicated.
Two sources of n a r r a t i v e evaluation provided the empirical basis f o r t h e ranking of our c r i t e r i a :
a ) Ratings of 10 conversational n a r r a t i v e s by independent naive r a t e r s . Agreement among r a t e r s was high ( c o e f f i c i e n t of consistency r t t = .94), t h u s confirming our own i n t u i t i v e j u d g m e n t . b ) Conversational a n a l y s i s of 1 i s t e n e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s during and a f t e r conversational n a r r a t i o n . These l i s t e n e r a c t i v i t i e s ( l i k e laughing, i n t e r ruptions, questions, evaluations, e t c . , c f . Quasthoff 1981) always exp l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y judge the n a r r a t i v e . What remains t o be done i s t o provide manageable o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s for the c r i t e r i a proposed above. This work i s s t i l l i n progress, and would require an additional paper.
TEXT STRUCTURE
28
REFERENCES : B a r t s c h , R . & Vennemann, T. Semantic s t r u c t u r e s . A s t u d y i n the r e l a t i o n between s e m a n t i c s and s y n t a x . F r a n k f u r t a.M.: Athenaum, 1972. Cedergren, H . & S a n k o f f , 0 . V a r i a b l e r u l e s . Performance a s a s t a t i s t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n o f competence. Language, 1974, 50, 333-355. Goffman, E. Frame a n a l y s i s . An e s s a y on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e . New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Gumperz, J . S p r a c h e , s o z i a l e s Wissen und i n t e r p e r s o n a l e Beziehungen. I n : U . Q u a s t h o f f ( E d . ) , S p r a c h s t r u k t u r - S o z i a l s t r u k t u r . Kronberg/Ts.: S c r i p t o r , 1978. Labov, W . C o n t r a c t i o n , d e l e t i o n and i n h e r e n t v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e E n g l i s h 4 5 , 715-762. c o p u l a . Language, 1969, Labov, W . The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e i n n a r r a t i v e s y n t a x . I n : W . Labov, Language i n the i n n e r c i t y . S t u d i e s i n the Black E n g l i s h Verna_ c u l_ a r . P h i l a d e l p h i a : Univ. o f Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Labov, W . & Waletzky, J . N a r r a t i v e a n a l y s i s : Oral v e r s i o n s of p e r s o n a l exp e r i e n c e . 1n:H. Helm ( E d . ) , Essays on the v e r b a l and v i s u a l a r t s . S e a t t l e / L o n d o n , 1967. L i e n e r t , G. Testaufbau und T e s t a n a l y s e . Weinheim: B e l t z V e r l a g , 1961. M i l l e r , G . , G a l a n t e r , E . & Pribram, K . P l a n s and the s t r u c t u r e o f b e h a v i o r . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston, 1960. Q u a s t h o f f , U. Erzahlen in Gesprachen. L i n g u i s i t s c h e Untersuchungen z u S t r u k t u r e n und Funktionen am B e i s p i e l e i n e r Kommunikationsform d e s A l l t a g s . Tubingen: Gunter Narr V e r l a g , 1980. Q u a s t h o f f , U . Z u h o r e r a k t i v i t a t e n beim k o n v e r s a t i o n e l l e n E r z a h l e n . I n : Jahrbuch 1980 d e s I n s t i t u t s f u r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e . D u s s e l d o r f : Schwann, 1981. Wald, B. Zur E i n h e i t l i c h k e i t und E i n l e i t u n g von D i s k u r s e i n h e i t e n . I n : U. Q u a s t h o f f ( E d . ) , S p r a c h s t r u k t u r - S o z i a l s t r u k t u r . Kronberg/Ts.: S c r i p t o r , 1978. V.
Wright, G . H . Norm and a c t i 0 n . A l o g i c a l e n q u i r y . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1963.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS
Hans C h r i s t o p h
Micko
I n s t i t u t e o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Technology B r a u n s c h w e i g , F.R. Germany T e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d as t e s t s f o r t h e p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e o f s t o r y gramnars.
PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS OF THE TEXT DIVISION PARADIGM. When s u b j e c t s d i v i d e a t e x t i n t o c h a p t e r s , s e c t i o n s , s u b s e c t i o n s , sub-subsect i o n s e t c . , t h e y impose a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e on t h e t e x t o r r a t h e r d e r i v e i t from t h e t e x t . D i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s may p r o d u c e d i f f e r e n t t r e e s b u t some u n i f o r m i t y can b e e x p e c t e d due t o t h e i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t . Whether u n i f o r m o r d i f f e r e n t , t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e a most d i r e c t s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t how s u b j e c t s o r g a n i z e a t e x t . M o r e o v e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e t a i l e d and o b t a i n a b l e a t l o w c o s t . A p p a r e n t l y s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r t e x t d i v i s i o n t o b e an i n t e r e s t i n g and e a s y t a s k a l t h o u g h sometimes i t may t u r n o u t t o be q u i t e d i f f i c u l t . Two t e x t d i v i s i o n p a r a d i g m s can b e e n v i s a g e d : (1) S u b j e c t s may b e asked t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e t e x t f r o m memory i n t h e f o r m o f a t a b l e o f cont e n t s . That procedure i s s i m i l a r t o t h e summarizing paradigm, p u t t i n g weight, however, more on memory o f s t r u c t u r e t h a n o f c o n t e n t . ( 2 ) S u b j e c t s may b e asked t o p a r t i t i o n a t e x t w h i l e i t i s p r e s e n t e d , e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t t i m e p r e s s u r e and p o s s i b l y f o l l o w e d b y t h e r e q u e s t t o f i n d t i t l e s f o r t h e s e c t i o n s and s u b s e c t i o n s . The f o r m u l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n - h e a d i n g s i s a means o f m a k i n g s u b j e c t s aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r t e x t d i v i s i o n i s n o n - o p t i m a l and should be corrected . T e x t d i v i s i , o n may be of i n t e r e s t i n i t s e l f . M o s t of i t s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , however, d e r i v e s f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g t h a t p a r a d i g m as a means o f s t u d y i n g t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e . I t i s n o t more t h a n an a s s u m p t i o n , of c o u r s e , t h a t t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e s . I t i s a t e m p t i n g a s s u m p t i o n , however, s i n c e t e x t memory s t r u c t u r e s a r e f r e q u e n t l y c o n c e i v e d as h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e s , such as t e x t d i v i s i o n s a r e by n a t u r e . We may combine t h a t a s s u m p t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r f a m i l i a r a s s u m p t i o n , knownas t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e o f r e c a l l ( K i n t s c h , 1974; van D i j k , 1975; Thorndyke, 1 9 7 7 ) . T h a t w o u l d make i t p o s s i b l e t o t e s t t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e c h o i c e o f some g e n e r a l s t o r y grammar f r o m w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f p r o p o s i t i o n s . R e f o r m u l a t e d i n terms of t e x t divisions, the r u l e predicts t h a t propositions from less frequently subdivided sections are b e t t e r r e c a l l e d than propositions from sections w h i c h a r e more o f t e n p a r t i t i o n e d and r e p a r t i t i o n e d . Thus t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l of a p r o p o s i t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s , n o t f r o m one o r a n o t h e r g e n e r a l , and f a l l i b l e , s t o r y grammar. 29
30
TEXT STRUCTURE
I t may turn o u t , of course, t h a t t e x t division t r e e s d i f f e r fundamentally from s t o r y grammar t r e e s . Even in t h a t case an inspection of the difference may help t o shed l i g h t on the way memory works. I n t h i s paper, instead of predicting memory s t r u c t u r e s d i r e c t l y from t e x t division t r e e s , we compare the l a t t e r with t r e e s t r u c t u r e s derived from s t o r y grammars. Presumably i t was never claimed t h a t s t o r y grammars predict t e x t divisions. However, since b o t h are supposed t o predict s t o r y memory s t r u c t u r e s , (Black, 1978) they should c o r r e l a t e as well; and obviously a s t o r y grammar t h a t i s able to predict t e x t division data would be preferred t o a grammar t h a t does not - i f not from a l i n g u i s t ' s point of view then a t l e a s t from t h a t of a psychologist. When predicting t e x t division trees from s t o r y grammar t r e e s we assume the following f o r any hierarchy level of the t e x t division t r e e : Two successive propositions a r e the more l i k e l y t o f a l l i n t o d i f f e r e n t ( i d e n t i c a l ) sections the higher u p ( f u r t h e r down) in the s t o r y grammar t r e e the l i n e s from the respective terminal nodes merse. I n other words, we assume t h a t subjects mark a boundary between superordinate sections of a s t o r y in the space between successive propositions whose l i n e s from the terminal nodes merge high u p in the s t o r y grammar t r e e . An i n t e r s e c t i o n between subordinate sections i s placed between propositions the lines of which merge somewhat f u r t h e r down in the grammar t r e e , and no i n t e r s e c t i o n i s placed between propositions which a r e already merged on the lowermost l e v e l . Three s p e c i f i c a t i o n s or supplements t o the above general assumption a r e required in order t o p r e d i c t t e x t division t r e e s from s t o r y grammar t r e e s precisely: ( 1 ) We cannot expect t e x t division t r e e s t o match s t o r y grammar t r e e s perf e c t l y . Many or most terminal nodes of s t o r y grammar t r e e s represent propositions which a r e n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d in the s t o r y because they a r e of minor importance or because they can be i n f e r r e d . Moreover, some or many hierarchy levels may be redundant in the sense t h a t they represent rewrite rules which do n o t impose a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n on the s e t of e x p l i c i t propositions by themselves. Such rewrite rules only serve as a l i n k f o r f u r t h e r rewrite r u l e s . Each successive i n f e r i o r level of a s t o r y division t r e e , on the other h a n d , represents a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n of the s e t of e x p l i c i t propositions. Therefore, we prefer t o compare reduced s t o r y grammar trees with s t o r y division t r e e s . I n a reduced s t o r y Frammar t r e e a l l terminal nodes a r e omitted which do not represent e x p l i c i t propositions of the s t o r y . S i m i l a r l y , a l l nonterminal nodes are omitted which do n o t r e s u l t i n a f i n e r p a r t i t i o n of the e x p l i c i t s t o r y on the immediately subordinate l e v e l . F i y r e 1 gives an example. ( 2 ) Story grammars s u f f e r from a c e r t a i n ambiguity since they define only a p a r t i a l ordering of the nodes within a t r e e . We cannot compare the hierarchy l e v e l s of propositions or subordinate t e x t u n i t s across superordinate u n i t s , i.e.,we do not know whether subordinate u n i t s within one p a r t of the s t o r y merge i n t o superordinate units higher u p or f u r t h e r down in the hierarchy t h a n units in another p a r t of the s t o r y . (Compare,e.g.,the s e t of propositions ( 1 , Z ) with the s e t ( 3 , 4 , 5 ) in Figure l a . The reduced t r e e s of Figures I b , 2a a n d 2 b a r e equivalent representations of van D i j k ' s s t o r y grammar.)
31
TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS hierarchy 1 eve1
a)
A 1 -
23 -
4 5 -
6 7 -
t 8 -low
0-
I
i gh
1 2 3 -
45 -
ow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 1 Complete ( a ) and reduced ( b ) s t o r y grammar t r e e representing the analysis o f the dog-story according t o van D i j k ' s s t o r y grammar. (Hyphens denote imp1 i ci t and numbers e x p l i c i t propositions of the s t o r y . Lines without terminal nodes represent optional s t o r y elements, missing in the dog-story.) If the number of hierarchy levels in d i f f e r e n t branches of a story grammar
t r e e i s the same, we expect only minor misrepresentations of the grammar when simply defining nodes of equal rank within t h e i r branches t o be o f equal rank in the t r e e ( s e e e . g . , t h e nodes which represent the roots Of subtrees ( ( - , 6 ) , ( - , 7 ) ) a n d ((8), ( 9 , l O ) ) in Figure l a ) . Usually, however, story grammars produce t r e e s with more hierarchy l e v e l s f o r some p a r t s Of the s t o r y than f o r others. I n Figure l a e.g.,more levels are required f o r the representation o f an episode than f o r t h a t of a s e t t i n g (episode: ( 3 , 4 , 5 ) , ( ( ( - ,6), ( - ,7)),( (8),( 9 , l O ) ) ) ,If) vs. s e t t i n g ( 1 , 2 ) ) . In t h a t case !he ambiguity cannot be overcome by a simple d e f i n i t i o n .
TEXT STRUCTURE
32 hierarchy level
a)
0 -high 1 2 -
3 -
4 5
0
- low
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- hicjh
1 -
2 3 -
4 5
-low Figure 2 Reduced t r e e s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t o f F i g u r e l b as determined by t h e ( a ) extreme and ( b ) compromise r u l e f o r p r e d i c t i n g t e x t d i v i s i o n s .
For p r e d i c t i n g r e c a l l p r o b a b i l i t i e s the representation o f Figure l a i s a p p r o p r i a t e because, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e v e l o f h i e r a r c h y r u l e , t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f a p r o p o s i t i o n i s d e f i n e d as t h e number o f r e w r i t e r u l e s necessary t o i d e n t i f y t h e f u n c t i o n o f a p r o p o s i t i o n i n t h e s t o r y . T h a t number i s equal t o t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e r m i n a l node. The rank o r d e r o f these h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s , a f t e r o m i t t i n g redundant nodes, i s p r e s e r v e d i n t h e reduced t r e e o f F i g u r e l b . F o r t h e p r e d i c t i o n of t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a , t h e e q u i v a l e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f F i g u r e 2a i s l i k e l y t o g i v e a b e t t e r f i t t h a n t h a t o f F i g u r e l b . T h a t i s t r u e a t l e a s t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure o f a s k i n g subj e c t s t o s e p a r a t e s u b o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s of a t e x t b y a v e r t i c a l l i n e and s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s by two o r more l i n e s . F i g u r e 2a d i f f e r s from t h a t o f F i g u r e l b i n t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l on which l i n e s merge. T h i s l e v e l i s chosen as n e a r t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e i n F i g u r e 2a and as n e a r p o s s i b l e t o t h e r o o t of t h e t r e e i n F i g u r e l b . The f o r m e r c h o i c e i m p l i e s t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s mark i n t e r s e c t i o n s by as few l i n e s as p o s s i b l e , t h e l a t t e r c h o i c e p r e d i c t s i n t e r s e c t i o n s t o be marked by as many l i n e s as p o s s i b l e . I n t h e absence o f counterevidence i t appears more r e a l i s t i c t o assume t h a t
TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS
33
s u b j e c t s p u t two s u c c e s s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t o one s u b o r d i n a t e o r a t l e a s t s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n r a t h e r than i n t o d i f f e r e n t ones. I n l a r g e s t o r y grammar t r e e s , t h e number o f h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s may v a r y cons i d e r a b l y f r o m onebranch t o a n o t h e r . I n t h a t case we may w i s h t o have a r u l e t h a t compromises between t h e extreme r u l e s o f l e t t i n g l i n e s merge as n e a r t o t h e t r e e r o o t and as n e a r t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e . T h a t r u l e can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : L e t 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . ,i,. . . ,n denote t h e r a n k o r d e r , f r o m t o p t o bottom, o f t h e nodes l i n k i n g t h e roo! o f a reduced t r e e w i t h i t s k - t h t e r m i n a l node. Cons i d e r t h e s u b t r e e s e t t i n g o u t f r o m somenode I o f rank i and l e t 0,1,2, ..., nl denote t h e rank o r d e r of t h e nodes l i n k i n g node I w i t h t h e 1 - t h t e r m i n a l node w i t h i n t h e s u b t r e e considered. O b v i o u s l y n
O f o r any t e r m i n a l t h e new rank i ' , which i s node w i t h i n t h e s u b t r e e . We now a s s i q n t o node t h e n e a r e s t i n t e g e r t o t h e t e r m (max(n,).i)/max(n,)+i). T h i s procedure spaces t h e nodes l i n k i n g I an I - t h t e r m i n a l node i n r o u g h l y equal i n t e r v a l s o v e r t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s between ranks i and max(nk). F i g u r e 2b r e s u l t s i f t h e compromise r u l e i s a p p l i e d t o t h e reduced t r e e o f F i y r e l b : F o r a l l t e r m i n a l nodes we o b t a i n i n = ( 5 . n k ) / ( o + n k ) = 5 , f o r node (9,lO) we o b t a i n ' ' ( 9 10 = ( 5 . 4 ) / ( 1 + 4 ) =4, and s o f b r t h , 1 ' ( 6 , 7 J = ( 5 . 3 ) / ( 1 + 3 ) + 0 , 2 5 = 4 , i ' ( 1 2 =(5.1),(1+1)+0,5=3, 4 5 ) 7 ( 5 . 2 / ( 1 + 2 ) - 0 . 3 13, i ' 8 9 , 1 0 ) = ( 5 . 3 ) / ( 2 + 3 j = i , i ' 6 7,*.,10)=(5-2)/ i ' ( 3!3!=2, 1 ' ( 3,4, . . ,I 1) = ( 5 . 1 ) / (&+I 1, i ' ( 1,2, . . ,I1) = ( 5 - 0 1/ i5+0)=O .
1
I=
The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e r u l e s f r o m which t h e t r e e s o f F i g u r e l b , 2a and 2b have been determined can be r e c o g n i z e d most e a s i l y by comparing t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s of t h e r e s p e c t i v e nodes (1,Z). Perhaps more a p p r o p r i a t e methods f o r a b o l i s h i n g t h e a m b i g u i t y o f s t o r y grammars can be found if t h e c o n t e n t o f r e w r i t e r u l e s i s taken i n t o account as w e l l . I n t h a t case, however, d i f f e r e n t r u l e s have t o be d e f i n e d f o r d i f f e r e n t s t o r y grammars. Here, we p r e f e r t h e s i m p l i c i t y o f general r u l e s t o t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h procedures t h a t may n o t y i e l d more real i s t i c predictions. ( 3 ) S t o r y grammar t r e e s d i f f e r f r o m t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s f u n d a m e n t a l l y by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a t t e r n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e r v e t h e sequence o f p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n a t e x t , w h i l e t h e former do n o t . Some s t o r y g r a m a r s c o n s i d e r semantic r e l a t i o n s between c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a r e w r i t e r u l e , e.g. ,event A enables e v e n t B, o r a c t i o n C r e s u l t s i n e v e n t D. They cannot p r e d i c t , however, t h e sequence i n which these events and a c t i o n s a r e r e p o r t e d i n a s t o r y , because a l m o s t any c o n t e n t can be p r e s e n t e d i n v a r i o u s a1 t e r n a t i v e sequences o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , more t h a n one o f which may b e o p t i m a l o r n e a r l y o p t i m a l f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . As a consequence we may encounter s t o r y grammar t r e e s , t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f which a r e a r r a n g e d i n an o r d e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e p r o P o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e s t o r y . T h e r e f o r e an a d d i t i o n a l r u l e f o r p r e d i c t i n g s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e s f r o m s t o r y grammar t r e e s i s r e q u i r e d , a r u l e t h a t handles i n v e r t e d p r o p o s i t i o n sequences.
Apparent d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e p r o p o s i t i o n sequences i n t h e s t o r y and s t o r y grammar t r e e need n o t b e r e a l s i n c e s t o r y g r a m a r t r e e s a r e i n v a r i a n t under changes o f t h e sequence of l i n e s which s e t o u t f r o m one node. Theref o r e an a d m i s s i b l e rearrangement o f t h o s e l i n e s may a l r e a d y r e s u l t i n a t r e e which r e p r e s e n t s t h e s t o r y grammar and preserves t h e p r o p o s i t i o n sequence of t h e s t o r y as w e l l . Consider, e.g.,the s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) i n F i g u r e 3. I t s t e r m i n a l nodes r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n s o r l a r g e r u n i t s . I n t h e
34
TEXT STRUCTURE
l a t t e r case t h e terminal nodes represent the roots of subtrees which a r e n o t depicted. Let the sequence of l e t t e r s A , B , C , D denote the temporal sequence of the four propositions or units of the s t o r y . The s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) predicts the same t e x t division whether i t s terminal nodes a r e labelled A,B,C,D or A,B,D,C, since the l i n e s ending a t C and D can be exchanged without a l t e r i n g the grammar t r e e . Moreover, the trees ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) of Figure 3 a r e equivalent t o ( a ) s i n c e they a l s o d i f f e r from ( a ) only in the sequential arrangement of l i n e s s e t t i n g o u t from one node. Any s t o r y grammar t h a t predicts one of these t r e e s predicts the others as we1 1 , each in combination w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r sequence of the s t o r y units: The equivalent t r e e ( b ) preserves the order A,B,C,D, i f the terminal nodes of ( a ) a r e labelled A,D,B,C o r A , D , C , B in succession. Similarly t r e e ( c ) i s order preserving i f t r e e ( a ) i s labelled D,A,B,C or D , A , C , B and ( d ) i f ( a ) i s labelled D,C,A,B o r D , C , B , A .
No order preserving equivalent t r e e can be found by admissible rearrangements i f a s t o r y grammar assigns t o some superordinate u n i t two subunits, which a r e separated in the s t o r y by dnother subunit which i s assigned t o a d i f f e r e n t superordinate u n i t . Consider e . g . , t h e s t o r y grammar t r e e ( a ) of Figure 3 with terminal nodes labelled B , C , A , D from l e f t to r i g h t . From t h a t t r e e the units A and D would be predicted t o f a l l i n t o a common section of a t e x t d i v i s i o n , a t l e a s t more l i k e l y so than any o t h e r p a i r of u n i t s . In the narration sequence, however, units A and D a r e separated by the units B and C which the grammar predicts t o f a l l r a t h e r i n t o d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s . The simplest and most natural r u l e f o r predicting t e x t divisions from such grammar t r e e s s t a t e s t h a t subjects do not mark any i n t e r s e c t i o n between s t o r y units the order of which i s inverted in the grammar t r e e . In other words, i f two units belong together according t o the s t o r y grammar, they are assumed t o be placed i n t o the same s e c t i o n , together with everything t h a t may be narrated in between. Of course, each of the units may be subdivided i f appropriate. An a l t e r n a t i v e , l e s s radical r u l e demands some s o p h i s t i c a t i o n in i t s a p p l i cation since minor t r i a l and e r r o r manipulations of the s t o r y grammar t r e e have t o be performed. The r u l e requires one o r another node, superordinate t o the disarrayed s e r i e s of subunits, t o be ignored or t o be merged with the immediately subordinate dependent nodes ,respectively. In t h i s way one obtains a l a r g e r s e t of l i n e s s e t t i n g o u t from the combined node. These l i n e s may then be rearranged and possibly y i e l d the c o r r e c t sequence. I f the procedure i s s u c c e s s f u l , some i n t e r s e c t i o n s of lower order w i l l be predicted from the manipulated grammar t r e e while the former r u l e lumps a l l propositions together i n t o one s e c t i o n . The r e s u l t i s a compromise between the s t r u c t u r e represented by the s t o r y grammar t r e e and the undifferentiated s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t i n g from the more radical r u l e .
Consider again the s t o r y gramnar t r e e ( a ) in Figure 3 with terminal nodes labelled B , A , C , D o r B,A,D,C. The c o r r e c t sequence A,B,C,D cannot be obtained with any of the equivalent t r e e s . A merger of the r o o t and the intermediate nonterminal node o f t r e e ( a ) r e s u l t s i n t r e e ( e ) . That t r e e i s somewhat b u t not very d i f f e r e n t from t r e e ( a ) and i t permits the desired rearrangement. The predicted s t o r y division i s f a i r l y s i m i l a r t o t h a t predicted from t r e e ( a ) , only the section common t o the units A , C , D i s l o s t . This cannot be avoided since in the s t o r y sequence u n i t B i s located between units A and C , D . I f the nodes o f t r e e ( a ) a r e labelled C , D , A , B or C , D , B , A , an analogous manipulation of the equivalent t r e e ( d ) r e s u l t s in t r e e ( f ) , which again
TEXT D I V I S I O N S AND
A
A
B
D
C
A
D
B
C
A
B
A
A
D
C
35
STORY GRAMMARS
B
C
D
C
B
D
C
D
B
(i1 D
A
B
C
D
B
A
C
D
A
C
B
D
B
C
A
(j) 0
C
A
B
D
C
B
A
remain i g permutations A
B
A
C
D
B
A
D
C
C
D
A
B
C
D
e
A
1
A
A
B
C
D
B
C
B
C
D
D
Figure 3 Modifications of story grammar tree ( a ) which permit the rearrangement o f inverted sequences of story subunits. Equivalent trees ( b , c , d ) and trees obtained by the node-merging rule ( e , f ) , lump-together rule ( 9 ) and b o t h rules ( h , i , j ) . Permits a rearrangement of the units t o yield the correct sequence A,B,C,D. According t o the radical lumping rule tree ( 9 ) would be the predicted text division tree in a l l four cases. I t obviously differs more from the original 9~aImnartrees ( a ) and ( d ) t h a n the compromise trees ( e ) and ( f ) respectively.
36
TEXT STRUCTURE
o r A,C,D,B, a merger I f t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) a r e l a b e l l e d A,C,B,D o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e and lowermost n o n t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) y i e l d s t r e e ( h ) which p e r m i t s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e rearrangement. The same r e s u l t i s obtained, however, by t h e r a d i c a l r u l e as w e l l , s i n c e i n v e r s i o n s o c c u r o n l y i n t h e t r i a d B,C,D which i s lumped t o g e t h e r by b o t h r u l e s . I n t h e case o f t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f t r e e ( a ) b e i n g l a b e l l e d D,B,A,C o r D,B,C,A an analogous m a n i p u l a t i o n t r a n s f o r m s t r e e ( c ) o r ( d ) i n t o t r e e ( i ) which a l l o w s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e rearrangement o f l i n e s . The r e m a i n i n g e i g h t p e r m u t a t i o n s o f t h e sequence A,B,C,D which may be assoc i a t e d w i t h t r e e ( a ) r e q u i r e a l l f o u r u n i t s t o b e lumped t o g e t h e r as i n t r e e ( j ) i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e a s u c c e s s f u l rearrangement. I n a l l cases t h e u n i t r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e l e f t t e r m i n a l node o f t r e e ( a ) i s l o c a t e d i n t h e s t o r y between t h e two u n i t s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e two t e r m i n a l nodes t o t h e r i g h t . T h e r e f o r e no p a r t i t i o n e x c e p t t h a t p r e d i c t e d f r o m t r e e ( j ) makes sense. Tree ( j ) i s o b t a i n e d w i t h b o t h r u l e s , t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d lump t o g e t h e r - r u l e as w e l l as t h e compromise r u l e which has t o be a p p l i e d t w i c e can t e o b t a i n e d . b e f o r e t h e o r d e r A,B,C,D THE COMPARISON OF STORY GRAMMAR TREES WITH TEXT D I V I S I O N TREES. We r e s t r i c t o u r p r e s e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t o s t o r y grammars which a r e d e f i n e d b y r e w r i t e r u l e s . They impose on s u i t a b l e s t o r i e s a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e s t r u c t u r e t h e t e r m i n a l nodes o f which r e p r e s e n t t h e s t a t e d o r i n f e r r e d p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e s t o r y . Grammars o f t h i s k i n d have been proposed by Rumelhart (1975, 1977), van D i j k (1975), Thorndyke (1977), Mandler and Johnson (1977), and S t e i n and Glenn ( 1 9 7 7 ) . F o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , we w i l l i g n o r e s t o r y qrammars of K i n t s c h ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Schank (1975), B l a c k (1978), and G l o w a l l a (1981) -because t h e y r e q u i r e t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t o r a d d i t i o n a l , more c o m p l i c a t e d r u l e s f o r t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a . The grammars i n v e s t i g a t e d were a p p l i e d t o t h r e e s t o r i e s taken from B l a c k ( 1 9 7 8 ) : "The Dog and h i s Shadow" (11 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) , "The L i t t l e Boy" (19 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) , and "The O l d Farmer and h i s Donkey" ( 3 2 p r o p o s i t i o n s ) . Reduced s t o r y grammar t r e e s were d e r i v e d f o r t h e f i r s t two s t o r i e s , from t h e complete t r e e s o f B l a c k ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F o r t h e f a r m e r s t o r y t h e y were c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e a u t h o r . I n v e r t e d p r o p o s i t i o n sequences o c c u r r e d i n t h e grammar t r e e s o f t h e f a r m e r s t o r y o n l y . They were remedied by t h e choice of an e q u i v a l e n t t r e e i n case o f t h e Mandler and Johnson grammar and by a p p l y i n g t h e l e s s r a d i c a l r u l e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n i n a l l o t h e r cases. Two t r e e s were c o n s i d e r e d f o r each grammar, one i n which l i n e s merged as c l o s e l y t o t h e r o o t , and one i n which t h e y merged as c l o s e l y t o t h e t e r m i n a l nodes as p o s s i b l e . I n t h e m a j o r i t y o f cases t h e t r e e s o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e l a t t e r r u l e y i e l d e d a b e t t e r f i t and were chosen, t h e r e f o r e , t o r e p r e s e n t t h e grammar. T h i s c h o i c e does n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s . The compromise formula was n o t a p p l i e d s i n c e t h e t r e e s c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e extreme r u l e s d i f f e r e d o n l y moderately. The s t o r i e s and s t o r y grammar t r e e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Micko (1982). METHOD S u b j e c t s . 40 s t u d e n t s of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Technology, Brunswick, were a s s i g n e d a t random t o an "experienced" o r "unexperienced" group.
37
TEXT D I V I S I O N S AND STORY GRAMMARS
M a t e r i a l s . The r e s u l t s of a, p i l o t e x p e r i m e n t gave r i s e t o t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e l i k e l y t o be assigned t o t h e same s e c t i o n i f t h e y a r e f o r m u l a t e d as super- and s u b o r d i n a t e clauses i n one sentence. Such an assignment i s l e s s l i k e l y i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e s t a t e d i n s e p a r a t e main clauses. T h e r e f o r e t h e s t o r i e s employed i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were r e f o r m u l a t e d s o t h a t a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s were r e p r e s e n t e d by a main clause. The r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s o f t h e s t o r i e s were p r i n t e d on a s e p a r a t e s h e e t o f paper each. Three spacings i n s t e a d o f one were l e f t between s u c c e s s i v e clauses f o r s u b j e c t s t o mark i n t e r s e c t i o n s . S u f f i c i e n t space was p r o v i d e d f o r t h e formul a t i o n o f headings. Two copies were made of e v e r y sheet, one f o r making and one f o r c o r r e c t i n g t h e d i v i s i o n i f necessary. A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n i n w r i t i n g , e i t h e r on t o p o f t h e w o r k i n g sheets o r on s e p a r a t e sheets p l a c e d i n f r o n t o f t h e w o r k i n g sheets. A t t h e b o t t o m o f most pages, space was r e s e r v e d f o r n o t i n g t h e t i m e o f t h e page b e i n g t u r n e d o v e r i n o r d e r t o begin w i t h t h e subsequent t a s k . The sheets were made up i n t o a b o o k l e t t o g e t h e r w i t h a d d i t i o n a l sheets f o r w r i t i n g and p a r t i t i o n i n g r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s . The b o o k l e t s f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d a.nd unexperienced group d i f f e r e d t o t h e e x t e n t necessary t o account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t temporal arrangements o f t a s k s . ___-. Procedure. Students s i t t i n g i n t h e r e a d i n g room o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y were exposed t o a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e experiment. V o l u n t e e r s were assigned a t random t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and given t h e r e s p e c t i v e b o o k l e t . S u b j e c t s o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group were asked i n t h e w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n t o memorize t h e f i r s t s t o r y , t h e n t o memorize t h e second and t h e n t h e t h i r d . A f t e r t h a t , t h e s t o r i e s had t o be r e c a l l e d and recounted i n t h e same sequence. I n a t h i r d s t e p s u b j e c t s g a i n e d e x p e r i e n c e i n t e x t d i v i s i o n by p a r t i t i o n i n g t h e i r r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s one a f t e r a n o t h e r . They were a l s o i n s t r u c t e d t o f i n d a h e a d i n g f o r e v e r y super- and s u b o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n o f t h e i r r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s . F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s were asked t o f i n d t h e most a p p r o p r i d i v i s i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r i e s . These c o u l d b e d i v i d e d e i t h e r i n t o equival e n t s e c t i o n s o r i n t o s e c t i o n s , s u b s e c t i o n s , sub-subsections, e t c . I n t e r s e c t i o n s were t o be marked by one o r more v e r t i c a l l i n e s , t h e number o f l i n e s depending on whether more o r l e s s s u p e r o r d i n a t e s e c t i o n s were t o be separated. I n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h e f o l l o w i n g examples were given, each pa r o f p o i n t s representing a proposition:
111 . Again s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o f o r m u l a t e headings f o r each super- o r subo r d i n a t e s e c t i o n , and t h e y were a l l o w e d t o c o r r e c t t e x t d i v i s i o n s which they considered n o n o p t i m a l . Subjects o f t h e unexperienced group were g i v e n t h e t a s k o f d i v i d i n g t h e o r i g i n a l s t o r i e s f i r s t . Only a f t e r w a r d s were t h e y unexpectedly r e q u i r e d t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r i e s and t o p a r t i t i o n t h e r e c o u n t i n g s . I n s t r u c t i o n s were t h e same as those f o r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group, s u b j e c t t o a p p r o p r i a t e v a r i a t i o n s t o account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t temporal sequence of t a s k s .
A l l s u b j e c t s were f r e e t o use as much t i m e as t h e y p l e a s e d f o r t h e completion of each t a s k . U s u a l l y 60 - 90 minutes were r e q u i r e d a l t o g e t h e r . S u b j e c t s were p a i d 10.DM. An a d d i t i o n a l bonus o f 20.DM was promised t o those s i x
TEXT STRUCTURE
38
s u b j e c t s who produced t h e b e s t performance a c c o r d i n g t o some u n s p e c i f i e d comoosi t e c r i t e r i o n . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The predominant i m p r e s s i o n conveyed by t h e raw d a t a o f t h e experiment i s t h e l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r t i t i o n s produced. W i t h i n t h e unexperienced group, one d i v i s i o n o c c u r r e d f o u r times and t h r e e d i v i s i o n s t w i c e . W i t h i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group, o n l y one p a r t i t i o n o c c u r r e d t w i c e . The r e m a i n i n g 170 d i v i s i o n s were a l l d i f f e r e n t f r o m each o t h e r w i t h i n groups. A comparison across groups would h a r d l y have changed t h a t p i c t u r e . O f course, many p a r t i t i o n s were s i m i l a r , b u t o t h e r s were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m each o t h e r . Any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g assumption accounts f o r t h e d i v e r s i t y o f p a r t i t i o n s : ( 1 ) There e x i s t s a p a r t i c u l a r , s u b j e c t i v e l y most s a t i s f a c t o r y , p a r t i t i o n f o r each s t o r y . The i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y i s due t o random d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h a t p a r t i t i o n . ( 2 ) T h e r e e x i s t s a l i m i t e d number o f t y p i c a l p a r t i t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s o f d i v i d i n g a t e x t . The i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a h i l it y p a r t l y r e p r e s e n t s d i f f e r e n c e s between s t y l e s and p a r t l y random d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t y p i c a l p a r t i t i o n s . ( 3 ) There e x i s t s a m u l t i t u d e o f subjectively satisfactory partitions o f the stories. Interindividual variabil i t y j u s t reflects that fact. With t h e second assumption i n mind a n o n h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s was performed i n o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i t i o n s o f s t o r i e s which a r e character i s t i c o f p a r t i c u l a r t e x t d i v i s i o n s t y l e s . The ( d i s ) s i m i l a r i t y o f p a r t i t i o n s was assessed by computing d i s t a n c e s between t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e unweighted r D - m e t r i c on ranked t r e e s proposed by Boorman and O l i v i e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The i n d e x D i n r D r e p r e s e n t s t h e PAIRBONDSm e t r i c on p a r t i t i o n s d i s c u s s e d i n A r a b i e and Boorman (1973). The c h o i c e o f r D minimizes t h e u n a v o i d a b l e a r b i t r a r i n e s s o f any choice o f a t r e e m e t r i c , because ( 1 ) t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s a r e ranked t r e e s and r i s t h e o n l y t r e e m e t r i c a v a i l a b l e f o r ranked t r e e s , ( 2 ) equal w e i g h t i n g o f a l l h i e r a r c h y l e v e l s i s t h e l e a s t a r b i t r a r y w e i g h t i n g and ( 3 ) PAIRBONDS i s t h e p a r t i t i o n m e t r i c f o r w h i c h more f a v o u r a b l e p r o p e r t i e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d than f o r any o t h e r p a r t i t i o n m e t r i c , f r o m a t h e o r e t i c a l as w e l l as f r o m an e m p i r i c a l p o i n t o f view. Standard n o n h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g methods r e p r e s e n t c l u s t e r s as c e n t r e s o f g r a v i t y o f t h e elements w i t h i n a c l u s t e r . The c e n t r e of g r a v i t y , however, i s a meaningless concept i n t h e case o f d i s c r e t e spaces such as t h a t o f ranked t r e e s . We t h e r e f o r e r e p r e s e n t a c l u s t e r by i t s most c e n t r a l element, i . e . , by t h e t r e e o f s m a l l e s t average d i s t a n c e t o a l l o t h e r t r e e s o f t h e c l u s t e r . That procedure has t h e a d d i t i o n a l advantage t h a t s u r p r i s i n g l y o f t e n c e n t r a l elements o f c l u s t e r s remain i n v a r i a n t o v e r a l a r g e range o f number o f c l u s t e r s considered. Two c l u s t e r analyses were computed f o r each s t o r y , one f o r t h e 20 t r e e s produced by t h e e x p e r i e n c e d group and one f o r t h e 20 t r e e s o f t h e unexperienced group. The s m a l l number of t r e e s t o be c l u s t e r e d p e r m i t t e d a s y s t e m a t i c search f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s o f a one-, two-, and s o f o r t h up t o a s e v e n - c l u s t e r s o l u t i o n . The s o l u t i o n was d e f i n e d as t h a t t r e e , p a i r , triple, s e v e n - t u p l e o f t r e e s t h a t m i n i m i z e d t h e sum o f d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n c l u s t e r s , a f t e r t h e r e m a i n i n g t r e e s were assigned t o t h e c l u s t e r r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e n e a r e s t member o f t h e n - t u p l e . D e t a i l s of t h e a n a l y s i s a r e presented i n Micko (1982).
...,
39
TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS
Table 1 s t o r y
~ r a m m a r s l
R 75
vD
Th
M&J
S&G
R 77
-
2
4
6
14
14
10.6
8.0
9.7
8.2
Dog-s t o r y Number o f fits
best
Di s t r i b u t i onL ’’ o f distances
‘2 5 ‘50 c75 3 Distance t o compos. t r e e
7.3
6.7
11.6
8.8
11.2
9.6
8.3
8.9
13.4
9.8
12.7
10.8
10.0
10.3
13.7
7.8
14.6
9.9
9.2
7.2
-
4
4
15
2
15
37.7
21.0
31.4
20.5
20.5
17.0
Boy-s t o r y Number of b e s t fits D i s t r ibutionZy3 o f distances
‘25
‘
50
c75
41.7
33.5
35.3
27.0
28.7
29.0
43.2
39.0
38.5
33.0
36.6
37.2
33.6
17.4
33.1
15.5
17.3
13.4
5
25
-
2
8
-
14.5
11.4
18.0
16.0
14.4
17.0
16.4
14.0
20.3
18.3
15.8
19.0
18.7
16.3
23.7
21.7
18.0
21.3
12.8
10.5
16.7
16.8
13.7
15.2
3
Distance t o compos. t r e e Farmer- s t o r y
Number o f b e s t fits D i s t r ibutionZy3 o f distances
L25 r
L50 ‘75 Distance t o3 compos. t r e e
1 ) R 75, R 77 = Rumelhart (1975, 1977) 2) vD = van D i j k (1975) Th = Thorndyke (1977) M& J = Mandler and Johnson (1977) S&G = S t e i n and Glenn (1977)
Median and Q u a r t i l e s o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f distances between i n d i v i d u a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e s and t h e respect i v e s t o r y grammar t r e e .
3 ) U n i t s o f measurement d i f f e r across s t o r i e s .
40
TEXT STRUCTURE
Two t o f o u r c l u s t e r s were o b t a i n e d f o r each s e t o f d a t a on t h e b a s i s of s t a n d a r d b r e a k - o f f c r i t e r i a . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e c l u s t e r s and t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s , however, i s i n doubt because o n l y once was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r e e found i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e d as w e l l as i n t h e unexperienced group. The r e m a i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r e e s were found i n one o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l groups b u t n o t r e p l i c a t e d i n t h e o t h e r . Moreover, t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n s t y l e s d i s c r i m i n a t i n g d i f f e r e n t types o f s u b j e c t s , because t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f c l u s t e r s changed c o m p l e t e l y across s t o r i e s . From t h i s l a c k o f s t a b i l i t y i n t h e r e s u l t s avross t e x t s and minor changes of e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s we conclude (1) t h a t t h e c l u s t e r s r e p r e s e n t more o r l e s s random s i m i l a r i t i e s o f s t o r y d i v i s i o n s , ( 2 ) t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t r e e s a r e a r t e f a c t s , and ( 3 ) as a consequence, t h a t t h e a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y a few predominant s t y l e s o f p a r t i t i o n i n g a s t o r y has f a i l e d . I n s p i t e o f t h e d i v e r s i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o r y d i v i s i o n s , some l o c a t i o n s i n t h e t e x t were chosen by m n y o r most s u b j e c t s f o r m a r k i n g an i n t e r s e c t i o n and o t h e r s by few o r v e r y few. T h i s i n d i c a t e s a c e r t a i n degree o f commonality. I t was d e c i d e d t h e r e f o r e t o c o n s t r u c t a composite t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e by a d d i n g up t h e markings ( 1 , 2 , .... v e r t i c a l l i n e s ) o f a l l 40 s u b j e c t s i n each o f t h e i n t e r v a l s between two s u c c e s s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s procedure does n o t d i f f e r i n p r i n c i p l e f r o m t h e method o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a t r e e f r o m s o r t i n g data. The o b t a i n e d t r e e was reduced t o a ranked t r e e by c o n s i d e r i n g d i f f e r e n t frequencies o f marking i n t e r s e c t i o n s t o be equal i f they d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t t h e .05 l e v e l on t h e s i g n t e s t . T h a t procedure may l e a d t o i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , b u t i n o u r case o n l y one m i n o r a m b i g u i t y had t o b e r e s o l v e d . Reduced s t o r y grammar t r e e s were t e s t e d a g a i n s t t h e reduced composi t e t r e e as w e l l as a g a i n s t a l l i n d i v i d u a l t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s . Distances computed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r D - m e t r i c s e r v e d as t h e measure o f ( d i s ) s i m i l a r i t y . Three r e l a t e d c r i t e r i a f o r t h e goodness o f f i t were considered: (1) The number o f t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s t o which a s t o r y grammar t r e e i s most s i m i l a r (number of b e s t f i t s ) . ( 2 ) The median d i s t a n c e of a s t o r y grammar t r e e f r o m t h e 40 i n d i v i d u a l t e x t d i v i s i o n t r e e s , supplemented by t h e 1 s t and 3 r d q u a r t i l e as i n d i c a t o r s of t h e spread o f t h e d i s t a n c e d i s t r i b u t i o n . ( 3 ) The d i s t a n c e o f a s t o r y grammar t r e e f r o m t h e composite s t o r y d i v i s i o n t r e e . The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Table 1. The p r e d i c t i v e values o f t h e s t o r y cjran~marsi n v e s t i g a t e d d i f f e r n e i t h e r markedly n o r c o n s i s t e n t l y . I n most cases t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e Rumelhart (1975)- and t h e Thorndyke-grammar a r e somewhat i n f e r i o r t o those o f t h e o t h e r f o u r grammars considered. The p a r t i t i o n s o f t h e dog s t o r y a r e p r e d i c t e d a b o u t e q u a l l y w e l l by t h e grammars o f van D i j k , S t e i n and Glenn, and Rumelh a r t (1977), those o f t h e boy s t o r y b y t h e grammars o f Mandler and Johnson, and Rumelhart (1977). Van D i j k ' s grammar i s t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r o f t h e farmers t o r y t r e e s . On t h a t s t o r y t h e Rumelhart (1977)-grammar does worse t h a n t h e o t h e r grammars e x e p t Thorndyke's and thus does l i v e up t o i t s p r o m i s i n g performance on t h e dog and boy s t o r y . The S t e i n and Glenn-grammar i s t h e most r e l i a b l e one, i t s p r e d i c t i o n s u s u a l l y come o u t second b e s t . I t cannot b e t h e u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e t e x t d i v i s i o n paradigm t o enable e v a l u a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g s t o r y grammars, p a r t i c u l a r y s i n c e a l l o f them must b e r e g a r d e d as p r o p o s a l s t o be r e v i s e d on t h e b a s i s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l evidence. S i n c e t e x t d i v i s i o n d a t a a r e easy t o o b t a i n , s t o r y grammars may be improved most e c o n o m i c a l l y by f i r s t r e v i s i n g r e w r i t e r u l e s t h a t b r i n g a b o u t f a l s e p r e d i c t i o n s o f s t o r y p a r t i t i o n s . The p r e d i c t i o n s o f expensive memory d a t a may b e p u t t o t e s t somewhat l a t e r . 'These t a s k s , however, a r e beyond t h e scope o f t h e present i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
TEXT DIVISIONS AND STORY GRAMMARS
41
REFERENCES Arabie, P . , and Boorman, S . Multidimensional s c a l i n g of measures of distance Journal ___ of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 148-203. between p a r t i t i o n s . _ Black, J . Theories o f s t o r y memory s t r u c t u r e . Preliminary d r a f t o f a manuscript. Psychology Department, Stanford University. Boorman, S . , and O l i v i e r , D . C . Metrics on spaces of f i n i t e t r e e s . Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 26-59. Van Dijk, T.A. Recalling and summarizing complex discourse. Unpublished manuscript. University o f Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1975. Glowalla, U. Der r o t e Faden, e i n handlungstheoretisches Model 1 z u r Textverarbeitung. Ph.D. t h e s i s , University o f Technology, Braunschweig, 1981. Kintsch, W . T h e representation cf meaning in memory. H.illsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974. Mandler, J.M., and Johnson, N.S. Remembrance o f things parsed: Story s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l . Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111-151. Text d i v i s i o n s , s t o r y grammars and s t o r y r e c a l l : Materials and Micko, H.C. data. Braunschweiger Berichte - Reports from the I n s t i t u t e of Psychology, University of Technology, Braunschweig, 1982/1. Rumelhart, D. E. Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . In: D.G. Bobrow and A. Collins ( E d s . ) Representation a d understanding: Studies iL cognitive science. New York, Akademic Press, 1975. Rumelhart, D . E . Understanding and summarizing b r i e f s t o r i e s : In: D. LaBerge and J . Samuels ( E d s . ) Basic processes in reading and comprehension. Hi 1 l s d a l e , N. J . Lawrence Erl baum Associates, 1977. Schank, R . C . The s t r u c t u r e of episodes i n memory. I n : D.G. Bobrow and A . Collins (Eds.) Representation and understanding: Studies !i cognitive science. New York, Academic Press, 1975a. Schank, R . C .
Conceptual information processing. New York, North-Holland,
1975b.
S t e i n , N . L . , and Glenn, C . G . An analysis of s t o r y comprehension i n element a r y school children. I n : R. Freedle ( E d . ) Multidiscriplinary perspectives i n discourse comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1911.
Thorndyke, P.W. Cognitive s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory o f n a r r a t i v e discourse. Cognitive P s y c h o l o a , 1977, 2, 77-110.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holhnd Publishing Company, 1982
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION: EFFECTS ON COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF SIMPLE STORIES* Hans S t r o h n e r , G e r t R i c k h e i t , and R u d i g e r Weingarten F a k u l t a t f u r L i n g u i s t i k und L i t e r a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t Uni vers it a t B i e l e f e l d D-4800 B i e l e f e l d West Germany Nursery school c h i l d r e n and Grade 5 school c h i l d r e n l i s t e n e d t o one o f f o u r v e r s i o n s o f f o u r episodes. The episodes were e i t h e r complete o r one o f t h r e e combinations o f two p a r t s o f t h e episodes. Young n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n w i t h h i g h r e p r o d u c t i o n scores showed a tendency t o complete t h e i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s o f t h e t e x t s . I n t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e p r o d u c t i o n and c o m p l e t i o n performance. The r e s u l t s a r e d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n t h e framework o f t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i r i g t h e o r y o f t e x t p r o cess in g
.
S t o r y comprehension may be t h o u g h t o f as a t w o - f o l d p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g reasons: ( 1 ) The l i s t e n e r s o r readers g e n e r a l l y have t o cope w i t h t h e problem o f making sense o u t o f t e x t s which a r e t o some degree i n c o h e r e n t and e l l i p t i c a l ( C l a r k , 1978; de Beaugrande, 1980; Voss, Vesonder, & S p i l i c h , 1980). ( 2 ) I n s t o r i e s t h e y have t o t r a c e t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i o n s o f t h e char a c t e r s i n o r d e r t o p u t these a c t i o n s t o g e t h e r t o f o r m a causal c h a i n o r c r i t i c a l p a t h ( B l a c k & Bower, 1980; Schank, 1975). I n many s t o r y comprehension s i t u a t i o n s a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n between these two l e v e l s o f problem s o l v i n g i s observed (e.g. Anderson, 1978; Bower, 1978; Bruce, 1980). B l a c k (1978) has proposed a s t o r y memory t h e o r y , t h e H i e r a r c h i c a l S t a t e T r a n s i t i o n (HST) t h e o r y , w h i c h comprises o f two d i f f e r e n t procedures f o r s o l v i n g problems. One o f these procedures i s c a l l e d t h e "problem r e d u c t i o n method". T h i s method r e p r e s e n t s t h e problem-sol v i n g process as a h i e r a r c h y o f r e l a t e d a c t i o n s . The a c t i o n s l o w e r i n t h e h i e r a r c h y a r e more d e t a i l e d and s p e c i f i c t h a n those h i g h e r up i n t h e h i e r a r c h y . The o t h e r problem-solv i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c a l l e d " s t a t e - t r a n s i t i o n network" und r e p r e s e n t s t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process as a s e r i e s o f s t a t e s and a c t i o n s . These act i o n s change one s t a t e i n t o a n o t h e r .
*The s t u d y was s u p p o r t e d by g r a n t No. 2365 f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B i e l e f e l d . We a r e g r a t e f u l t o t h e c h i l d r e n , p a r e n t s , and teachers o f t h e K i n d e r g a r t e n D o r f e n and t h e Laborschule B i e l e f e l d f o r t h e i r k i n d c o - o p e r a t i o n . We a r e i n d e b t e d t o Helga Buurrnan, Reinhard F i e h l e r , B r i g i t t e Gremse, W a l t h e r K i n d t , G i s e l a K l a n n - D e l i u s , H o r s t Kock, G e o f f r e y Macpherson, D i e t r i c h Meutsch, Marcus S t e i n , and Roswitha S t r o h n e r f o r p r a c t i c a l s u p p o r t and v a l u a b l e comments on e a r l i e r v e r s i o n s o f t h e paper. 42
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION
43
Several s t u d i e s have focussed on t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h e HST t h e o r y on t h e comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t s about a c t i o n sequences ( e . g. B l a c k & Bower, 1979; Graesser, 1978; Graesser, Robertson, Lovelace, & Swinehart, 1980; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1980). E s s e n t i a l l y these s t u d i e s have demonstrated b e t t e r r e c a l l achievement f o r more s u p e r o r d i n a t e s t a t e ments i n t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g h i e r a r c h y t h a n f o r more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . I n t h e comprehension process s u b j e c t s seem t o i n f e r r e l e v a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e v a r i o u s a c t i o n s . I t seems t o be these r e l a t i o n s h i p s which a l s o guide t h e r e t r i e v a l o f t h e a c t i o n s . The second p a r t o f t h e HST t h e o r y i s a l s o w e l l i n v e s t i g a t e d (e.g. B l a c k & Bern, 1981; Bower, B l a c k , & Turner, 1979; K i n t s c h , Mandel, & Kozminsky, 1977; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1980). I t can be concluded f r o m these s t u d i e s , t h a t s u b j e c t s r e l y on t h e i r knowledge o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f n a t u r a l l y occurr i n g sequences o f b e h a v i o u r a l e v e n t s i n o r d e r t o r e c o n s t r u c t them i n a r e c a l l task. Another main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a s t o r y , i f seen under t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f problem s o l v i n g , i s t h e degree o f completeness o r e x p l i c i t n e s s of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s r e l e v a n t f o r t h e c u r r e n t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g processes ( B l a c k & Bower, 1980). I f , f o r example, t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g process i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h e t h r e e stages namely, problem d e s c r i p t i o n , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t , and s o l v i n g t h e problem, s t o r i e s may d i f f e r more o r l e s s depending on how c o m p l e t e l y these p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g stages have been d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e two v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e HST t h e o r y , t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e t y p e o f s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned problems o l v i n g stages on t e x t comprehension and r e p r o d u c t i o n a r e l e s s w e l l known. The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s an e f f o r t t o l e a r n more a b o u t t h e i m p a c t o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge a b o u t t h e q u a l i t a t i v e s t r u c t u r e o f s o c i a l a c t i o n on t h e process i n g o f complete and i n c o m p l e t e s t o r i e s . I n a s t u d y o f t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f s c r i p t s i n young c h i l d r e n Wimmer (1979) gave 4- and 6 - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n an i n c o m p l e t e shopping s t o r y which ended b e f o r e t h e p a y i n g scene a t t h e c a s h i e r , However, t h e g i r l who wanted t o pay had l o s t h e r w a l l e t w i t h t h e money.0ne t a s k o f Wimmer's s u b j e c t s was t o comp l e t e t h e s t o r y fragment. Wimmer found t h a t more t h a n 60% of t h e 4-year-olds and a l l o f t h e 6 - y e a r - o l d s completed t h e s t o r y by i n d i c a t i n g t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e p a y i n g a c t i o n which n o r m a l l y f o l l o w s . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge o f r e l e v a n t s o c i a l a c t i o n s i n p r o c e s s i n g t h e fragment o f t h e s t o r y which t h e y h e a r d was a p p l i e d t o a medium o r h i g h degree. I n c o m p l e t i n g fragments of a s t o r y t h e c h i l d r e n have t o draw c e r t a i n i n f e r ences. H i l d y a r d (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d c h i l d r e n ' s prompted p r o d u c t i o n o f act i o n - b a s e d i n f e r e n c e s as f o r example t h e s t a t e m e n t "The dog runs through t h e t r e e s " which can be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e sentences "The dog chases t h e c a t . The c a t r u n s t h r o u g h t h e t r e e s " o r t h e i n f e r e n c e "Jose was i n j u r e d and h i s a m was broken", f o l l o w i n g f r o m t h e sentences "Jose r a n i n t o t h e r o a d w i t h o u t l o o k i n g . H i s arm was i n a p l a s t e r c a s t f o r s e v e r a l weeks". When c o n t r o l l e d f o r memory d i f f e r e n c e s t h e i n f e r e n c e achievement d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between Grade 1, Grade 3, and Grade 5 c h i l d r e n . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s s t u d y Grade 1 c h i l d r e n were a b l e t o draw as many a c t i o n - b a s e d i n f e r e n c e s as t h e o l d e r c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , and h i g h l y r e l e v a n t f o r t h e p r e s e n t study, H i 1d y a r d c l a s s i f i e d t h e i n f e r e n c e s i n t o severa I types, t h r e e o f whi ch r e f e r r e d t o t h e presupposi t i o n s , t h e e n a b l i n g events, and t h e consequences of t h e d e s c r i b e d a c t i o n s . She d i d n o t analyse these d i f f e r e n t types o f i n f e r e n c e s
44
TEXT STRUCTURE
s t a t i s t i c a l l y because o f t h e s m a l l and unequal numbers o f i n f e r e n c e s i n v o l ved. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e mean p e r c e n t scores i n d i c a t e s o n l y minimal d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t h r e e age groups i n t h e i r h a n d l i n g o f these i n f e r e n c e types. I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e s t o r i e s were composed o f t h r e e p a r t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s . The i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s o f t h e episodes c o n s i s t e d o f two o f these t h r e e p a r t s , t h u s r e s u l t i n g , f o r each v e r s i o n , i n q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e u n d e r l y i n g s o c i a l a c t i o n system. METHOD Subjects The 48 German speaking c h i l d r e n belonged t o t h r e e d i f f e r e n t age groups each o f 16 c h i l d r e n : a group o f younger n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 4; 11, range 4;2 - 5 ; 7 ) , a group o f o l d e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 6;6, range 6;2 - 6;10), and a group o f Grade 5 s c h o o l c h i l d r e n (mean 11;4, range 10;6 - 12;4). There were e i g h t boys and e i g h t g i r l s i n b o t h o f t h e n u r s e r y school groups and t e n g i r l s and s i x boys i n t h e Grade 5 group. Texts __ Each c h i l d was g i v e n f o u r t e x t s . The t e x t s d e s c r i b e d fragments o f episodes a b o u t w e l ? known e v e n t s i n a c h i l d ' s l i f e : a b i r t h d a y p a r t y , v i s i t i n g a c i r c u s , shopping, and r i d i n g a b i c y c l e . Each t e x t c o n s i s t e d o f s i x s h o r t sentences. The sentences were matched w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e sentence c o n t e n t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g framework o f t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e f i r s t p a r t o f each episode, which c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e sentences, r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e t t i n g , t h e problemc a u s i n g a c t i o n o f person A, and the problem d e s c r i p t i o n . I n t h e second p a r t , which c o n s i s t e d of one sentence o n l y , a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t o f person A was d e s c r i b e d . The l a s t p a r t , w h i c h was two sentences i n l e n g t h , t o l d a b o u t t h e s u c c e s s f u l p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y o f person B and t h e consequences o f t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n between person A und person B. The f u n c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f o u r episodes i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h example sentences from t h e " B i r t h d a y P a r t y " s t o r y i s g i v e n i n Table 1. Table 1: The c o - o p e r a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f o u r episodes w i t h t r a n s l a t e d example sentences from t h e " B i r t h d a y P a r t y " s t o r y . Part
A: Problem d e s c r i p t i o n
Sentence 1: S e t t i n g " P e t r a has i n v i t e d Mark t o h e r b i r t h d a y p a r t y . " Sentence 2: Problem-causing a c t i o n o f person A "Mark wants t o g i v e P e t r a a p r e s e n t . " Sentence 3: Problem "But he d o e s n ' t know what t o g i v e . " P a r t B: P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t Sentence 4: P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a t t e m p t o f person A "Mark asks t h e s i s t e r o f P e t r a what P e t r a would l i k e t o get f o r a b i r t h d a y present."
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION
45
P a r t C: S o l v i n g t h e problem Sentence 5: Problem s o l v i n g by person B i n c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h person A "The s i s t e r o f P e t r a says t h a t P e t r a would l i k e t o have a k i t e . " Sentence 6 : Consequence "Mark g i v e s P e t r a a k i t e . " Each c h i l d was g i v e n one complete s t o r y ( t e x t v e r s i o n ABC), another s t o r y where p a r t C was m i s s i n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n AB), one s t o r y where p a r t B was missi n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n AC), and one s t o r y where p a r t A was m i s s i n g ( t e x t v e r s i o n BC). The i n c o m p l e t e v e r s i o n s were c u t o u t f r o m t h e complete v e r s i o n tape i n o r d e r t o have p r o s o d i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l p a r t s i n a l l t e x t v e r s i o n s . A f t e r g i v i n g each o f t h e f o u r t e x t s t o t h e c h i l d r e n music was p l a y e d f o r an i n t e r v a l o f 20 sec, Procedure Each c h i l d was t e s t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The c h i l d r e n were i n s t r u c t e d t o l i s t e n t o some s t o r i e s r e c o r d e d on t a p e and a f t e r h e a r i n g each s t o r y t o r e t e l l t h e same. No i n d i c a t i o n was g i v e n t h a t some o f t h e p r e s e n t e d s t o r i e s were i n complete. The c h i l d r e n l i s t e n e d t o t h e episodes i n one o f f o u r v e r s i o n s . These were e i t h e r complete o r one o f t h e t h r e e combinations o f two p a r t s o f t h e s t o r y . Four c h i l d r e n o f each age group were p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e complete v e r s i o n o f one s t o r y , f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n AB o f t h e same s t o r y , f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n AC, and f o u r c h i l d r e n w i t h v e r s i o n BC. W i t h i n these subgroups o f f o u r c h i l d r e n t h e v e r s i o n t y p e s o f t h e o t h e r s t o r i e s and t h e presentat i o n o r d e r were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d . With b o t h t h e complete and i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r prompte d t h e r e c a l l by a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s i f a t e x t sentence was n o t r e c a l l e d spont a n e o u s l y by t h e c h i l d . I n a d d i t i o n , w i t h t h e i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r asked q u e s t i o n s w h i c h aimed a t t h e m i s s i n g p a r t o f t h e e p i sode. For example, i n t h e case o f t h e " B i r t h d a y p a r t y " s t o r y t h e q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e t h r e e m i s s i n g p a r t s A, B, and C were: P a r t A: What do you P a r t B: What do you P e t r a would P a r t C: What do y o u
t h i n k happened t h i n k happened l i k e t o have a t h i n k happened
b e f o r e Mark asked t h e s i s t e r o f Petra? before the s i s t e r o f Petra s a i d t h a t kite? a f t e r Mark asked t h e s i s t e r o f P e t r a ?
The e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n f o r one c h i l d took about 10 t o 15 m i n u t e s . Data A n a l y s i s The r e c o r d e d r e c a l l and i n f e r e n c e responses o f t h e c h i l d r e n were grouped i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g categories: Reproductions: A sentence was s c o r e d as a r e p r o d u c t i o n i f i t i n c l u d e d t h e e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e g i v e n sentence. T h i s c a t e g o r y was f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o spontaneous reproduct i o n s and prompted r e p r o d u c t i o n s . Completions:
A sentence was s c o r e d as a c o m p l e t i o n i f i t i n c l u d e d some e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e p a r t o f t h e s t o r y which had n o t been g i v e n o r o t h e r p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s drawn from
TEXT STRUCTURE
46
t h e s t o r y . T h i s c a t e g o r y was a l s o f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o spontaneous c o m p l e t i o n s and prompted c o m p l e t i o n s . E l a b o r a t i o n s : A sentence was s c o r e d as an e l a b o r a t i o n i f i t c o u l d n o t p l a u s i b l y be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e p l o t o f t h e s t o r y . The few cases i n which s c o r i n g problems occured were r e s o l v e d a f t e r d i s c u s s i on between t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s .
RESULTS Comparability o f the f o u r s t o r i e s The most c r i t i c a l and s e n s i b l e t e s t f o r t h e c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e f o u r s t o r i e s seems t o be t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s across t h e sentences o f t h e s t o r i e s . A c h i - s q u a r e t e s t showed t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e s t o r i e s d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (chi2=5.57; df=15; n . s . ) . I t can be concluded from t h i s r e s u l t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s responded i n a s i m i l a r way t o a l l f o u r s t o r i e s . Consequently, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t h e f o u r episodes a r e n o t t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y b u t a r e r e f e r r e d t o as a common a b s t r a c t t e x t base which i s s t r u c t u r e d a c c o r d i n g t o a c o - o p e r a t i v e problem s o l v i n g sequence. Spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n F o r each s u b j e c t t h e percentage o f spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e maximal r e p r o d u c t i o n s c o r e i n each t e x t v e r s i o n was computed. These maximal r e p r o d u c t i o n scores were 6 i n t h e complete t e x t v e r s i o n , 4 i n t h e AB v e r s i o n , 5 i n t h e AC v e r s i o n , and 3 i n t h e BC v e r s i o n . These percentage scores were s u b j e c t e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h s u b j e c t groups as a between f a c t o r and t h e f o u r t e x t v e r s i o n s as a w i t h i n f a c t o r . T h i s a n a l y s i s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s u b j e c t groups (F=28.66; df=2, 45;p c.O01),but no e f f e c t s f o r t h e t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F i l ) o r f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t s and t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F < l ) . A c c o r d i n g t o Newman-Keuls t e s t s (p<.Ol) t h e younger n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 26.97%) r e c a l l e d fewer sentences spontaneously t h a n t h e 01 d e r n u r s e r y school c h i 1 dren (mean 52.22%). B o t h groups o f n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n r e c a l l e d fewer t h a n t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n (mean 84.94%). We a l s o l o o k e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f t h e s i n g l e sentences i n t h e complete t e x t v e r s i o n . Although i n a l l t h r e e age groups sentence 1 ( s e t t i n g ) was t h e l e a s t r e c a l l e d sentence, and sentence 3 ( p r o b l e m ) one o f t h e b e s t r e c a l l e d sentences, t h e observed d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t l a r g e enough t o y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s based on c h i - s q u a r e analyses (chi2<5.76; d f = 5 ; n . s . ) . O v e r a l l r e p r o d u c t i ons
An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h s u b j e c t groups as a between f a c t o r and t e x t v e r s i o n as a w i t h i n f a c t o r o f t h e percentage scores o f t h e o v e r a l l reproduct i o n s (spontaneous + prompted r e p r o d u c t i o n s ) showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t h e s u b j e c t groups (F=16.03; df=2, 45; p<.OOl), b u t n e i t h e r an e f f e c t o f t h e t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F t l ) n o r an e f f e c t o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t groups and t e x t v e r s i o n s ( F i l ) . A c c o r d i n g t o Newman-Keuls t e s t s (p<.05) t h e younger n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 55.72%) reproduced fewer sentences o f t h e t e x t s t h a n t h e o l d e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 68.27%).
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION
47
Both groups o f n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n reproduced fewer than t h e Grade 5 school c h i l d r e n (mean 88.75%). These r e s u l t s a r e q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s w h i c h have been r e p o r t e d above. The r e s u l t s f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e s i n g l e sentences f o r t h e o v e r a l l r e p r o d u c t i o n scores, however, d i f f e r f r o m those f o r t h e spontaneous r e p r o d u c t i o n s . Now t h e l o w l e v e l o f performance i n t h e case o f t h e f i r s t sentence reaches such a d i s c r e p a n c y i f compared w i t h t h e performance o f t h e o t h e r sentences t h a t c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s f o r t h e two n u r s e r y school groups y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t values ( f o r t h e younger group chi2=12.38; df=5; p<.05; f o r t h e o l d e r group chi2=21.31; df=5; p<.Ol). F o r t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n t h e r e was a s i m i l a r tendency t o r e c a l l t h e s e t t i n g sentence l e a s t b u t t h i s tendency was n o t s t r o n g enough t o g i v e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (chi2=2.39; df=5; n . s . ) . T h i s may be due t o a c e i l i n g e f f e c t . Spontaneous c o m p l e t i o n s A o n e - f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e spontaneous c o m p l e t i o n scores r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t s u b j e c t group e f f e c t (F=3.35; d f = 2 , 45; p i . 1 0 ) w i t h group means o f 1.19, 1.81, and 2.88. When an a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e was used t o equate s t a t i s t i c a l l y t h e age groups a c c o r d i n g t o t h e reproduct i o n performance, a g a i n t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (F=2,98; d f = 2 , 12; p<.lO). However, s p e c i f i c c h i - q u a r e t e s t s f o r t h e t h r e e i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s showed s i g n i f i c a n t age groups d i f f e r e ces. There were s i g n i f i c a n t age d i f ferences f o r t h e t e x t v e r s i o n AB ( L h i 9 = l l . 1 3 ; df=2; p<.Ol), and f o r the t e x t v e r s i o n AC (chi2=8.38; df=2; p i . 0 5 1 , b u t n o t f o r BC (chi2=3.29;df=2). Comparisons by means o f c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s between t h e t h r e e t e x t v e r s i o n s and w i t h r e s p e c t t o those completions which r e f e r r e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t e x t p r o p e r , a f t e r i t , o r between t h e t e x t sentences were a1 1 non-si g n i f i c a n t . Overall completions A o n e - f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e o v e r a l l c o m p l e t i o n scores (spontaneous + prompted c o m p l e t i o n s ) showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f age groups (F=6.57; df=2,45; p<.O5). A c c o r d i n g t o Newman-Keuls t e s t s (p<.05) t h e younger n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 3 . 2 5 ) produced l e s s completions than t h e o l d e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n (mean 5.13) and t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n (mean 5.50). The l a t t e r two groups d i d n o t d i f f e r . T h i s was p r o b a b l y due t o a c e i l i n g e f f e c t i n t h e school c h i l d r e n . However, when t h e groups were equat e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e p r o d u c t i o n performance by means o f an a n a l y s i s o f covariance, t h e s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f age groups disappears (F=2.13; df=2, 12; n . s . ) . S p e c i f i c c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s f o r t h e t h r e e i n c o m p l e t e t e x t v e r s i o n s showed h i g h l y 3 i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r b o t h t h e t e x t v e r s i o n AC and t h e v e r s i o n BC ( c h i =9.47 ESP. 11.66; df=2; p<.Ol), b u t no s i g n i f i c a n t age d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e t e x t v e r s i o n AB (chi2=5.74; df=2; p<.lO). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t h r e e t e x t v e r s i o n s o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o those spontaneous cornpleti ons which r e f e r r e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e t h e t e x t proper, a f t e r it, o r between t h e t e x t sentences. Elaborations A c h i - s q u a r e t e s t between t h e age groups on t h e number o f e l a b o r a t i o n s
48
TEXT STRUCTURE
showed t h a t the nursery school children produced more elaborations (means 0,81) than the Grade 5 children (mean 0.38; chi2=7.38; df=2; p<.05). Correlations between the dependent measures Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s between the spontaneous completion and the overall reproduction scores showed q u i t e d i f f e r e n t values f o r the three age g r o u p s : f o r the younger nursery school group r=.55; p<.O5, f o r the o l der nursery school group: r=.01; n.s., and f o r the Grade 5 group 5-.67; p<. 01. Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s between overall completions and overall reproductions showed a highly s i m i l a r pattern t o the above l i s t e d correlations: f o r the younger nursery school group r=.61; p<.O5, f o r the o l d e r nursery school group r=.35; n.s., f o r the Grade 5 group r=-.54; p<.O5. Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s between the spontaneous completion scores f o r the s i x sentences of the t e x t s and t h e i r corresponding overall reproduction scores r e s u l t e d in a medium b u t non-significant degree of r e l a tionship ( r = . 4 8 ; n . s . ) . The same c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the overall completion s c o r e s , however, was highly s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e ( r = . 9 4 ; p < . O l ) . Since elaborations occured only r a r e l y , in t h i s case phi c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed. These showed i n a l l three age groups s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a tionships between the occurrence of elaborations and the overall reproduct i o n level of t h e children: f o r both nursery school groups phi=-.77; p<.O1 a n d f o r t h e Grade 5 g r o u p phi=-.54; p<.O5. DISCUSSION The most important r e s u l t s of the present study may be summarized as follows: ( 1 ) Not very s u r p r i s i n g l y there was a steady increase in b o t h the spontaneous and the overall reproduction achievement across the three age groups. However, the versions of the t e x t had no e f f e c t on reproduction achievement. ( 2 ) When the completion scores were controlled f o r reproduction differences between the age groups there were no age differences with respect t o e i t h e r spontaneous o r overall completion scores. ( 3 ) However, f o r b o t h the spontaneous and overall completions the children seemed t o handle the three t e x t versions d i f f e r e n t l y . The t e x t version BC in which the problem descripti,on p a r t of the episode i s missing prompted t h e young children most strongly t o complete the missing p a r t spontaneousl y . Therefore, f o r t h i s version only no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the three age groups on the spontaneous completions were observed. In cont r a s t t o t h i s pattern of r e s u l t s , in t h e overall completions there was no age d i f f e r e n c e only on the t e x t version AB in which t h e f i n a l problem solut i o n p a r t o f the episode i s missing, This r e s u l t i s again due t o a r e l a t i vely good achievement of t h e younger children in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e x t version. ( 4 ) The children tended t o r e c a l l the s e t t i n g sentence of the t e x t s l e a s t of a l l and t h e sentence in which t h e problem o f the episode i s s t a t e d best of a l l . ( 5 ) The c o r r e l a t i o n s between both the spontaneous completions and t h e overa l l completions on the one hand and the overall reproduction on the other hand were p o s i t i v e for the younger nursery school children, non-significant f o r the o l d e r nursery school c h i l d r e n , and negative f o r the Grade 5 chi 1 dren.
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION
49
( 6 ) Both n u r s e r y school groups produced more e l a b o r a t i o n s t h a n t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n . The c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e e l a b o r a t i o n s and t h e o v e r a l l r e p r o d u c t i o n achievement were s t r o n g l y n e g a t i v e i n a l l t h r e e age groups.
I n t h e f o l l o w i n g , each o f these main i s s u e s o f t h e s t u d y i s d i s c u s s e d i n turn. The f a c t t h a t we d i d n o t f i n d any e f f e c t o f t e x t v e r s i o n s on t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n achievement o f our s u b j e c t s may p a r t i a l l y be due t o t h e s h o r t n e s s o f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l l y a p p l i e d t e x t s . I n t h e complete v e r s i o n t h e t e x t s cons i s t e d o f s i x sentences and i n t h e s h o r t e s t v e r s i o n o f t h r e e sentences. Ano t h e r cause f o r t h i s f a i l u r e t o f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t e x t v e r s i o n s m i g h t be t h a t t h e q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t e x t versions m i g h t n o t have been s t r o n g enough s i n c e a l l t e x t v e r s i o n s focussed upon some w e l l known a c t i o n s i n t h e d a i l y l i f e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . I n good c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e s t u d y o f H i l d y a r d (1979) we found t h a t t h e age d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n performance disappeared when d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n performance were c o n t r o l l e d . I n c o n t r a s t w i t h these two s t u d i e s , Omanson, Warren, and Trabasso (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t when t h e i r f i v e and e i g h t y e a r o l d s u b j e c t s were matched f o r r e t r i e v a l o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , c r u c i a l t o t h e observed i n f e r e n c e s , t h e o l d e r c h i l d r e n s t i l l made more i n ferences. I t may be t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t h r e e s t u d i e s a r e p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t y p e s o f i n f e r e n c e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Omanson e t a l . (1978) worked w i t h s e v e r a l types o f i n f e r e n c e s . Some o f these a r e much more s p e c i f i c r e g a r d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n which has t o be i n f e r r e d than i n t h e s t u d y o f H i l d y a r d and t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . Those r e s u l t s o f o u r s t u d y which a r e r e l a t e d t o s p e c i f i c t e x t v e r s i o n d i f ferences between t h e age groups must be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h c a u t i o n because i n t h e c h i -square t e s t s t h e o v e r a l l r e p r o d u c t i o n achievement c o u l d n o t be c o n t r o l l e d f o r . What may be t e n t a t i v e l y concluded i n s p i t e o f t h i s however, i s t h a t t h e m i s s i n g f i r s t p a r t o f t h e t e x t s i n which t h e problem d e s c r i p t i o n i s given, seemed t o prompt a l s o t h e younger c h i l d r e n t o i n f e r t h e m i s s i n g p a r t spontaneously. I n t h e case o f t h e m i s s i n g f i r s t p a r t o f t h e episode i t i s most obvious t h a t something has been l e f t o u t by t h e s t o r y teller. The s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e o v e r a l l completions seems t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t f o r t h e spontaneous completions. W i t h o v e r a l l completions t h e t e x t p a r t completed most e a s i l y was t h e l a s t p a r t . T h i s was a l s o t h e case f o r t h e younger c h i l d r e n . The f i r s t and m i d d l e p a r t s seemed t o be more d i f f i c u l t and thus r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t age d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e two f i r s t p a r t s o f t h e t e x t f o r t h e o v e r a l l c o m p l e t i o n performance may l e a d t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e young c h i l d r e n t o comp l e t e these s t o r y p a r t s were caused by t h e i r f a i l u r e t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e word " b e f o r e " i n t h e q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e two p a r t s . I f t h i s were t h e case t h e o l d e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be b e t t e r than t h e younger c h i l d r e n i n answering t h e q u e s t i o n s , because t h e i r l e v e l o f competence f o r t h e word "bef o r e " i s h i g h e r than t h a t o f t h e younger c h i l d r e n . Such a tendency was o n l y observed f o r t h e f i r s t p a r t b u t n o t f o r t h e second p a r t o f t h e t e x t . Thus, we conclude t h a t t h e problems t h e younger c h i l d r e n seemed t o have i n i n f e r r i n g t h e f i r s t two p a r t s o f t h e t e x t s a r e a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y c o g n i t i v e i n nature. T h i s c l o s e l y corresponds t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n of S t e i n and Glenn (1979, p.118)
TEXT STRUCTURE
50
t h a t "when t h e f i r s t c a t e g o r y i n a n episode i s d e l e t e d , young c h i l d r e n may have more d i f f i c u l t y adding i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e s t o r y than o l d e r c h i l d r e n " . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e l e a s t r e c a l l e d and i n f e r r e d sentence o f t h e t e x t s was t h e f i r s t sentence i n which t h e s e t t i n g ( e . g . " P e t r a has i n v i t e d Mark t o h e r b i r t h d a y p a r t y " ) i s g i v e n . T h i s r e s u l t m i g h t be seen i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e w e l l r e p l i c a t e d r e s u l t w i t h l o n g e r s t o r i e s namely, t h a t t h e s e t t i n g i s one o f t h e b e s t r e c a l l e d s t o r y p a r t s ( e . g . S t e i n & Glenn, 1 9 7 9 ) . I n s h o r t and s i m p l e t e x t s which r e f e r t o such w e l l known events, as i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e s e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s much imore s u p e r f l u o u s t h a n i n l o n g e r f i c t i o n a l s t o r i e s about l e s s w e l l known s i t u a t i o n s , c h a r a c t e r s , and events. The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between c o m p l e t i o n s and o v e r a l l r e p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e y o u n g e r n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n and t h e n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s i n t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n p o i n t t o t h e d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n f o r these two age groups. F o r t h e n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n i t seems i m p o r t a n t t o c o l l e c t a l l a v a i l a b l e knowledge a b o u t t h e s o c i a l a c t i o n s , o c c u r i n g i n t h e t e x t s , i n o r d e r t o cope w i t h t h e i n f e r e n t i a l demands o f t h e t e x t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , those c h i l d r e n who have a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d knowledge base on t h e a c t i o n s t a l k e d a b o u t a l s o d i d w e l l i n c o n i p l e t i n g t h e m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . F o r most o f t h e Grade 5 c h i l d r e n t h e problem s i t u a t i o n seemed t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . These c h i l d r e n have a l r e a d y a w e l l s t r u c t u r e d b a s i c knowl e d g e which makes i t easy f o r them t o u n d e r s t a n d and r e c a l l t h e t e x t s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e t a s k o f r e p r o d u c i n g a t e x t . Thus, they c o n c e n t r a t e p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y have heard and n e g l e c t a l l o t h e r complementary i n f o r m a t i o n which r e s u l t s f r o m t h e i r knowledge o f t h e a c t i o n s . O n l y those Grade 5 c h i l d r e n who s t i l l have d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h e t a s k r e a c t i n a way s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e n u r s e r y school c h i l d r e n . T h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l p a t t e r n o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s s h o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e obs e r v e d c o r r e l a t i o n s between r e p r o d u c t i o n and c o m p l e t i o n performance ( F i g . 1 ) . The d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h e younger and o l d e r c h i l d r e n a r e an example o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two l e v e l s o f problem s o l v i n g w i t h i n s t o r y comprehension. T h i s we r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n .
Fig.1:
H y p o t h e t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e p r o d u c t i o n and c a n p l e t i o n performance across d i f f e r e n t knowledge l e v e l s
t
Completion
/'
I / younger nursery school children
/
I
I I
\
I
I older nursery school children
Grade school children
Reproiuction
CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL ACTION
51
The r e l a t i v e l y high frequencies of elaborations in t h e two nursery school groups and t h e negative c o r r e l a t i o n s with the overall reproduction performance again confirm t h a t f o r some of these children the t e x t s , and the tasks of reproducing and answering questions, were d i f f i c u l t and sometimes resulted in unsuccessful search processes in the memory s t o r e . Another i n t e r pretation r e f e r s t o the r a t h e r strange task f o r these subjects t o reproduce a t e x t which they had j u s t heard in a n a r t i f i c i a l and non-functional experimental s i t u a t i o n . I n conclusion, the present study shows a very d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and highly complex p i c t u r e of the r e c a l l and t e x t completion performance in nursery school and school children. We feel t h a t i t could be a promising way t o handle these complicated data i f t e x t processing i s modeled t h e o r e t i c a l l y as a s p e c i f i c type of problem solving. The various s t a g e s , s t r a t e g i e s , a n d i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e t e x t and the l i s t e n e r o r reader in t h i s problemsolving process must be analysed c a r e f u l l y using d i f f e r e n t methods so as t o get converging evidence about the functioning of the cognitive processes i n these types of problem solving.
REFERENCES Anderson, R . C . Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. I n A . M . Lesgold, J.W. Pelleqrino, S.D. Fokkema, & R . Glaser ( E d s . ) , Cognitive psychology and i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: Plenum Press,1978 Black, J.B. Story memory s t r u c t u r e . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Stanford University, 1978. Black, J.B. & Bower, G.H. Episodes as chunks in s t o r y memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 309-318. Black, J.B. & Bower, t i . H . htory understanding a s prob-ni-solving. Poetics, 1980, 9 , 223-250. Black, J.B. & Bern, H . Causal coherence a n d memory f o r events in n a r r a t i v e s . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1981, & 2 267-275. Bower, G . H . Experiments on s t o r y comprehension a n d r e c a l l . Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 211-231. Bower, G . H . , dlack, J . B . , & T . J . Turner, S c r i p t s in memory f o r t e x t . Coqnitive Psychology, 1979, lJ, 177-220. Bruce, B . C . Plans and s o c i a l a c t i o n s . I n R.J. Spiro, B . C . Bruce, & W.F. Brewer ( E d s . ) , Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. Clark, H . H . I n f e r r i n g what i s meant. I n W.J.M. Levelt & G . B . Flores d'Arcais ( E d s . ) , Studies in t h e perception of language. New York: Wiley, 1978. De Beaugrande, R. Text, discourse, a n d process. London: Longman, 1980. Graesser, A . C . How t o catch a f i s h : The memory a n d representation of common procedures. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 72-89. Graesser, A . C . , Robertson, S . P . , Lovelace, E.R., & Swinehart, D . M . Answers t o why-questions expose t h e organization of s t o r y p l o t and p r e d i c t r e c a l l of a c t i o n s . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 1 9 110-119. Hildyard, A . Children's production of inferences from oral t e x t s . Discourse Processes, 1979, 2, 33-56. Kintsch, W . , Mandel, T . S . , & Kozminsky, E . Summarizing scrambled s t o r i e s , Mem0r.v & Cognition, 1977, 5 , 547-552. Lichtenstein, E.H., & Brewer, W.F. Memory f o r goal-directed events. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 412-445.
52
TEXT STRUCTURE
Omanson, R . C . , Warren, W.H., & Trabasso, T . Goals, i n f e r e n t i a l comprehension, and r e c al l of s t o r i e s by ch i l d r en . Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 337-354. Schank, R . C . The s t r u c t u r e of episodes i n memory. In D . G . Bobrow & A . Collins ( E d s . ) , Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r es s , 1975. S t e i n , N.L.,& Glenn, C . G . An a n a l y s i s of s t o r y comprehension in elementary school ch i l d r en . In R . O . Freedle ( E d . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s in discourse processing. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1979. Voss, J. F. , Vesonder, G.T., & S p i l i c h , G.J. Text generation and r e c a l l by high-knowledge and low-knowledge i n d ividua ls. Journal of Verbal Learning a n d Verbal Behavior, 1980, Q, 651-667. Wimmer, H. Processing o f s c r i p t d ev i at i o n s by young c hildre n. Discourse Processes, 1979, 2. 301-310.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W . Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, I982
LEVELS OF FUNCTIGNING I N SEMANTIC MEMORY AND LEVELS OF COMPREHENSION OF TEXTS Stephane E h r l i c h , Jean-Michel P a s s e r a u l t , and Georges P e r s o n n i e r L a b o r a t o i r e de P s y c h o l o g i e (E.R.A. 797 du C.N.R,S.) U n i v e r s i t e de P o i t i e r s P o i t i e r s , FRANCE We assume t h a t a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n can be d e f i n e d as an o r g a n i z e d group o f concepts. The d i f f e r e n t concepts which f o r m t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e a c t i v a t e d and t h e i r i n f o r m a t i v e c o n t e n t i s determined. The concepts a r e coo r d i n a t e d by a s e t o f r e l a t i o n s which s t a b i l i z e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t o a d e f i n i t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Our r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t base concepts i n v o l v e s t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e concepts. However, t h i s v e r t i c a l a c t i v a t i o n does n o t a l l o w a n t i c i p a t i o n o f f u r t h e r events. Yet t h e t h e m a t i c concept, when a c t i v a t e d , does f a c i l i t a t e t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e se events.
INTRODUCTION
To understand a t e x t a s u b j e c t must b u i l d a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , which r e q u i r e s t h a t he s p e c i f y t h e semantic c o n t e n t o f one o r s e v e r a l concepts and o f t h e semantic r e l a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d between t h e s e concepts. To do so t h e s u b j e c t performs a mental r e r e a d i n g o f h i s / h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . We must t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h two s u c c e s s i v e stages i n t h e comprehension ( a ) t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n which i n v o l v e s a c t i process: v a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f a group o f p a r t i c u l a r concepts t h a t correspond t o t h e t e x t ; and ( b ) t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n which i n v o l v e s mental r e r e a d i n g and response t o s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s about t h e t e x t . We a r e p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d h e r e i n t h e f i r s t stage, i.e., t h e c o n s t r u c We w i l l emphasize t h e concept a c t i v a t i o n t i o n o f t h e t e x t representation. and c o o r d i n a t i o n processes. Our h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s made on t h e b a s i s o f concept a c t i v a t i o n w i t h s e v e r a l h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s . T h i s a c t i v i t y uses t e x t elements which a r e base concepts (N l e v e l ) . H i g h e r - l e v e l concepts reduce some base concepts (N + 1 concept a c t i v a t i o n ) , which a r e themselves reduced u n t i l t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept t h a t encompasses t h e whole t e x t i s reached. T h i s view of t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s i n l a r g e p a r t s i m i l a r t o t h o s e developed by Schank and Abelson (1977), Mandler (1978), K i n t s c h and van D i j k (1978), among o t h e r s , who assume t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o be a h i e r a r c h i c a l system. However, we w i l l d w e l l p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l c o n t e n t ( m a c r o s t r u c t u r e ) r a t h e r t h a n on t h e r u l e s (schemata) t h a t a r e used f o r i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n .
53
54
TEXT STRUCTURE
Three q u e s t i o n s w i l l be o f p r i m a r y concern, F i r s t , a t what moment i n t h e r e a d i n g of t h e t e x t a r e N+1, N+2, N+X concepts l i k e l y t o be a c t i v a t e d ? I s some a n t i c i p a t i o n p o s s i b l e ? I n o t h e r words, does a c t i v a t i o n o f a N+l concept, c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t e x t , i n v o l v e a n t i c i p a t o r y a c t i v a t i o n of a N+l concept r e l a t e d t o t h e m i d d l e o r t h e end o f t h e t e x t ? That w i l l be t h e o b j e c t o f o u r f i r s t experiment. Secondly, does a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept f a c i l i t a t e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l l o w e r c o n c e p t s ? Under what c o n d i t i o n s ? The t h i r d q u e s t i o n d e a l s w i t h t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concepts when used as cues i n r e c a l l . We s h o u l d l i k e t o know i f t h e N+1 c o n c e p t s ' e f f i c i e n c y as r e t r i e v a l cues i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e i r degree o f a c t i v a t i o n . Our second experiment r e f e r s t o t h e l a t t e r two p o i n t s . G e n e r a l l y speaking, t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e r e l e v a n t t o a t h e o r y o f how semantic memory f u n c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . We assume t h a t t h e processes o f a c t i v a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n t a k e p l a c e i n w o r k i n g memory. These processes a f f e c t concepts formed on t h e b a s i s o f p a s t experience, concepts which c o n s t i t u t e a p e r s o n ' s permanent memory ( E h r l i c h , 1979). These d e t e r m i n a t i o n - a c t i v a t i o n - c o n s t r u c t i o n processes i n v o l v e changes i n t h e s t a t e o f concepts, i n t h a t concepts which were p r e v i o u s l y i n a c t i v e a r e a c t i v a t e d ; concepts which were p r e v i o u s l y independ e n t a r e c o o r d i n a t e d ; and concepts which were p r e v i o u s l y i n d e f i n i t e i n t h e i r i n f o r m a t i v e content are f i l l e d w i t h a s p e c i f i c content (Ehrlich, i n p r e s s ) . Here we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s complex a c t i v i t y which depends a t t h e same t i m e on t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o t h e s u b j e c t , on h i s p r e v i o u s knowledge, and on a s e t o f c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s ( a n a l y s i s , and d i r e c t and in f e r e n t i a1 s y n t h e s i s )
.
ACTIVATION OF CONCEPTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS L e t us r e t u r n t o t h e f i r s t problem: a t what moment i n r e a d i n g t h e t e x t does concept a c t i v a t i o n o c c u r a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e h i e r a r c h y ? The f i r s t experiment uses a t e x t a b o u t a s p o r t s c o m p e t i t i o n ; t h i s t e x t i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r paragraphs. F i g u r e 1 shows i t s conceptual s t r u c t u r e . Three hundred s u b j e c t s were used; h a l f o f them r e a d t h e t e x t and t h e o t h e r s l i s t e n e d t o i t . For t h e purpose o f o u r experiment, t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e between r e a d i n g and l i s t e n i n g . These two c o n d i t i o n s have thus been grouped t o g e t h e r i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s . S u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r groups. Group I r e a d ( o r l i s t e n e d t o ) t h e f i r s t paragraph o n l y , Group I 1 r e a d ( o r l i s t e n e d t o ) paragraphs 1 and 2. Group I11 r e a d ( o r l i s t e n e d t o ) paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, and Group I V d e a l t w i t h t h e whole t e x t . There was o n l y one t r i a l ; a f t e r r e a d i n g ( o r l i s t e n i n g ) t h e s u b j e c t s had t o w r i t e down t h e answers t o two q u e s t i o n s , each of which concerned one o f t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l concepts. The s u b j e c t s were asked i f a g i v e n concept ( f o r i n s t a n c e , " p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e group") was d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y p r e s e n t i n t h e t e x t , o r absent a l t o g e t h e r . They were t o l d , by means o f an example, what was meant by " d i r e c t l y p r e s e n t " ( i n c l u d i n g p r a g m a t i c evidence i f a concept was n o t r e a l l y e x p l i c i t i n t h e t e x t ) , by " i n d i r e c t l y p r e s e n t " ( p r o b a b l e p r a g m a t i c i n f e r e n c e ) and by " m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n " ( t h a t w h i c h cannot be decided e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ) .
m
/
/
Figure 1
\
/
\
"COMPETITION SPORTIVE". F i g u r e 1 d e p i c t s t h e c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t a b o u t s p o r t s c o m p e t i t i o n used i n E x p e r i m e n t 1 . N - l e v e l c o n c e p t s a r e t e x t e l e m e n t s t h a t a r e subsumed by more g e n e r a l c o n c e p t s a t each l e v e l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y (N+Z,N+3), e n d i n g w i t h t h e t o p - l e v e l , t h e m a t i c c o n c e p t (N+3 i n t h i s exper i m e n t , N+X e l s e w h e r e ) t h a t p r o v i d e s t h e t o p i c o f t h e t e x t . The N + l c o n c e p t s a r e : " P h y s i c a l T r a i n i n g " , "Moral Encouragement","Preparation o f C l o t h i n g " , " P r e p a r a t i o n o f M e d i c a l S u p p l i e s " ; t h e N+2 c o n c e p t s a r e : " P r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e G r o u p " , " P r e p a r a t i o n o f E q u i p m e n t " ; and t h e N+3 t h e m a t i c c o n c e p t i s : " S p o r t s Compet it i on " .
2 0
56
TEXT STRUCTURE
Thus, we o b t a i n e d 15 t o 20 answers f o r each o f t h e seven concepts f o r m i n g t h e conceptual h i e r a r c h y . F o r each o f t h e seven concepts we noted t h e f r e q u e n c y o f " p o s i t i v e " answers, i.e., t h e answers t h a t i n d i c a t e d a d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t presence o f t h e concept i n t h e p a r t o f t h e t e x t d e a l t w i t h . F i g u r e 2 shows t h e s e f r e q u e n c i e s . Two groups can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . The b l a c k squares a r e t h o s e f o r which t h e frequency o f p o s i t i v e answers i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n chance ( 6 6 % ) ; t h e mean frequency v a r i e s from 91% t o 93%. The w h i t e squares a r e t h o s e f o r which t h i s frequency i s l e s s t h a n chance ( t h e mean f r e q u e n c y v a r i e s f r o m 23% t o 26%). Two p o i n t s may be made on t h e b a s i s o f these r e s u l t s : ( a ) As soon as s u b j e c t s became f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e f i r s t paragraph, a l l o f t h e d i r e c t l y s u p e r o r d i n a t e concepts were a c t i v a t e d , and t h i s i s t r u e f o r e v e r y l e v e l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y , N+1, N+2, and N+3. I n o t h e r words, s u b j e c t s i m m e d i a t e l y accessed t h e more g e n e r a l concept ( s p o r t s c o m p e t i t i o n ) , i .e., the t e x t topic. ( b ) There was no a n t i c i p a t i o n : Access t o t h e N+3 t o p i c concept d i d n o t a l l o w s u b j e c t s t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e N+2 and N+l concepts c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n o f l a t e r paragraphs. Thus, knowledge o f t h e t o p i c , a t l e a s t i n such a t e x t , does n o t i n i t s e l f a l l o w a n t i c i p a t i o n o f f u r t h e r events described i n t h e text. There remains a g r e a t d e a l o f i n d e t e r m i n acy. VERTICAL INTERACTIONS I N CONCEPT A C T I V A T I O N AT SEVERAL LEVELS L e t us now t r y t o answer t h e second q u e s t i o n : when a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e t e x t has been c o n s t r u c t e d , does a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+X concept f a c i l i t a t e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e l o w e r N+l concepts? To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n a second e x p e r i m e n t was conducted, u s i n g a n o t h e r t e x t about a f i s h i n g t r i p . T h i s t e x t f a l l s i n t o s i x paragraphs; each paragraph c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l base concepts, each d e s c r i b i n g a s p e c i f i c a c t i o n , such as, "The man was on h i s way towards t h e r i v e r . . . " , o r "...without b r e a k i n g any twigs The base concepts o f each paragraph c o u l d be reduced t o a N+1-level concept, such as, "To t r e a d s o f t l y " . S i n c e t h e r e a r e s i x paragraphs, t h e r e a r e s i x N+1-level concepts. F i n a l l y , t h e whole t e x t can be summarized by a t h e m a t i c concept (N+X l e v e l ) , "a f i s h i n g t r i p " .
...."
Four v e r s i o n s o f t h i s t e x t were c o n s t r u c t e d . The f i r s t and l a s t sentences ( 1 and 3 ) were t h e same f o r a l l v e r s i o n s , w h i l e f o u r v a r i a n t s (A-D) were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h e m i d d l e sentence (2), as shown f o r t h e f i r s t paragraph, below: 1 . The man was on h i s way towards t h e r i v e r A . He was v e r y c a r e f u l B. t o go f i s h i n g ; he was v e r y c a r e f u l 2. C. H i s new b o o t s h u r t him D. t o go f i s h i n g ; h i s new b o o t s h u r t him 3. He t i p t o e d l i g h t l y on t h e ground, w i t h o u t b r e a k i n g any t w i g s .
{
The f i r s t v e r s i o n , o r " f i s h i n g v e r s i o n " (A), d e s c r i b e s t h e successive stages o f a f i s h i n g t r i p . The second v e r s i o n , o r " f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme" ( B ) , i n c l u d e s t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n as i n t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n , b u t i n e v e r y o t h e r paragraph i t i s s t a t e d t h a t t h e t o p i c i s a
U=26%
.. m=93y0
m~92%
, /'
0 ~ 2 5 %
higher than chance
0 less than chance
,
' ,
d
a
Reading o f paragraphs 1 a n d 2
Readincl o f oaraqraph 1
H=91%
r m < m
r cn
0
1
c 1
z 0
r ! 0 z H z
( I> k
0223%
A A Reading o f paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
z wl
z
r!
0
x
m 3 0 W
-=
Reading o f t h e 4 paragraphs
Figure 2
"COWETITIOD SPORTIVE": Frequencies o f p o s i t i v e answers
58
TEXT STRUCTURE
f i s h i n g t r i p . This i s a r e i n f o r c e d f i s h i n g version t h a t should f a c i l i t a t e t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f N+l and N+X concepts. The t h i r d v e r s i o n , o r " h i k i n g v e r s i o n " ( C ) , i n c l u d e s t h e same t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n as t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n , e x c e p t f o r a s u b s t i t u t i o n : i n each one o f t h e s i x paragraphs, one i t e m o f f i s h i n g v e r s i o n i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p l a c e d by a n o t h e r p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t m o d i f i e s t h e meaning and s h o u l d make more d i f f i c u l t t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts and o f t h e t h e m a t i c N+X concept. The f o u r t h v e r s i o n , o r " h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme" (D), i n c l u d e s t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n as t h e p r e v i o u s one, b u t i n each o f t h e t h r e e odd-numbered paragraphs i t i s s t a t e d t h a t a f i s h i n g t r i p i s i n v o l v e d . I t i s an i l l - k n i t v e r s i o n i n which t h e r e i s i n t e r n a l i n c o h e r e n c e between two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , " f i s h i n g " o r "hiking". S i x groups o f s u b j e c t s , f r o m 17 t o 20 each, were used f o r t h i s experiment. The s u b j e c t s had t o r e a d t h e t e x t paragraph by paragraph. A f t e r each paragraph t h e y had t o answer two q u e s t i o n s . Two groups r e a d t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n (A) o r h i k i n g v e r s i o n ( C ) , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The q u e s t i o n s were t h e same f o r t h e two groups and f o r t h e s i x paragraphs, and a r e as f o l l o w s : 41:
Q2:
"Do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e t e x t d e a l s w i t h a f i s h i n g t r i p ? " "Do you t h i n k t h a t t h e t e x t d e a l s w i t h a h i k i n g t r i p ? "
Each of t h e f o u r r e m a i n i n g groups r e a d one of t h e f o u r v e r s i o n s A, B, C, o r 0. The two q u e s t i o n s a r e t h e same f o r t h e f o u r groups, b u t t h e y a r e d i f f e r e n t f r o m one paragraph t o a n o t h e r . They s u c c e s s i v e l y conc e r n t h e s i x N+l concepts r e l a t e d t o t h e s i x paragraphs. F o r i n s t a n c e , a f t e r t h e y have r e a d t h e f i r s t paragraph, s u b j e c t s have t o answer t h e following questions: Q1: Do you t h i n k t h a t t h e man i s t r e a d i n g s o f t l y ? ( f i s h i n g i n t e r p r e t . ) Q2: Do you t h i n k t h a t t h e man i s l i m p i n g ? ( h i k i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) S u b j e c t s have t o answer "yes","no" o r " I d o n ' t know" t o each q u e s t i o n . For each q u e s t i o n s u b j e c t s had t o answer w i t h "yes", "no", o r " I d o n ' t know". S u b j e c t s were g i v e n 15 sec. t o r e a d and 20 sec. t o answer each paragraph.
A cued r e c a l l t o o k p l a c e i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s i x paragraphs; t h e cues were t h e s i x N+l concepts. Three s u c c e s s i v e t r i a l s were g i v e n : r e a d i n g and q u e s t i o n answering f o r each paragraph, f o l l o w e d by cued r e c a l l . Our concern h e r e i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+1 concepts, g i v e n t h e N+X concept a c t i v a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e " f i s h i n g t r i p " , which i s one of t h e two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . For each s u b j e c t , on each t r i a l ; and f o r t h e s i x paragraphs we counted t h e number o f a f f i r m a t i v e answers o n l y f o r t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t concern t h e f i s h i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (QI i n t h e p r e v i o u s example). T h i s number v a r i e d from 0 t o 6 f o r each s u b j e c t . The r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e s 3a and 3b. Averages i n F i g u r e 3a correspond t o t h e a c t i v a t i o n of t h e N+l concepts i n t h e f o u r A, B, C, and D v e r s i o n s . Averages i n F i g u r e 3b correspond t o t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept i n t h e A ( f i s h i n g ) and C ( h i k i n g ) v e r s i o n s o n l y . A s expected, t h e frequency of a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e t h e m a t i c N t X concept v a r i e s as f o l l o w s : f i s h i n g v e r s i o n > h i k i n g v e r s i o n . However, f o r t h e N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n we o b t a i n e d : f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( B ) > f i s h i n g v e r s i o n ( A ) > h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (D) > h i k i n g version (C).
LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING I N SEMANTIC MEMORY
F i g u r e 3a Mean degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+1 concepts
59
Figure 3 b Mean degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+X c o n c e p t
An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e c o n f i r m s t h a t b o t h e f f e c t o f t e x t v e r s i o n and number o f t r i a l s on t h e N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n a r e s i g n i f i c a n t ( p < .001). There was no v e r s i o n x t r i a l s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The N+l concept a c t i v a t i o n i s a l s o b e t t e r f o r t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( B ) t h a n f o r t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n (A) ( p < .001), and f o r t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme ( D ) t h a n f o r t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n (C) ( p < -001). As f a r as t h e p r e v i o u s comparisons a r e concerned, t h e v e r s i o n s d i f f e r o n l y on one p d i n t : whether o r n o t t h e t e x t c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i n s u r e s N+X concept a c t i v a t i o n . Moreover, we can see t h a t t h e m a t i c a c t i v a t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y r e a l i z e d i f we examine t h e mean r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n F i g u r e 3b. The i n c r e a s e i n t h e N+l c o n c e p t a c t i v a t i o n f r o m t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n t o t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme, on t h e one hand, and f r o m t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n t o t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme, on t h e o t h e r , thus can o n l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e N+X concept a c t i v a t i o n . T h i s i s what we wanted t o demonstrate, namely, t h a t t h e N+1 concept a c t i vation, together w i t h determining t h e i n f o r m a t i v e content,both r e s u l t from t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e base concepts (N) and o f t h e t h e m a t i c concept (N+X)
.
VERTICAL COORDINATION AT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE CONCEPTUAL HIERARCHY. EFFICIENCY OF N+l RETRIEVAL CUES We can now a t t e m p t t o answer t h e t h i r d q u e s t i o n : I s t h e r e any r e l a t i o n between t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts and t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y as r e t r i e v a l cues f o r t h e t e x t ? A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e t e x t and answering t h e s i x q u e s t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e s i x paragraphs, each s u b j e c t i n each o f t h e s i x e x p e r i m e n t a l groups was asked t o r e c a l l t h e t e x t . The s i x N+1-level concepts c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e f i s h i n q v e r s i o n were used as r e t r i e v a l cues. Here, we s h a l l o n l y
TEXT STRUCTURE
60
c o n s i d e r t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f o u r groups o f s u b j e c t s who encoded t h e N+l cues, i.e., s u b j e c t s who had t o make a d e c i s i o n about t h e N+l concepts c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o each paragraph. For each s u b j e c t and f o r each o f t h e t h r e e t r i a l s , we n o t e d t h e items o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n (base c o n c e p t s ) r e t r i e v e d . We c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n common t o t h e f o u r v e r s i o n s A, B, C, and 0 o f t h e t e x t (12 i n f o r m a t i o n i t e m s ) . Two k i n d s o f a n a l y s i s were performed: f i r s t on t h e cued r e c a l l o f t h e f i r s t t r i a l a l o n e , t h e n on a l l t h r e e t r i a l s t o g e t h e r ; secondly, on t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e cued r e c a l l and t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts e s t i m a t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s experiment.
~1
VERSION
VERSION Fishing Hiking
Without Fishing Theme With Fishing Th eme
Without Fishing Theme With Fishing Theme
1,25
For a l l t h r e e t r i a l s (Max. = 36)
For t h e f i r s t t r i a l (Max. = 12) Table 1
Mean number o f base concepts r e c a l l e d p e r s u b j e c t F o r he f i r s t t r i a l , t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( p < .001) i s he i n .era c t i o n between t h e two f a c t o r s : i n t h e case o f t h e f i s h i n a v e r s on. t le t e x t w i t h o u t t h e f i s h i n g theme p r o v i d e s t h e b e s t r e s u 1 t s ; " i n t h e case o f t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e t e x t w i t h t h e theme c o n d i t i o n i s b e t t e r retrieved. The same i n t e r a c t i o n may be seen ( p < .05) when we t o t a l t h e performance on a l l t h r e e t r i a l s . Number o f t r i a l s i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t . We can see h e r e t h a t t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concept as r e t r i e v a l cues a p p r e c i a b l y d i f f e r s f r o m one t e x t c o n d i t i o n t o another. For a b e t t e r view o f t h e s e v a r i a t i o n s we have shown i n F i g u r e 4, t h e mean v a l u e s o f t h e cued r e c a l l on t h e f i r s t t r i a l ( Y a x i s ) i n terms o f mean values o f t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts (X a x i s ) . We f i n d t h a t t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concepts as cues i s h i g h e s t f o r an average degree o f a c t i v a t i o n ( a b o u t .50). T h i s i s t r u e f o r b o t h conditions, t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme ( A ) and t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (0).
LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING I N SEMANTIC MEMORY
61
' A
Cued i Recall
20
.10
-
A
C
. 2'5
I
.50
.75
*
Activation
Figure 4 F i r s t t r i a l : Mean p r o p o r t i o n o f base concepts r e c a l l e d i n terms o f degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts.
On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N+l concepts as cues i s l o w when t h e i r degree o f a c t i v a t i o n i s a l s o l o w -- t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme ( C ) -- o r when t h e i r degree o f a c t i v a t i o n i s h i g h -- t h e f i s h i n g version w i t h f i s h i n g theme (B). The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t i n t h e case o f t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme (C) t h e t e x t i s b a r e l y understood, and t h e base concepts ( N ) a r e d i f f i c u l t t o reduce i n t o N+1 concepts corresponding t o t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n . As a r e s u l t , t h e degree o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N+l concepts i s l o w as w e l l as t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y as cues. In the case o f t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (B), t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f the N+1 concepts i s n o t p r o b l e m a t i c ( h i g h degree o f a c t i v a t i o n ) . B u t t h i s a c t i v a t i o n i s produced more by t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept t h a n by t h e base concepts (N) o f t h e t e x t . I n o t h e r words, t h e s u b j e c t b u i l d s a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t a h i g h h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l by c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e N+l and N+X concepts, which i s c e r t a i n l y a good s t r a t e g y f o r comprehension o f t h e t e x t . Yet a t t h e same time, he does n o t t a k e i n t o account t h e base concepts. Hence, such a s t r a t e g y prevents him f r o m r e c o v e r i n g them a f t e r w a r d s and t h e r e f o r e i s bad f o r memorizing t h e t e x t . The e f f i c i e n c y , as r e t r i e v a l cues, o f t h e N+l concepts i s g r e a t e s t when a c t i v a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e concepts occurs a t t h e t h r e e h i e r a r c h i cal l e v e l s N, N+1, and N+2. The c o n d i t i o n s which seem t o be o p t i m a l a r e those o f medium d i f f i c u l t y : t h e f i s h i n g v e r s i o n w i t h o u t f i s h i n g theme (A) and t h e h i k i n g v e r s i o n w i t h f i s h i n g theme (D). These a r e c o n d i t i o n s i n which t h e N+l concepts cannot be a c t i v a t e d w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g s i m u l t a n e ously t h e N and N+X concepts.
62
TEXT STRUCTURE
CONCLUSION B r i e f l y , as f a r as t h e t e x t s i n t h i s s t u d y a r e concerned (whose semantic c o n t e n t c o n s i s t s o f a group o f h i e r a r c h i c a l c o n c e p t s ) , t h e b u i l d i n g o f a t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n shows t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. While r e a d i n g o r l i s t e n i n g , t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v a t e s b o t h t h e base concepts (N) and t h e s u p e r o r d i n a t e concepts (N+l, N+P, N+X) as well. I n t h e b e s t case t h e s u b j e c t s a r e a b l e t o g r a s p t h e h i g h e s t thematic concept (N+X) as soon as t h e y r e a d t h e f i r s t paragraph. However, they a r e n o t a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e N+l and N+2 concepts which r e f e r t o l a t e r paragraphs (Experiment I ) . 2. There a r e complex i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e concepts a c t i v a t e d a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e conceptual h i e r a r c h y . We have shown t h a t t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f a N+1 concept was h i g h l y dependent on t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e N base concepts o f a paragraph as w e l l as on t h e a c t i v a t i o n of t h e N+X t h e m a t i c concept (Experiment 11). 3. G e n e r a l l y speaking, t e x t comprehension and r e c a l l r e q u i r e a v e r t i c a l c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e N, N+1, and N+X concepts which a r e a c t i v a t e d a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f t h e h i e r a r c h y o f concepts. T h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n may be complete ( c o m p r i s i n g a l l t h r e e l e v e l s o f t h e h i e r a r c h y ) o r p a r t i a l . An N+l concept i s an e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l cue f o r a paragraph o n l y i f complete c o o r d i n a t i o n can be achieved, e s p e c i a l l y , a c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e base concepts N and of t h e N+l concept c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o each paragraph. T h i s v e r t i c a l c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e concepts causes d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t e x t s which a r e e i t h e r t o o d i f f i c u l t o r t o o easy t o understand (Experiment 1 1 ) .
...
REFERENCES E h r l i c h , S. Semantic memory: a f r e e - e l e m e n t s system. I n C.R. P u f f (Ed.), Memory, o r g a n i z a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e . New York: Academic Press, 1979. E h r l i c h , S. Un a s p e c t du fonctionnement de l a memoire semantique: l a c o n s t r u c t i o n d ' u n e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n de t e x t e p a r niveaux h i e r a r c h i s e s . B u l l e t i n de Psychologie, Numero s p e c i a l ( i n p r e s s ) . K i n t s c h , W.¶' & van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.
A code i n t h e node: t h e use o f a s t o r y schemata i n Mandler, J.M. r e t r i e v a l . D i s c o u r s e Processes, 1978, 14-35.
1,
Schank, R. & Abelson, R. S c r i p t s , plans, g o a l s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g : An i n q u i r y i n human knowledge and s t r u c t u r e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977.
DISCOURSEPROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S IT INTERESTING? TWO FACTORS IN TEXT PROCESSING Suzanne H i d i , William B a i r d and Angela Hildyard O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Education T o r o n t o , Canada
1
This paper examines t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f d i f f e r e n t t e x t t y p e s used i n n a t u r a l school s e t t i n g s and r e l a t e s some o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l the t e x t s . Our f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t w h i l e i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r mation i n n a r r a t i v e s a l s o t e n d s t o be i m p o r t a n t , t h e same i s n o t t r u e f o r e x p o s i t i o n s . For one t y p e of e x p o s i t i o n (mixed t e x t s ) where n a r r a t i v e elements were i n c l u d e d i n t h e e x p o s i t i o n s , i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n was found t o be u n r e l a t e d ; i n t h e o t h e r t y p e o f e x p o s i t i o n , where no i n t r u s i o n s o c c u r r e d , the m a t e r i a l was g e n e r a l l y n o t cons i d e r e d v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g . These d i f f e r e n c e s i n t e x t t y p e s were found t o be r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l by c h i l d r e n . INTRODUCTION Recent r e s e a r c h on how meaningful prose m a t e r i a l s a r e remembered has focused on n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . Some o f t h e n a r r a t i v e s i n v e s t i g a t e d have been s t o r i e s passed from one g e n e r a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r i n t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n l i k e Indian folk s t o r i e s o r f a i r y - t a l e s ( B a r t l e t t , 1932; Bower, 1976; Brown & Smiley, 12::; K i n t s c h , 1977; Mandler, S c r i b n e r , Cole & D e f o r e s t , 1980; Rumelhart, 1 9 7 5 ) . Others have been t a k e n from well known l i t e r a r y s o u r c e s l i k e Boccaccio's Decameron ( K i n t s c h , 1977) o r 0 ' F l a h e r t y ' s The S n i p e r ( J o h n s o n , t h i s volume). In a d d i t i o n , a g r e a t deal o f r e s e a r c h has been based on n a r r a t i v e s which were c o n s t r u c t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l purposes (Bower, t h i s volume; Bower & B l a c k , 1977; S t e i n & Glenn, 1979; S t e i n Nezworski, 1 9 7 8 ) .
I t i s e a s y t o e x p l a i n t h e o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e s a s t e x t materi a l s i n memory r e s e a r c h . In c o n t r a s t t o o t h e r l i t e r a r y forms such a s e x p o s i t i o n s , o p i n i o n e s s a y s , d e s c r i p t i o n s , e t c . , n a r r a t i v e s deal p r i m a r i l y with l i v i n g b e i n g s (humans o r a n i m a l s ) and we seem t o have s p e c i a l s e t s o f s t r a t e g i e s t o remember t h e t e m p o r a l l y s e q u e n t i a l g o a l - d i r e c t e d a c t i o n s and causal e v e n t s t h a t a r e normally a s s o c i a t e d with t h e l i v e s o f e x p e r i e n c i n g and p u r p o s i v e s u b j e c t s ( K i n t s c h , 1980; L i c h t e n s t e i n & Brewer, 1 9 8 0 ) . I t has a l s o been amply demonstrated t h a t good s t o r i e s have well d e f i n e d s t r u c t u r e s ( e p i s o d e s o r p l o t u n i t s which can be f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d i n t o s t r u c t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s ) and t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f such s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s guide t h e encoding and s u b s e q u e n t r e c a l l o f t h e t e x t s (Bower, 1976; Haberlandt, Berian & Sandson, 1980; K i n t s c h , Mandel & Kozminisky, 1977; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; S t e i n & Nezworski, 1 9 7 8 ) .
63
64
TEXT STRUCTURE
I t i s p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t w h i l e memory r e s e a r c h on meaningful m d t e r i a l s has focused on n a r r a t i v e s , from an e d u c a t i o n a l p o i n t o f view memory f o r genres o t h e r than s t o r i e s i s most c r u c i a l . Although c h i l d r e n d e a l with n a r r a t i v e s i n s c h o o l - - u s u a l l y i n t h e language a r t s programs--the g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e y a r e e x p e c t e d t o a c q u i r e through t h e i r r e a d i n g s i s pres e n t e d t o them i n some form o f e x p o s i t o r y p r o s e . In o u r s t u d y , we e x p l i c i t l y wanted t o look a t t h e t y p e s o f t e x t s t h a t e l e m e n t a r y school c h i l d r e n n a t u r a l l y e n c o u n t e r in t h e i r classrooms and l i b r a r i e s , We had t o f i n d m a t e r i a l s t h a t were o f comparable complexity b e c a u s e , i n a d d i t i o n t o examining some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t e x t s , we wanted t o s e e how c h i l d r e n r e c a l l t h e s e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of t e x t s . A f t e r a somewhat e x t e n s i v e b u t f r u i t l e s s s e a r c h we came a c r o s s a r e c e n t s t u d y by Kirkwood and Wolfe (1980) who a s s e s s e d through t h e Cloze procedure (Bormuth, 1967, 1968) t h e r e a d a b i l i t y o f t e x t m a t e r i a l s c u r r e n t l y i n use i n t h e O n t a r i o school s y s t e m . This l a r g e - s c a l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( o v e r 7,000 s t u d e n t s were i n v o l v e d ) e v a l u a t e d grade 4 , 7 , and 10 m a t e r i a l s found i n language a r t s and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . We were f o r t u n a t e enough t o gain a c c e s s t o t h e e v a l u a t e d t e x t m a t e r i a l s and s e l e c t e d 2 s i x passages from t h e grade 4 materi a l s , each a b o u t 230 words i n l e n g t h . Aside from comparable s c o r e s on t h e r e a d a b i l i t y measures o u r s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n was somewhat i n t u i t i v e . Reading through t h e m a t e r i a l s we n o t i c e d t h a t t h e r e were some s t o r y - t y p e n a r r a t i v e s ( u s u a l l y i n t h e language a r t s m a t e r i a l s ) , some e x p o s i t i o n s t h a t d e a f t p r i m a r i l y w i t h f a c t s , e x p l a n a t i o n a n d / o r i n s t r u c t i o n s and a t h i r d , "mixed" c a t e g o r y which we perceived a s e x p o s i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g some n a r r a t i v e e p i s o d e s o r e l e m e n t s . These n a r r a t i v e elements f r e q u e n t l y seemed i n t e n d e d by t h e c u r r i c u l u m w r i t e r s n o t so much t o convey e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m i t i o n a s t o m a i n t a i n c h i l d r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n and i n t e r e s t . For example, i n one t e x t t h a t d e a l t w i t h d i v i n g and the l i m i t a t i o n s o f a n c i e n t and e a r l i e r d i v e r s who had t o r e l y on t h e i r own lung powers, t h e f o l l o w i n g e p i s o d e was i n c l u d e d : There i s a legend t h a t , twenty-two c e n t u r i e s a g o , Alexander t h e Great descended i n t o the s e a i n an a i r t i g h t box t o o b s e r v e t h e c r e a t u r e s t h e r e . This s t o r y may well be t r u e , even i f we doubt t h e r e s t o f the t a l e - - t h a t he saw a f i s h so huge t h a t i t took t h r e e days t o swim p a s t a l t h o u g h i t was moving a s s w i f t l y a s a f l a s h o f l i g h t n i n g . T h i s s e a mons t e r must have been a b i l l i o n and a h a l f m i l e s l o n g . Some f i s h ! C l e a r l y , t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s e p i s o d e i s t o e n t e r t a i n more than t o convey e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t d i v i n g which i s t o be remembered. The import a n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e s e t y p e s o f t e x t s i s n o t so much whether c h i l d r e n r e c a l l t h e i n t e r e s t i n g e p i s o d e s , b u t how t h e s e n o n - e s s e n t i a l e p i s o d e s influence the retention of the other, essential information.
The s i x s e l e c t e d t e x t s (two from each c a t e g o r y ) a r e l i s t e d in Table 1 t o g e t h e r w i t h a s h o r t summary d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a c h . To examine t h e v a l i d i t y o f o u r t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s we asked f i v e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s t o rank t h e s i x t e x t s from t h e most s t o r y - l i k e t o t h e l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e . These r a n k i n g s a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d i n Table 1. No s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s needed t o conclude t h a t o u r c a t e g o r i e s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e r a n k i n g s . The n a r r a t i v e s were
65
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS IT INTERESTING? Table 1 Description of the Selected S i x Texts Narratives Toad
Introduces Hector the dog a n d old Toad and n a r r a t e s a f i g h t between them and i t s aftermath.
Hobo
Introduces a hobo l i v i n g i n Paris and describes how one day he finds t h r e e l i t t l e children hiding in his " h i dey- hol e" .
Mixed Texts Divers
Discusses d i v i n g a n d explains the ancient divers who had t o r e l y on power r a t h e r t h a n using some form gear. Includes an anecdote about G r e a t ' s adventures in the s e a .
l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own lung of breathingAlexander the
Easter Island
Describes geographical a n d archaeological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a n island i n the P a c i f i c . Includes some s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of what the i s l a n d ' s ancestors d i d , e . g . dragged some huge s t a t u e s 13 kilometres and fought a war between slender a n d s t o u t people.
Expositions Orienting the Map
Explains and i n s t r u c t s the usage of maps.
Electricity
Explains the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of good and b a d conductors, the dangers o f e l e c t r i c i t y and how t o avoid being shocked o r e l e c t r o c u t e d .
Ranking of the Texts from Most S t o r y - l i k e t o Least Story-like
~
Rates
A -
B -
-
C
-
D
E -
Old Toad The Hobo
2 1
2 1
1 2
2 1
1 2
Divers Easter Island
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
4 3
Orienting Map Electrici t y
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5
A 1
-
E a r e rankings of f i v e graduate s t u d e n t s . 6 goes from most s t o r y - l i k e t o l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e .
6
66
TEXT STRUCTURE
considered most s t o r y - l i k e and the expositions l e a s t s t o r y - l i k e . Our cont e n t i o n t h a t the mixed t e x t s h a d some n a r r a t i v e components was f u r t h e r supported by several r a t e r s who commented t h a t the3two mixed t e x t s were somehow between t h e s t o r i e s a n d the "non-stori es" . Before we proceed t o describe our study, we would l i k e t o discuss one more point pertaining t o the s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l s . The t e x t s t h a t we have been working with, while e c o l o g i c a l l y v a l i d , a r e not p a r t i c u l a r l y well organized or well formed, nor do they have d i s t i n g u i s h i n g r h e t o r i c a l s t y l e s . However, i t may be t h a t t h e encoding and r e t r i e v a l of these t e x t types d i f f e r from both q u a l i t a t i v e l y b e t t e r l i t e r a r y t e x t s or t e x t s t h a t are constructed by researchers f o r laboratory i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Specifying the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these t e x t types a n d t h e i r e f f e c t on s u b j e c t s ' r e c a l l i s e s s e n t i a l i f we want t o understand how children process school m a t e r i a l s and t o be able t o advise educators on how t o w r i t e b e t t e r curriculum materials ( s e e a l s o Pearson, 1981 ) . The procedure were r a t e d by t o r e c a l l the We will f i r s t r e p o r t on the
of t h e study involves two d i s t i n c t p a r t s . F i r s t , t h e t e x t s a d u l t s a n d secondly, grade 5 and grade 7 children were asked passages and t h e r e s u l t s were r e l a t e d t o the a d u l t r a t i n g s . discuss the t e x t analyses r e s u l t i n g from t h e r a t i n g s and then memory experiment.
TEXT ANALYSES We were primarily concerned w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n between important and i n t e r e s t i n g information i n the three t e x t types. F i r s t , groups of f i v e a d u l t s (graduate s t u d e n t s ) f o r each t e x t were asked t o evaluate how e s s e n t i a l information was. They were given t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s and asked t o underline the information they found " e s s e n t i a l " , t h a t i s , information t h a t was most important t o understanding t h e t e x t . They were a l s o asked t o cross o u t " i n e s s e n t i a l " , t h a t i s , unimportant information. Secondly, the same r a t e r s were asked t o r a t e t h e t e x t s f o r s a l i e n c y , i n the same manner. Each r a t e r received a d i f f e r e n t t e x t f o r each of two r a t i n g s . They were asked t o underline t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g segments of t h e t e x t a n d t o cross out the most boring, l e a s t i n t e r e s t i n g segments. Thus, f o r both s e t s of r a t i n g s , we had t h r e e types of evaluative segments: underlined, unmarked an,d crossed o u t . For each r a t i n g the r a t e r s were encouraged t o f i r s t preread the t e x t s . To compare and r e l a t e the two s e t s o f r a t i n g s we had t o assign the evaluat i o n s t o a common t e x t u a l segmentation. Consequently, each t e x t was parsed i n t o idea units following procedures used by Johnson, 1970; Brown & Smiley, 1977; Brown & Day, 1981. Operationally, an idea u n i t was defined as a main clause plus any r e l a t e d subordinate clauses o r phrases which expressed s e l f contained i d e a s . A few adjustments were made t o t h e i n i t i a l idea u n i t parsing t o accommodate c l e a r boundaries generated by the evaluation of e s s e n t i a l and s a l i e n t information which had been missed. Most of these adjustments required the breaking u p of no more than two u n i t s in any t e x t i n t o two more elementary u n i t s .
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS I T INTERESTING?
67
To derive t h e " e s s e n t i a l i t y " s c o r e s , each idea u n i t was given scores of 1, 2 , 3 f o r underlined, unmarked and crossed out importance ra tings respect i v e l y f o r each r a t e r a n d then averaged over the f i v e r a t e r s . ( e . g . i f a l l five r a t e r s underlined an idea u n i t i t received a score of 1 . ) I n the great majority o f cases the ev al u at i v e rating-segments matched idea u n i t boundaries, b u t in those cases where complex sentences received two d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s - - t h e b e t t e r e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g ( i . e . , "lowest" score 1-3) was t h e one used t o r ep r es en t t h e e n t i r e idea u n i t ,
To derive t h e "s a l ien cy " scores t h e same procedure was repeated a s on the e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s . Our r a t i n g procedures a r e somewhat s i m i l a r to those reported by Brown & Smiley, 1977, 1978; a n d Brown & Day, 1981. These researchers parsed t h e t e x t s so t h a t each l i n e included a s i n g l e idea u n i t . Raters repeatedly eliminated one q u ar t er of the l e a s t important idea units until the f i n a l remaining q u a r t i l e , which was considered t o be the most important. O u r method d i f f e r e d from Brown e t a l . in t h a t we did not parse the t e x t s in advance a n d r a t e r s scored t h e t e x t s on a s i n g l e reading foll owing a preview.
Now, turning t o our r e s u l t s , the c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y a n d saliency scores of each idea u n i t a r e shown i n Table 2 together with the percentage of idea u n i t s considered r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and important (idea u n i t s having average of 1-1.4 s c o r e s ) . Table 2 Correlations o f E s s e n t i a l i t y a n d Salience Ratings of D iffe re nt Text Types a n d Percentage of Idea Units Rated Esse ntia l a n d S a l i e n t Percentage of Idea Units Judged* ~~
Narratives A B
Toad Hobo
Correlation Be tween Essen t i a 1i t y and Salience Ratings
Essential/ I mpo r t a n t
Salient/ Interesting
.638 .778
39% 43%
30% 43%
.153 .005
50%
31 % 30%
-643 .517
33% 42%
Mixed Texts C 0
Divers Easter Island
25%
Expositions
E
Orienting t h e Map
F Electricity
0x
5%
* Idea u n i t s which had an average score of 1-1.4 on the e s s e n t i a l i t y and the s a l i e n c y r a t i n g s were included.
68
TEXT STRUCTURE
The h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s ( r = .64, . 7 8 ) show t h a t i n t h e n a r r a t i v e s t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a u n i t s t e n d t o be a l s o i m p o r t a n t . I n t h e mixed t e x t s , however, no r e l a t i o n seems t o e x i s t between s a l i e n c y a n d e s s e n t i a l i t y (r = .15, . 0 2 ) . F i n a l l y , l o o k i n g a t t h e f a c t u a l e x p o s i t i o n s , t h e r e a s o n a b l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s ( r = .64, . 5 2 ) a r e m i s l e a d i n g , s i n c e p r a c t i c a l l y no i d e a s were f o u n d t o be v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h i s c a t e g o r y b y o u r r a t e r s ( 0 and 5 % ) . Thus, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s o n l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o d e r a t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a s t e n d t o b e more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e l e a s t i n t e r e s t i n g o n e s . These d a t a c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of i m p o r t a n c e a n d i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s i n t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s . Two h y p o t h e s e s , b o t h w a r r a n t i n g f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , may be p u t f o r t h on t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e r e s u l t s . F i r s t , i t may be an i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f good s t o r i e s t h a t t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o t e n d s t o be i m p o r t a n t . T h i s r e l a t i o n between e s s e n t i a l i t y and s a l i e n c y may c o n t r i b u t e , as do t h e s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s a n d t e m p o r a l frames o f s t o r i e s , t o o u r a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l n a r r a t i v e s b e t t e r t h a n many o t h e r t y p e s o f t e x t s . Bower ( t h i s v o l u m e ) , r e p o r t s t h a t t h e more u n u s u a l o r n o v e l a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t segment, t h e more l i k e l y p e o p l e c o n s i d e r i t i m p o r t a n t . He was r e p o r t i n g on n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . These r e s u l t s seem t o c o r r o b o r a t e o u r f i n d i n g s t h a t i m p o r t a n c e a n d s a l i e n c y c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y i n n a r r a t i v e s . The same does n o t seem t o be t r u e f o r o u r o t h e r two t e x t t y p e s . Second, p e r h a p s one m a j o r p r o b l e m w i t h e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s i s t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o p r o d u c e e x p o s i t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e i m p o r t a n t / e s s e n t i a l and i n t e r e s t i n g / s a l i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n converge. RECALL Twenty-seven g r a d e 5 and t w e n t y - e i g h t g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s p a r t o f t h e s t u d y . Each s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d o n l y one o f t h e s i x t e x t s ; t h e t e x t s were d i s t r i b u t e d r a n d o m l y . The c h i l d r e n w e r e a s k e d t o r e a d t h e passages u n t i l t h e y w o u l d be a b l e t o r e c a l l them; t h e t i m e s p e n t r e a d i n g t h e t e x t s was s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d . As a c h i l d s i g n a l l e d t h a t h e was f i n i s h e d , t h e t e x t was c o l l e c t e d , t h e t i m e was marked and t h e c h i l d was a s k e d t o r e c a l l t h e passage as c l o s e t o i t s o r i g i n a l f o r m as p o s s i b l e i n a w r i t t e n form (Immediate r e c a l l ) . Four days l a t e r we r e t u r n e d t o t h e s c h o o l and t e s t e d t h e c h i l d r e n a g a i n . We r e m i n d e d them o f o u r p r e v i o u s e n c o u n t e r and a s k e d them t o w r i t e down e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e y r e c a l l e d f r o m t h e passage ( D e l a y e d r e c a l l ) . Each c h i l d was g i v e n a b l a n k s h e e t t o w r i t e on, w h i c h had t h e o r i g i n a l t i t l e o f t h e i r passage as a cue ( e . g . , D i v e r s ) . The d a t a , i n summary, i n c l u d e s i m m e d i a t e a n d d e l a y e d r e c a l l f o r two grades, 5 and 7, f o r s i x d i f f e r e n t t e x t s i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . The r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s . Two r a t e r s independently assessed whether o r n o t an i d e a u n i t from t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t was p r e s e n t i n t h e r e c a l l , e i t h e r i n a v e r b a t i m o r p a r a p h r a s e f o r m ( i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was 9 2 % ) . A n a l y s e s were t h e n c o n d u c t e d on p r o p o r t i o n a l r e c a l l s c o r e s (number o f i d e a u n i t s r e c a l l e d d i v i d e d by number o f i d e a u n i t s i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t ) f o r b o t h t h e D e l a y e d and I m m e d i a t e r e c a l l cond itions.
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S I T INTERESTING?
69
The Immediate r e c a l l s c o r e s d o n ' t show a n y s i g n i f i c a n t g r a d e o r t e x t d i f f e r ences a l t h o u g h , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , n a r r a t i v e s t e n d t o be r e c a l l e d b e s t . The Delayed r e c a l l s c o r e s show an i n t e r a c t i o n between age and t e x t t y p e s . I n grade 5 d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s m a l l between t e x t t y p e s - - n a r r a t i v e s t e n d t o be r e c a l l e d b e s t - - i n Grade 7, however, d i f f e r e n c e s a r e much l a r g e r , more t h a n double e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s b e i n g r e c a l l e d i n n a r r a t i v e s t h a n i n t h e m i x e d t e x t s . E x p o s i t i o n s p l a c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f way between t h e o t h e r two c a t e g o r i e s . The s l o p e s o f l i n e s i n F i g u r e 1 a l s o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t w h i l e t h e decay ( d i f f e r e n c e s between I m m e d i a t e and D e l a y e d r e c a l l ) r a n g e s between 40%-50% i n r a d e 5 f o r a l l t e x t t y p e s , i n g r a d e 7 t h e r e i s n o decay f o r n a r r a t i v e s f a c t u a l l y r e c a l l s l i g h t l y i n c r e a s e s o v e r t i m e ) , 20% f o r e x p o s i t i o n s a n d o v e r 50% f o r t h e m i x e d t e x t s . These r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n c o n c e n t r a t e on s a l i e n t i d e a s i n t h e m i x e d t e x t s and t h e y e i t h e r d o n ' t s t o r e o r c a n n o t r e t r i e v e o v e r d e l a y t h e e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s t h e same way as when i n t e r e s t i n g i d e a s c o r r e l a t e w i t h e s s e n t i a l i t y .
To f u r t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e t h e above p o i n t , F i g u r e 2 compares t h e d e l a y e d r e c a l l o f e s s e n t i a l and n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s . T h i s f i g u r e c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s we f o u n d between t e x t t y p e s . I n t h e case o f n a r r a t i v e s and e x p o s i t i o n s , a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s were r e c a l l e d t h a n n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s . I n t h e case o f t h e m i x e d t e x t s t h e r e was n o d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t w o c a t e g o r i e s i n g r a d e 5 and a r e v e r s e t r e n d was f o u n d a t w a d e 7, 50% more n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s b e i n g r e c a l l e d t h a n e s s e n t i a l one;. 60
a-
t
I-I
50
U
u
-
Essential Idea Units Non-essential Idea Units
w a
6
40
+
.C
L
0
30
L
a
5
20
z 10
Grades
5
7 Narratives
5
7 Mixed Texts
5
7 Expositions
Figure 2 Comparison o f E s s e n t i a l and N o n - E s s e n t i a l I d e a U n i t s - - D e l a y e d R e c a l l P a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h e s e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t i f e s s e n t i a l i d e a s a r e t o be r e t a i n e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e i t may b e b e t t e r t o g i v e c h i l d r e n somewhat b o r i n g e x p o s i t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t e x t s t h a t m i x i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n an u n r e l a t e d manner.
TEXT STRUCTURE
70
I n t r u s i o n s comprised l e s s than 10% o f t o t a l r e c a l l , and were e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r d i f f e r e n t t e x t s and g r o u p s , t h e r e f o r e n o t encouraging f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . A l s o , r e a d i n g time d i d n o t show g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s a s a c o v a r i a t e . In a d d i t i o n , we computed the number o f words r e c a l l e d o v e r t h e number o f words i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t s . The c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i s p r o p o r t i o n and t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i d e a u n i t s r e c a l l e d was .93 f o r immediate and .94 f o r d e l a y e d r e c a l l . This f i n d i n g c o r r o b o r a t e s some o f o u r p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s (Hidi & H i l d y a r d , 1980) showing e x t r e m e l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s between word c o u n t s and p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o u n t s i n n a t u r a l t e x t s .
As o u r main i n t e r e s t focused on how well t h e most e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t t y p e s was r e t a i n e d , we s e p a r a t e d t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e c a l l s c o r e o f each s u b j e c t f o r t h e e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s ( i d e a u n i t s which had an a v e r a g e s c o r e o f 1-1.4 on t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s ) and t h e n o n - e s s e n t i a l i d e a u n i t s ( i d e a u n i t s which had an a v e r a g e s c o r e o f 1.5-3 on t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y r a t i n g s ) . Figure 1 shows t h e mean p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l idea u n i t s r e c a l l e d o f t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s f o r t h e Immediate and Delayed r e c a l l conditions. 100
0 A
Narrative
- Mixed
70:
-
Exposition
60 7
7
m
2
rx
50
c
.-+J0 L
40
0
Q
0
a L s a
30
a,
x
20
10
1
1
Immediate Delay Grade 5
Immediate Delay Grade 7
Figure 1 Mean P r o p o r t i o n Recall o f E s s e n t i a l Idea U n i t s
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT I S I T INTERESTING?
71
GENERAL D I S C U S S I O N The d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l o f t h e t h r e e t e x t t y p e s b y g r a d e 5 and 7 s t u d e n t s o v e r a f o u r d a y d e l a y s u g g e s t s d i f f e r e n t i a l p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e t e x t s . The important finding i s t h a t our subjects recalled essential information better than n o n - e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y i n n a r r a t i v e s and e x p o s i t i o n s . W i t h m i x e d t e x t s t h e r e was n o t r e n d t o r e c a l l t h e c r u c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l l y from t h e r e s t o f t h e t e x t , suggesting t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n d i d tlot f o c u s on t h e e s s e n t i a l / i m p o r t a n t segments o f t h e m a t e r i a l s . Why d i d o u r s u b j e c t s do so p o o r l y w i t h t h e m i x e d t e x t s ? How d i d t h e n a r r a t i v e e l e m e n t s i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e comprehension a n d / o r r e c a l l o f t h e essent i a l / i m p o r t a n t t e x t segments? I f a series o f propositions occur i n a t e x t t h a t i s n o t c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o p r e v i o u s and s u b s e q u e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , a d i s t a n c e i s c r e a t e d between t h e two b o r d e r i n g e s s e n t i a l o r o o o s i t i o n s . T h i s d i s t a n c e can o n l y be b r i d g e d i n memory s t o r a q e b y e l i m i n a t i n g t h e t r i v i a l u n r e l a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n . Brown, Campione & Day (1981 ) , a n d Brown & Day ( 1 9 8 1 ) . c l a i m even young c h i l d r e n can d e l e t e t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . However, t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s used e x p o s i t i o n s e s p e c i a l l y w r i t t e n b y them f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l p u r p o s e s and t h u s i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e t r i v i a l segments t h a t had t o be e l i m i n a t e d were h i g h l y salient. I n o u r m i x e d t e x t s , t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was sometimes v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g a n d c h i l d r e n h a d p r o b l e m s d e l e t i n g t h e s e segments. Thus, i t seems t h a t i t i s n o t enough t o have c o n t e n t knowledge t o e n a b l e one t o r e c o g n i z e and e l i m i n a t e t r i v i a . I f t h e t r i v i a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s h i g h l y s a l i e n t i t may i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e normal s e l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f t e x t processing. P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s shown t h a t i f s t o r i e s v i o l a t e some o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e g e n r e , t h e n t h e t e x t s a r e h a r d e r t o comprehend and a r e more r e a d i l y f o r g o t t e n (Bower, 1976; T h o r n d y k e , 1 9 7 7 ) . A n a l o g o u s l y , i t seems t h a t i f we v i o l a t e some o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s o f e x p o s i t i o n s - a t l e a s t a t t h e ages when c h i l d r e n a r e j u s t g e t t i n g a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e e x p o s i t o r y g e n r e s , t h e same p a t t e r n s o f d e c r e a s e d comprehension and r e c a l l may emerge. Given t h a t t h e s a l i e n t / i n t e r e s t i n g segments w h i c h v i o l a t e t h e s t r u c t u r e o f an e x p o s i t i o n a r e o f a n o t h e r g e n r e t y p e t h a n t h e r e s t o f t h e t e x t ( e . g . n a r r a t i v e e l e m e n t s i n an e x p o s i t i o n ) , a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s may a r i s e . K i n t s c h ( 1 9 8 0 ) a r g u e d t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n q t e x t i s an a c t o f p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , ( c f . Schank & A b e l s o n , 1977 and B l a c k & Bower, 1 9 8 0 ) a n d t h a t i n t h i s p r o b lem s o l v i n g a p p r o a c h t e x t - t y p e s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p l a y a c r u c i a l r o l e . T h e r e f o r e , a i d i n g o u r comprehension o f s t o r i e s , e x p o s i t i o n s , o p i n i o n essays, e t c . i s a s e t o f g e n r e - s p e c i f i c problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h i d e n t i f y , l o c a t e and o r g a n i z e t h e i n c o m i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h o u r g e n e r a l knowledge a b o u t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r g e n r e . For example, when s o m e t h i n g u n e x p e c t e d happens i n a s t o r y , o u r s t o r y - s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s h e l p u s i d e n t i f y t h e c u r i o u s e v e n t as t h e conf l i c t o r c o m p l i c a t i o n . Now, i m a q i n e t h a t y o u a r e r e a d i n g a n e x p o s i t i o n about s c i e n t i f i c m a t t e r , l i k e t h e b r e a t h i n g problems o f a n c i e n t d i v e r s , and s u d d e n l y an u n e x p e c t e d , i n t e r e s t i n q a n e c d o t e a b o u t A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t appears i n t h e t e x t . The q e n r e - s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h have been s e t i n g e a r t o d e a l w i t h e x p o s i t i o n s a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s o f s c i e n t i f i c e x p o s i t i o n s such as c a u s a l and f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s e s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s , e t c . ( K i n t s c h , 1980) and may have t o s t r u g q l e t o h e l p comprehend such a n u n e x p e c t e d a n d i n c o n g r u o u s
72
TEXT STRUCTURE
input a s a n a r r a t i v e anecdote. What may be required t o guide a n d control comprehension a t t h i s point a r e s p e c i f i c n a r r a t i v e problem solving s t r a t e g i e s . Obviously, problems may be created e i t h e r b y having o u r young readers switch back and f o r t h between g en r e- s p eci f i c s t r a t e g i e s or by requiring them t o deal with unexpected information with ina ppropria te s t r a t e g i e s . According t o the Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) model, t e x t comprehension i s a n automatic c y c l i cal process which has normally low resource requirements. I n each cycle c e r t a i n propositions a r e r et ai n ed in the short-term buffer t o be connected with t h e input of t h e next cy c le . I f sequential proposit i o n s a r e u n r e l a t ed , no connections can be made and resource consuming search o r inference o p er at i o n s a r e required which r e s u l t in noticeable d e t e r i o r a t i o n of performance. In our mixed t e x t s , where t r i v i a l information i s n o t r e a d i l y disc a rda ble , s e r i o u s i n t e r r u p t i o n s may occur in t h e automatic process. The macroo p e r a t o r s t h a t transform t h e t e x t base i i t o a s e t of macropropositions representinq the g f s t o f t h e t e x t a r e s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e d with by the highly s a l i e n t , t r i v i a l i n f o r m t i o n . The r e s u l t of such inte rfe re nc e seems t o be a s h i f t between t h e macrostructure intended by t h e curriculum w r i t e r ( c o n t a i n i n g a l l of the important t e x t segments) a n d those a bstra c te d by th e readers ( c o n t a i n i n g few of t h e important t e x t segments). The conclusion t h a t macrostructures ar e e f f e c t e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mixed t e x t i s a l s o supported by t h e f a c t t h a t while l i t t l e e f f e c t of mixed t e x t i s apparent on immediate r e c a l l , l ar g e d i f f er enc e s appear a f t e r delay. Macrostructures a r e presumed t o be t h e s t r u c t u r e s re sponsible f o r long-term memory while m i c r o s t r u ct u r es a r e presumed t o have a c e ntra l role in shortterm memory s t o r a g e .
I n t h e above d i sc u s s i o n , we implied t h a t t h e more s a l i e n t the s t r u c t u r a l l y i n t e r f e r i n g information i s , t h e more l i k e l y i t i s t o d i s r u p t normal process i n g . We seem t o be d eal i n g with a n a f f e c t i v e component of t e x t s which can be d e a l t with independently o f s t r u c t u r a l co n side ra tions. This highly neglected aspect of t e x t processing i s only now s t a r t i n g t o emerge in the memory research of meaningful prose. Bower ( t h i s volume), f o r example, r e p o r t s on t h e r o l e of novel, i n t e r e s t i n g information in n a r r a t i v e t e x t s . Anderson ( t h i s volume) a l s o looks a t the e f f e c t of s a l i e n c y in sentence processing.
I n a r e c e n t paper, Brewer (1981) presented a s t r u c t u r a l - a f f e c t theory which r e l a t e s c e r t a i n discourse s t r u c t u r e s t o p a r t i c u l a r a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s a n d then r e l a t e d these two f a c t o r s t o s t o r y enjoyment. The a f f e c t i v e component i s presumed t o c a p t u r e t h e f a c t t h a t s t o r i e s e n t e r t a i n through evoking a f f e c t s such a s suspense, s u r p r i s e and c u r i o s i t y . While these categories can be e a s i l y t i e d t o s t r u c t u r a l p r o p er t i es of s t o r i e s , r e l a t i n g a f f e c t i v e components t o discourse s t r u c t u r e s in o t h er genres i s much more t e n t a t i v e . For example, mixed t e x t s of t h e kind we looked a t have no c l e a r c ut s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s t h a t could be r e a d i l y r e l a t e d t o a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s and i n t e r e s t i n g information seems t o compete with important information t h a t i s s t r u c t u r a l l y based.
Our r e s u l t s suggest t h a t in ad d i t i o n t o specifying the s t r u c t u r e of t e x t (Meyer, 1981), we must a l s o consider s al i en cy r e l a t i o n s , i . e . how saliency i n t e r a c t s with s t r u c t u r a l co n s i d er at i o n s . These pa tte rns may be c ruc ia l t o comprehension a n d subsequent r e c a l l of t e x t .
73
THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IS I T INTERESTING?
Footnotes ' P a r t i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p a p e r was p r o v i d e d b y t h e O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. 'Kirkwood and W o l f e ( 1 9 8 0 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t i n g e n e r a l t h e t e x t s were t o o d i f f i c u l t a t t h e g r a d e l e v e l s t h e y were u s e d a t . S i n c e we wanted t o t e s t g r a d e 5 a n d g r a d e 7 c h i l d r e n we f e l t c o m f o r t a b l e u s i n g g r a d e 4 m a t e r i a l s . 3 0 u r n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s b e a r a r e s e m b l a n c e t o Nancy M a r s h a l l ' s ( t h i s volume) d i s t i n c t i o n o f t e m p o r a l and t o p i c a l c a t e g o r i e s and B r e w e r ' s ( 1 9 8 1 ) d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e t i m e s e r i e s t h r u s t o f n a r r a t i o n and t h e l o g i c a l t h r u s t o f e x p o s i t i o n . References Allocation o f attention during reading.
Anderson, R.C.
T h i s volume.
B a r t l e t t , F.C. Remembering: A s t u d y i n e x p e r i m e n t a l and s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . Cambridge, E n g l a n d : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 3 2 . B l a c k , J.B.
a n d Bower, G . H . S t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g as p r o b l e m s o l v i n g . P o e t i c s , 1980, 2, 223-250.
Bormuth, J.R. Comparable c l o s e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension t e s t scores. J o u r n a l o f Reading, 1067, 1(1, 291-299. Bormuth, J.R. Close t e s t r e a d a b i l i t y : C r i t e r i o n r e f e r e n c e score. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 1968, 5 ( 3 ) ,189-196. Bower, G . H . E x p e r i m e n t s on s t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g and r e c a l l . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 1_8, 511-534 Bower, G . H .
Plan-goal processes i n n a r r a t i v e understanding.
T h i s volume.
Bower, G.H. a n d B l a c k , J.B. A c t i o n schemata i n s t o r y comprehension and memory. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n a n n u a l m e e t i n g , San F r a n c i s c o , 1 9 7 7 . Brewer, W.F. The s t r u c t u r e o f s t o r i e s i n w e s t e r n c u l t u r e : Crossc u l t u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e O I S E c o n f e r e n c e o n t h e n a t u r e and consequences o f l i t e r a c y , S t . Mary, Canada, October, 1981. L e a r n i n g t o l e a r n : On t r a i n i n g Brown, A . L . , Campione, J.C., a n d Day, J.D. s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n f r o m t e x t s . E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , 1981,
lO(2).
I
Brown, A.L. a n d Day, J.D. S t r a t e g i e s a n d knowledge f o r s u m m a r i z i n g t e x t s : The d e v e l o p m e n t o f e x p e r t i s e . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , 1981. Brown, A.L. a n d S m i l e y , S.S. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r s t u d y i n g 1076-1088. t e x t s . C h i l d Development, 1978, 9,
'
74
TEXT STRUCTURE References (Cont ' d )
Brown, A . L . and Smiley, S . S . R a t i n g t h e importance o f s t r u c t u r a l units of prose p a s s a g e s : A problem o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e development, Child Development, 1977, 9, 1-8. H a b e r l a n d t , K . , B e r i a n , C . , and Sandson, F . The e p i s o d e schema i n s t o r e p r o c e s s i n g . - J o u r n a l o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19,635-650. H i d i , S . and H i l d y a r d , A. The comparison o f o r a l and w r i t t e n p r o d u c t i o n s o f two d i s c o u r s e t y p e s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual meeting o f t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston, April 1980. Johnson, R . E . Prose l e a r n i n g s : v a u l t ? This volume.
How e s c a p e t h t h e e from t h e porous s t o r a g e
Recall of prose a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l importance J o u r n a l o f Verbal Behavior, 1970, 2, 12-20.
Johnson, R . E .
o f the linguistic units.
K i n t s c h , W . On comprehending s t o r i e s . In P . C a r p e n t e r & M . Just ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. K i n t s c h , W . Text r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e on r e a d i n g e x p o s i t o r y m a t e r i a l s , Madison, Wisconsin, November 1980. K i n t s c h , W . , Mandel, T.S., and Kosminsky, E . Summarizing scrambled s t o r i e s . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1977, 5 ( 5 ) , 547-552. K i n t s c h , W . and Van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . Psychological Review, S e p t . 1978, 8 5 ( 5 ) , 363-394. Kirkwood, K.J. and Wolfe, R.G. Matching s t u d e n t s and r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s : A c l o z e - p r o c e d u r e method f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e r e a d i n g a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t s and t h e r e a d a b i l i t y o f t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l s . Toronto: OlSE P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1980. Memory f o r g o a l - d i r e c t e d e v e n t s . L i c h t e n s t e i n , E . H . and Brewer, W.F. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1980, 11, 412-445. Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l .
Remembrance o f t h i n g s p a r s e d : S t o r y C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 111-151.
Mandler, J.M., S c r i b n e r , S . , Cole, M . , and Oe F o r e s t , M . Crossc u l t u r a l i n v a r i a n c e i n s t o r y r e c a l l . Child Development, 1980, 51, 19-26. M a r s h a l l , N . The e f f e c t s o f t e m p o r a l i t y upon r e c a l l o f e x p o s i t o r y p r o s e . This volume.
THA
IS
IMPORTANT BUT
rs
IT INTERES ING?
75
References ( C o n t ' d ) P r o s e a n a l y s i s : P r o c e d u r e s , purposes jnd problems. Paper Meyer, B . J . F . p r e s e n t e d a t t h e American E d u c a t i o n a l Rese Pch A s s o c i a t i o n c o n v e n t i o n , Los Angeles, A p r i l 1981. Pearson, P.D. A n a l y s i s o f t e x t - f l o w s t r u c t u r e i n c h i l d r e n ' s c o n t e n t a r e a m a t e r i a l s . (Technical Report). University of I l l i n o i s , i n press. Rumelhart, D . E . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . In D. Bobrow and A . C o l l i n s (Eds . ) , S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1975. Schank, R . C . and Abelson, R . S c r i p t s , p l a n s , g o a l s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1977. S t e i n , N . L . and Glenn, C . G . An a n a l y s i s o f s t o r y comprehension i n e l e m e n t a r y school c h i l d r e n . In R . D . F r e e d l e ( E d . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s i n d i s c o u r s e processitlg (Volume 2 ) . New J e r s e y : Ablex P u b l i s h i n g Corp., 1979. S t e i n , N . L . and Nezworski, T . The e f f e c t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a 7 s e t on s t o r y memory. Discourse P r o c e s s e s , 1978, 1. 177-193. C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory o f Thorndyke, P.W. n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 77-1 10.
DISCOURSE PROCESSLVG A. FIammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-HolhndPublishing Company, 1982
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE KEADING
M a r g r e t Rihs-Middel Department o f Psychology University o f Fribourg F r i bourg Switzerland A n a l y s i s o f r e a d i n g t i m e f o r sentences o f two subs e q u e n t l y p r e s e n t e d s t o r i e s l e d t o p r o p o s i n g two t y p e s o f expectancy s t r u c t u r e s a f f e c t i n g s t o r y p r o c e s s i n g ; an expectancy s t r u c t u r e assumed t o stem f r o m knowledge a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n i n g process and an expectancy s t r u c t u r e developed on t h e b a s i s o f an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g s t o r y r e a d i n g . Thorndyke's s t o r y grammar served as operational tool i n defining s t o r y structure. A c o n c e p t u a l framework i s p r e s e n t e d p r o p o s i n g t h e comparison o f p e r c e p t i v e and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s , t h e f u s i o n o f which y i e l d s a knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t o r e d i n memory. INTRODUCTION Recent advances i n p r o s e r e s e a r c h have underscored an i n c r e a s i n g concern w i t h t h e p r o c e s s i n g and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c o h e r e n t p r o s e passages. The c e n t r a l t o p i c o f t h i s paper i s t h e q u e s t i o n what t y p e s o f a n t i c i p a t i o n p l a y a r o l e i n r e a d e r ' s p r o c e s s i n g . T e x t p r o c e s s i n g i s g e n e r a l l y viewed as t h e encoding o f a g i v e n t e x t i n t o a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g knowledge s t r u c t u r e s (Bock, 1978) a process Norman (1978) l a b e l l e d " a c r e t i o n " . The n o t i o n o f preprocessed knowledge s t r u c t u r e s has been an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e i n a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e (Minsky, 1975; Schank and Abelson, 1977). Whereas Bock tends towards t h e v i e w t h a t a g i v e n p r o s e passage i s r e o r g a n i z e d by t h e r e a d e r around an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l node and s u b s e q u e n t l y s t o r e d i n memory, t h e a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e p e o p l e seem t o assume t h a t each incoming b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a h e a v i l y preprocessed s t r u c t u r e such as a frame o r s c r i p t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s p o i n t o f view a n t i c i p a t i o n does n o t Seem t o be an a c t i v e ongoing process b u t r a t h e r a w e l l - o r g a n i z e d d a t a base. Thorndyke (1975, 1977) seems t o s u b s c r i b e t o t h e a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e p o i n t o f v i e w by p o s t u l a t i n g a s t o r y grammar t h a t may as w e l l be w r i t t e n as a frame s t r u c t u r e ( 1 9 7 5 ) . The s t o r y grammar, i n h i s view, serves as an expectancy s t r u c t u r e t h a t equips t h e r e a d e r w i t h a h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n p e r m i t t i n g a more e f f i c i e n t s t o r a g e o f t h e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l , Thorndyke was a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e s e n o t i o n s u s i n g r e c a l l measures as t h e dependant v a r i a b l e.
76
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES IN PROSE READING
S
I
E X T ERNAL -
S T I M U L-I
1
+
STIMULUS TRANSFORMATIOI
i PERCEPTIVE STRUCTURE
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURE
FEATURE COMPARISON
COMPARISON 3USTIFIES REACTION ?
1
*I
YES
REACTION SELECTION
1
1
REACTION PRODUCTION
1 R
F1 - Fn :
MEMORY
REACTION
FILES Figure 1
Process model f o r t h e simultaneous build-up of perceptive s t r u c t u r e s and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s .
77
TEXT STRUCTURE
78
Whether t h e focus of prose research should r a t h e r be on t e x t paraphrasing o r on pre-established knowledge s t r u c t u r e s seems t o deper:d on the type of prose s t u d i e d , on t h e previous knowledge o f the r e a d e r , on the nature of the reading assignment, and on t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n c l i n a t i o n towards l i n g u i s t i c s , memory research o r a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t appears t o me, however, t h a t both aspects deserve f u r t h e r consideration. Giving each aspect i t s m e r i t , I would l i k e t o present some sugyestions a b o u t what i s going on during reading. I assume t h a t the reader c r e a t e s two types of s t r u c t u r e s during reading, c a l l e d perceptive s t r u c t u r e s and expectancy s t r u c t u r e s . The perceptive s t r u c t u r e i s assumed t o r e f l e c t t h e reading process a s i t proceeds from l e f t t o r i g h t a n d from one proposition t o t h e next. Complementary t o t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e , an expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s b u i l t u p which r e f l e c t s which aspects of his p r i o r knowledge the reader brings i n t o play t o understand what he i s reading. Both s t r u c t u r e s a r e combined i n a comparison process which i s guided by the r e a d e r ' s preferences, p r i o r i t i e s , and mathemagenic options. T h e , r e s u l t of the comparison process i s stored i n memory and contains the perceived deviations of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e from t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e . The present work focusses on t h e r o l e of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s in f a i r y t a l e s . I t i s assumed t h a t a f a i r y - t a l e - s p e c i f i c expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s created a s soon a s the reader perceives an opening l i n e l i k e "once upon a time.. This element of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e evokes well-ordered s e t s of elements in memory t h a t a r e combined according t o t h e requirements of the actual s i t u a t i o n t o form the expectancy s t r u c t u r e . R a t c l i f f (1978) has described a s i m i l a r process f o r t h e r e t r i e v a l of a probe item trom a memory s e t . Rihs (1982) has discussed t h i s process in more d e t a i l . Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the simultaneous build-up of perceptive and expectancy structures. .'I.
I t becomes c l e a r from t h e flow-diagram t h a t deviations of t h e perceptive s t r u c t u r e from t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e should lead t o a slow-down of reading, since a more exhaustive memory search i s needed in order t o produce a b e t t e r f i t t i n g expectancy s t r u c t u r e . I do assume, however, t h a t expectancy s t r u c t u r e s f o r very common types of t e x t , such a s f a i r l y t a l e s , a r e r a t h e r stereotyped and a r e commonly present a s t h e f i r s t l i n e of t e x t i s processed. The s t o r y t e l l e r in t h i s type of prose usually observes a s e t of r u l e s with respect t o t h e s e t t i n g , course of possible a c t i o n , general s t r u c t u r e , outcome, and s t y l e . These r u l e s a r e assumed t o correspond t o the expectancy s t r u c t u r e s of t h e reader. Since t h e r u l e s formulated by Thorndyke (1975, 1977) proved t o be e f f e c t i v e in predicting r e t e n t i o n , t h e present work focusses on t h e question whether these same r u l e s have predictive value when they a r e used t o represent the r e a d e r ' s expectancy structures. Another f a c e t of an individual expectancy s t r u c t u r e i s assumed t o stem from those experiences t h a t immediately precede the reading of a given t e x t . I f t h e preceding s i t u a t i o n has elements in common with t h e actual reading s i t u a t i o n t h e p r i o r experience might have the same properties as a n adapt a t i o n level and brings t h e reader i n t o a s t a t e of mind against which the new experience i s contrasted. An experiment was designed t o t e s t separately the influence of t h e s e two types of expectancy, namely:
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE R E A D I N G
-
79
t h e i n f l u e n c e o f knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n process; and t h e i n f l u e n c e o f an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e r e a d i n g o f given t e x t .
METHOD
60 s o c i a l s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y on a v o l u n t a r y b a s i s . Materials two f a i r y t a l e s o f t h e G r i m m b r o t h e r s were m o d i f i e d u s i n g Thorndyke's s t o r y grammar i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e an i d e n t i c a l s t r u c t u r e f o r b o t h s t o r i e s . The f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o s t o r y grammar s t r u c t u r e o r i n a scrambled v e r s i o n w i t h t h e s t o r y sentences b e i n g randomly assigned t o p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n . The second s t o r y was e i t h e r shown a c c o r d i n g t o s t o r y grammar s t r u c t u r e o r w i t h t h e c o n c l u d i n g sentence b e i n g presented i n s t e a d o f sentence N r . 18, l o w i n t h e h i e r a r c h y , o r i n s t e a d o f sentence N r . 22, h i g h i n t h e h i e r a r c h y (see F i g u r e 3 ) . A l l o f t h e presented sentences were made i d e n t i c a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o number o f words ( 8 ) and number o f s y l l a b l e s ( 1 2 ) . I n b o t h s t o r i e s , a l l v e r s i o n s c o n t a i n e d t h e same 25 sentences w i t h o n l y p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n a l t e r e d . Apparatus A Kodak C a r r o u s e l S l i d e P r o j e c t o r served f o r s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n on a c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n screen. I n f r o n t o f t h e s u b j e c t s t h e r e was a board w i t h t h r e e response b u t t o n s . The p r e s s i n g o f any o f t h e s e b u t t o n s r e s u l t e d i n t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e n e x t sentence. Responses were measured by an e l e c t o n i c s t o p watch, s c a l e 1/100 second. Procedure The s t u d e n t s s a t i n a b o o t h v i s u a l l y separated f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . There was o n l y one r e a d e r a t a t i m e . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d a l o u d . The s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o press t h e green b u t t o n when t h e y f e l t t h a t t h e y understood t h e p r o j e c t e d sentence q u i t e we1 1, t o press t h e ye1 low b u t t o n when t h e y f e l t something was n o t c l e a r , and t o p r e s s t h e r e a d b u t t o n when they had a q u e s t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o j e c t e d sentence. They were asked t o t r y aot t h e mechanism f i r s t and t o press any o f t h e b u t t o n s . Then, t h e 25 sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y were p r e s e n t e d w i t h o u t i n t e r r u p t i o n . A f t e r w a r d s , t h o s e sentences t h a t had l e d t o ambiguous responses were presented a g a i n and t h e s t u d e n t s had t s e x p l a i n what bothered them. The procedure f o r t h e second s t o r y was t h e same. P r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e second s t o r y followed immediately a f t e r the questioning o f t h e students. The i n t e r v a l between t h e s l i d e change and s u b j e c t s ' b u t t o n p r e s s i n g was taken as t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e . The r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e ( 1 / r e a c t i o n time i n seconds) was d e f i n e d as r e a c t i o n speed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y were t a k e n t o g e t h e r i n o r d e r t o f o r m groups o f f i v e sentences a c c o r d i n g t o p r e s e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n . The means o f t h e r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r t h e c o h e r e n t and t h e scrambled p r e s e n t a t i o n group a r e shown i n F i g u r e 2. A s p l i t - p l o t d e s i g n was used f o r
80
TEXT STRUCTURE
a n a l y s i s o f d a t a . Examination o f t h e s i m p l e main e f f e c t s proved t h e r e p e t i t i o n f a c t o r t o be s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h F= 3.75; P+=.Ol ( d f = 4) f o r the w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n and F= 12.28; P C . 0 1 ( d f = 4 ) f o r t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n . The between s u b j e c t s comparison o f t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d w i t h t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n y i e l d s an F= 4.33; P C . 0 5 f o r t h e s i n g l e comparison ( d f = 1). A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e r e s u l t s t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n read t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences r a t h e r s l o w l y , then speeded up t h e i r r e a d i n g t i m e and r e a d t h e l a s t f i v e sentences s l o w l y a g a i n . The comparison o f t h e f i r s t f i v e and t h e l a s t f i v e sentences w i t h t h e sentences 6 t o 20 by t h e S c h e f f e t e s t i s s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h an F= 2 2 . 9 ; Fcritical= 17.37 ( f o r t h e .05 l e v e l ) . These r e a c t i o n speed r e s u l t s f i t q u i t e w e l l t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s t o r y grammar u n d e r l y i n g t h e two s t o r i e s , s i n c e t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences and t h e l a s t f i v e sentences correspond t o l e v e l s 1 and 2 o f t h e s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y whereas t h e m i d d l e 15 sentences correspond t o t h e l e v e l s 3 and 4 of t h e s t o r y grammar (see F i g u r e 3 ) .
0.180
Reaction ----speed 0.170
0.160
0.150
/
/
/ "we 1 1- o r d e r e d
/W
0.140
/
/
/
X- -%
'I
"
s c r a rn b 1e d "
0.130 1
1 - 5
2
3
6 - 1 0 11 - 1 5 1 6
4
5 (Sentence
-
20 2 1 - 25 (Sentences
m-
Figure 2 Means of r e c i p r o c a l r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f f i r s t s t o r y as a f u n c t i o n o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r o f t h e sentences.
z 0
u
c V
d
c
>
I V ZCT
04 HE I-W
a~ 3 8
CT CTZ W H
c
ZI HU H
I
> I
zv
OCC
g; C C I
cc w z + H
0
Z H 3 _I
.. .. .. .. ..
w
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE R E A D I N G
c
..
3 L
c, 0
L aJ
L aJ
rc v)
L
aJ
n .^
3 S v)
al .r
v)
L c, 0 c
aJ
!=
c, m
L aJ
.r
X
a W c,
L
n 0 Y-
O
h
73
h c L
Y a,
v 7
r aJ . m
m
m .r
LL
L 0
t-
m
+J 0 C
.r
0
n
V
m
aJ 3 V
L c, 3
L v)
c,
2 v)
c, 0
o m
Le
E
n
SaJ
.-o
c , 3
u a? Js v
SaJ
c, m s
aJaJ Lc,
a s La Llva )
81
82
TEXT STRUCTURE
I n t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n , however, r e a c t i o n speed i s s l o w e s t d u r i n g t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences, t h e n i n c r e a s e s s h a r p l y o v e r t h e sentences f i v e t o f i f t e e n , whereas t h e i n c r e m e n t i s l e s s f o r t h e l a s t t e n sentences. The comparison o f sentences 1 - 5 w i t h sentences 6 - 10, by t h e Tukey t e s t , y i e l d s a s i g n i f i c a n t q - v a l u e o f 4.4; q c r i t i c a l = 2.2 ( f o r t h e .05 l e v e l ) . T h i s i s t r u e a l s o f o r t h e comparison o f sentences 6 - 10 w i t h sentences 11 - 15, w i t h q = 4.3. These f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e a d i n g o f t h e w e l l o r d e r e d f i r s t s t o r y i s g u i d e d by t h e expectancy s t r u c t u r e s c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t sentences o f t h e s t o r y which a r e combined d u r i n g t h e l a s t sentences t o f o r m t h e s u b s t r a t e o f what m i g h t be s t o r e d i n memory. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a f r o m t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n seems t o i m p l y t h e same process o f c o n s t r u c t i n g an expectancy s t r u c t u r e which, i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, amounts t o making sense o u t o f unconnected sentences and then t r y i n g t o f i n i s h t h e t a s k as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . I n a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , t h e d a t a of t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n were rearranged i n o r d e r t o p e r m i t a comparison of i d e n t i c a l sentences and 25 one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e were c a r r i e d o u t . Four o f t h e s e comparisons proved t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . They a r e shown i n T a b l e 1. Table 1. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r sentences o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y w i t h i d e n t i c a l c o n t e n t (wo = w e l l - o r d e r e d , s = scrambled) Sentence shown i n position: wo
S
8 14 16 20
5 22 3 2
Mean R e a c t i o n Speed (1/S) wo
0.179 0.183 0.184 0.176
F - value
Error Probability
S
0.128 0.146 0.143 0.134
15.5 5.1 8.7 9.7
0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01
The r a t h e r s t r i n k i n g g e n e r a l r e s u l t t h a t p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r seems t o a f f e c t t h e p r o c e s s i n g r a t e r a t h e r l i t t l e f o r sentences w i t h i d e n t i c a l number o f words and s y l l a b l e s , makes t h e few s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons even more s a l i e n t f o r t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h r e e o f t h e f o u r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s r e f e r t o t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences f o r t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t t h e f i r s t sentences o f a t e x t s e r v e t o s e t up an expectancy s t r u c t u r e r e g a r d l e s s o f wether t h e t e x t i s c o h e r e n t o r scrambled. I t c o u l d a l s o be suggested t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l c o u r s e o f t h e r e a c t i o n speed c u r v e f o r t h e scrambled and t h e w e l l - o r d e r e d c o n d i t i o n a r e j u s t a m a t t e r o f a r t e f a c t . However, a c l o s e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i r s t 17 sentences o f t h e second s t o r y , where sentences and t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r were i d e n t i c a l , would n o t s u p p o r t t h i s argument, b u t r a t h e r p o i n t toward t h e h y p o t h e s i s o f
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES IN PROSE R E A D I N G
83
a build-up of two d i f f e r e n t types of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s during the reading of the f i r s t s t o r y .
I t becomes apparent from Figure 4 t h a t subjects who f i r s t experienced a well-structured s t o r y , read t h e subsequent s t o r y more slowly than those subjects who f i r s t read a scrambled version of the same s t o r y . I t looks a s i f the f a s t e r processing of sentences, observed towards the end of the f i r s t story under scrambled condition, c a r r i e d over t o the processing of t h e second s t o r y . Students with a well-ordered f i r s t s t o r y , on the other hand, seem to have processed t h e second s t o r y a t just about t h e same pace a s the f i r s t story. Considering the course of t h e two reaction speed curves shown in Figure 4 , one may conclude furthermore t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of processing does not seem t o be affected by d i v e r s e p r i o r experience since u p s and downs move along similar l i n e s f o r b o t h conditions, with the basic d i f f e r e n c e in reaction speed remaining r a t h e r constant. As f o r t h e a n a l y s i s of var.iance, the f i r s t , f i f t h , nineth and f i f t e e n t h sentence comparison a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t point in t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h e other 1 3 sentences. I t might be argued t h a t the non-significant d i f f e r e n c e s a r e due t o a c e i l i n g e f f e c t , since reaction speeds of those four sentences a r e among the f a s t e r ones.
Reaction speed
-
(11s) 0.28
r
0.26
-
0.24
-
--.---.-Group
1
+--*-Group
2
*/ /sp--*--*
/
-
/*\ \*' -*, 0.20 - \*-/*-*--*. */ -
0.18 -?,
0.16
I1
/
/-. '
/ \
\
1
I
1
\\
*
// \\
-.- -@\.@ I I
\
/
/
I
I
I
4
1
I
L
"
' '
"
Figure 4 Means of the reaction speed measured during the presentation of the second sentences 1 - 17; t h e f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r shown "wellordered" (Group 1 ) or "scrambled" (Group 2 )
story f o r the
b
/
'kFA---.
\@,A .
\ ''
0 '
-.
\ \
/-./
/-.\,
\
k t
0.22,-
/
F. / \\
84
TEXT STRUCTURE
The i m p a c t on q u a l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g by immediate and remote p r i o r experience was f u r t h e r s t u d i e d i n a two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d e s i g n . For t h i s purpose, t h e same c o n c l u d i n g sentence had been presented e i t h e r i n t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n (TERMINAL), o r i n s t e a d o f a sentence low i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y (LOW) o r i n s t e a d o f a sentence h i g h i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y ( H I G H ) . This i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e f a c t o r (we1 1-ordered, wo, and scrambled, s c ) i s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 5 w i t h t h e mean r e a c t i o n speeds o f t h e s i x groups as. dependent measures. F i g u r e 5 shows t h a t t h e group w i t h a w e l l - o r d e r e d s t o r y as p r i o r experience had - as a l r e a d y mentioned above - l o w e r r e a c t i o n speeds t h a n t h e group w i t h a scrambled v e r s i o n as f i r s t s t o r y . Here, too, t h i s t y p e o f e f f e c t seems t o be l i m i t e d t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g r a t e o n l y , w i t h o u t a f f e c t i n g q u a l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g , s i n c e t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n c o n d i t i o n y i e l d s t h e same p i c t u r e f o r b o t h p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e c o n d i t i o n s , i . e . , r e a c t i o n speed i s h i g h e s t i n terminal p o s i t i o n , stays a t r a t h e r f a s t l e v e l s f o r t h e "high i n s t o r y grammar c o n d i t i o n " , whereas i t does decrease i n t h e " l o w i n s t o r y grammar" condition.
f , I 1 I l l
I l l
HIGH
LOW
TERMINAL
(Position o f c o n c l u d i n g s e n t e n c e i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y ) Figure 5 Mean r e a c t i o n speed measured f o r t e r m i n a l sentences p l a c e d a t d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n s i n t h e second s t o r y ; t h e f i r s t s t o r y was e i t h e r shown i n a w e l l - o r d e r e d (wo) o r scrambled ( s c ) v e r s i o n
EXPECTANCY STRUCTURES I N PROSE READING
a5
The p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e f a c t o r proves t o be s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , w i t h F= 6.1, and an e r r o r p r o b a b i l t y p= 0.017. The i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r i s s i g n i f i c a n t , t o o , w i t h F= 6.2 and p= 0.004. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two f a c t o r s . Therefore, t h e comparison o f means was analyzed f o r t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r o n l y . The d i f f e r e n c e found between t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n and i n t e r r u p t i o n low i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The i n t e r r u p t i o n f a c t o r l o w versus h i g h i n s t o r y grainmar h i e r a r c h y i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t p o i n t s t o a trend i n t h e opposite d i r e c t i o n . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3, t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n by t h e t e r m i n a l sentence i n s t e a d o f a sentence h i g h i n s t o r y grammar h i e r a r c h y c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h e end o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s m i g h t be t h e reason why r e a c t i o n speed f o r t h e sentence i n t e r m i n a l p o s i t i o n and h i g h i n s t o r y grainmar h i e r a r c h y was rather similar. The f a c t , however, t h a t a t e r m i n a l sentence o f a r a t h e r u n s p e c i f i c n a t u r e "then f i n a l l y t h e happy l i f e began" seems t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e a d e r s ' expectancy f o r t h e n e x t sentence i n t h e m i d d l e p a r t o f t h e s t o r y , supports t h e n o t i o n o f expectancy - g u i d e d r e a d i n g i n t h e m i d d l e p a r t o f the s t o r y . T h i s t y p e o f expectancy i s assumed t o stem from knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a c q u i r e d i n a l o n g - t e r m l e a r n i n g process which, i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, i s n o t a f f e c t e d by an e x p e r i e n c e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e reading o f t h e s t o r y . Thus i t i s argued t h a t two independent types o f expectancy o p e r a t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t case, an expectancy a r i s i n g o u t o t w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d knowledge s t r u c t u r e s and an expectancy a r i s i n g f r o m an immediately p r e c e d i n g e x p e r i e n c e . CONCLUDING REMARKS A n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a l e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t i o n s as f a r as s t o r y processing i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case i s concerned.
1 . D u r i n g t h e f i r s t f i v e sentences r e a d e r s r e a d t h e f i r s t s t o r y r a t h e r s l o w l y , t h e n speeded up d u r i n g t h e m i d d l e s e c t i o n and r e a d t h e l a s t s e c t i o n more s l o w l y again. T h i s f i n d i n g corresponds e x a c t l y t o t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l o f t h e s t o r y grammar shown i n F i g u r e 3 and i s i n t e r p r e t e d t o i m p l y t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s t o r y - s p e c i f i c expectancy s t r u c t u r e w h i c h subsequently i s compared w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r d a t a r e a d i n and f i n a l l y i n t e g r a t e d t o form a "ready-to-store'' version o f t h e story. 2. A scrambled v e r s i o n o f t h e same t e x t i s r e a d s l o w l y i n t h e b e g i n n i n g w i t h a gradual speed-up f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s m i g h t be viewed as an expectancy s t r u c t u r e b u i l d i n g up d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few sentences w i t h o u t a summing-up a t t h e end o f t h e s t o r y t h a t r e p r e s e n t s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f expected and r e a d m a t e r i a l .
3. The response speed shown i n t h e s c r a m b l e d v e r s i o n o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y seems t o c a r r y o v e r t o t h e second s t o r y , s i n c e t h e second s t o r y i s r e a d c o n s i s t e n t l y f a s t e r by t h e group t h a t had a scrambled f i r s t s t o r y as compared t o t h e group t h a t had a w e l l - o r d e r e d v e r s i o n o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y . This i l l u s t r a t e s one t y p e o f expectancy due t o an i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g experience. The f i r s t s t o r y i s assumed t o s e r v e as a p a c e - s e t t e r f o r t h e
86
TEXT STRUCTURE
subsequent s t o r y . 4. I n t e r r u p t i o n o f t h e c o u r s e of t h e s t o r y as d e f i n e d b y t h e s t o r y grammar l e d o t a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n r e a c t i o n speed when t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n occured i n a l o w h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t o r y grammar. T h i s i s viewed as t h e i n f l u e n c e of expectancy s t r u c t u r e s stemming f r o m a s t e r e o t y p e d knowledge a b o u t t h e c o u r s e o f f a i r y t a l e s . 5. Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e p r e s e n t e d r e s u l t s seem t o argue f o r v i e w i n g s t o r y p r o c e s s i n g as a combined top-down and bottom-up process which i s m o d i f i e d by "mathemagenic" f a c t o r s such as t h e c a r r y - o v e r o f f a s t r e a c t i o n s f r o m t h e scrambled c o n d i t i o n i n t h e f i r s t s t o r y t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e second story. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d h e r e was supported t h r o u g h a r e s e a r c h q r a n t t o P r o f . Dr. A . Flammer, g r a n t N r . 1.181-0.75 and Nr. 1.714-0.78 f r o m t h e Swiss N a t i o n a l Fund f o r S c i e n t i f i c Research. Ply p a r t i c u l a r thanks go t o Professor Flammer f o r h i s h e l p f u l encouragement and s u p p o r t o f t h i s work. REFERENCES Bock, M. Wort-, Satz-, T e x t v e r a r b e i t u n g . S t u t t g a r t : Kohlhamnier, 1978. Minsky, M. A framework f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g knowledge. I n P. Winston ( E d . ) , The psychology o f computer v i s i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Norman, D.A. Notes towards a t h e o r y o f complex l e a r n i n g . I n A.M. Lesgold, J.W. P e l l e g r i n o , S.D. Fokkema, and R . G l a s e r (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e psychology and i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: Plenum Press, 1978. R a t c l i f f , R. A t h e o r y o f memory r e t r i e v a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 59 - 107. K i hs-bliddel , M a r g r e t . Erwartung, Wahrnehmung und Fragen. D o c t o r a l t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of F r i b o u r g : Department o f Psychology, 1982. Schank, R.C. and Ahelson, R.P. S c r i p t s , p l a n s , g o a l s and understanding. New York: W i l e y , 1977. Thorndyke, P. C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and nieniory o f n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 2, 77 - 110. Thorndyke, P . C o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n human s t o r y comprehension and memory. D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n f o r d , Ca. 1975.
85,
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammerand W, Kintseh (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, I982
HOW DO DIFFERENT READERS LEARN WITH DIFFERENT TEXT ORGANIZATIONS? Wol f g a n g S c h n o t z Deutsches I n s t i t u t f i r F e r n s t u d i e n an d e r I l n i v e r s i t a t T u b i n g e n Tubingen F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany The i n t e r a c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t l e a r n e r s was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r a more complex i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t . Two o b j e c t s were d e s c r i b e d a c c o r d i n g t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s , whereby t h e c o n t e n t was o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t i n t h e one case, and b y a s p e c t i n t h e o t h e r c a s e . The t w o t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n f r o n t t h e l e a r n e r w i t h d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s i n g demands, and i n t e r a c t d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h h i s / h e r i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g character i s t i c s : They a c c e n t u a t e d i f f e r e n t s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e t e x t c o n t e n t , t h e scope t h e y p r o v i d e f o r i n d i v i d u a l p r o c e s s i n g i s d i f f e r e n t , and t h e y v a r y i n t h e deg r e e o f " s e n s i b i l i t y " t o w a r d s d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowl e d g e . P r a c t i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s on how t o m a t c h l e a r n e r s and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e p o i n t e d o u t . INTRODUCTION W i t h i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s t h e same c o n t e n t c a n o f t e n be p r e s e n t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways. I n t h i s case t h e a u t h o r has t o ask h i m s e l f w h i c h t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d be m o s t a d e q u a t e . F o r one t h i n g , a s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s i g n a l s t o t h e r e a d e r what i s i m p o r t a n t and what i s l e s s i m p o r t a n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e a u t h o r u s u a l l y t r i e s t o o r g a n i z e t h e t e x t i n such a way, t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , which i s most i m p o r t a n t a c c o r d i n g t o h i s e d u c a t i o n a l object i v e s , w i l l be a c c e n t u a t e d . On t h e o t h e r hand, a s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n has s p e c i f i c p r o c e s s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . The d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e l e a r n e r w i l l be w i l l i n g and a b l e t o meet t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s depends on h i s / h e r i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . i.e., p r i o r knowledge, c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . e x p e c t a t i o n s , g o a l s , i n t e r e s t s e t c . ( s e e McConkie, 1977; Anderson, 1 9 7 7 ) . An i n c r e a s i n g amount o f r e s e a r c h o n p r o s e l e a r n i n g i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f l e a r n e r - t e x t i n t e r a c t i o n (e.g., F r e d e r i k s e n , 1977; K i n t s c h and van D i j k , 1978; L e s g o l d and P e r f e t t i , 1978), b u t m o s t s t u d i e s c a r r i e d o u t so f a r were r e s t r i c t e d t o v e r y s h o r t s i m p l e n a r r a t i v e passages. Research o n t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n u s e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l and e x p o s i t o r y t e x t s i s j u s t b e g i n n i n g ( s e e Meyer, 1979, 1980; van D i j k , 1980). I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e a r e n e a r l y n o i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e s e t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Such an a n a l y s i s w o u l d be o f g r e a t p r a c t i c a l u s e i n h e l p i n g t o make b e t t e r founded d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m o s t a d e q u a t e t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c learners i n order t o reach s p e c i f i c educational objectives.
87
88
TEXT STRUCTURE
The f o l l o w i n g s t u d y aimed a t g e t t i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . Two t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e n u s e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s were s e l e c t e d : The a u t h o r o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t s i s o f t e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e problem o f h a v i n g t o present v a r i o u s o b j e c t s ( e v e n t s , f a c t s , v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s e t c . ) and t o compare them w i t h each o t h e r . Each o b j e c t w i l l u s u a l l y be p r e s e n t e d f r o m s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s . A s an example l e t us assume t h a t t h e o b j e c t s t o be p r e s e n t e d a r e : p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . I n t h i s c a s e , one c o u l d d e s c r i b e each k i n d o f t h e r a p y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s : Some s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g i t s t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s , i t s t h e r a p e u t i c p r i n c i p l e s , i t s a s s u m p t i o n s on t h e n a t u r e o f neur o t i c d i s o r d e r s and, f i n a l l y , i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c t r a d i t i o n . A s p e c i f i c t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n ( o r " s u p e r s t r u c t u r e " a c c o r d i n g t o van D i j k , 1 9 8 0 ) c a n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s e t o f s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s subsuming t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e t e x t t h a t f o l l o w e a c h o t h e r i n a s p e c i f i c o r d e r . One p o s s i b l e b a s i c t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e example p r e s e n t e d above w o u l d be t o f i r s t d e s c r i b e p s y c h o a n a l y s i s as a w h o l e , i . e . , a c c o r d i n g t o a l l a s p e c t s p r e s e n t e d above, and t o p r o c e e d w i t h b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y i n t h e same way. T h i s t y p e may be c a l l e d " o r g a n i z a t i o n b y o b j e c t " . A n o t h e r b a s i c t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d be t o f i r s t d e s c r i b e p s y c h o a n a l y s e s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y from t h e f i r s t aspect, then t o deal w i t h both t h e r a p i e s from t h e n e x t a s p e c t e t c . T h i s t y p e may be c a l l e d " O r g a n i z a t i o n b y a s p e c t " . S e v e r a l y e a r s ago, some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t t o a n a l y z e t h e d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s o f b o t h t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n on l e a r n i n g and r e c a l l ( F r a s e , 1969, 1973; S c h u l t z and D i V e s t a , 1972; Friedman and G r e i t z e r , 1972; P e r l m u t t e r and Royer, 1973; Myers, Pezdek and Coulson, 1973; D i V e s t a , S c h u l t z and Dangel, 1 9 7 3 ) . I n t h e s e s t u d i e s o n l y s i m p l e n a m e - a t t r i b u t e a s s o c i a t i o n s were used as l e a r n i n g c o n t e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , p r i o r knowledge was e l i m i n a t e d as much as p o s s i b l e b y u s i n g f i c t i t i o u s s u b j e c t m a t t e r . I n t h e normal c o u r s e o f e v e n t s , however, p e o p l e r e a d i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e knowledge t h e y a l r e a d y possess and t o e l a b o r a t e i t . The amount o f p r i o r knowledge a f f e c t s t h e k i n d o f p r o c e s s i n g t h e y d o . So i t was p r e c i s e l y t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h p r i o r knowledge t h a t was e l i m i n a t e d i n t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f r o m t h e start. F o r t h i s r e a s o n , i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s t u d y a l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n was s e l e c t e d i n w h i c h a l e a r n e r , who a l r e a d y has some p r i o r knowledge a b o u t t h e t o p i c , i s g i v e n a r a t h e r l o n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e x t w i t h complex s u b j e c t m a t t e r t o r e a d . I n one case, t h e c o n t e n t was o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t and i n t h e o t h e r c a s e b y a s p e c t . The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s were t o be answered:
-
How do a l t e r a t i o n s i n t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d t o changes i n p r o c e s s i n g demands?
- How do t h e s e p r o c e s s i n g demands i n t e r a c t w i t h p r i o r k n o w l e d g e ? I n o t h e r words: Do s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on p r o c e s s i n g , d e p e n d i n g on t h e t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n ? COHERENCE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE The knowledge conveyed b y a t e x t r e p r e s e n t s a c o h e r e n t w h o l e w h i c h can be i m a g i n e d as a k i n d o f n e t w o r k . D u r i n g t e x t p r o c e s s i n g t h e l e a r n e r has t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h i s n e t w o r k by f i n d i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e t o c o n n e c t each new p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e a c q u i r e d so f a r ( s e e F r i j d a , 1978; A e b l i , 1 9 8 0 ) . The d i f f i c u l t y o f r e c o n s t r u c t i n g a c o h e r e n t knowledge s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s d e p e n d i n g on t h e k i n d o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n . For example, o r g a n i z a t i o n b y a s p e c t ( A - o r g a n i z a t i o n ) c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l t h e m a t i c
HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN
89
r u p t u r e s where we s w i t c h from one o b j e c t t o t h e o t h e r , i n t h e example presented above, from p s y c h o a n a l y s i s t o behavior t h e r a p y , and v i c e v e r s a . A t these p o i n t s , t h e r e a d e r i s f o r c e d t o make a mental s w i t c h , i . e . , he/she has t o r e p e a t e d l y turn t o t h e o t h e r s u b j e c t m a t t e r . The knowledge s t r u c t u r e on t h i s s u b j e c t a c q u i r e d so f a r has t o be r e a c t i v a t e d in memory in o r d e r t o relate the following propositions t o p r i o r information in t h e t e x t . I f the t e x t i s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t ( 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , however, i t i s not n e c e s s a r y t o make such f r e q u e n t mental s w i t c h e s t o r e p e a t e d l y r e a c t i v a t e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , because each o b j e c t i s d e s c r i b e d a s a whole b e f o r e the n e x t one i s taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d , t h u s , t h e t e x t runs through more o r l e s s smoothly. T e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t could be s a i d t o c o n t a i n o b s t a c l e s , which do n o t o c c u r i n t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t . The r a t e a t which an A-organized text can be p r o c e s s e d depends among o t h e r f a c t o r s on the speed with which t h e s e o b s t a c l e s can be overcome. Mental s w i t c h e s should be t h e e a s i e r f o r a r e a d e r , t h e b e t t e r he/she i s a l r e a d y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e t o p i c a r e a , i . e . , t h e more p r i o r knowledge he/ she has about t h e t e x t c o n t e n t . In g e n e r a l , one can e x p e c t a l e a r n e r w i t h g r e a t e r p r i o r knowledge t o be a b l e t o perform more p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s during a s p e c i f i c time p e r i o d and so t o have a h i g h e r r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g , t h a n o t h e r l e a r n e r s w i t h l e s s p r i o r knowledge. B u t , s i n c e t h e s p e c i f i c p r o blem o f mental s w i t c h e s mentioned above o n l y o c c u r s i n the c a s e o f A-organiz a t i o n , t h e h y p o t h e s i s can be f o r m u l a t e d t h a t t h e r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g w i l l depend more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge in t h e c a s e o f A-organization than in t h e c a s e o f 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n . STAGING, READING PERSPECTIVE, AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE The s t r u c t u r e of a t e x t u s u a l l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o a s p e c i f i c communicative f u n c t i o n , i . e . , i n choosing a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e a u t h o r pres e n t s t h e c o n t e n t from a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t o f view. By means o f t h e t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t e n t i o n i s focussed o n t o s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s and t h e semant i c r e l a t i o n s between them. Grimes (1975) r e f e r s t o t h i s a s " s t a g i n g " . Texts d e s c r i b i n g two o b j e c t s and comparing them w i t h e a c h o t h e r a l l o w f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n between two main t y p e s o f s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s : R e l a t i o n s within t h e o b j e c t s r e f e r t o t h e coherence among t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g each of t h e o b j e c t s . S i n c e i n t h i s c a s e , t h e comprehension p r o c e s s c o n s i s t s in c o n s t r u c t i n g a n i n t e g r a t e d mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t a t hand, t h i s may be c a l l e d " i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g " . R e l a t i o n s between t h e o b j e c t s on t h e o t h e r hand, r e f e r t o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e o b j e c t s , i . e . , the comparison between them. P r o c e s s i n g o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s may be c a l l ed "compa r a t i ve p r o c e s s i no" ~
In o r d e r t o r e l a t e two p r o p o s i t i o n s t o each o t h e r both must be a c t i v a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , i . e . , t h e y have t o be i n working memory. S i n c e p r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t y i s l i m i t e d , t h i s i s o n l y p o s s i b l e f o r a small number of p r o p o s i t i o n s . According t o the model of text comprehension o f Kintsch and van D i j k ( 1 9 7 8 ) , t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a new p r o p o s i t i o n whose r e f e r e n t i s no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e i n working memory o r i n t h e s h o r t - t e r m memory b u f f e r r e q u i r e s t h e r e a d e r t o engage i n e l a b o r a t e and time-consuming s e a r c h e s in e p i s o d i c longterm memory t o f i n d t h i s r e f e r e n t i n o r d e r t o connect t h e new p r o p o s i t i o n t o i t . In a d d i t i o n , one could h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t t h e s e a r c h e s become h a r d e r , t h e f u r t h e r back the p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e s e r e f e r e n t s o c c u r r e d . From t h i s t h e following may be deduced: I f a r e a d e r i s p r o c e s s i n g t h e second o f two s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h i s r e l a t i o n becomes more a p p a r e n t and i t s p r o c e s s i n g e a s i e r , t h e s m a l l e r the d i s t a n c e between t h e s e two p r o p o s i -
90
TEXT STRUCTURE
t i o n s ( s e e Walker and Meyer, 1 9 8 0 ) . S i n c e a l t e r a t i o n s i n t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t i n changes i n t h e d i s t a n c e between p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e t e x t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s t a g i n g dimension, the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two t y p e s o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n can be deduced: With 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e same o b j e c t f o l i o w r a t h e r immediately upon each o t h e r , so t h e d i s t a n c e s between them a r e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . However, t h e d i s t a n c e s between t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e two o b j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e r a t h e r g r e a t , s i n c e f i r s t one obj e c t i s d e s c r i b e d a s a whole b e f o r e t h e next one i s t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The o p p o s i t e i s t r u e i n t h e c a s e o f A - o r g a n i z a t i o n . Here t h e d i s t a n c e s between the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e two o b j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d i s t a n c e s between p r o p o s i t i o n s r e f e r r i n g t o t h e same o b j e c t a r e g r e a t e r on t h e a v e r a g e because two p a r a graphs on t h e same o b j e c t a r e always s e p a r a t e d by one paragraph on t h e o t h e r o b j e c t due t o t h e a l t e r n a t i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n . From t h i s one can deduce t h a t 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n f o c u s s e s a t t e n t i o n above a l l on i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g and t h a t under t h i s c o n d i t i o n t h i s kind o f p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y e a s y . Here, comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s not a c c e n t u a t e d and d o i n g i t would be r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t . A - o r g a n i z a t i o n , on t h e c o n t r a r y , f o c u s s e s a t t e n t i o n on comparative p r o c e s s i n g , a n d i t i s t h i s kind o f p r o c e s s i n g which i s f a c i l i t a t e d i n t h i s c a s e . B u t , s i n c e a comparison i s o n l y p o s s i b l e i f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e o b j e c t s have been u n d e r s t o o d , A - o r g a n i z a t i o n not only c a l l s f o r comparative p r o c e s s i n g , b u t f o r i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g , t o o . I n a s i m p l i f y i n g way, the d i f f e r e n c e between both t y p e s of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o s t a g i n g may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s f o l l o w s : With 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e a d e r i s i m p l i c i t e l y c a l l e d upon t o c o n s t r u c t a c o n s i s t e n t mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f each o b j e c t . A - o r g a n i z a t i o n on t h e o t h e r hand demands t h a t t h e r e a d e r c o n s t r u c t n o t o n l y a c o n s i s t e n t mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e obj e c t s , but a l s o f i n d o u t how much t h e y have i n common and how t h e y d i f f e r . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t l e a r n e r s a r e t o some e x t e n t guided by t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t . T h u s , d i s r e g a r d i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , one can make t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e a d e r s p r e s e n t e d with a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t do more comparative p r o c e s s i n g on t h e a v e r a g e than r e a d e r s p r e s e n t e d with 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f one f u r t h e r assumes t h a t t h e amount o f i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i n both c a s e s i s about t h e same, i t i s a l s o t o be expected t h a t the r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t w i l l on the a v e r a g e do more processing a l t o g e t h e r and t h e r e f o r e , t a k e more r e a d i n g t i m e , t h a n t h e r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t . However, t h e l e a r n e r i s n o t compelled t o j o i n t h e p e r s p e c t i v e suggested by t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t . He may choose h i s own personal r e a d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e and p r o c e s s t h e t e x t a c c o r d i n g l y . P i c h e r t and Anderson (1977) and Anderson, Reynolds, S c h a l l e r t and Goetz (1977) found t h e l e a r n e r s ' i n d i v i d u a l reading p e r s p e c t i v e t o have a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g and r e c a l l . Although i n t h e c a s e of 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t e n t i o n i s focussed o n l y on i n t e g r a t i v e proc e s s i n g - a c c o r d i n g t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s mentioned above - t h e r e a d e r can o f h i s / h e r own i n i t i a t i v e choose a comparative r e a d i n g p e r s p e c t i v e a n d , t h e r e f o r e n o t o n l y do i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g b u t comparative p r o c e s s i n g a s w e l l . When r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t , however, t h e l e a r n e r has much l e s s scope t o choose h i s / h e r own p e r s p e c t i v e , as t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t w i l l induce him/her t o do both t y p e s of p r o c e s s i n g anyway. T h i s l e a d s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s : When r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t a l l l e a r n e r s w i l l p r i n c i p a l l y do comparative p r o c e s s i n g - w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a b i l i t i e s ( p r i o r knowledge, s k i l l s e t c . ) , o f c o u r s e . I f t h e t e x t i s o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t , t h e r e a d e r s a r e f r e e t o choose whether t h e y w i l l do
HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN
91
comparative p r o c e s s i n g . Pence, some r e a d e r s w i l l engage i n t h i s kind o f proc e s s i n g , whereas o t h e r s w i l l n o t . T h u s , g r e a t e r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g a r e t o be e x p e c t e d i n t h e c a s e o f t e x t s organized by o b j e c t , than i n t h e c a s e of t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t . S i n c e comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t w i t h 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n and, s i n c e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s l e s s s e v e r e f o r r e a d e r s w i t h h i g h e r p r i o r knowledge, i t can a l s o be e x p e c t e d t h a t l e a r n e r s with more p r i o r knowledge w i l l be more l i k e l y t o engage i n a d d i t i o n a l comparative p r o c e s s i n g .
METHOD Experimental text. The text used i n t h i s s t u d y was a d e s c r i p t i o n o f psychoa n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y a s mentioned above. Text l e n g t h was 1079 words. To d e s c r i b e each o b j e c t one paragraph was used f o r each a s p e c t . The paragraphs were o r d e r e d i n such a way a s t o produce e i t h e r a t e x t organized by o b j e c t o r a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t . For both t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e was a v e r s i o n s t a r t i n g w i t h p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and a v e r s i o n s t a r t i n g w i t h behavior therapy, r e s u l t i n g i n 4 text v a r i a n t s a l t o g e t h e r . S u b j e c t s . 20 s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e e x p e r i m e n t . They were randomly assigned t o t h e d i f f e r e n t t e x t v a r i a n t s so t h a t each o f t h e 4 v a r i a n t s was given t o 5 s u b j e c t s . In o r d e r t o a s s e s s p r i o r knowledge on t h e t e x t c o n t e n t , the s u b j e c t s were f i r s t given a number o f c o n c e p t s about p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and behavior t h e r a p y which t h e y were asked t o e x p l a i n . They r e c e i v e d knowledge s c o r e s f o r their a n s w e r s . Procedure. S u b j e c t s were asked t o read the t e x t in such a way a s t o be a b l e t o r e t e l l t h e c o n t e n t by f r e e r e c a l l t o a n o t h e r s t u d e n t l a t e r on. The cont e n t should be p r e s e n t e d i n such a way t h a t t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t would be capable o f answering comprehension q u e s t i o n s on i t . T a s k - o r i e n t e d r e a d i n g was supposed t o be induced by t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a r e a l addressee f o r communicating the text c o n t e n t t o a f t e r the l e a r n i n g p e r i o d was supposed .to make t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n more r e a l i s t i c . There was no l i m i t t o r e a d i n g t i m e . Reading time was r e c o r d e d . A f t e r an i n t e r v a l 'of 15 minutes f o l l o w i n g t h e r e a d i n g p e r i o d , t h e s u b j e c t s communicated t h e cont e n t t o a n o t h e r s t u d e n t . A f t e r w a r d s , t h e y were p r e s e n t e d with s t a t e m e n t s comparing p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . These s t a t e m e n t s were p a r t l y t r u e and p a r t l y f a l s e . The s u b j e c t s were asked t o judge whether t h e y were t r u e o r f a l s e w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t e x t and t o g i v e r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r answers. The aim o f t h i s comparison t a s k was t o f i n d o u t how well t h e students had i d e n t i f i e d the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between both t y p e s o f t h e r a p y . For each s u b j e c t , t h e number o f e r r o r s which h e / s h e had i d e n t i f i e d in t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s was s c o r e d . In sum, t h e f o l l o w i n g measures were a v a i l a b l e f o r each s u b j e c t : P r i o r knowledge, r e a d i n g t i m e , r e c a l l performance (number of t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y ) and performance i n t h e comparison t a s k . Furthermore, t h e number o f c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s per r e a d i n g time was computed f o r each s u b j e c t . RESULTS
Table 1 shows t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e measures mentioned above f o r the group who read a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t (0-group) and f o r t h e group who r e a d a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t (A-group). As one can s e e , p r i o r knowledge was n e a r l y the same f o r both groups on t h e a v e r a g e = 14.4, = 14.2 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Table 2 c o n t a i n s t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s which a r e r e l e v a n t f o r t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s mentioned above
(x
TEXT STRUCTURE
92
T a b l e 1. Means
(x) and
standard deviations
(5)
i n b o t h groups
object group P r i o r know1 edge
x
=
s = Reading t i m e
Recall performance
7.99
x
=
s =
14.2 5.87
x
=
17.4
x
=
18.7
s
=
5.9
s
=
3.7
x
=
51.4
x
=
55.3
s = 17.4
s
=
15.2
Recall per reading time
Comparison t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e
14.4
aspect group
=
3.16
x =
3.03
s =
1.23
s =
0.92
x =
3.70
x =
5.30
s
2.31
s
1.06
=
=
and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n . I t may be assumed t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s l e a d s t o a b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e d memory s t r u c t u r e w i t h more i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s between t h e s t o r e d p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s r e s u l t s i n an i n c r e a s e i n r e t r i e v a b i l i t y o f t h e l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . Thus, r e c a l l p e r f o r m a n c e may s e r v e as an i n d e x o f t h e amount o f p r o c e s s i n g done b y t h e l e a r n e r . I n a d d i t i o n , r e c a l l p e r r e a d i n g t i m e may t h e r e f o r e be u s e d as an i n d e x o f t h e r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g . I f , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s m e n t i o n e d above, r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g depends more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge w i t h a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t t h a n i t does w i t h a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between p r i o r knowledge and r e c a l l p e r r e a d i n g t i m e i n t h e A-group s h o u l d be h i g h e r t h a n i n t h e 0 - g r o u p . As a p p e a r s i n T a b l e 2, t h e r e i s i n d e e d a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e : The c o e f f i c i e n t o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y amounts t o r 2 = 7% i n the 56% w h i c h i s s i g n i f i c a n t 0 - g r o u p , whereas i n t h e A-group i t amounts t o r 2 l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m z e r o ( p = . 0 0 6 ) . The d i f f e r e n c e between b o t h g r o u p s i s e s p e c i a l l y r e m a r k a b l e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v a r i a n c e o f p r i o r knowl e d g e i n t h e A-group i s even s m a l l e r t h a n t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e 0 - g r o u p (see T a b l e 1). The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t w o c o e f f i c i e n t s does n o t r e a c h t h e 5 % l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , s i n c e t h e number o f d e g r e e s o f freedom i s r a t h e r small, but the r e s u l t c l e a r l y tends t o support t h e hypothesis, t h a t r a t e o f p r o c e s s i n g depends more s t r o n g l y on p r i o r knowledge i n t h e c a s e o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t t h a n i n t h e case o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y o b j e c t .
The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e a d e r s do more c o m p a r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g on t h e average when r e a d i n g an A - o r g a n i z e d t e x t t h a n when r e a d i n g an 0 - o r g a n i z e d t e x t was g l s o c l e a r l y s u p p o r t e d : mean performance i n t h e c o m p a r i s o n t a s k amounted t o x = 5 . 3 i n t h e A-group opposed t o o n l y i( = 3.7 i n t h e 0 - g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t ( t = 1.99, p = . 0 3 ) . The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t l e a r n e r s r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d b y a s p e c t w i l l on t h e a v e r a g e d o more p r o c e s s i n g a l t o g e t h e r
HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN
93
Table 2 . C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n both groups. r object
r aspect
Recal l / R e a d i n g Time, P r i o r Knowledge
.27
.75""
Comparison Task, Reading Time P r i o r Know1 edge
.67*
Comparison Task, P r i o r Knowledge
.39
2 object
2 aspect
7%
56%""
.03
45%"
0%
.42
15%
18%
"p<5%
**
D
<
1%
a n d t a k e more r e a d i n g time t h a n l e a r n e r s r e a d i n g a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t only r e c e i v e s weak s u p p o r t from t h e d a t a . The means were x = 55.3 p r o p o s i t i o n s r g c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y and 2 = 1 8 . 7 minutes r e a d i n g time f o r t h e A-group, versus x = 5 1 . 4 p r o p o s i t i o n s and = 17.4 minutes r e a d i n g time f o r t h e 0Group. Both d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t due t o t h e high v a r i a n c e within both g r o u p s . One reason f o r t h e r a t h e r small d i f f e r e n c e s could be t h a t r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t , a l t h o u g h t h e y engage i n more comparat i v e p r o c e s s i n g , a1 so compensate by doing l e s s i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g , a s compared t o t h e r e a d e r s o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t . The small a v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e a d i n g time between t h e two groups may a l s o be due t o t h e f a c t t h a t some l e a r n e r s i n t h e 0-group n o t o n l y engage in i n t e g r a t i v e proc e s s i n g , b u t d i s r e g a r d e t h e s t a g i n g o f t h e t e x t and engage in comparative processing a s w e l l , a s w i l l be shown l a t e r on. S i n c e t h i s k i n d o f p r o c e s s i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t and t h e r e f o r e r a t h e r time consuming with an O-organized t e x t , t h i s may l e a d t o a s t r o n g i n c r e a s e in average r e a d i n g time due t o the a d d i t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g .
I f some o f t h e l e a r n e r s in t h e group with 0-organized t e x t s engage i n t o comparative p r o c e s s i n g , t h e y need a d d i t i o n a l time which r e s u l t s in h i g h e r o v e r a l l r e a d i n g t i m e . The r e s t o f t h e group w i t h no comparative p r o c e s s i n g should need c o m p a r a t i v e l y l e s s r e a d i n g t i m e . Of c o u r s e , d i f f e r e n c e s in reading time may a l s o be due t o d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o c e s s i n g r a t e . B u t i f p r o c e s s i n g r a t e were more o r l e s s equal f o r a l l l e a r n e r s , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n ces i n r e a d i n g time would r e f l e c t t h e amount o f p r o c e s s i n g done by each i n d i v i d u a l . Hence, i f comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s o n l y done by some o f t h e l e a r n e r s o f the group w i t h texts o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t , one would e x p e c t under a c o n s t a n t p r o c e s s i n g r a t e t h e amount o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h r e a d i n g time because l e a r n e r s d i f f e r i n how much t h e y engage i n t h i s t y p e o f p r o c e s s i n g . As p r o c e s s i n g r a t e i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e amount o f prior knowledge, d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o c e s s i n g r a t e may be p a r t l y e l i m i n a t e d by c o n t r o l l i n g f o r p r i o r knowledge. T h u s , i f t h e assumption mentioned above proves t r u e , a p o s i t i v e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n i s t o be expected f o r t h e 0-group between t h e amount o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g and r e a d i n g time when c o n t r o l l i n g f o r p r i o r knowledge.
94
TEXT STRUCTURE
In the group w i t h t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t , on t h e o t h e r hand, comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s assumed t o be p r i n c i p a l l y done by a l l l e a r n e r s . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a d i n g time i n t h i s c a s e should be r e l a t i v e l y small and should r e s u l t merely from t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o c e s s i n g r a t e . I t i s no l o n g e r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g a s such t h a t a f f e c t s r e a d i n g t i m e , but r a t h e r , t h e speed w i t h which i t i s done. I f processinq r a t e s were e q u a l , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e amount o f comparative process i n g and r e a d i n g time should d i s a p p e a r . S i n c e p r o c e s s i n g r a t e depends on p r i o r knowledge t o some e x t e n t , t h i s f a c t o r may a g a i n be p a r t l y c o n t r o l l e d f o r t o e l i m i n a t e d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o c e s s i n g r a t e . A c c o r d i n g l y , when c o n t r o l l i n g f o r p r i o r knowledge t h e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e amount of comparative p r o c e s s i n g and r e a d i n g time should be minimal f o r t h e group r e a d i n g t e x t s o r g a n i z e d by a s p e c t . According t o Table 7 t h e two groups c l e a r 1 d i f f e r e d : For t h e 0-group t h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n amounted t o rs = 4 5 4 , which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o ( p = .07), a g a i n s t r2 = 0% f o r t h e A-group. This r e s u l t s u p p o r t s the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y a l l l e a r n e r s r e a d i n g a t e x t organized by a s p e c t engage i n comparative p r o c e s s i n g , whereas f o r l e a r n e r s with a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t comparative p r o c e s s i n g i s o p t i o n a l a n d , t h u s , some w i l l do i t and o t h e r s w i l l n o t . T h i s assumption i s a l s o supported by t h e f a c t t h a t both groups d i f f e r i n t h e i r i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a n c e with respect t o t h e d e g r e e o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g : Standard d e v i a t i o n was s = 2.31 f o r the 0-group, a g a i n s t o n l y s = 1 . 0 6 f o r the A-group, t h e corresponding v a r i a n c e s being s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (F = 4.77; p = .03). Table 7 shows a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between p r i o r knowledge and t h e d e g r e e o f comparative p r o c e s s i n g f o r t h e 0-group ( r 7 = 1 5 % ) . From t h i s i t may be assumed t h a t l e a r n e r s with g r e a t e r p r i o r knowledge a r e more l i k e l y t o engage in a d d i t i o nal comparative p r o c e s s i n g . ( S i n c e with A - o r g a n i z a t i o n , t o o , h i g h e r p r i o r knowledge i s h e l p f u l f o r comparative p r o c e s s i n g , no s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e should be e x p e c t e d between t h e two g r o u p s ) . B u t , s i n c e t h e amount o f varianc e accounted f o r (r2 = 1 5 % ) i s r a t h e r s m a l l , o t h e r f a c t o r s ( e . g . , l e a r n i n g h a b i t s l i k e c a r e f u l n e s s , e t c . ) seem t o be t h e main i n f l u e n c e on whether or n o t a r e a d e r o f a t e x t o r g a n i z e d by o b j e c t i s w i l l i n g t o do comparative processing. Another q u e s t i o n concerns t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f l e a r n i n g w i t h both t y p e s of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r l e a r n e r s with d i f f e r e n t p r i o r knowledge. Figure 1 shows t h e r e g r e s s i o n l i n e s f o r p r e d i c t i n g r e c a l l performance per r e a d i n g time from t h e amount o f p r i o r knowledge. According t o t h e d i f f e r e n t impact o f p r i o r knowledge on t h e r a t e of p r o c e s s i n g depending on t h e t y p e o f t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between p r i o r knowledge and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e c a l l performance per r e a d i n g t i m e . From t h e s e d a t a i t may be concluded t h a t i f p r i o r knowledge i s low, more e f f e c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s p o s s i b l e w i t h 0 - o r g a n i z a t i o n with r e g a r d t o time economy, whereas A-organization t e n d s t o b e n e f i t r e a d e r s w i t h high p r i o r knowledge. The c o n s i d e r a t i o n s above s u g g e s t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s u l t : The mental s w i t c h e s n e c e s s a r y when r e a d i n g an A-organized t e x t a r e so hard t o perform f o r a l e a r n e r with low p r i o r knowledge t h a t he/she will be s t r o n g l y i n h i b i t e d i n h i s / h e r p r o c e s s i n g . T h e r e f o r e , i n t e g r a t i v e a s well a s comparative p r o c e s s i n g will be i m p a i r e d . The l e a r n e r w i l l do l e s s proc e s s i n g per time u n i t than h e / s h e would have been a b l e t o d o i f r e a d i n g a t e x t organized by o b j e c t , a t l e a s t a s f a r a s i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s c o n c e r n e d , because t h i s t e x t runs through r a t h e r smoothly. L e a r n e r s with high p r i o r knowledge seem t o have no s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h e s e mental s w i t c h e s with an A-organized t e x t . They a r e a b l e t o do i n t e g r a t i v e proc e s s i n g w i t h A-organization n e a r l y a s well a s i f t h e y were r e a d i n g a t e x t
HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN
95
Recall per reading time
a
A-organization
t
prior knowledge ~
77
'
1
79
1
75
1
7t
'
~
I
'
79
Figure 1 Regression l i n e s f o r t h e prediction of r e c a l l performance per reading time from prior knowledge organized by o b j e c t . A t t h i s point the f a c t t h a t comparative processing i s r e l a t i v e l y easy w i t h an A-organized t e x t appears a s a spe c ia l advantage. I n t h i s c a se , the amount a t processing t h a t can be managed per reading time i s g r e a t e r t h a n f o r a t e x t organized by o b j ect due t o the d i f f i c u l t y of compar a t i v e processing, which takes more reading time f o r the same amount of processing. SlIMMARY AND CONCLllS I O N S
Taken a l t o g e t h e r , t h e d a t a y i el d t o t h e following p i c t u r e : With a t e x t organized by aspect e s s e n t i a l l y a l l l e a r n e r s do i n t e g r a t i v e a s well as comparative processing. With a t e x t organized by obje c t only the i n t e g r a t i v e processing i s done by a l l l e a r n e r s . I n the l a t t e r c a se , comparative processing i s o p t i o n a l . Therefore, only some o f t h e l e a r n e r s w ill engage in i t , needing r e l a t i v e l y much time. Pate of processing depends on prior knowledge more s t r o n g l y in the case of organization by aspect t h a n in the case of organization by o b j e ct presumably because o f t h e frequent mental switches. Learners with higher p r i o r knowledge seem t o have l e s s d i f f i c u l t y with these switches, whereas with low p r i o r knowledge t h i s type of processing tends t o be a handicap. Hence, w i t h o r g an i zat i o n by aspect le a rning r e s u l t s a r e a f fected more s t r o n gl y by d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge, whereas organization by o b j e c t seems t o be l e s s s e n s i t i v e in t h i s r espe c t. Organization by obje c t
'
96
TEXT STRUCTURE
e n a b l e s l e a r n e r s w i t h low p r i o r knowledge t o use a h i g h e r r a t e o f processing a t l e a s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . Hence, l e a r n i n g i s more e f f e c t i v e than i t would be w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n by a s p e c t because t h e problem o f mental s w i t c h e s does n o t a p p e a r . For l e a r n e r s w i t h high p r i o r knowledge o r g a n i z a t i o n by a s p e c t seems t o be most c o n d u c t i v e t o e f f i c i e n t l e a r n i n g , s i n c e on t h e one hand, t h e f r e q u e n t mental s w i t c h e s do not cause s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s and, on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e f a c i l i t a t i o n o f comparative proc e s s i n g becomes an a d v a n t a g e . I f one t r i e s t o draw p r a c t i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e s e r e s u l t s , t h e sugg e s t i o n s would be a s f o l l o w s : I f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e a t hand only emphasizes i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n by o b j e c t would be approp r i a t e . I f comparative processirlg i s r e q u i r e d above a l l , o r g a n i z a t i o n by a s p e c t should be chosen. B u t i f t h e r e i s no c l e a r emphasis on i n t e g r a t i v e o r comparative p r o c e s s i n g and i f l e a r n i n g e f f i c a c y i s t h e major g o a l , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r i o r knowledge must be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n : I f a l l l e a r n e r s have h i g h p r i o r knowledge, o r g a n i z a t i o n by a s p e c t would be a d e q u a t e , hecause both i n t e g r a t i v e and comparative process i n g can be done e f f e c t i v e l y under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I f a l l l e a r n e r s have low prior knowledge. o r g a n i z a t i o n by o b j e c t would be a p p r o p r i a t e , s i n c e a t l e a s t i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g can be c a r r i e d o u t e f f e c t i v e l y . The d e c i s i o n becomes more d i f f i c u l t i n the c a s e o f l e a r n e r s with heterogeneous p r i o r knowledge. O r g a n i z a t i o n by o b j e c t probably would be t h e b e s t c h o i c e h e r e , because i t i s more f l e x i b l e i n i t s p r o c e s s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s : L e a r n e r s w i t h law p r i o r knowledge may r e s t r i c t themselves t o i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g a n d would not have much d i f f i c u l t y . L e a r n e r s with high p r i o r knowledge a r e f r e e t o do comparative p r o c e s s i n g i n a d d i t i o n on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . I t would be premature t o c o n s i d e r such c o n c l u s i o n s a s d e f i n i t e on t h e b a s i s o f o n l y one s t u d y . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s a n d s u p p o r t t h e r e s u l t s . In any c a s e , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i f f e r e n t t e x t organizations confront the l e a r n e r w i t h d i f f e r e n t processing demands and i n t e r a c t d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h h i s / h e r i n d i v i d u a l p r i o r knowledge. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n could provide a b a s i s f o r making bett e r d e c i s i o n s on how t o match d i f f e r e n t t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d d i f f e r e n t groups o f l e a r n e r s . REFERENCES A e b l i , H . Denken: Das Ordnen des T u n s : Kognitive Aspekte d e r Handlungstheor i e . !% 1. SIt. u t t g a r t : K l e t t - C o t t a , 1980. Anderson. R . C . The n o t i o n o f schemata and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r o r i s e . In R . C . Anderson, R.J. S p i r o and U . E . Montague ( E d s . ) , Schooling and t h e acq u i s i t i o n o f knowledqe. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. Anderson, R . C . , Reynolds, R . E . , S c h a l l e r t , D . L . and Goetz, E . T . Frameworks f o r comprehending d i s c o u r s e . American Educational Research J o u r n a l , 1977, 1 4 . 367-381. D i V z t a , F . J . , S c h u l t z , C . B . and Dangel, T.R. Passage o r g a n i z a t i o n and i m posed l e a r n i n q s t r a t e q i e s i n comprehension and r e c a l l o f connected d i s c o u r s e . Pemor; & C o q n i t i o n , 1973, _1_, 471-476. F r a s e , L . T . Paraoranh o r a a n i z a t i o n o f w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s : The i n f l u e n c e o f conceptual c l i s t e r i n q - u p o n t h e l e v e l and o r q a n i z a t i o n o f r e c a l l . Journal o f Educational Ps choloq , 1 9 6 9 , 6 0 , 394-407. F r a s e , L.T. 1ntegrat:on o f h i t t e n t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Educational Psycholgy, 1973, 65, 252-261.
HOW DIFFERENT READERS LEARN
97
F r e d e r i k s e n , C.H. S t r u c t u r e and p r o c e s s i n d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c t i o n and compreh e n s i o n . I n W.A. J u s t and P.A. C a r p e n t e r ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence E r l baum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. Friedman, M.P. and G r e i t z e r , F.L. O r g a n i z a t i o n and s t u d y t i m e i n l e a r n i n g f r o m r e a d i n g . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 63, 609-616 F r i j d a , N.M. Memory p r o c e s s e s and i n s t r u c t i o n . I n A.M. L e s q o l d , J.W. P e l l e g r i n o , S.D. Fokkema and R . G l a s e r ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e p s y i h o l o g y and i n s t r u c t i o n . New Y o r k : Plenum P r e s s , 1978. Grimes, J . The t h r e a d o f d i s c o u r s e . The Hague: Mouton, 1975. K i n t s c h , W . and van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o q i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 363-394. L e s q o l d , A.M. and P e r f e t t i , C . A . I n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n r e a d i n q compreh e n s i o n . D i s c o u r s e P r o c e s s e s , 1978, 1,323-336. FlcConkie, G.W. L e a r n i n g f r o m t e x t . I n L . S . Shulman ( E d . ) , Review o f r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n . I t a s c a , I l l i n o i s : Peacock, 1977. M e y G , B.J.F. A s e l e c t e d r e v i e w and d i s c u s s i o n o f b a s i c r e s e a r c h o n p r o s e comprehension. P r o s e l e a r n i n g s e r i e s , r e s e a r c h n o . 4, Department o f Educational Psychology, College o f Education; A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. Meyer, B.J.F. T e x t s t r u c t u r e and i t s u s e i n t h e s t u d y o f r e a d i n g comprehens i o n a c r o s s t h e a d u l t l i f e - s p a n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n i n B o s t o n o n A p r i l 1980. Myers, J . L . , Pezdek, K . and C o u l s o n , D. E f f e c t o f p r o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n upon f r e e r e c a l l . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g x , 1973, 65, 313-320. P e r l m u t t e r , J. and Royer, J.M. O r g a n i z a t i o n o f p r o s e m a t e r i a l s : S t i m u l u s , s t o r a g e , and r e t r i e v a l . Canadian J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 7 ,200209. P i c h e r t , J.W. and Anderson, R.C. T a k i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on a s t o r y . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 69, 309-315. S c h u l t z , C.B. and D i V e s t a , F.J. E f f e c t s o f passage o r g a n i z a t i o n and n o t e t a k i n g o n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f c l u s t e r i n g s t r a t e g i e s and o n r e c a l l o f t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 63, 244-252. Van D i j k , T.A. M a c r o s t r u c t u r e s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1980. Walker, C.H. and Meyer, B.J.F. I n t e g r a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t e x t : An e v a l u a t i o n o f c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s . R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1980, ! i l l , 421-437.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
COHERENCE
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Fhmmer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, I982
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
Anthony J . S a n f o r d and Simon C. Garrod Department o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Glasgow Glasgow Scot1 and T h i s paper i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a t h e o r y of t e x t representation. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the processing o f r e f e r r i n g expressions i s considered. Reference i s c o n s t r u e d as memory search, and t h e paper c o n t a i n s d i s c u s s i o n s of b o t h t h e s t r u c t u r e o f memory ( t h e search domains) and the s t r u c t u r e o f the r e f e r r i n g expressions. Pronouns, d e f i n i t e noun-phrases, and r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s a r e seen as p r o c e s s i n g d i r e c t i v e s t o search d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of memory, t h e o b j e c t o f t h e search b e i n g t o append new i n f o r m a t i o n t o e x i s t i n g memory s t r u c t u r e s . INTRODUCTION The process o f r e f e r e n c e r e s o l u t i o n must be an i m p o r t a n t element i n any I t i s t h r o u g h r e f e r e n c e t h a t a reader knows account o f t e x t comprehension. what a t e x t i s about, and i t i s c e n t r a l t o t h e cohesiveness o f a t e x t . In t h i s paper we s h a l l o u t l i n e an account o f some work which we have been c a r r y i n g o u t on t h i s problem, and i n d i c a t e sane o f t h e problems which r e quire solutions. F o r convenience, we s h a l l b r o a d l y d e f i n e r e f e r e n c e as u s i n g some n a t u r a l language s t r i n g t o address some mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . A1 though broad, such a d e f i n i t i o n i s n o t loose:. r a t h e r , i t r e s u l t s f r o m t h e view t h a t much o f t e x t comprehension depends upon t h e r e t r i e v a l o f t h e r e l e v a n t i n f o m a t i o n from memory. I n cases where a p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n t i s t o be found i n r e c e n t memory f o r t e x t , t h e n t h e r e f e r e n c e w i l l be a n a p h o r i c . If the referent i s t o be f o u n d o u t s i d e o f memory f o r t e x t , t h e n t h e r e f e r e n c e s a r e de novo, l i n g u i s t i c a l l y speaking. While such a d i s t i n c t i o n i s e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t , b o t h t y p e s o f r e f e r e n c e a r e , i n g e n e r a l , r e f e r e n c e s t o memory. The framework which we s h a l l p u t f o r w a r d i s one i n which r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d as i n s t r u c t i o n s t o a p r o c e s s o r t o execute a memory search on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e expressions. We s h a l l c o n s i d e r two main a s p e c t s o f t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n : t h e s t r u c t u r e o f memory and t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s themselves. TEXT MEMORY REFERENCES L e t us b e g i n by c o n t r a s t i n g what we s h a l l term t e x t anaphors w i t h s i t u a t i o n A s i m p l e t e x t anaphor i s a r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n which has as a l anaphors. r e f e r e n t something which has a l r e a d y been i n t r o d u c e d i n a t e x t , as i n 100
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
(1) (1')
101
M u r i e l prepared a casserole f o r dinner. a p p r e c i a t e d by a l l t h e g u e s t s .
fi was
Such e x p r e s s i o n s a r e n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o I t i s a n anaphor f o r a c a s s e r o l e . A s i t u a t i o n a l anaphor pronouns, b u t can o f c o u r s e i n c l u d e noun-phrases. i s something r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t , i n t h a t i t r e f e r s t o something t h e e x i s t e n c e o f which m u s t be i n f e r r e d from t h e p r i o r d i s c o u r s e , as i n
(2) (2')
Simon f l e w t o t h e Kleves conference. The p l a n e was r i g h t on schedule.
Although s t r i c t l y a de novo mention, The p l a n e may be t h o u g h t o f as f u n c t i o n i n g l i k e an anaphor, e x c e p t t h a t t h e r e f e r e n t e n t i t y i s o n l y i m p l i e d , r a t h e r than being e x p l i c i t l y stated. De novo r e f e r e n c e s a r e n o t always s i t u a t i o n a l anaphors, o f course. In ( l ) , b o t h M u r i e l and a c a s s e r o l e r e f e r t o new e n t i t i e s , and a r e i n no sense a n a p h o r i c . Garrod and S a n f o r d (1981a) c o n t r a s t e d t e x t s i n which r e f e r e n c e s were made de novo e i t h e r a f t e r a preamble i n which t h e e n t i t i e s were a necessary ( b u t i m p l i e d ) p a r t , o r a f t e r one i n which t h e y were n o t a necessary p a r t . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n a s t o r y about a c o u r t case, t h e p r e sence o f a " l a w y e r " i s i m p l i e d b u t i n a s t o r y a b o u t b e i n g u n t r u t h f u l , i t i s n o t , a l t h o u g h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a l a w y e r c o u l d e a s i l y f i t b o t h preambles. Using a s e l f - p a c e d passage r e a d i n g paradigm (Garrod & Sanford, 1977; Sanford & Garrod, 1981a), i t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t ' s d w e l l times f o r t h e sentences i n t r o d u c i n g t h e r e f e r e n c e s o f i n t e r e s t were s h o r t e s t when t h e e n t i t y was i m p l i e d . Furthermore, t h e s e times were n o t measurably l o n g e r t h a n cases i n which an e x p l i c i t antecedent was i n t r o duced i n t o t h e preamble. I t was concluded t h a t a sentence i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n p a r t as a mental model i n which a whole s c e n a r i o ( e . g . " b e i n g a t a c o u r t r o o m " ) i s made a v a i l a b l e t o a r e a d e r , such a s c e n a r i o c o n t a i n i n g def a u l t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e n t i t i e s which were n o t ex(See a l s o Garrod & Sanford, 1981b, and S a n f o r d & p l i c i t l y introduced. The i d e a t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e Garrod, 1984b f o r a f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n . mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a d i s c o u r s e i n c o r p o r a t e s a mental model i s a l s o p u t f o r w a r d by Johnson-Laird, 1980). There a r e two p o i n t s t o make h e r e . F i r s t , t h a t t h e range o f " a n a p h o r i c " r e f e r e n t s i m m e d i a t e l y a v a i l a b l e t o a r e s o l u t i o n mechanism i s more t h a n those which have been e x p l i c i t l y i n t r o d u c e d . Rather, t h e r e i s an extended domain o f r e f e r e n c e , which i s i m p l i c i t . Secondly, i f an e n t i t y i s r e s o l v e d (mapped) t h r o u g h t h e i m p l i c i t component o f t h e domain, then i t w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y be r e s t r i c t e d as t o i t s r o l e . T h i s second p o i n t r e quires c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Suppose t h a t we a r e r e a d i n g a passage about watchi n g a f o o t b a l l match. A r e f e r e n c e t o t h e g o a l k e e p e r w i l l n o t m e r e l y be r e s o l v a b l e because one m i g h t e x p e c t t o f i n d a goalkeeper a t a f o o t b a l l match, b u t i t w i l l be taken t o mean "a goalkeeper a t t h e match i n q u e s t i o n " because i t w i l l be mapped i n t o one o f t h e goalkeeper r o l e s i n t h e s c e n a r i o . As such, i t w i l l be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m any o t h e r goalkeeper and any o t h e r k i n d o f goalkeeper, such as one a t an i c e - h o c k k y match, w i t h a l l t h e a t t e n dant d i f f e r e n c e s i n dress. Subsequent d e f i n i t e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e g o a l keeper w i l l map o n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e - d e f i n e d i n d i v i d u a l , so t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y e l l i p t i c a l r e f e r e n c e forms can be used. Indeed, i t would seem s t r a n g e t o u s e a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e goalkeeper meaning some o t h e r g o a l keeper.
102
COHERENCE
I n summary, we c o n s t r u e r e f e r e n c e space as c o n s i s t i n g o t an e x p l i c i t domain, w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f e n t i t i e s a c t u a l l y mentioned, and an i m p l i c i t domain, c o n s i s t i n g o f a s c e n a r i o e l i c i t e d by t h e t e x t i t s e l f , b u t augmenting i t . The m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a d i s c o u r s e a t any p o i n t i s t h e n these two r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r o l e mappings o f t h e exp l i c i t i n t o the i m p l i c i t . We m i g h t r e p r e s e n t t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , as shown below, f o r t h e sentence pair. (3) (3')
H a r r y ' s d i v o r c e case came up i n c o u r t . The s o l i c i t o r o u t l i n e d H a r r y ' s grounds.
is
.
So 1 ic i t o r T h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i m p l y c o n s i s t s o f t n r e e nodes, one each f o r H a r r y and t h e s o l i c i t o r , and one f o r t h e s c e n a r i o . The s c e n a r i o 1 node i s assumed t o be a p o i n t e r t o a c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e p a r t o f long-term memory - t h e i m The s c e n a r i o node can be t h o u g h t o f p l i c i t p a r t o f t h e r e f e r e n c e space. as a r e s t r i c t i o n on which p a r t s o f l o n g t e r m memory w i l l be p r e f e r e n t i a l l y searched by new r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s . While we b e l i e v e t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s above f o r c e upon us t h e need t o cons i d e r an i m p l i c i t component f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e domain t h e y do n o t make t h e d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e two c l e a r . Because "Mary dressed t h e baby" n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s Mary t r a n s f e r r i n g c l o t h e s t o t h e baby does n o t mean t h a t i t i s e q u i v a l e n t t o "Mary p u t t h e c l o t h e s on t h e baby" i n a mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Indeed, t h e nonequivalence can be i l l u s t r a t e d by n o t i n g admi s s a b l e and inadmi s s a b l e a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e two cases. I t i s reasonable t o w r i t e
(4) (4')
Mary p u t t h e c l o t h e s on t h e baby. The m a t e r i a l was p i n k wool.
But i t i s l e s s acceptable t o w r i t e
(5) (5')
Mary dressed t h e baby. The m a t e r i a l was p i n k w o o l .
Indeed, r e a d i n g t i m e s t u d i e s show t h a t ( 5 ' ) i s r e a d more s l o w l y t h a n ( 4 ' ) , even though i t i s u l t i m a t e l y i n t e g r a t e d w i t h i t s a n t e c e d e n t (Garrod & T h i s suggests t h a t w h i l e t h e conceptual dependents o f Sanford, 1981a). e n t i t i e s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e e x p l i c i t domain a r e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e i n t h e i m p l i c i t domain, t h e conceptual dependents o f e n t i t i e s i n t h e i m p l i c i t
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
103
Thus the actual a s s e r t e d informadomain a r e n o t so r e a d i l y accessible. tion determines the imp1 i c i t r e f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e . Another d i s t i n c t i o n between the two concerns pronominal reference. While e x p l i c i t information can e a s i l y be accessed by a pronoun, i t i s unusual t o use a pronoun t o access i m p l i c i t information. (6) (6') (7) (7')
John was taking the boat t o Cuba. I t sank without t r a c e . John was s a i l i n g t o Cuba. I t sank without t r a c e .
These two examples were chosen t o make anaphoric resolution a s easy as possible i n the f i r s t ( d i f f i c u l t ) case; o t h e r examples where there i s a i i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y of an ambiguous reading makes t h e ' d i f f i c u l t y more obvious : (8) (8')
Mary was dressing the baby. They were made of pink wool.
Although this i s ultimately i n t e l l i g i b l e , i t i s inelegant English, and __ they seems to r e f e r t o Mary and the bahy.
This observat on has led us t o suggest t h a t the mental processor t r e a t s pronouns as a d i r e c t i v e t o search the e x p l i c i t reference domain. Only f t h i s f a i l s wi 1 more complex inferences be made.
I n summary, not only i s an i m p l i c i t reference domain necessary, b u t i t a l s o appears t o be p r e f e r e n t i a l l y addressed by d i f f e r e n t r e f e r r i n g expressions. Of necessity, the e x p l i c i t domain will c o n s i s t ofa smaller amount of infor. mation than t h e i m p l i c i t domain, and so will provide a very small search s e t f o r r e f e r r i n g expressions. The advantage of a small search s e t i s t h a t the specifying information f o r a content address search can be very I n language, pronouns would seem t o f i t t h i s b i l l very well, limited. being s h o r t c h a r a c t e r s t r i n g s converying l i t t l e information (gender, number, e t c . ) . On the o t h e r hand, noun-phrases convey much more information, and can be used t o address both e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t domains. This makes a comparison of noun-phrase and pronoun anaphora i n t e r e s t i n g . Normally, instead of using a repeated noun-phrase t o r e f e r t o things j u s t mentioned, a pronoun i s used, thus the following sounds strange: (9)
The truck roared through t h e v i l l a g e and the truck narrowly missed a pedestrian. ~
A pronoun would be more s u i t a b l e . Indeed, t h e r e i s some evidence t h a t f o r f a i r l y contiguous anaphora, a pronominal reference i s resolved more rapidly than a corresponding noun-phrase reference (Sanford & Garrod, (1981a). FOCAL REFERENCES
If the introduction of a background-knowledge mapping extends t h e domain of reference, the introduction of focus will reduce i t . Here we shall use focus i n t h e sense used by Grosz (1977) as the focus of " a t t e n t i o n " when An example of what we mean by t h i s i s as understanding a discourse. follows. If one i s reading about a boy in a cinema, then some e n t i t i e s
104
COHERENCE
I f the narraand e v e n t s r e l e v a n t t o b e i n g a t a cinema w i l l be i n f o c u s . t i v e s h i f t s t o one where he i s now a t home and being'adtxonished by h i s mother f o r spending t o o much money, t h e n u n l e s s d e t a i l e d r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h e e a r l i e r cinema s i t u a t i o n , e n t i t i e s and events r e l e v a n t t o t h e T h i s s i m p l e example corresponds t o an cinema w i l l no longer be i n f o c u s . episode change, and i s o f t e n cued i n a t e x t by e x p r e s s i o n s such as " A f t e r . ", "when he g o t home, . . . ' I , " t h e n he went home" that, . etc.
.
I t would be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i d e a o f focus i f an a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e t o an e n t i t y i n a p r e v i o u s e p i s o d e were more d i f f i c u l t t o r e s o l v e t h a n one t o Sanford, Henderson & Garrod (1980) an e n t i t y i n a c u r r e n t episode. I n t h i s study, s u b j e c t s r e p o r t a n experiment i n which t h i s was t e s t e d . r e a d passages which were o f e q u i v a l e n t l e n g t h and s u r f a c e c o m p l e x i t y , h a l f o f which were made up o f two c l e a r l y marked episodes, and h a l f o f The f i n a l sentence c o n t a i n e d a w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f a s i n g l e episode. Furthermore, such r e f e r e n c e t o an e n t i t y i n t h e f i r s t ( o r o n l y ) e p i s o d e . a r e f e r e n c e c o u l d be e i t h e r a s i t u a t i o n a l anaphor ( e . g . Mary dressed t h e . The c l o t h e s were t o o t i g h t ) o r a t e x t anaphor (e.g. Mary baby put the clothes K t m . . The c l o t h e s were t o o t i g h t ) . Subj e c t G e w u g h t h e passages one sentence a t a time, and t h e d w e l l t i m e s f o r each sentence were measured. The r e s u l t s showed t h a t f o r b o t h t e x t and s i t u a t i o n a l anaphors, an episode s h i f t r e s u l t e d i n a 200 msec i n c r e a s e i n r e a d i n g t i m e f o r t h e f i n a l sentences. Thus a n episode s h i f t appears t o reduce t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a r e f e r e n t , S i m i l a r r e s u l t s have been o b t a i n e d w i t h l e s s be i t i m p l i c i t o r e x p l i c i t . d i r e c t ways o f c u e i n g a change o f f o c u s - most s i t u a t i o n s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s e d by b e i n g bounded i n d u r a t i o n (Grimes, 1975) and by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a boundary d u r a t i o n has been exceeded, a p r e v i o u s episode can be p u t o u t o f f o c u s ( S a n f o r d & Garrod, 1981a; Anderson, Garrod & Sanford, i n preparation).
.
.
Such r e s u l t s may be viewed as a s i m p l e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f r e f e r e n c e domains. I f a s c e n a r i o i s used as a s t r u c t u r e i n t o which t o map a d i s c o u r s e , t h e n a change o f scene r e s u l t s i n a change i n s c e n a r i o , One way t o r e a l i s e t h i s i s as a and p r o v i d e s a new mapping domain. s e r i e s o f a d d r e s s i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s t o l o n g term memory, such t h a t a l l r e f e r e n c e s a r e r e s o l v e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t p a r t o f memory p o i n t e d t o by A pronoun thus a c t i t h e address o f t h e " c u r r e n t l y focussed" s c e n a r i o . v a t e s a procedure f o r search i n e x p l i c i t focus ( o f w h i c h we s h a l l say more s h o r t l y ) , and a noun-phrase a c t i v a t e s one f o r s e a r c h i n g t h e whole o f focus. Simple d e f i n i t e noun phrases (The t Noun) can be used t o address b o t h f o c u s p a r t i t i o n s , b u t what o f a d d r e s s i n g e n t i t i e s o u t s i d e o f focus? Here t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f a t r a d e o f f between search space and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n conConsider t h e f o l l o w i n g t e n t o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n can be i n v o k e d a g a i n . s e r i e s o f episodes : (10)
Mary and h e r husband had a meal a t Le Coq d ' O r . The w a i t r e s s gave them prompt s e r v i c e . As a r e s u l t , t h e y had t i m e t o spare, so t h e y went t o t h e cinema a f t e r w a r d s . The f i l m was a r a t h e r p o o r western. Mary's o n l y comment was t h a t t h e s a l o o n - g i r l l o o k e d j u s t l i k e the waitress.
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
105
Most r e a d e r s f i n d t h e d e f i n i t e anaphori c r e f e r e n c e t h e w a i t r e s s r a t h e r Indeed, i t s h o u l d be i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e experiments d e s c r i b e d strained. T h i s and s i m i l a r e a r l i e r on r e f e r e n c e r e s o l u t i o n a f t e r a t o p i c s h i f t . passaqes were shown t o a number o f r e a d e r s who were asked t o choose b e t ween t h e w a i t r e s s and t h e w a i t r e s s from t h e r e s t a u r a n t as p o t e n t i a l desThe ma.iori t v chose t h e c r i o t i o n s t o keeD t h e Dassaae smooth-flowina. This r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e ciause"(RRC) o v e r t h e < d e f i n i t e n o u n - p i r a s e . i s one l i n e o f evidence i n f a v o u r o f t h e c l a i m t h a t one f u n c t i o n o f an RRC i s t o p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o n n a t i o n i n a d e s c r i p t i o n t o enable a successf u l search t o be c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e s t a t i c p a r t i t i o n s o f memory, whether a r e f e r e n t i s f o u n d i n l o n g term memory o r i n g e n e r a l l o n g - t e r m memory. O f course, w i t h t h e example shown above, a noun-phrase w i l l s e r v e t o enable c o r e f e r e n c e t o be e s t a b l i s h e d , b u t i t i s u n c o m f o r t a b l e 0 use and t h e RRC, providing a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f the r e f e r e n t , i s preferable. Under c e r t a i n circumstances, s i m p l e r noun phrase w i 11 p r o v i d e adequate i n f o r m a F o r i n s t a n c e , i f we have b e e n r e a d i n g a p i e c e a b o u t t i o n , however. "Chomsky's t h e o r y " , t h e n even a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g something e l s e , t h e phrase "Chomsky's t h e o r y " s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o enable ready r e s o l u t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i f we have been r e a d i n g a s t o r y about a c h a r a c t e r "John", then t e m p o r a r i l y s h i f t i n g t h e emphasis away f r o m John t o a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r should n o t i n v a l i d a t e t h e use o f "John" as a s a t i s f a c t o r y d e s c r i p t i o n , because "John" serves t o p o i n t t o a s u b s t a n t i a l package o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n memcry. F i n a l l y , l e t us n o t e t h a t t h e RRC, w h i l e e m i n e n t l y s u i t a b l e f o r addressing o u t s i d e o f f o c u s , i s a l s o sometimes necessary as a d e s c r i p t o r T h i s o c c u r s when t h e r e a r e f o r a d d r e s s i n g f o c u s , even e x p l i c i t focus. two o r more e n t i t i e s i n f o c u s which would be addressed by t h e same s i m p l e noun-phrase, b u t which have t o be d i s c r i m i n a t e d (e.9. two men, one w i t h a hat, where t h e e x p r e s s i o n " t h e man who was wearing t h e h a t " m i g h t be used.) T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f how an RRC i s r e c o g n i s e d by t h e p r o c e s s o r - o b v i o u s l y i t cannot be assumed t h a t t h e RRC i s s i m p l y r e c o g n i s e d as a u n i t , and t h e n a c t i v a t e s an i n s t r u c t i o n t o search o u t s i d e o f focus. T h i s l e a d s t o t h e n e x t s e c t i o n of t h e paper, which d e a l s w i t h j u s t t h r e e problem areas t h a t have t o be t a c k l e d w i t h i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory o f reference.
THREE PROBLEMS FOR REFERENCE THEORIES P a r s i n g and r e f e r e n c e r e c o g n i t i o n Any comprehension process has t o s t a r t by o b t a i n i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e input. We c a n n o t a t t e m p t t o e n t e r i n t o a d e s c r i p t i o n o f p a r s e r s here, b u t s h a l l p o i n t o u t t h a t a good d e s c r i p t i v e framework and mode o f implementat i o n f o r p a r s e r s appears t o be t h e Augmented T r a n s i t i o n Network (ATN) (Woods, 1970; Johnson-Laird, 1977). Such a system o p e r a t e s i n a sequent i a l way on an i n p u t , and has subnetworks f o r r e c o g n i s i n g noun-phrases, etc. F o l l o w i n g J o h n s o n - L a i r d (1977), i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t once a nounphrase ( f o r i n s t a n c e ) has been recognised, some g e n e r a l procedure c a l l e d "seek r e f e r e n t " i s a c t i v a t e d . Obviously, such a procedure has t o be act i v a t e d a t some p o i n t i n o r d e r t o a t t a c h any s i g n i f i c a n c e t o a r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n , and t o e n a b l e anaphora t o be r e s o l v e d ; t h e q u e s t i o n i s a t what p o i n t i n t h e process does t h i s o c c u r ? We s h a l l suggest one p o s s i b i l i t y , based on a p r i m a r y p r o c e s s i n g p r i n c i p l e . According t o t h i s i d e a ( S a n f o r d & Garrod, 1981a), a p r o c e s s o r a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h coherence (hence, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , r e f e r e n t i a l mapping) on t h e minimum o f evidence. Our p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s sway i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n because
106
COHERENCE
i n n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n one f r e q u e n t l y f i n d s extreme e l l i p s i s and y e t t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s c a n u n d e r s t a n d one a n o t h e r . So a s i m p l e d e f i n i t e noun phrase s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o implement a "seek r e f e r e n t " procedure I f no s u i t a b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n can be found, t h e processor (search focus). can do n'imore and has t o s t o r e t h e noun phrase w h i l e t a k i n g i n more i n p u t . I n t h e case o f a n RPC, t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s w i l l be t o add s p e c i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e s t o r e d noun-phrase, which i s s t i l l i n a s e e k - r e f e r e n t s t a t e . The a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o r e s o l v e t h e r e f e r e n c e i f t h e w r i t e r i s s e n s i t i v e enough t o produce "conside r a t e " discourse. Such a c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t noun-phrases a c t u a l l y s e r v e as d i r e c t i v e s t o search t h e whole of memory, b u t a g a i n t h e r e w i l l be a preference f o r f o c u s , and a s i m p l e d e f i n i t e noun-phrase w i l l n o t s e r v e t o p i c k o u t any p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n t i n t h e absence o f more information. A f t e r a l l , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n "The man . " enables us t o map o n t o n o t h i n g more t h a n ( a s i n g u l a r , a d u l t male human e n t i t y ) and c a r r i e s no s i g n i f i c a n c e .
.
.
The p r i m a r y p r o c e s s i n g p r i n c i p l e w i l l o p e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n t ways a t d i f f e r L e t u s c o n s i d e r t h e opening sentence o f a d i s c o u r s e :
ent times.
(11)
The man d e l i v e r e d t h e c a r p e t s t o o u r house t o d a y .
No s i g n i f i c a n c e c o u l d be a t t a c h e d t o t h i s u n t i l a whole e v e n t had been parsed, and t h e "seek r e f e r e n t " f l a g would s t i l l be a c t i v e . There w i l l be n o t h i n g i n f o c u s f o r any p a r t of t h e sentence t o map i n t o ; b u t when t h e whole e v e n t has been parsed, i t should p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s f o r r e t r i e v i n g a c o r r e s p o n d i n g s i t u a t i o n f r o m l o n g term memory, t h u s p r o v i d i n g a mental I n a c o n s i d e r z t e d i s c o u r s e t h e model w i l l p r o v i d e an a p p r o p r i a t e model. frame o f r e f e r e n c e : one seldom b e g i n s a d i s c o u r s e w i t h an i r r e l e v a n t o r i e n tation. E x p l i c i t representation Yet Up t o now t h e n a t u r e o f focus r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s has been l e f t vague. focus has t o c a p t u r e t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i o u s d e s c r i p tions. We s h a l l c o n s i d e r some a s p e c t s t h e d e f i n i t e / i n d e f i n i t e d i s t i n c t i o n as an example. D e f i n i t e noun phrases a r e g e n e r a l l y assumed t o a s s e r t t h e e x i s t e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r member o f t h e c l a s s which t h e noun d e s i g n a t e s . Used a n a p h o r i c a l l y , such a phrase serves t o s i n g l e o u t a p a r t i c u l a r exemp l a r , t h e one mentioned b e f o r e . Used de novo, i t serves t o a s s e r t p a r t i cularity. Thus i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e t o view d e f i n i t e noun phrases as b e i n g p r i m a r i l y search d i r e c t i v e s . I n t h e a n a p h o r i c case, t h e e f f e c t s h o u l d be t o l e a d t h e p r o c e s s o r t o c o n s t r u c t a network i n e x p l i c i t focus i n which t h e a n t e c e d e n t node s i m p l y has new i n f o r m a t i o n a t t a c h e d t o i t ( a s u b s e t o f t h e Given-New p r i n c i p l e - c . f . H a l l i d a y , 1967; Garrod & Sanford, 1981b). I n t h e de novo case, a mapping f a i l u r e s h o u l d r e s u l t i n a new node b e i n g c o n s t r m n e x p l i c i t f o c u s . I n d e f i n i t e e x p r e s s i o n s a r e somewhat d i f f e r e n t . They a r e g e n e r a l l y used t o d e s i g n a t e any s i n g l e b u t u n s p e c i f i e d member of a s e t . Since they are used t o convey new i n f o r m a t i o n , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e y be c h a r a c t e r i s e d as b e i n g p r i m a r i l y d i r e c t i v e s t o s e t up a new node i n e x p l i c i t focus. This i s e a s i l y i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e oddness o f examples o f a t t e m p t e d anaphora us ing t h e in d e f in i t e : (12)
An American f l e w t o New York.
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
107
An Pmerican g o t a i r s i c k . A t once readers This k i n d o f example seems t o produce a s%range e f f e c t . seem t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e a r e two Americans, y e t t h a t they a r e p r o b a b l y one and t h e same person! The p o i n t i s t h a t w h i l e an i n d e f i n i t e i s p r i m a r i l y used t o s e t up a new node, i t a l s o serves as a search d i r e c t i v e . Indeed, Sometimes t h e search a s p e c t can be u n d e s i r a b l e . The f o l l o w i n g t w o - l i n e s n i p p e t e x e m p l i f i e s those used i n a s t u d y by Garrod & Sanford (1977; 1978): (13)
The bus/tank came t r u n d l i n g down t h e h i l l . I t almost h i t a v e h i c l e .
The second sentence h e r e i s one o f t h o s e awkward t r u n c a t e d ones sometimes met i n p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c experiments. B u t what i s i t t h a t makes i t awkward and t r u n c a t e d ? Our experiments demonstrated t h a t t h e t i m e t o match an anaphoric r e f e r e n c e t o t h e v e h i c l e t o t h e a n t e c e d e n t bus was f a s t e r t h a n onto tank, because i t i s a p o o r e r exemplar o f t h e c l a F ( e . g . Rosch, 1973). This d i f f e r e n c e , t h e c o n j o i n t f r e q u e n c y e f f e c t , i s s e n s i b l e when c o r e f e r ence i s b e i n g e s t a b l ished. However, i t s presence w i t h examples 1 ike ( 1 3 ) suggests t h a t c o r e f e r e n c e i s b e i n g e n t e r t a i n e d between bus/tank and 5 v e h i c l e by the processor. F i n a l l y , the reader i s i n v i t e d t o consider whether t h e second sentence o f ( 1 3 ) would seem l e s s " t r u n c a t e d " were i t t o be (14)
It almost h i t another vehicle.
Although no f o r m a l e x p e r i m e n t has been c a r r i e d o u t t o check p r e f e r e n c e s i n t h i s case, i t c o u l d be, and t h e use o f a n o t h e r ( x ) would s e r v e as a d i r e c t i v e t o s e t up a f u r t h e r node i n e x p l i c i t . I n d e f i n i t e e x p r e s s i o n s can, o f course, be used f o r s i t u a t i o n a l anaphora, as can d e f i n i t e s . Thus, f o l l o w i n g on a t e x t a b o u t a r e s t a u r a n t , we c o u l d r e f e r t o "a w a i t e r " o r " t h e w a i t e r " . W i t h t h i s example, t h e u l t i m a t e exe x p l i c i t f o c u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s would be t h e same, a l t h o u g h t h e node should be s e t u p f i r s t w i t h t h e i n d e f i n i t e , and t h e r e l e v a n t i m p l i c i t focus r e p resentation i d e n t i f i e d i n i t i a l l y w i t h the d e f i n i t e . There a r e , o f course, s i t u a t i o n s where u s i n g t h e d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e l i k e t h i s would n o t be interchangeable. Thus i t seems odd t o say: (15)
Jonathan was r i d i n g on a bus. A c o n d u c t o r took h i s f a r e . (There i s o n l y one c o n d u c t o r on a b u s ) .
To t a c k l e these i n s t a n c e s , we have t o c o n s i d e r t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i m p l i c i t A l t h o u g h t h e term "seek a n t e focus search s e t i n a l i t t l e more d e t a i l . cedent" i s g e n e r a l l y u s e f u l , t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r i m a r y p r o c e s s i n g p r i n c i p l e l i e s i n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a mapping r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t focus. Now i f t h e s c e n a r i o i s r i d i n g on a bus, t h e i m p l i c i t Yet t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l have o n l y one v a r i a b l e - s l o t f o r " c o n d u c t o r " . l o g i c o f t h e i n d e f i n i t e suggests i t names any one o f a s e t . It i s quite c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n d e f i n i t e procedure would i n c l u d e "seek a mapping o f t h i s node o n t o an a r b i t r a r y member o f a s e t o f semantically-matching representations". Such a procedure would enable comprehension o f somewhat r a r e r uses o f t h e i n d e f i n i t e , such as
108
(16)
COHERENCE
A K r i p k e would be a g h a s t a t a l l t h i s .
There i s no m u l t i p l e - e l e m e n t s e t o f K r i p k e s ( t h e l o g i c i a n ) , so i t i s nece s s a r y t o implement a search f o r a s e t , which t u r n s o u t t o be K r i p k e - l i k e e n t i t i e s (e.9. eminent l o g i c i a n s ) . According t o t h i s argument, ( 1 5 ) s h o u l d sound odd because t h e p r o c e s s o r a t t e m p t s t o f i n d a s e t of conductors. These examples a r e meant t o i l l u s t r a t e some o f o u r i d e a s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f s i m p l e noun-phrases. D e f i n i t e n e s s and i n d e f i n i t e n e s s a r e viewed as t r i g g e r s f o r procedures which a r e i n i t i a l searches and i n i t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y . A1 though we have o n l y covered a few i n s t a n c e s o f usage f o r these expressions, o u r c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i s exI t would be t r u e t o say t h a t t e n d i n g t h e range o f usages c o n s i d e r e d . p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f r e f e r e n c e have been f a i r l y r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e usages considered, and have tended n o t t o be r o o t e d i n a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f A f u l l account o f r e f e r e n c e must be a b l e t o accommodate comprehension. a l l usages and s h o u l d c a p t u r e o r e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n t u n d e r l y i n g l o g i c a l forms which l o g i c i a n s have used as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ( c . f . Stenning, 1975, f o r an e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n from a p h i l o s o p h i c o - l i n g u i s t i c s t a n d p o i n t ) . Examples, c o u n t e r examples and augmentations The use o f examples i s a necessary p a r t o f t h e o r i s i n g a b o u t language, and y e t f o r any example c i t e d i n s u p p o r t of a c l a i m , i t s e a s t o be p o s s i b l e t o g e n e r a t e a c o u n t e r example, o r a f u r t h e r example which i s so d i f f e r e n t as t o be d i f f i c u l t t o accommodate. Our t h i r d problem i s what t o do about this . I n normal usage, some r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s seem more s a t i s f a c t o r y t h a n others - b e t t e r o r l e s s strange. Strange usages may be c o n s i d e r e d as b r e a k i n g r u l e s ( e . 9 . G r i c e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p o s t u l a t e s ; G r i c e , 1975) p r o d u c i n g unusual e f f e c t s , o r d i s c o u r s e which i s d i f f i c u l t t o understand. By d e f i n i t i o n , s t r a n g e usages have a l o w f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e n c e i n n a t u r a l language, and i t would seem unreasonable t o e x p e c t a p r o c e s s o r t o I t i s perhaps more p r o f i t be t a i l o r e d t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f such usages. a b l e t o suppose t h a t a p r o c e s s o r would f a l t e r on e n c o u n t e r i n g them, and t h a t v a r i o u s t y p e s o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a r e i n d u l g e d i n t o f i n d an i n t e r p r e F o r i n s t a n c e , i n a f u l l a n a l y s i s o f pronominal anat a t i o n i f possible. phora, one i n e v i t a b l y encounters examples such as W i l k ' s ( 1 9 7 5 ) : (17)
G i v e t h e monkey's t h e bananas a l t h o u g h t h e y r i p e because t h e y a r e v e r y hungry.
are not
Such a sentence demonstrates t h a t pronoun anaphora can be r e s o l v e d on t h e b a s i s o f g e n e r a l knowledge a b o u t bananas and monkeys. Y e t such a sentence i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r a n g e , and i t would be u n d e s i r a b l e t o assume t h a t a l l pronoun r e s o l u t i o n u t i l i s e s g e n e r a l knowledge (See S a n f o r d .& Garrod (1981a) f o r a f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n ) . The same s o r t o f argument can be a p p l i e d t o a l l k i n d s o f usages. F o r i n s t a n c e , s h o u l d we a l t e r t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l procedures f o r d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s t o a l l o w f o r generic expressions? T h i s may n o t be necessary, s i n c e g e n e r i c expressi o n s a r e seldom used i n i s o l a t i o n . I n general, i t i s c l e a r l y advisable t o c o n s i d e r t h e usual c o n t e x t s o f u t t e r a n c e s b e f o r e t r y i n g t o model t h e utterance i t s e l f . Thus, sentences which sound s t r a n g e may sometimes be s t r a n g e r e g a r d l e s s o f c o n t e x t , o r may be q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r , u s u a l l y narrow, range o f c o n t e x t s . We must be c l e a r t h a t such use
TOWARDS A PROCESSING ACCOUNT OF REFERENCE
109
o f c o n t e x t i s n o t a way of o f f l o a d i n g sentences which one does n o t wish t o t a c k l e , b u t p r o v i d e s a p o t e n t i a l means for accommodating a wide range o f s t r a n g e examples w i t h i n a s i m p l e f o c u s framework. Indeed, i t i s q u i t e easy t o p r e s e n t s u b j e c t s w i t h v a r i o u s sentences and ask them t o p r o v i d e Only when t h i s i s c o n t e x t s i n which t h e y would e x p e c t them t o o c c u r . i m p o s s i b l e i s i t f a i r t o c o n s i d e r a sentence as t o t a l l y abnormal. CONCLUSION I n t h i s paper we have d e s c r i b e d p a r t o f an account of r e f e r e n c e which i s The g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e r o o t e d i n a more g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f comprehension. behind t h e t h e o r y i s t h a t o f p r i m a r y processing, embodying t h e assumption t h a t t h e p r o c e s s o r a t t e m p t s t o d e t e r m i n e s i g n i f i c a n c e as e a r l y as p o s s i b l e Reference i s c o n s t r u e d as a d i r e c t i v e f o r i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g sequence. memory search, and t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f such searches ranged f r o m pronominal anaphora t o e v e n t - s c e n a r i o m a t c h i n g . I n o u r account, much has been l e f t However, w i t h i n such a framework i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r p r e t and out. The s t r e n g t h of t h e examine many aspects of r e f e r e n c e and anaphora. account does n o t s i m p l y come f r o m t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e r e f e r e n c e domain t o i n c l u d e i m p l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t a l s o f r o m t h e mapping r e l a t i o n s between e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t f o c u s , and f r o m t r e a t i n g forms o f nominal and e v e n t r e f e r e n c e s as p r o c e s s i n g d i r e c t i v e s r a t h e r t h a n as problems f o r s t a t i v e representation. REFERENCES Garrod, S . C . & Sanford, A. J . E f f e c t s o f changes i n Anderson, A., n a r r a t i v e p r e s e n t on t h e a v a i l a b i 1it y o f r e f e r e n t s : i n p l i c a t i o n s f o r w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. ( i n p r e p . ) . I n t e r p r e t i n g anaphoric r e l a t i o n s : the Garrod, S . C . & Sanford, A. J. i n t e g r a t i o n o f semantic i n f o m a t i o n w h i l e r e a d i n g . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 77-90. Garrod, S. C . & Sanford, A. J. Anaphora: A problem i n t e x t comprehens i o n . I n R. N. Campbell & P . T. Smith (Fds.), Recent P.dvances i n t h e Psychology o f Language. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. Garrod, S . C. & Sanford, A. J . B r i d g i n g i n f e r e n c e s and t h e extended domain o f r e f e r e n c e . To appear i n J . Long & A. Baddeley, ( E d s . ) , A t t e n t i o n and Performance I X , H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981 ( a ) .
*
Garrod, S. C. & Sanford, A. J. Topic dependent e f f e c t s i n language p r o cessing. To appear i n G. 6. F l o r e s d ' A r c a i s & R. J a r v e l l a (Eds.), process o f language u n d e r s t a n d i n g , C h i c h e s t e r : John W i l e y & Sons, 1981 ( b ) . G r i c e , H. P. L o g i c and c o n v e r s a t i o n . I n P. Cole & J . L. Morgan New York: Seminar Press, ( E d s . ) , S y n t a x and Semantics 3, Speech A c t s . 1975. Grimes, J. E. The Thread o f Discourse, L i nguarum, 1975.
The Hague:
Mouton, Janua
110
COHERENCE
Grosz, B . The representation of focus in dialogue understanding. Technical Note 15, SRI A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e Center, 1975. Halliday, M. A . K. Notes on t r a n s i t i v i t y and theme i n English, Parts 1 & 2, Journal of Linguistics, 1967, 3, 37-81, & 199-214. Psycholinguistics without l i n g u i s t i c s . I n N . S . Johnson-Laird, P . N . Sutherland ( E d . ) , Tutorial Essays in Psychology, I , 1977, H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence Er7 baum Associates. Rosch, E. On the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of perceptual and semantic cateI n T. E . Moore ( E d . ) , Cognitive development and the acquisigories. t i o n of language, New York: Academic Press, 1973. Memory and a t t e n t i o n i n t e x t comprehenSanford, A . J . & Garrod, S . C . s i o n : the problem of reference. I n R. Nickerson ( E d . ) , Attention and Performance V I I I , H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980. Sanford, A. J . & Garrod, S . C . Understanding Written Language, Chichest e r : John Wiley & Sons L t d , 1981 ( a ) . Sanford, A. J . & Garrod, S . C . The r o l e of background knowledge in psychological models of t e x t comprehension. To appear i n J . Allwood & E . Helmquist ( E d s . ) : Foregrounding Background (1981 ( b ) . Sanford, A . J., iienderson, R . J . & Garrod, S . C . Topic s h i f t as variable i n t e x t cohesion: experimental evidence from s t u d i e s in reading time. Pape- presented to a meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society, Cambridge, July, 1980. Stenning, K . Understanding Engliqh A r t i c l e s and Q u a n t i f i e r s , P h . D . Thesis, Rockefeller University, 1975. Wilks, Y . inference.
A p r e f e r e n t i a l pattern-seeking semantics f o r natural language A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e , 6, 1975, 53-74.
Woods, W. A. Transition network grammars f o r natural language a n a l y s i s . Communcations of the A. C . M. 1970, 13, 591-606.
DfSCOURSE PROCESSING A . Hammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
Ulrich Glowalla & Hans Colonius I n s t i t u t f u r Psychologie Technische Universitat Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany
I t has been argued t h a t t h e macrostructural organization of a t e x t i s c e n t r a l t o comprehension and r e t e n t i o n of discourse. I n a recogn i t i o n experiment, some aspects of t h e macros t r u c t u r a l representation have been inve,stigated. The r e s u l t s give some preliminary support t o the Roter Faden model (Glowalla, 1981). I n a d d i t i o n , a q u a n t i t a t i v e model capturing some f e a t u r e s of macrostructure search i s outlined. INTRODUCTION
I t has been s t r e s s e d by a number of people t h a t t h e process of condensing the f u l l meaning of a t e x t i n t o i t s g i s t i s central t o t h e comprehension and r e t e n t i o n of discourse ( e . g . , Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978). The main goal of t h i s paper i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s process f u r t h e r . I t has become convenient t o use the term macrostructure f o r such global descriptions of the semantic s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t . In c o n t r a s t , t h e term microstructure has been introduced f o r t h e s t r u c t u r e of individual t e x t sentences and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s . To consider a piece of discourse coherent, two conditions must h o l d : i t s respective sentences should be connected a t t h e microstructure level and these sentences should be organized in l a r g e r conceptual u n i t s a t the macrostructure l e v e l . T h u s , a s has been argued elsewhere ( e . g . , Sanford and Garrod, 1981), only models f o r t e x t processing incorporating b o t h of these aspects may a t t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l a s well a s empirical signif icance. I n f a c t , q u i t e a few models f o r t e x t processing incorporating micro- and macro-level d e s c r i p t i o n s have already been proposed (Glowalla, 1981; Graess e r , 1981; Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978; Schank a n d Abelson, 1977). However, the models d i f f e r with respect t o t h e format of t h e microstructure a n d / o r the macrostructure. As t o t h e l a t t e r , several conceptions a r e under d i s cussion. The e x i s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s may roughly be c l a s s i f i e d as follows: The micropropositions of a t e x t a r e transformed i n t o a set of macropropos i t i o n s by so-called macro-operators. Recursive a p p l i c a t i o n o f these macrooperators leads t o macrostructural descriptions a t d i f f e r e n t hierarchical l e v e l s . The r e s u l t i n g macrostructure represents t h e g i s t of t h e t e x t . This concept of macrostructure has been developed by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978). A1 t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e macrostructure o f a t e x t may be conceived of as a hierarchical tree s t r u c t u r e consisting of nodes representing conceptual u n i t s of a t e x t and l i n k s representing the r e l a t i o n s between conceptual u n i t s . The microstructure u n i t s of a t e x t , i . e . , i t s micropropositions, a r e 111
112
COHERENCE
represented by t h e terminal nodes of t h e t r e e s t r u c t u r e . Internal nodes represent conceptual u n i t s of t h e macrostructure on d i f f e r e n t hierarchical l e v e l s . No s p e c i f i c assumptions a r e made about t h e contents represented by the node. Distances between microstructure u n i t s in t h e t r e e s t r u c t u r e representing t h e macrostructure a r e viewed a s a measure o f t h e i r connectivity, i . e . , whether they belong t o t h e same or d i f f e r e n t macrostructural u n i t s . As a matter of f a c t , s t r u c t u r e diagrams defining t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e of a piece of discourse ( e . g . , Rumelhart, 1977) may be i n t e r p r e t e d in t h i s way. This view does n o t imply t h a t people cannot construct macropropos i t i o n s out of a s e t of connected micropropositions, i . e . , t h a t they a r e unable t o produce a summary of t h e main contents of a t e x t . Again, Rumelh a r t (1977) has been a b l e t o p r e d i c t observed summaries q u i t e nicely by postulating additional summarization r u l e s . The only proposition made here i s t h a t we may know too l i t t l e about t h e cognitive operations producing t h e t h e o r e t i c a l macrostructure. We should t h e r e f o r e avoid making too many i n i t i a l assumptions. Moreover, with respect t o t h e memory representation of discourse, assumptions about t h e contents of macrostructure nodes may even prove t o be unnecessary.
I n t h e following we shall present some experimental r e s u l t s about search processes on macrostructures. The data o r i g i n a t e from an experiment t o t e s t some predictions of a recently proposed model f o r t e x t processing called t h e "Roter Faden" (main t r a i n of thought; Glowalla, 1981). I n the subsequent section we shall give an o u t l i n e of a q u a n t i t a t i v e model. A s what follows will be presented in the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of t h e Roter Faden model, we comnence with a short survey of t h e main assumptions of t h i s model. THE ROTER FADEN MODEL
The Roter Faden model has been designed t o capture comprehension and retention of discourse, in which purposive action sequences of human beings a r e described. The model c o n s i s t s of an i n t e r a c t i v e processing system based o n s p e c i f i c assumptions about t h e processing devices involved in the comprehension of discourse, together with a s e t of knowledge s t r u c t u r e s necessary t o f u l f i l the t a s k . T h e model s t a r t s off with t h e question how incoming t e x t information has t o be processed t o produce a memory representation of i t . Clauses a r e taken a s u n i t s in t h i s a n a l y s i s ; a clause i s defined here t o be a proposition containing an a c t i v e o r s t a t i v e verb. A t each processing s t e p , t h e model t r i e s t o find answers t o t h e following questions: 1. What i s t h e functional meaning of an incoming clause? ( A functiona l l y i d e n t i f i e d c l a u s e will be termed a microstructure u n i t . ) 2 . How may t h e present microstructure u n i t be connected t o already encoded u n i t s ? 3 . Which inferences have t o be generated, i f no d i r e c t connection e x i s t s between two successive u n i t s ? 4 . Which expectations may be generated about t h e t e x t information y e t t o come? 5. I s i t possible t o condense already encoded microstructure u n i t s into more global macrostructure u n i t s ? The i n t e r a c t i v e processing system produces answers t o these questions u t i l i z i n g t h e assumed knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . B o t h of these components of t h e Roter Faden model will be outlined in turn. The processing system c o n s i s t s of a c e n t r a l processor c a l l e d CONSTRUCT and four subprocessors termed IOENT, INFER, MACRO, and ERWIN. The central processor executes t h e various
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
113
processing o p e r a t i o n s i n a c t u a l f a c t , u t i l i z i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n produced by t h e subprocessors. I t i s assumed t h a t t h e s e subprocessors work independentl y o f each o t h e r and communicate e x c l u s i v e l y v i a t h e c e n t r a l p r o c e s s o r . A l l processing d e v i c e s d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o two p r o p e r t i e s , namely t h e i r t a s k and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o access t h e assumed knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . The c e n t r a l processor CONSTRUCT a c t u a l l y produces t h e memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a t e x t by p r o c e s s i n g i t s i n f o r m a t i o n c l a u s e - b y - c l a u s e . Subprocessor I D E N T t r i e s t o i d e n t i f y t h e f u n c t i o n a l meaning o f each incoming c l a u s e . D u r i n g t h i s p r o cess e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e u t i l i z e d t h a t have been d e r i v e d f r o m t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y encoded. I f no match between t h e p r e s e n t c l a u s e and one o f these e x p e c t a t i o n s i s found, subprocessor INFER becomes a c t i v a t e d . INFER, then, generates c h a i n s c o n s i s t i n g o f one o r more i n f e r e n c e s i n o r d e r t o connect t h e new p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g . A t each p r o c e s s i n g s t e p , subprocessor MACRO checks f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f condensing a s e t o f c o h e r e n t m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i n t o more g l o b a l macros t r u c t u r a l u n i t s and ERWIN, f i n a l l y , generates e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t h e t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n y e t t o come. Up t o now, a l l p r o c e s s i n g d e v i c e s a r e r e a l i z e d by d e t a i l e d f l o w c h a r t s m o d e l l i n g t h e comprehension o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e R o t e r Faden model. Moreover, t h e p r o c e s s i n g d e v i c e s a r e p u r e l y f u n c t i o n a l i n nature. Thus, s p e c i f i c w o r l d knowledge i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d , f o r example, whether a s p e c i f i c method encountered by t h e main c h a r a c t e r o f an a c t i o n sequence i s s u i t a b l e t o r e a c h a c e r t a i n g o a l . I n a d d i t i o n , no c a p a c i t y l i m i t a t i o n s o f w o r k i n g memory a r e c o n s i d e r e d , as has r e c e n t l y been done by K i n t s c h and van D i j k (1978). However, t o implement t h e p r o c e s s i n g model as a computer program, assumptions a b o u t b o t h o f t h e s e a s p e c t s would have t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , by g i v i n g a d e t a i l e d account o f t h e opera t i o n s performed d u r i n g t h e n e x t comprehension process, t h e p r o c e s s i n g dev i c e s a l l o w f o r s u c c e s s i v e e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t i n g . I n a c t u a l f a c t , one i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f t h e model, namely t h e process o f g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s has a l r e a d y been i n v e s t i g a t e d and l e d t o s u p p o r t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r t h e Roter Faden model ( P o h l , t h i s volume). D u r i n g t h e comprehension process t h e p r o c e s s i n g system i s assumed t o have access t o d i f f e r e n t know1 edge s t r u c t u r e . These knowledge s t r u c t u r e s cons i s t o f t h r e e a c t i o n schemata and a s e t o f t e n c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s . The f o r mer s p e c i f y o u r a b s t r a c t knowledge about t h e t y p i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f a c t i o n sequences and t h e l a t t e r d e f i n e o u r knowledge about p e r m i t t e d d e v i a t i o n s from t h e t y p i c a l s t r u c t u r e . To a p p l y t h e s e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t o t h e comprehension process, i t must be shown which u n i t s o f a t e x t may be ident i f i e d w i t h u n i t s o f t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . I n t h e R o t e r Faden model i t i s assumed t h a t c l a u s e s t a k e n as u n i t s o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n belong t o e i t h e r o f t h r e e b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s . These c a t e g o r i e s correspond t o t h e d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n a l meanings o f c e r t a i n c l a u s e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f a t e x t . The c a t e g o r i e s a r e termed I n t e n t i o n ( g o a l s , conceptions, wishes), A c t i o n ( s t a t e changes), and S t a t e ( c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e w o r l d ) . I t i s assumed t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n a l meaning o f a c l a u s e may be d e r i v e d from t h e semantic i m p o r t o f i t unambiguosly and i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f s u r r o u n d i n g c l a u ses. M i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e same c a t e g o r y w i l l be f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a c t i o n schema o f which t h e y a r e a cons t i t u e n t and w i t h r e s p e c t t o whether t h e main c h a r a c t e r i s i n v o l v e d . These s u b c a t e g o r i e s a r e d e t a i l e d below: 1. I n t e n t i o n 1.1 Goal ( d e s i r e f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a c e r t a i n e v e n t o r s t a t e ) 1 . 2 Conception ( f o r m a t i o n o f a PLAN) 1.3 S e l e c t ( s e l e c t i o n o f a c e r t a i n method)
114
COHERENCE
2. A c t i o n 2.1 Do ( a p p l i c a t i o n o f a s e l e c t e d method) 2.2 Event o r O b s t a c l e (an o b j e c t i v e o c c u r r e n c e o r an a c t i o n by another character) 3. S t a t e 3 . 1 p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e Outcome ( o f an ACTION) 3.2 p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e Consequence ( o f a PLAN o r an EPISODE) 3.3 S e t t i n g o r O b s t a c l e (a c o n d i t i o n o f t h e w o r l d e x i s t i n g indep e n d e n t l y o f a main c h a r a c t e r ' s ACTION) A l l I n t e n t i o n - s u b c a t e g o r i e s , t h e ACTION-subcategory Do, and t h e S t a t e s u b c a t e g o r i e s Outcome and Consequence i n v o l v e t h e main c h a r a c t e r . A l l these s u b c a t e g o r i e s form a c o n s t i t u e n t o f one o f t h e a c t i o n schemata t h a t w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n . Whether an Outcome o r a Consequence i s pos i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e and whether an Event o r a S e t t i n g i s an O b s t a c l e i s det e r m i n e d r e l a t i v e t o t h e c u r r e n t I n t e n t i o n o f t h e main c h a r a c t e r . The a c t i o n schemata assumed by t h e R o t e r Faden model a r e termed EPISODE, PLAN, and ACTION; t h e y a r e g i v e n i n t h e f o r m o f r e w r i t e r u l e s :
+
[~~~~~N,i 1 +
1. EPISODE
=
Goal
2. PLAN
=
Conception +
Consequence
p ACTIONS
and / o r q PLANS
+
Consequence
+
( w i t h (p+q)>2; p.qelNo) 3. ACTION
= Select
+
Do + Outcome
Note t h a t t h e s e schemata a l l o w f o r r e c u r s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n . The a c t i o n schemata express o u r a b s t r a c t knowledge a b o u t t h e p u r p o s i v e b e h a v i o r of human beings. They a r e assumed t o g u i d e b e h a v i o r as w e l l as t h e comprehension of d i s c o u r s e t h a t d e s c r i b e s g o a l - d i r e c t e d human a c t i v i t i e s . Note t h a t t h e cons t i t u e n t s o f t h e s e schemata c o v e r most o f t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i n t r o duced i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n ; o n l y S e t t i n g , Event, and O b s t a c l e do n o t o c c u r and an e v a l u a t i o n o f u n i t s Outcome and Consequence i s m i s s i n g . T h i s i s m o t i v a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e elements a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d p r o p e r t i e s o f o u r a b s t r a c t knowledge a b o u t t h e t y p i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f a c t i o n sequences. N e v e r t h e l e s s , one can say t h a t access t o t h e s e schemata would g r e a t l y fac i l i a t e t h e t e x t comprehension process: T h i s would a l l o w f o r g e n e r a t i n g i n f e r e n c e s about i n f o r m a t i o n n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n a t e x t as w e l l as e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n y e t t o come. Moreover, s i n g l e m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s may be conceived o f as b e l o n g i n g t o l a r g e r s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s o f a t e x t and m i g h t t h e r e f o r e be summarized a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e a c t i o n schemata. T h u s , t h e a c t i o n schemata correspond t o t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s o f t h e R o t e r Faden model. There i s a problem, however: The a c t i o n sequences r e a l i z e d i n many pieces o f d i s c o u r s e d i s p l a y c o n s i d e r a b l e d e v i a t i o n s from t h e t y p i c a l f o r m expressed by t h e schemata. C e r t a i n s t a t e s o f t h e w o r l d o r events may d e t a i n t h e main c h a r a c t e r from p u r s u i n g h i s g o a l s . Moreover, t h e a c t i o n schemata do n o t c o n t a i n any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p o s s i b l e c o n n e c t i o n s between s u c c e s s i v e m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s , f o r example, under which c o n d i t i o n s i t i s
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
115
p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e Outcome o f a c e r t a i n ACTION i s succeeded by t h e Concepti o n o f a new PLAN. I t i s assumed t h a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s c o n s i s t i n c o n f i g u r a l r e s t r i c t i o n s based on s u r r o u n d i n g m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s . I n t h e R o t e r Faden model t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n n e c t i n g s u c c e s s i v e m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s a r e r e a l i z e d by c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s . These r u l e s d e f i n e which two f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s may f o l l o w one a n o t h e r i n t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t . A s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n o f one o f t h e r u l e s w i l l serve as an i l l u s t r a t i o n . Note t h a t t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i n q u e s t i o n a r e under1 i n e d : Obstacle p
-f
( a f t e r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a method t o a c h i e v e goal r )
L
( t 1) Goal r + 1: Remove o b s t a c l e p S e l e c t a l t e r n a t i v e method f o r goal r N e g a t i v e Consequence f o r goal r ( - 1 )
T h i s r u l e says t h a t whenever a n O b s t a c l e b l o c k s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n (Do) o f a s e l e c t e d method, t h e main c h a r a c t e r has e x a c t l y t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s t o choose from: To s e t h i m s e l f t h e t o remove t h e o b s t a c l e , o r t o S e l e c t an a l t e r n a t i v e method t h a t w i l l p r e v e n t him f r o m e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e experienced o b s t a c l e , o r f i n a l l y t o g i v e up t h e i n t e n d e d g o a l ( N e g a t i v e Consequence). The numbers i n parantheses i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c o u r s e o f a c t i o n goes i n t o more d e t a i l o r o n t o a more g l o b a l l e v e l . T h i s i s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by changes i n t h e h i e r a r c h y l e v e l , i . e . , one l e v e l down ( + 1) o r one l e v e l up ( - 1 ) .
Goal
Both o f t h e s e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , namely a c t i o n schemata and c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s a r e u t i l i z e d by t h e p r o c e s s i n g system o f t h e R o t e r Faden model. As an example, t h e f i n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f one o f t h e t e x t s used i n a r e c o g n i t i o n experiment t o t e s t t h e R o t e r Faden model i s shown i n F i g u r e 1. The symbol s t r i n g connected by d o t t e d l i n e s and r u n n i n g a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s r e p r e s e n t s t h e R o t e r Faden, o r m a i n t r a i n o f thought, o f t h a t s p e c i f i c t e x t i n t e r r u p t e d by dead-end s t r u c t u r e s ( u n s u c c e s s f u l a c t i o n sequences). Both c o n s i s t o f e x p l i c i t , i . e . , a c t u a l l y s t a t e d i n t h e t e x t , o r i m p l i c i t , i.e., i n f e r r e d , f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s , together w i t h t h e i r respective c o n n e c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s d e f i n e d i n t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e . T h i s s t r i n g o f connected f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t . The c i r c l e d symbols E , P , and H r e p r e s e n t t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o a c t i o n schemata, a g a i n d e f i n e d i n t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e . These m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s , t o gether w i t h t h e i r connecting continuous l i n e s , represent t h e t h e o r e t i c a l m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . T h i s concept o f a m a c r o s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t e d by nodes and e x t r a c o n n e c t i o n s between c o h e r e n t f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s o f t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e w i l l be f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d l a t e r on. B u t f i r s t , we s h a l l g i v e an o u t l i n e o f a n experiment t h a t was conducted t o t e s t some p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n produced by t h e R o t e r Faden model.
AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE ROTER FADEN MODEL As has a l r e a d y been i n d i c a t e d , t h e model a l l o w s f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of t h e Roter Faden and dead-ends o f a t e x t on t h e one hand, and more o r l e s s comp l e x u n i t s i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e on t h e o t h e r . These two a r e , t o o u r knowledge, t h e o n l y v a r i a b l e s f o r which c o n s i s t e n t e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s have been o b t a i n e d i n experiments designed t o t e s t s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r p i e c e s o f d i s c o u r s e . The f i r s t v a r i a b l e has proved t o be e f f e c t i v e i n s t u d i e s conducted by B l a c k (1978), G l o w a l l a (1981a), and Omanson (1979), t h e second v a r i a b l e i n a s t u d y by B l a c k and Bower (1979).
0
0
I m W
m
z
0
m
35
4.45
Figure 1 R e p r e s e n t a t i o n Graph o f a T e x t According t o t h e R o t e r Faden Model The Numbers R e f e r t o t h e M i c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s o f t h e T e x t . E x p l a n a t i o n o f Symbols: E: EPISODE; P: PLAN; H: ACTION; I I , I , A c t: i o n w i t h Pos.Outcome, Neg.Outcome, o r Obstacle; , rn : Pos. o r Neg.Outcome;O , : Pos. o r Neg.Consequence; A , A : S e t t i n g / E v e n t o r Obs t a c l e ; 0 : Goal; D : Conception; : Dead-End S t r u c t u r e s .
+
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
117
Comparable p r e d i c t i o n s a r e a l s o made by Schank and A b e l s o n ' s (1977) "Conceptual Dependency / Know1 edge S t r u c t u r e " computer s i m u l a t i o n model. Tests of o t h e r s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f d i s c o u r s e l i k e membership o f d i f f e r e n t e p i s o d i c c a t e g o r i e s o r p o s i t i o n i n t h e t e x t s t r u c t u r e h i e r a r c h y - have l e d t o i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s (Omanson, 1979; Trabasso, 1980). Nevertheless, i t i s n o t c l e a r which o f t h e two v a r i a b l e s i s t h e more e f f e c t i v e . The reason f o r t h i s l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t i n experiments i n v e s t i g a t i n g one o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s , p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e have not been c o n t r o l l e d f o r . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g r e c o g n i t i o n experiment, t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s have been v a r i e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y . I n t h i s experiment s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s e s s i o n s w i t h e x a c t l y t h e same procedure. Each s e s s i o n s t a r t e d w i t h a s t u d y p e r i o d i n which two t e x t s were presented a c o u s t i c a l l y t o t h e s u b j e c t s . D u r i n g each s e s s i o n , a d i f f e r e n t p a i r o f t e x t s was used. A f t e r an i n t e r v e n i n g p e r c e p t i o n t a s k , t h e s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d on r e t e n t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n e d t e x t p a i r i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: On each t r i a l two sentences stemming f r o m t h e t e x t p a i r were p r e sented v i s u a l l y . S u b j e c t s had t o d e c i d e whether b o t h sentences o r i g i n a t e d from t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t t e x t s . Percentages o f c o r r e c t answers and r e sponse l a t e n c i e s were measured. A l l probe sentences o r i g i n a t e d from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s , namely a PLAN d o m i n a t i n g an EPISODE, a PLAN c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v e r a l ACTIONS, and f i n a l l y a s i n g l e ACTION. F o r each o f t h e s e s t r u c t u r e t y p e s t h e r e e x i s t e d two comparable u n i t s , one belonging t o t h e R o t e r Faden and t h e o t h e r b e i n g a dead-end. As a n example, look a t t h e t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n shown i n F i g u r e 1. The m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s PLAN w i t h embedded EPISODE c o n s i s t o f t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e u n i t s 30 t o 38 and 39 t o 47, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e f i r s t b e i n g t h e dead-end s t r u c t u r e and the second b e i n g t h e R o t e r Faden s t r u c t u r e . B o t h sentences of a p o s i t i v e probe stemmed from t h e same m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t and b o t h e i t h e r belonged t o t h e R o t e r Faden s t r u c t u r e o r t o t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g dead-end s t r u c t u r e . This i s a l s o t r u e f o r n e g a t i v e probes w i t h one i m p o r t a n t e x c e p t i o n : One sentence o r i g i n a t e d f r o m t h e f i r s t t e x t and one from t h e second t e s t . The observed r e a c t i o n t i m e s have been analysed by s e v e r a l ANOVAs; t h e main r e s u l t s a r e as f o l l o w s : Ifa p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n belongs t o t h e R o t e r Faden, i t r e c e i v e s some s o r t o f s t r u c t u r a l b e n e f i t i n s o f a r as a s t r o n g decay i n a v a i l a b i l i t y i s compensated f o r when i t o r i g i n a t e s f r o m a l e s s i m p o r t a n t m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t . I f t h e p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n stems from a dead-end s t r u c t u r e , t h e decay i n a v a i l a b i l i t y w i l l be i n t e n s i f i e d . These r e s u l t s l e d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t any model must account f o r t h e e f f e c t s of b o t h o f t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s . The s u b s t a n t i a l l y s t r o n g e r e f f e c t s o f membership i n more o r l e s s complex m a c r o s t r u c t u r e u n i t s l e d t o t h e f u r t h e r conc l u s i o n t h a t t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e x t s should be i n v e s t i gated more t h o r o u g h l y i n t h e f u t u r e . F o r d e t a i l s o f t h i s experiment see Glowalla (1981). PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON MACROSTRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION
AS a m a t t e r o f f a c t , p a r t of t h e d a t a o f t h e experiment j u s t d e s c r i b e d a l l o w s f o r some p r e l i m i n a r y i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e s e phenomena. D u r i n g t h e stepwise c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a g i v e n t e x t according t o t h e R o t e r Faden model, m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l c o n n e c t i o n s between coherent m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s ( t h o s e b e l o n g i n g t o t h e same m a c r o s t r u c t u r a1 u n i t ) a r e e s t a b l i s h e d v i a a node r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t p i e c e o f t h e macros t r u c t u r e as a whole. P a i r s o f m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t
118
COHERENCE
t o t h e i r d i s t a n c e i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . The d i s t a n c e i s expressed by t h e number o f l i n k s on t h e p a t h between two r e s p e c t i v e u n i t s . I f , f o r example, two m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s a r e dominated by t h e same m a c r o s t r u c t u r e node H, t h e i r d i s t a n c e i s 2, i f t h e y a r e dominated by t h e same node P b u t belong t o d i f f e r e n t A C T I O N S , t h e i r d i s t a n c e i s 4. I t may be asked whether d i f f e r e n t response l a t e n c i e s a r e t o be observed f o r probes h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t d i s t a n c e s i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . Assuming equal search r a t e s f o r a l l l i n k s i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e , search t i m e s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g distance. T h i s p r e d i c t i o n can be t e s t e d by i n s p e c t i o n o f p a r t o f t h e d a t a f r o m t h e d e s c r i b e d r e c o g n i t i o n experiment. I n s t r u c t u r e t y p e 1 (PLAN w i t h an embedded EPISODE) t h e r e a r e probes w i t h d i s t a n c e s o f 2, 4, o r 6 l i n k s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I f one t a k e s t h e d a t a o f a l l s i x t e x t s t h a t o r i g i n a t e from s t r u c t u r e t y p e 1 and computes mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r t h e t h r e e d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r i e s s e p a r a t e l y , t h e r e s u l t s a r e as f o l l o w s : 2443 ms, 2546 ms, and 2742 ms f o r probes w i t h d i s t a n c e s 2, 4, and 6 l i n k s . The observed d i f f e rences of 103 ms and 196 ms a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e ( F 2 , a s = 68.28; p < . 0 0 1 ) . S i m i l a r r e a c t i o n t i m e d i f f e r e n c e s can be o b t a i n e d i f t h i s a n a l y s i s i s performed f o r each t e x t s e p a r a t e l y , b u t f o r two o u t o f s i x t e x t s t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s r e s u l t may be t a k e n as s u p p o r t i n g evidence f o r t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e assumptions o f t h e R o t e r Faden model. However, one can o b j e c t t h a t t h e v a r i a b l e d i s t a n c e s i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e a r e confounded w i t h a n o t h e r v a r i a b l e , namely t h e number o f c l a u s e s between t h e two sentences o f a probe i n t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f a g i v e n t e x t . I n f a c t , t h i s v a r i a b l e should a f f e c t response l a t e n c i e s , s i n c e t h e mean number o f coherence r e l a t i o n s between two sentences i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g sentences ( C l a r k and Sengul, 1979; Lesgold, Roth and C u r t i s , 1979). Whether t h i s p r o p e r t y had any i n f l u e n c e on t h e observed response t i m e s has been i n v e s t i g a t e d by a s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g probes o f s t r u c t u r e t y p e 2 (PLAN c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v e r a l ACTIONS). The sentences o f t h e s e probes possess t h e same d i s t a n c e of 4 l i n k s i n t h e macros t r u c t u r e t o g e t h e r w i t h 0, 1, o r 2 i n t e r v e n i n g sentences. Over a l l s i x t e x t s used i n t h e experiment, mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f 2716 ms, 2811 ms, and 2861 ms were observed f o r probes b e l o n g i n g t o t h e s e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . The r e a c t i o n t i m e d i f f e r e n c e s o f 95 ms and 50 ms a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( F Z , ~= ~7.99; p < . 0 1 ) . W i t h m i n o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s were observed f o r e v e r y s i n g l e t e x t . As i t stands, t h e d i s t a n c e e f f e c t m i g h t be e x p l a i n e d by t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g sentences as w e l l . To c l a r i f y whether t h e observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n response l a t e n c i e s a r e a f f e c t e d by b o t h o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s o r depend e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g sentences w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e sentences o f a probe, a t h i r d a n a l y s i s was conducted. A subset o f probes b e l o n g i n g t o s t r u c t u r e t y p e 1 proved t o be s u i t a b l e f o r such an a n a l y s i s . The sentences o f t h e s e probes a r e separated by two i n t e r v e n i n g sentences i n t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t e x t and connected v i a 4 o r 6 l i n k s i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . C o n s i d e r i n g such probes o f a l l s i x t e x t s t o g e t h e r , mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f 2606 ms and 2822 ms were observed. The d i f f e r e n c e o f 216 ms i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (F1,+$ = 23.26; p < .001). Again, s i m i l a r r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d , i f s e p a r a t e ANOVAs a r e conducted f o r s i n g l e t e x t s . A j o i n t consideration o f a l l t h r e e analyses l e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n : Both v a r i a b l e s , namely t h e d i s t a n c e i n t h e macros t r u c t u r e as w e l l as t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g sentences as a measure of
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH coreferentiality,
119
a f f e c t t h e u n d e r l y i n g response process.
A MODEL FOR MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH I n t h i s s e c t i o n , we g i v e a n o u t l i n e o f a q u a n t i t a t i v e model f o r t h e search processes hypothesized i n t h e above experiment. I d e a l l y , one would expect such a model t o account f o r a l l main f e a t u r e s o f t h e d a t a , t h a t i s , t h e dependence o f r e a c t i o n t i m e s and p r o p o r t i o n of c o r r e c t answers on t h e v a r i o u s probe t y p e s . I t should be c l e a r f r o m t h e o u t s e t t h a t what f o l l o w s i s o n l y meant as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t toward such a model. Moreover, t h e model b u i l d i n g h e r e i s a post-hoc e n t e r p r i s e and t h u s , no model t e s t i n g i s y e t involved. I t i s common i n r e a c t i o n t i m e - s t u d i e s o f l o n g - t e r m memory search t o conc e i v e o f t o t a l r e a c t i o n t i m e (RT) as an a d d i t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n o f two p a r t s : a search t i m e ( S ) depending on t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n , and a r e s i d u a l t i m e ( R ) c o n s i s t i n g o f encoding and motor components t h a t a r e c o n s t a n t over e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s ( c f . P a c h e l l a , 1 9 7 4 ) :
RT=S+R An i m p o r t a n t p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g argument i s t h a t t h e S component o f t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e i n t h e above experiment can be t a k e n as generated by a search process o f t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e t h a t resembles t h e spreading a c t i v a t i o n assumptions used i n semantic network models ( c f . King and Anderson, 1976). A f i n d i n g s u p p o r t i n g t h i s v i e w i s t h e afore-mentioned i n c r e a s e i n mean r e a c t i o n t i m e as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f l i n k s separ a t i n g two probe sentences i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e graph r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Bef o r e i n t r o d u c i n g some s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f t h i s search process, two remarks a r e a p p o s i t e . F i r s t l y , w h i l e o u r d a t a a n a l y s i s suggested an e f f e c t o f t h e number o f m i c r o s t r u c t u r e l i n k s between t h e probe sentences on RT, t h i s has n o t y e t been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e model assumptions, s i n c e t h e experiment was n o t e s p e c i a l l y designed t o e x p l o r e t h e n a t u r e o f t h i s e f f e c t . The obvious a l t e r n a t i v e s t o handle t h i s would be e i t h e r t o p o s t u l a t e a p p r o p r i a t e search processes on t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e l i n k s o r t o l e t some parameters o f t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e search depend on t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e d i s t a n c e between t h e two probe sentences. Secondly, a s i m i l a r p o i n t should be made f o r t h e e f f e c t o f a n o t h e r v a r i a b l e , t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e t y p e which t h e probe sentences f o r m p a r t o f . One way t o t a k e t h i s e f f e c t i n t o a c c o u n t would be t o break down t h e search t i m e ( S ) i n t o a n o t h e r two a d d i t i v e subcomponents, one being t h e a c t u a l t i m e t o a c t i v a t e a l l necessary l i n k s , t h e o t h e r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e t i m e t o g a i n access t o t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e probes, where t h e l a t t e r t i m e component may d i f f e r f r o m one m a c r o s t r u c t u r e t y p e t o t h e n e x t . The f o l l o w i n g o n l y r e f e r s t o t h e a c t i v a t i o n search p r o cess i t s e l f : ( a ) each node and l i n k e i t h e r i s i n t h e a c t i v e s t a t e o r n o t ; ( b ) i f a l i n k i s i n t h e a c t i v e s t a t e , t h e n t h e two nodes connected by t h e l i n k are also active; ( c ) t h e t i m e f o r a c t i v a t i o n t o spread from an a c t i v e node t o an i n c i d e n t l i n k i s a n e x p o n e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d random v a r i a b l e w i t h a r a t e i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t o t a l number o f l i n k s i n c i d e n t t o t h a t node; ( d ) a c t i v a t i o n spreads i n d e p e n d e n t l y f r o m b o t h probe nodes and t h e s u b j e c t g i v e s an answer whenever a p a t h c o n n e c t i n g b o t h probe nodes i s a c t iva t e d .
120
COHERENCE
The e x p o n e n t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i s used m a i n l y f o r mathematical t r a c t a b i l i t y : 1 ) t h e minimum o f a f i n i t e number o f independent e x p o n e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d random v a r i a b l e s w i t h r a t e s r . i s a g a i n e x p o n e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h r a t e J C r.
j
J '
and 2) t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i - t h v a r i a b l e b e i n g t h e minimum i s ri/C r . J J
.
The assumption t h a t t h e r a t e o f a c t i v a t i o n s p r e a d i n g from a node towards an i n c i d e n t l i n k depends on t h e t o t a l number o f l i n k s i n c i d e n t w i t h t h a t node i s m o t i v a t e d by t h e s o - c a l l e d f a n - e f f e c t i n semantic network r e s e a r c h ( c f . K i n g and Anderson, 1976). Given ( a ) - ( d ) i t i s a r o u t i n e m a t t e r t o compute t h e expected search t i m e s f o r any m a c r o s t r u c t u r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n . L e t u s i l l u s t r a t e t h i s w i t h an example o f a m a c r o s t r u c t u r e grapii segment ( v i s . F i g u r e 2 ) . Suppose t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e nodes l a b e l e d 2 and 4 a r e a c t i v a t e d by t h e probe sentences. I n o r d e r t o compute t h e expected t i m e t h e p a t h a-b-c-d from 2 t o 4 needs t o be a c t i v a t e d , we have t o c o n s i d e r a l l p o s s i b l e ways t h i s a c t i v a t i o n may come about. Suppose t h e o r d e r o f a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e l i n k s i s a, b, d, c. I f r i s t h e parameter o f t h e e x p o n e n t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e expected t i m e f o r a t o be a c t i v a t e d f r o m 2 i s l / r ; f o r b , t h e t i m e t o be a c t i v a t e d i s 3 / r , since there a r e t h r e e l i n k s i n c i d e n t w i t h H2 not y e t a c t i v e ; then f o r d , t h e t i m e i s a g a i n l / r , w h i l e f o r e , we have 1 / 2 r , s i n c e a c t i v a t i o n may spread f r o m b o t h E and H 4 . Thus t h e expected t i m e f o r t h e o r d e r a,b,d,c i s 5 . 5 / r . The p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h i s o r d e r o c c u r r i n g i s 1 / 2 ( a " w i n n i n g " a g a i n s t d ) t i m e s 1/4 ( b " w i n n i n g " a g a i n s t d) t i m e s 1 / 2 ( d " w i n n i n g " against e) = 1/16. I n o r d e r t o g e t t h e expected t o t a l a c t i v a t i o n t i m e we have t o sum over the expected a c t i v a t i o n t i m e s o f a l l p o s s i b l e o r d e r s weighted by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f occurrence. I t i s n o t d i f f i c u l t t o show t h a t f o r a p a t h o f n l i n k s t h e r e a r e 2"-' d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e a c t i v a t i o n o r d e r s . Thus, c o m p u t a t i o n l o a d i n c r e a s e s q u i c k l y w i t h n However, i n most cases n i s o n l y o f moderate s i z e and, i n any event, t h e t a s k s h o u l d be amenable t o programming.
.
I n t h e above example, t h e expected t o t a l t i m e t o a c t i v a t e t h e 4 l i n k s conn e c t i n g t h e t e s t probes 2 and 4 can be shown t o be about 5 / r by e v a l u a t i n g a l l 8 d i f f e r e n t a c t i v a t i o n o r d e r s . The c o r r e s p o n d i n g t i m e f o r t e s t probes 1 and 2 w i t h o n l y 2 c o n n e c t i n g l i n k s i s 1 . 7 5 / r . I t can be shown more gen e r a l l y t h a t , no m a t t e r what t h e s p e c i f i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n , t h e expected t o t a l t i m e i s an i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n o f t h e number o f l i n k s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e p a t h c o n n e c t i n g t h e two t e s t probes. As i t stands, t h e model a l l o w s some f a i r l y d e f i n i t e p r e d i c t i o n s t o be made. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e m o n o t o n i c i t y p r o p e r t y j u s t mentioned, one would expect equal t o t a l a c t i v a t i o n t i m e s - a p a r t from s t a t i s t i c a l v a r i a b i l i t y - f o r a number o f t e s t probe p a i r s due t o an i n h e r e n t symnetry i n t h e macrostruct u r e graph, f o r example f o r t h e p a i r s 1 - 3, 2 - 3 , 1 - 4, and 2 - 4 . I t s h o u l d be p o i n t e d o u t , however, t h a t any c o n c l u s i o n drawn f r o m a t e s t o f t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s i s o n l y v a l i d i f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s on RT d i s c u s s e d above has been accounted f o r a p p r o p r i a t e l y .
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
121
Figure 2 Segment o f a M a c r o s t r u c t u r e Tree The Numbers r e f e r t o M i c r o s t r u c t u r e , t h e C a p i t a l L e t t e r s t o M a c r o s t r u c t u r e Nodes.
CONCLUSION
I t has been argued t h a t t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t can be r e p r e s e n t e d by a graph, d i v i d i n g c o h e r e n t m i c r o s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i n t o c l u s t e r s a t d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s . The q u a n t i t a t i v e model o u t l i n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n makes some d e f i n i t e p r e d i c t i o n s about search processes on m a c r o s t r u c t u r e graphs. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e t i m e t o v e r i f y a probe should be a n i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n of t h e number o f l i n k s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e p a t h c o n n e c t i n g t h e two sentences o f t h e p r o b e i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . The observed response l a t e n c i e s i n t h e r e p o r t e d r e c o g n i t i o n experiment a r e i n accordance w i t h t h i s p r e d i c t i o n . However, as has a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d o u t , t h e experiment was n o t e s p e c i a l l y designed t o i n v e s t i g a t e search processes on macros t r u c t u r e s . Thus, no r e a s o n a b l e t e s t o f t h e proposed model c o u l d be p e r formed. We s h a l l t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e w i t h some s u g g e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e d e s i g n o f such a n experiment. R e t a i n i n g t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t e c h n i q u e presented, one e f f e c t i v e m o d i f i c a t i o n c o u l d c o n s i s t o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l employment o f probes w i t h sentences stemming f r o m d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e t y p e s . I n an experiment i n v e s t i g a t i n g the j o i n t representation o f several p a r t i a l l y coherent t e x t s (Glowalla, 1980), r e l i a b l e r e a c t i o n - t i m e d i f f e r e n c e s between probes f r o m t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e t y p e s have been observed. By a l t e r i n g t h e d i s t a n c e o f
122
COHERENCE
m a c r o s t r u c t u r e u n i t s o u t o f w h i c h t h e two sentences o f a probe a r e taken s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , a s t r o n g t e s t o f t h e proposed q u a n t i t a t i v e model should be p o s s i b l e . Another m o d i f i c a t i o n m i g h t c o n s i s t i n a v a r i a t i o n o f t h e pres e n t a t i o n o r d e r o f probe sentences. T h i s v a r i a b l e has p r o v e n t o be h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e i n r e s e a r c h on a c t i v a t i o n o f semantic networks ( G l o w a l l a , Schulze and Wender, 1980). We assume t h a t an a l t e r a t i o n o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r s h o u l d f u n d a m e n t a l l y i n f l u e n c e t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e number o f m i c r o s t r u c t u r e l i n k s ( a s a measure o f c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y ) on RT. I n t h e experiment reported here, t h e o r d e r o f probe sentences corresponded t o t h e i r appearance i n the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f a t e x t . The o p p o s i t e o r d e r should r e s u l t i n a dec r e a s e o f c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y e f f e c t s on RT. The u s e o f t h e s e two and o t h e r s i m i l a r m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n experiments on m a c r o s t r u c t u r e search should lead t o a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n a t u r e of m a c r o s t r u c t u r e s and t h e i r applic a t i o n d u r i n g the processing o f discourse. REFERENCES B l a c k , J.B. 1978.
Story memory s t r u c t u r e s . PhD Thesis, S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y ,
B l a c k , J.B., and Bower, G.H. Episodes as chunks i n n a r r a t i v e memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal aehuvior, 1979, 18, 309 - 318. I n search o f r e f e r e n t s f o r nouns and proC l a r k , H.H., and Sengul, C.J. nouns. Memory and Cognition, 1979, 7 , 35 - 41. Der Rote. Fuden - e i n handlungstheoretisches Model1 zur TextGlowalla, U . verarbeitung. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t a t Braunschweig, 1981. Reproduzieren und Zusammenfassen von Texten. Sprache und G l o w a l l a , U. Kognition, i n p r e s s .
Probleme b e h Enkodieren und Dekodieren mehrerer ProblemGlowalla, U . ZBsegeschichten. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t a t Braunschweig, 1980. The a c t i v a t i o n o f sentenG l o w a l l a , U . , Schulze, H.H., and Wender, K.F. ces i n semantic networks. I n F. K l i x and J . Hoffmann (Eds.), Cognition and Memory. Amsterdam: N o r t h H o l l a n d , 1980. Graesser, A.C. 1981.
Prose comprehension beyond t h e word. New York: S p r i n g e r ,
Long-term memory r e t r i e v a l : An i n t e r s e c t i n g King, D., and Anderson, J.R. a c t i v a t i o n process. Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 587 - 605. K i n t s c h , W., and van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model of d i s c o u r s e comprehensi o n and p r o d u c t i o n . Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363 - 394. Lesgold, A.M., Roth, S.F., and C u r t i s , M.E. Foregrounding e f f e c t s i n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. Journal of VerbaZ Learning and VerbaZ Behavior, 1979, 18, 291 - 308. Omanson, R.C. The narrative anaZysis. PhO Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, Minnesota, 1979.
TOWARD A MODEL OF MACROSTRUCTURE SEARCH
? 23
Pohl, R.F. Acceptability of s t o r y continuations. I n A. Flammer, and W . Kintsch ( E d s . ) , T e x t processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, in press. Pachella, R.G. T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of reaction time i n information-processing research. In B.H. Kantowitz ( E d . ) , Human information processing: t u t o r i a l s i n performance and cognition. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. Rumelhart, D . E . Understanding and summarizing brief s t o r i e s . I n D . LaBerge, and S.J. Samuels ( E d s . ) , Basic processes i n reading. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Sanford, A.J., and Garrod, S.C. Wiley, 1981.
Understanding w r i t t e n language. New York:
Schank, R . C . , and Abelson, R.P. S c i p t s , pZans, goals, and understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Trabasso, T. Relevance perception i n t a t conrprehensioiz. Paper presented a t t h e Department o f Psychology, Universitat Braunschweig, 1980.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Hammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holhnd Publishing Company, 1982
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATIONS
Rudiger
F.
Pohl
I n s t i t u t f u r Psychologie Technische U n i v e r s i t a t Braunschweig
The R o t e r Faden model ( G l o w a l l a , 1981) has been developed t o account f o r t h e p r o c e s s i n g of n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . An i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f t h e model, t h e genera t i n g o f e x p e c t a t i o n s , was examined i n a s t o r y c o n t i n u a t i o n t a s k . S u b j e c t s had t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t a g i v e n sentence appeared t o be an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e cont i n u a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s l y r e a d s t o r y fragment. As measu r e s o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y percentage o f yes-answers and r e sponse l a t e n c i e s were r e c o r d e d . The r e s u l t s a l l o w e d f o r s p e c i f y i n g f o r m and c o n t e n t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s l e a d i n g t o t h e d i s t i n c t i o n o f redundant, expected, and d i s t a n t s t o r y c o n t i n u a t i o n s . 4s a consequence, t h e importance o f t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e o f a s t o r y f o r t h e comprehension process i s emphasized. INTRODUCTION One o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s o f s t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s t h e a b i l i t y t o draw i n f e r e n c e s between d i f f e r e n t sentences o f a s t o r y . Many s t u d i e s have s t r e s s e d t h e importance o f i n f e r e n t i a l processes (e.g., C l a r k , 1977; C r o t h e r s , 1978, 1979). B u t t r y i n g t o b r i d g e a gap between two p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n i n v o l v e s a t l e a s t one o t h e r process, namely g e n e r a t i n g expectat i o n s . These two processes, g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s and drawing inferences, w h i c h a r e a l s o c a l l e d f o r w a r d and backward i n f e r e n c i n g , u s u a l l y work hand i n hand and a l m o s t a u t o m a t i c a l l y . I n g e n e r a l , e x p e c t a t i o n s f a c i l i a t e t h e comprehension process by p r o v i d i n g h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t e x t c o n t i n u a t i o n s and t h e r e b y he.lp t o encode incoming i n f o r m a t i o n : D u r i n g and a f t e r r e a d i n g one sentence, e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e b u i l t up a b o u t what comes n e x t . Then, d u r i n g and a f t e r r e a d i n g t h e n e x t sentence, i f i t does n o t f i t any o f t h e generated e x p e c t a t i o n s , i n f e r e n c e s a r e drawn backward i n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two sentences. These processes, depending on how l a r g e a gap has t o be b r i d g e d , should need d i f f e r e n t amounts o f t i m e t o be accompl i s h e d . And t h e r e should be two extreme cases: One occurs, i f t h e second sentence f i t s e x a c t l y t h e most prominent e x p e c t a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t ; comp r e h e n s i o n t i m e s h o u l d be s h o r t e s t . The o t h e r occurs, i f t h e second sent e n c e i s j u s t a t t h e edge of b e i n g understood because i t needs r e l a t i v e l y many i n f e r e n c e s t o be connected t o t h e f i r s t ; t h e n comprehension t i m e s h o u l d be v e r y g r e a t . T h i s l e a d s t o t h e two m a j o r q u e s t i o n s t h a t a r e i n vestigated i n the present study: 1. What does an e x p e c t a t i o n l o o k l i k e ? 2. What i s t h e extreme p o i n t u p t o which a gap can be b r i d g e d ?
124
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATIONS
125
F o r t y - e i g h t s u b j e c t s were g i v e n s e v e r a l s h o r t t e x t fragments w i t h u n l i m i t e d r e a d i n g t i m e . A f t e r a t e x t fragment had been read, a s i n g l e sentence was given, and t h e s u b j e c t s had t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t t h i s sentence appeared t o be an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y r e a d s t o r y fragment. Measures o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y were percentage o f yes-answers and response l a t e n c i e s . R e a c t i o n t i m e was l i m i t e d t o 10 seconds, a f t e r which t h e n e x t t e x t fragment was g i v e n . Each of t h e 32 t e x t fragments, t h a t were a r r a n g e d t o form a c o h e r e n t s t o r y about a troublesome day i n t h e l i f e o f a psychology s t u d e n t , ended w i t h a hindrance o r a n o b s t a c l e f o r t h e p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e s t o r y . An example o f such a t e x t fragment i s shown i n F i g u r e 1 ( t h e o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l i s i n German). What can t h e p r o t a g o n i s t do a f t e r such an o b s t a c l e has been encountered? He must choose between t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s , t h e f i r s t two o f which c o n s i s t o f s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t methods: 1. S u b a o a l - a c t i o n ( i . e . . remove t h e o b s t a c l e ) 2. A l t e r n a t i v e - a c t j o n ( i . e . , change t h e p l a n j 3. G i v e up I n a p i l o t s t u d y 20 s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o f 202 p o s s i b l e methods as c o n t i n u a t i o n s t o 48 d i f f e r e n t o b s t a c l e s , each o f which was g i v e n i n t h e same c o n t e x t as i n t h e main s t u d y . 3 2 o b s t a c l e s were chosen, 16 o f which have a c o n t i n u a t i o n method r a t e d v e r y p l a u s i b l e and 16 r a t e d v e r y implau-
Text : ( a ) P e t e r wanted t o buy an o l d frame a t t h e f l e a market. ( b ) B u t when h e a s k e d f o r t h e p r i c e o f a b e a u t i f u l one, ( c ) t h e s e l l e r demanded a p r i c e P e t e r c o u l d n o t a f f o r d . Near probes
(I)
:
P e t e r wanted t o l o w e r t h e p r i c e f o r t h e frame.
( 2 ) P e t e r wanted t o bargain w i t h t h e s e l l e r . (3) Peter bargained f o r the p r i c e w i t h the s e l l e r .
( 4 ) P e t e r ’ s p r i c e o f f e r was a c c e p t e d b y t h e s e l l e r . Far probes : (5)
P e t e r now c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r i c e t o b e r e a s o n a b l e .
( 6 ) P e t e r w a n t e d t o p a y t h e new p r i c e f o r t h e f r a m e .
(7) Peter paid
t h e agreed upon p r i c e t o t h e s e l l e r .
(8) P e t e r r e c e i v e d t h e purchased frame from t h e s e l l e r . Figure 1 T e x t and probe examples o f a p l a u s i b l e subgoal method
I26
COHERENCE
s i b l e . From each group 8 belonged t o t h e s u b g o a l - s t r a t e g y and 8 t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e - s t r a t e g y ( t h e t h i r d s t r a t e g y was n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r ) . These were t a k e n t o be t h e f i r s t two e x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s . Hypotheses a r e (1) t h a t sentences c o n t a i n i n g a h i g h l y p l a u s i b l e method w i l l be more o f t e n and much more q u i c k l y accepted as a c o n t i n u a t i o n t h a n t h o s e w i t h a n implausible method; and ( 2 ) t h a t t h e s t r a t e g y o f t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n w i l l n o t produce any e f f e c t as l o n g as t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y i s c o n t r o l l e d . The t h i r d e x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a b l e concerns t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e t e s t sent e n c e s . The R o t e r Faden model ( G l o w a l l a , 1981; see a l s o G l o w a l l a and Colon i u s , t h i s volume), which i s based on t h e s t o r y t h e o r y o f Rumelhart (1977), b u t t a k e s a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t approach i n f o r m of a v e r y d e t a i l e d process model, i s used f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e deep struct u r e o f t h e 32 t e x t fragments and t h e i r c o n t i n u a t i o n s . The R o t e r Faden deep s t r u c t u r e o f t h e g i v e n example i s shown i n F i g u r e 2, w h e r e i n t h e meaning of t h e symbols i s as f o l l o w s :
-
Goal,
Subgoal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D -- Conception Select . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................
1
" " "
D
a
-
DO ACT PLAN - p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e Outcome . . . . . O + - p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e Consequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A A - Setting, Obstacle
o
EPISODE
These a r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e R o t e r Faden model, t h e m i c r o - ( i n small l e t t e r s ) and m a c r o f u n c t i o n s ( i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s ) o f t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t o r y . They a r e arranged a c c o r d i n g t o a s e t o f c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s t h a t a r e p a r t o f t h e p o s t u l a t e d knowledge s t r u c t u r e s of t h e model. These r u l e s s p e c i f y which f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s may f o l l o w each o t h e r . An example o f such a r u l e w i l l serve as a n i l l u s t r a t i o n ( m i c r o - u n i t s a r e und e r l ined ) : O b s t a c l e p a f t e r S e l e c t i n g a method f o r Goal r Goal r t l : Remove O b s t a c l e p (tl) a l t e r n a t i v e method f o r Goal r N e g z v e Consequence f o r Goal r (-1)
(7-
--+ S e l e c t
T h i s r u l e says: Whenever an O b s t a c l e b l o c k s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ( D o ) of t h e s e l e c t e d method, t h e p r o t a g o n i s t has e x a c t l y t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s t o choose from, namely, t o s e t h i m s e l f t h e Goal o f removing t h e Obstacle, o r t o S e l e c t an a l t e r n a t i v e method that-1 p r e v e n t him f r o m e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e experienced O b s t a c l e , o r t o g i v e u p t h e i n t e n d e d Goal ( N e g a t i v e Consequence). The numbers i n parentheses i n d i c a t e changes i n t h e h i e r a r c h y level o f t h e memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h a t i s whether t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n goes i n t o more d e t a i l , i . e . , one h i e r a r c h y l e v e l down (+l), o r o n t o a more g l o b a l l e v e l , i . e . , one h i e r a r c h y l e v e l u p (-1). There a r e t h r e e a b s t r a c t , m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l schemata (EPISODE, PLAN, and ACTION) i n t h e model. O f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t h e r e i s t h e ACTION-schema ( o r ACT) which c o n s i s t s o f t h e m i c r o - u n i t s S e l e c t , Do, and Outcome ( c f . Figure 2). From t h e s t r u c t u r e s i n F i g u r e 2 and t h e t e x t example i n F i g u r e 1 i t seems o b v i o u s t h a t t e l l i n g something a b o u t t h e subgoal-ACT o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T i s of m a j o r importance f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s t o r y . So t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATIONS
127
Continuation B
'u: 2
a1 t e r n a t i v e ACT
z _ h _
s u b g o a l -ACT a
1 5
-
c = propositions o f t e x t fragment
4 = n e a r p r o b e s ( t o be a c c e p t e d as c o n t i n u a t i o n s ) 8 = f a r p r o b e s ( t o b e r e j e c t e d as c o n t i . n u a t i o n s )
( t h e symbols o f t h e R o t e r Faden model a r e e x p l a i n e d
in the text) Figure 2 L o c a t i o n s o f near and f a r probe sentences i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n s a l l sentences r e p r e s e n t i n g any o f t h e f u n c t i o n s up t o t h e Outcome o f t h e subgoal-ACT o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T w i l l be accepted as c o n t i n u a t i o n s , whereas sentences r e p r e s e n t i n g f u n c t i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e Outcome o f t h e subgoal-ACT o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T w i l l be r e j e c t e d , s i n c e t h e gap i s t o o l a r g e t o b r i d g e . According t o t h i s d i s t a n c e measure t h e f i r s t a r e c a l l e d " n e a r " probes, t h e l a t t e r "far." probes. I t can be expected t h a t f a r probes w i l l need l o n g e r t o be r e j e c t e d t h a n near probes w i l l t o be accepted.
As can be seen i n F i g u r e 2 t h e f u n c t i o n s o f near probes a r e S e l e c t , Do, Outcome, and, i n t h e s u b g o a l - c o n d i t i o n , Subgoal. I n o r d e r t o match t h i s l a t t e r f u n c t i o n i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e - c o n d i t i o n , t h e l a s t Conception i s a l s o t r e a t e d as a near probe. O f course, t h e r e i s one s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e t h a t s h o u l d produce a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t : The Conception i s c o m p l e t e l y " o l d " t o t h e s u b j e c t , w h i l e t h e Subgoal i s p a r t i a l l y "new" ( C l a r k and Haviland, 1974). T h e r e f o r e Conceptions should n o t be accepted as o f t e n as Subgoals. N e v e r t h e l e s s b o t h have i n common t h a t t h e y do n o t s p e c i f y t h e method t h a t i s t o be s e l e c t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g ACT, so t h i s f o u r t h near f u n c t i o n w i l l be l a b e l e d " w i t h o u t method". Serving as f a r ( i . e . , t o be r e j e c t e d ) probes a r e sentences r e p r e s e n t i n g corresponding f u n c t i o n s ( S e l e c t , Do, Outcome, and w i t h o u t method). They a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e f o l l o w i n g t h e subgoal-ACT o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T , r e s p e c t i v e l y ( c f . F i g u r e 2 ) . O n l y Consequences f u n c t i o n as " w i t h o u t method". Hence, t h e t h i r d e x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a b l e ( f u n c t i o n ) i s used f o r matching near and f a r probes ( T a b l e 1 ) .
COHERENCE
128
Table I Number and f u n c t i o n s o f near and f a r probes
distance
nearl
far
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
I n o r d e r t o a v o i d unwanted m a t e r i a l e f f e c t s ( l i k e d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g times) t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t e s t sentences a r e c o n t r o l l e d :
1. The name o f t h e p r o t a g o n i s t always appears a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a t e s t sentence . 2. The c o n s t r u c t i o n i s v e r y s i m i l a r i n a l l sentences. 3. The number of s y l l a b l e s i s h e l d c o n s t a n t . 4. No u n f a m i l i a r o r f o r e i g n words a r e used. S p e c i f i c hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g t h e response l a t e n c i e s t o t h e d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s o f near probes a r e g u i d e d by c o n s i d e r i n g " t h e u s u a l way o f t h i n k i n g " , which i s r e f l e c t e d i n s t o r y t e l l i n g and w r i t i n g . T h i s way o f t h i n k i n g (and w r i t i n g ) s h o u l d be o r g a n i z e d around t h e p l a n n i n g o f h i e r a r c h i c a l and/or s e q u e n t i a l c h a i n s o f a c t i o n s t h a t need t o be performed i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a c e r t a i n g o a l . The S e l e c t o f a method and i t s Outcome a r e u s u a l l y redundant and t h e r e f o r e seldom mentioned. When an o b s t a c l e has been encountered t h e Do o f a p o s s i b l e c o n t i n u a t i o n method s h o u l d come v e r y close t o t h e a c t u a l e x p e c t a t i o n and t h u s be accepted f a s t e r t h a n any o t h e r o f the near f u n c t i o n s . S i n c e S e l e c t and Outcome a l s o c o n t a i n t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n method, t h e y should y i e l d second s h o r t e s t response l a t e n c i e s , b u t w i t h Outcomes t a k i n g l o n g e r because t h e y c a l l f o r i n f e r e n c i n g t h e 00 o f t h e ACT i n o r d e r t o be understood. The r e a c t i o n t i m e t o t h e " w i t h o u t method" f u n c t i o n should be l o n g e r t h a n t o t h e S e l e c t s i n c e no expected method i s s p e c i f i e d ; t h e r e f o r e t h e y m i g h t be equal o r s i m i l a r t o t h o s e f o r Outcomes. These hypotheses, if n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d , w i l l extend and m o d i f y t h e assumpt i o n s o f t h e R o t e r Faden model, w h i c h f o r t h e o r e t i c a l reasons a r e f o r m u l a t e d as s i m p l y as p o s s i b l e . I n t h e model t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a t e x t i s p r o v i d e d by an i n t e r a c t i v e system c o n s i s t i n g o f a c e n t r a l p r o c e s s o r and f o u r subprocessors. The subprocessor ERWIN ( g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s ) i s o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s experiment. I t u t i l i z e s t h e c o n f i g u r a l r u l e s t h a t have been e x e m p l i f i e d above. The g i v e n r u l e s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e r e a d e r w i l l e x p e c t e i t h e r a Goal, a S e l e c t o f an a l t e r n a t i v e method, o r a N e g a t i v e Consequence a f t e r h a v i n g encountered an O b s t a c l e . Thus ERWIN produces a s e t o f f u n c t i o n a l meanings one o f which may i m n e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t . Though no d i r e c t assumptions a r e made i n t h e model a b o u t t h e comprehension t i m e o f c e r t a i n sentences, i t can be argued t h a t t h e m i c r o f u n c t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e o b s t a c l e i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d y i e l d s h o r t e s t r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r b e i n g accepted as a c o n t i n u a t i o n . W i t h an i n c r e a s i n g number o f m i c r o f u n c t i o n s between o b s t a c l e and probe, response l a t e n c i e s s h o u l d grow i n a l i n e a r f a s h i o n u n t i l some s u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i o n i s reached above which no more probes w i l l be accepted as a cont i n u a t i o n . F i n d i n g some r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s c r i t e r i o n and o f t h e a c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n i s t h e m a j o r goal o f t h i s
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATIONS
129
study. METHOD
F o r t y - e i g h t h i g h school s t u d e n t s aged f r o m 1 6 t o 1 9 y e a r s (30 female and 18 male) t o o k p a r t i n t h e experiment, which was r u n w i t h one s u b j e c t a t a time on a Commodore PET 3001, Every s u b j e c t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h one probe a t a t i m e a f t e r a t e x t fragment had been read, i . e . , 32 t i m e s . S i x t e e n o f these probes r e p r e s e n t e d near and 16 f a r f u n c t i o n s . Each o f t h e 16 near probes belonged t o one o f t h e 1 6 t r e a t m e n t combinations ( s t r a t e g y ( 2 ) x p l a u s i b i l i t y ( 2 ) x f u n c t i o n ( 4 ) ) . W h i l e r e a d i n g t i m e f o r t h e t e x t fragments was u n l i m i t e d , probe p r e s e n t a t i o n t i m e was l i m i t e d t o 10 seconds. S u b j e c t s were asked t o d e c i d e as f a s t as p o s s i b l e whether o r n o t t h e g i v e n probe sentence appeared t o be an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e p r e v i o u s l y r e a d s t o r y fragment. Measures o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y were p e r c e n t a g e o f yes-answers and response l a t e n c i e s . F o r p r a c t i c e f o u r a d d i t i o n a l t e x t fragments ( w i t h an o b s t a c l e and a p r o b e each) were g i v e n f i r s t . RESULTS The acceptance r a t e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t probes i s shown i n F i g u r e 3a-d. Percentage o f yes-answers i s assigned t o t h e v e r t i c a l a x i s and near and f a r f u n c t i o n s a r e a s s i g n e d t o t h e h o r i z o n t a l a x i s . The f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s o f f u n c t i o n s a r e used: wm = w i t h o u t method, Sel = S e l e c t , and Out = Outcome. W h i l e a l l o f t h e f a r probes a r e r e j e c t e d ( w i t h an average o f o n l y 15 % yes-responses), o n l y 10 o f t h e 16 near probe t y p e s can be regarded as accepted s t o r y c o n t i n u a t i o n s ( w i t h an average o f 84 % yes-responses). The a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f 4 o f t h e near probe t y p e s has t o be c o n s i d e r e d random, and 2 a r e even r e j e c t e d . Thus t h e h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t t h e maximum s i z e o f an i n f o r m a t i o n gap was n o t r e j e c t e d f o r f a r probes, b u t has t o be m o d i f i e d f o r near probes. O f t h e s e t h e " o l d " Conceptions o f a l t e r n a t i v e - s t r a t e g i e s and t h e Outcomes o f i m p l a u s i b l e methods r e c e i v e a n acceptance r a t e o f l e s s than 50 %. "Old" Conceptions a r e presumably n o t accepted as c o n t i n u a t i o n s because t h e y c o n t a i n o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e r e a d e r a l r e a d y knows. An i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t i s t h a t a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s t h e same whether t h e c o n c e p t i o n has a c t u a l l y been s t a t e d i n t h e t e x t o r had t o be i n f e r r e d . The Outcomes o f i m p l a u s i b l e methods, which a r e t h e second group o f unaccepted c o n t i n u a t i o n s , show two i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s : F i r s t , t h e y c o n t a i n an i m p l a u s i b l e method which was n o t expected so t h a t i t s adequacy has t o be checked, and second, u n d e r s t a n d i n g them i n v o l v e s i n f e r r i n g t h a t between t h e o b s t a c l e and t h e probe something must have been done by t h e protagon i s t . Presumably t h e c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t f o r t h e s e two processes i s t o o l a r g e i n o r d e r t o a c c e p t such probes as u n d e r s t a n d a b l e c o n t i n u a t i o n s . T h i s cons i d e r a t i o n i s supported by t h e r e s u l t t h a t probes w h i c h need o n l y one of t h e two processes i n o r d e r t o be u n d e r s t o o d a r e accepted as s t o r y cont i n u a t i o n s ( w i t h a n average acceptance r a t e o f 7 5 % and 63 % r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , w h i l e probes which need n e i t h e r one o f them r e c e i v e t h e l a r g e s t a c c e p t a b i l i t y ( 9 5 %, T a b l e 2 ) . The two d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c c e p t a b i l i t y due t o t h e s e processes a r e b o t h h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.OOl). Moreover, t h e s e e f f e c t s a r e v e r y s i m i l a r f o r b o t h s t r a t e g i e s . G e n e r a l l y , t h e acceptance o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g f u n c t i o n s o f t h e two s t r a t e g i e s ( w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f " w i t h o u t method" probes) does n o t
COHERENCE
130
60-
40
-
______________---_---------
20-
b) implausible subgoal-methods 1007 7 % % 80
60 40 20
: - - - : z z 5 77
_ - - _ - - - - - -- --- - --- -
A
-
0
I
wm
I
I
Sel DO near
I
Out
II
. II I Do Out w’ wmm Ss’el el D O
far
c ) plaus’ible a l t e r n a t i v e - m e t h o d s
near 100- % 80
-
-
62 40 -
I
far
1
_____ ___-__-_------------35
Figure 3 Acceptance rates
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATION
131
Table 2 Acceptance r a t e s as a consequence o f two d i f f e r e n t processes Inference needed ?
No P l a u s i b i 1 it y check needed ?
Yes
No
95
Yes
6 3 %'
%a
75
%b
85 %
30
%d
47 %
d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( F i g u r e 4 a ) , whereas t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y causes l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a l l comparable f u n c t i o n s (p<.OOl, F i g u r e 4 b ) . These r e s u l t s a r e i n accordance w i t h t h e above f o r m u l a t e d hypotheses. b ) p l a u s i b i 1 it y
a) s t r a t e g y
Sel
Do
0
Out
-s u b g o a l
Do
Sel
Out
1
-p l a u s i b l e
..I-..a 1 t e r n a t i v e
--I....
i m p 1 a u s ib 1 e
Figure 4 Acceptance r a t e s f o r t h e two s t r a t e g i e s and t h e two l e v e l s of p l a u s i b i l i t y The mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f yes-answers t o probes t h a t r e c e i v e d an acceptance r a t e o f more t h a n 50 % a r e shown i n F i g u r e 5. On t h e v e r t i c a l a x i s a r e mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s i n m i l l i s e c o n d s , on t h e h o r i z o n t a l one t h e f o u r f u n c t i o n s o f near probes. The number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r each t r e a t m e n t c o m b i n a t i o n i s g i v e n i n parentheses. R e j e c t e d probes a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s s i n c e t h e i r few yes-answers a r e p r o b a b l y based on d i f f e r e n t comprehension processes t h a n t h o s e o f accepted probes.
132
COHERENCE
a) p l a u s i b l e subgoal
b ) fmplausible subgoal
3300
2900 27001 2
5 RT
3065
0
0
2806
2585
1
-
2875
RT
3232
n c) plaiisible alternative
5
n
0
0
(41)
(44)
(35)
2995 (25)
-
-
d) implausible alternative
3500
2
(36)
3238
1
1
msec
2500
(37)
(29)
(34)
Figure 5 Mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f yes-answers The q u e s t i o n o f m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e i s whether o r n o t t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d processes t h a t l e d t o d i f f e r e n t acceptance r a t e s w i l l be c o n f i r m e d by c o r r e sponding r e a c t i o n t i m e s . T a b l e 3 g i v e s a c l e a r answer: The d i f f e r e n c e between mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s due t o d r a w i n g an i n f e r e n c e amounts t o 536 msec (p<.OOl), which i s a l m o s t t h e same as t h e one due t o a n adequacy-check
ACCEPTABILITY OF STORY CONTINUATION
133
(526 msec, p<.OOl). D e s p i t e necessary c a u t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s e results, i t seems c l e a r t h a t n e i t h e r Outcomes n o r i m p l a u s i b l e methods f i t t h e a c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n a f t e r a n o b s t a c l e has been encountered. Table 3 Mean r e a c t i o n t i m e o f yes-answers as a consequence of two d i f f e r e n t processes
RT n
Inference needed ? No
Yes
No
2711a (89)
3092 (71)
2880 (160
Yes
3061' (59)
4134; (28)
'
P l a u s i b i 1 it y check needed ?
3406 (87
Across a l l o f t h e f o u r c o n d i t i o n s o n l y t h e f u n c t i o n s S e l e c t and Do a r e comparable ( c f . F i g u r e 5). The d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s due t o a d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( F i g u r e 6a), whereas t h e d i f f e r e n c e due t o a d i f f e r e n t p l a u s i b i l i t y i s s i g n i f i c a n t ( f o r b o t h p<.05, F i g u r e 6 b ) . These r e s u l t s a r e i n accordance w i t h t h e observed percentage r a t e s , which a r e equal f o r t h e two s t r a t e g i e s , b u t a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e two l e v e l s o f p l a u s i b i l i t y . The mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r a c c e p t i n g sentences r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s S e l e c t and Do a r e v e r y s i m i l a r (2891 and 2851 msec, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . T h i s unexpected r e s u l t i s presumably caused by t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o imagine t h e s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n t h e t e x t fragment and t o t h i n k about p o s s i b l e cont i n u a t i o n s o f t h e s t o r y , b e f o r e t h e probe i s presented. Thus f o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n (and e x p e c t a t i o n ) p a r t i a l l y s h i f t s away f r o m t h e Do t o t h e S e l e c t o f a p o s s i b l e method. S i n c e a l l f u n c t i o n s o f p l a u s i b l e subgoal methods a r e accepted, t h i s cond i t i o n can be regarded as a somewhat "normal" c o n t i n u a t i o n ( c f . F i g u r e s 3 and 5). The mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s t o i t s f u n c t i o n s , however, show c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s : A c c e p t i n g t h e Do needs s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s t i m e t h a n a c c e p t i n g t h e S e l e c t (p<.lO) and Outcome (p<.05), t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e s of which a r e a b o u t equal, whereas a c c e p t i n g t h e Subgoal ( i .e., " w i t h o u t method") y i e l d s t h e l o n g e s t r e a c t i o n t i m e s (p<.lO). T h i s s u p p o r t s t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e usual way o f g e n e r a t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s i s n o t i n t h e small s t e p s o f m i c r o f u n c t i o n s , as i s assumed f o r t h e subprocessor ERWIN i n t h e R o t e r Faden model, b u t r a t h e r i n t h e l a r g e r s t e p s o f m a c r o f u n c t i o n s ( h e r e : ACTS) t h a t a r e b e s t r e f l e c t e d i n t h e Do o f t h e ACT'S method. S i m i l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been s t r e s s e d elsewhere ( K i n t s c h and v a n D i j k , 1975; v a n D i j k , 1977).
COHERENCE
134
a) strategy 3200
b) plausibility
msec
......... .....
3,001
3000
' 0072
RT '
n RT
A
El
2900 2800 2 700
-
Pl
2772
n
2957
im
in n
(70)
-subgoal
-p l a u s i b l e ( p 1 )
(S)
...... a 1 t e r n a t i v e ( A )
.......i m p 1 a u s i b l e ( i m )
Figure 6 Mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f yes-answers f o r t h e two s t r a t e g i e s and t h e two l e v e l s o f p l a u s i b i l i t y The l a r g e r s t e p s a l s o a r e near t o t h e medium redundancy l e v e l t h a t i s r e q u i r e d f o r g u a r a n t e e i n g an o p t i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n exchange i n a g i v e n amount o f t i m e ( G r i c e , 1975; S l o b i n , 1979). The l a s t r e s u l t t o be r e p o r t e d concerns t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e s o f no-answers t o f a r ( r e j e c t e d ) probes compared t o t h o s e o f yes-answers t o near (accepted) probes. The f i r s t have a mean o f 3036 msec (640 answers), t h e l a t t e r 2951 msec (394 answers). T h i s s u r p r i s i n g l y small d i f f e r e n c e can be accounted f o r by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p o s s i b l e outcomes o f a m a t c h i n g process between e x p e c t a t i o n and probe: 1. Complete o r l a r g e enough s i m i l a r i t y so t h a t t h e probe can be accepted i m m e d i a t e l y . 2. Only p a r t i a l s i m i l a r i t y , b u t enough t o search f o r a r e a s o n a b l e conn e c t i o n between probe and t e x t fragment (e.g., by drawing i n f e r e n c e s o r c h e c k i n g t h e p l a u s i b i 1i t y ) . 3. No o r n o t enough s i m i l a r i t y so t h a t t h e probe can be r e j e c t e d i m e d i at e l y . These assumptions which a r e necessary t o e x p l a i n t h e observed d a t a make t h e o r i g i n a l h y p o t h e s i s more s p e c i f i c . DISCUSSION
The e x p e r i m e n t a l t e c h n i q u e o f measuring t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f s t o r y cont i n u a t i o n s has proved t o be an i n t e r e s t i n g approach t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
ACCEPTABILITY
OF STORY CONTINUATION
135
o f comprehension processes. I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t a r e generated a f t e r an o b s t a c l e has been encountered were s p e c i f i e d i n sev e r a l a s p e c t s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e observed d a t a t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e h i g h l y p l a u s i b l e methods i n t h e f u n c t i o n o f a Do o r a S e l e c t . Secondly, t h e extreme p o i n t up t o which a gap can be b r i d g e d n o t o n l y depends on t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g m i c r o f u n c t i o n s which c a l l f o r drawing i n f e r e n c e s , b u t a l s o on o t h e r c o g n i t i v e processes t h a t a r e needed f o r comprehending a p a r t i c u l a r probe ( e . g . , c h e c k i n g t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o f a g i v e n method). U s u a l l y a l l probes r e p r e s e n t i n g f u n c t i o n s o f t h e subgoal- o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T a r e accepted as c o n t i n u a t i o n s , whereas probes, f r o m which n o t h i n g can be i n f e r r e d a b o u t t h e subgoal-ACT o r a l t e r n a t i v e - A C T t h a t must have t a k e n place, a r e r e j e c t e d by a v a s t m a j o r i t y o f s u b j e c t s . E x c e p t i o n s among t h e near probes a r e o n l y t h o s e t h a t a r e " o l d " t o t h e s u b j e c t o r t h o s e t h a t c a l l f o r an unreasonably l a r g e e f f o r t t o comprehend them, which i s t h e case f o r t h e Outcomes o f i m p l a u s i b l e methods. For accepted probes i t was shown t h a t a l l d e v i a t i o n s from t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n cause l e s s a c c e p t a b i l i t y ( i . e . , l a r g e r response l a t e n c i e s and fewer yes-answers), t h u s g i v i n g s u p p o r t t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s about form and c o n t e n t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s . Besides, t h e s e r e s u l t s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h e g r e a t importance o f e x p e c t a t i o n s i n t h e c o u r s e o f s t o r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g . F i n a l l y i t should be noted t h a t t h e R o t e r Faden model w i t h i t s d e t a i l e d process assumptions has been a v e r y h e l p f u l approach n o t o n l y i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e deep s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e used t e x t m a t e r i a l , b u t a l s o i n r e p r e s e n t i n g and d e s c r i b i n g t h e c o m p l i c a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g t h r o u g h which t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a t e x t i s achieved. Only a small p a r t o f t h i s process, t h e g e n e r a t i n g o f e x p e c t a t i o n s , has been s t u d i e d i n t h i s experiment. The r e s u l t s suggest some m o d i f i c a t i o n s and e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e e x p e c t a t i o n subprocessor ERWIN. E s p e c i a l l y t h e t y p i c a l redundancy l e v e l o f s t o r i e s should be taken i n t o account, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r deep s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s would p r o b a b l y l e a d t o an i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e o f a s t o r y , f o r t h i s s t r u c t u r e seems t o be t h e a c t u a l s k e l e t o n o f t h e comprehension p r o cess. REFERENCES C l a r k , H.H. I n f e r e n c e s i n comprehension. I n D . LaBerge and S.J. Samuels ( E d s . ) , B a s i c processes i n r e a d i n g : P e r c e p t i o n comprehension. H i 11 sdal-J . : E r l b a u m T - 1 9 7 7 . C l a r k , H.H. and H a v i l a n d , S.E. P s y c h o l o g i c a l processes as l i n g u i s t i c exp l a n a t i o n . I n 0. Cohen ( E d . ) , E x p l a i n i n g l i n g u i s t i c phenomena. New York: Wiley, 1974. C r o t h e r s , E.J. 51-71.
I n f e r e n c e and coherence. D i s c o u r s e Processes, 1978, 1,
C r o t h e r s , E.J.
Paragraph s t r u c t u r e i n f e r e n c e . Norwood, N.J.:
Ablex, 1979.
vanDi j k , T.A. Semantic m a c r o - s t r u c t u r e s and knowledge frames i n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. I n M.A. J u s t and P.A. Carpenter ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e proces-ses i n comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
a
G l o w a l l a , U. h a n d l u n g s t h e o r e t i s c h e s Model1 z u r T e x t Der Rote Faden _-v e r a r b e i t u n g . D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t a t Braunschweig, 1981.
136
COHERENCE
Glowalla, U., and Colonius, H. Toward a model o f macrostructure search. I n A. Flammer and W . Kintsch ( E d s . ) , Text Processing. Amsterdam: North Hol land, i n press. Grice, H.P. Logic and conversation. I n P. Cole and J.L. Morgan ( E d s . ) , Syntax _ _ _ -and semantics, E. 2: Speech a c t s . New York: Seminar Press, 1975. Kintsch, W . and vanDijk, T.A. __ ages, 1975, 40, 98-116.
Recalling and summarizing s t o r i e s .
m-
Rumelhart, D.E. Understandinq and summarizinq brief s t o r i e s . In D. LaBerge and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes i n reading: Perception and comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J=lbaum, 1 9 7 7 7 ___ Slobin, D . I . 1979.
Psycholinguistics. Glenview, I l l . : S c o t t , Foresman & Co.,
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
SEMANTIC OISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
Vanda L . Zammuner I n s t i t u t e of Psycho1 ogy University of Padova 35100 Padova ITALY Speech may be seen a s a discourse action performed in order t o achieve contextually relevant goals by t h e speaker S. To a t t a i n these goals, plans and s t r a t e g i e s a r e work2d o u t . The recourse t o semantic i s one such cognitive s t r a t e g y . discontinuities Three aspects of i t will be considered, t o introduce a d , t o perpetuate or aggravate a d, and t o resolve a 2.A t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of recourse t o 9 i s presented together with r e s u l t s obtained from a n a l y s i s o f four t e x t s , produced in a debate context. I t i s shown t h a t individual and context variables and i t s r o l e within t h e a f f e c t t h e recourse t o entire linguistic interaction.
(c)
<
1 . INTRODUCTION Conversations, discussions, o r any type of d i s c o u r s e / t e x t production need t o be constructed i n conventionally acceptable and understandable forms and according t o t h e s p e a k e r ' s goals. This i s a complex task ( e . g . , de Beaugrande, 1979, 1980; van Oijk, 1977, 1979; Freedle, 1977; Reichman, 1978; Schank, 1977). Among o t h e r t h i n g s , a speaker S needs t o take i n t o account the audience/hearer's ( H ) knowledge of t h e discussion t o p i c ( s ) , H ' s s t a t u s and sex, conversational r u l e s of d i f f e r e n t types, relevant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s e t t i n g , and so f o r t h . Leaving a s i d e t h e discussion of other decision processes not very relevant to my purpose, a t t h e long-term level S faces the task of s e l e c t i n g an overall content area f o r a communication ( C ) congruently with predetermined goals and with p e r t i n e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of H and o f the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n al context ( C N T ) . A t t h e short-term l e v e l , S has t o make decisions which a r e more relevant l o c a l l y . These include how a c e r t a i n propositional content i s verbalized (Chafe, 1977) according t o intermediate level goals and plans and t o conversational r u l e s and c o n s t r a i n t s due t o the s p e c i f i c CNT in which an i n t e r a c t i o n occurs. Within t h e short-term planning l e v e l , a most important decision concerns t h e semantic r e l a t i o n s t o be assigned t o a s e t of propositions t h a t S intends t o express in a C ; t h i s amounts t o the 137
138
COHERENCE
s e l e c t i o n o f what r e l a t i o n s w i l l h o l d among d i s c o u r s e p a r t s , be t h e y s i n g l e words, sentences o r l a r g e r t e x t u n i t s . T h i s s t a g e i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be expressed, t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r processes, w i t h r e c o u r s e t o a s p e c i f i c type o f s t r a t e g i e s dependent on s h o r t - t e r m p l a n s and g o a l s . T h e i r a c t i v a t i o n i s based upon S ' s knowledge o f t h e w o r l d and o f how t o be e f f e c t i v e i n communication. These s t r a t e g i e s have been termed ' C o g n i t i v e Manoeuvres' (E)(Zammuner, 1981 ; Zammuner and Job, 1979). T h e i r f u n c t i o n i s t o ensure t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n s and p r o p o s i t i o n a l chunks a r e o r i e n t e d and commented on a c c o r d i n g t o t h e "Communicative a c t i o n p l a y " (Schmidt, 1973) i n which S i s engaged.
CM have been h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f language producti o n t h a t i n t e r v e n e d u r i n g t h e speech e v e n t t o s t r u c t u r e t h e C as i t i s produced. They a r e t o be seen as s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o be expressed i n a C; t h e , r e f o r e t h e y d e t e r mine t h e C s t r u c t u r e and f o r m a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s (e.g., f r o m some prosodic f e a t u r e s t o t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f a C). Being dependent on S ' s g o a l s and p l a n s -- t a i l o r e d t o CNT and H ' s r e l e v a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -- t h e y r e f l e c t c o n d i t i o n s o f t e x t p r o d u c t i o n (Segre, 1979), h e l p ensure t h a t a C i s cohere n t and cohesive, and adequate t o S ' s aim t o a c h i e v e a d e s i r e d s t a t e (de Beaugrande, 1979). They a r e f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be i m p o r t a n t i n comp r e h e n s i o n ( e . g . , t o h e l p H understand S ' s frame o f mind and g o a l s ) . I t i s beyond d o u b t t h a t d i s c o u r s e i s r u l e - g o v e r n e d and t h a t speakers know t h e s e r u l e s and r e s o r t t o d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f p l a n s and s t r a t e g i e s t o a t t a i n t h e i r g o a l s . A communicative f a i l u r e o f t e n r e s u l t s f r o m S ' s inadequacy t o s t r u c t u r e a C i n t h e s e terms. S i n c e most l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n s r e p r e s e n t s u c c e s s f u l i n f o r m a t i o n exchanges and a l l o w p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a c h i e v e t h e i r goals, t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e i s t o d i s c o v e r which r u l e s and s t r a t e g i e s people u s e and when and how t h e y a p p l y them.
Among t h e speakers a r e h y p o t h e s i z e d t o use t h e r e a r e s t r a t e g i e s such as t h a t o f drawing a c o n c l u s i o n and s t a t i n g a premise, as w e l l as h a v i n g r e c o u r s e t o c r i t i c i s m , i r o n y and s t r e s s , and t h e use o f summarizations (Zammuner, 1981). I n t h i s paper one such k i n d o f s t r a t e g y w i l l be discussed, namely, t h e r e c o u r s e t o semantic d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s ( d). Three a s p e c t s o f t h i s s t r a t e g y a r e considered, ( 1 ) i n t r o d u c i n g a $, ( 2 ) perp e t u a t i n g o r a g g r a v a t i n g a d, ( 3 ) r e s o l v i n g a $. In g e n e r a l , a d i s s e t up whenever S s t r u c t u r e s his/h
<
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
139
posed a c t i o n o r e v a l u a t i o n . A g g r a v a t i o n o r s o l u t i o n o f a d cannot be p r o duced u n l e s s a d i s i n t r o d u c e d w h i l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n everyday i n t e r a c t i o n s , a d m i g h t n o t be e x p l i c i t l y solved, e i t h e r because o f S ' s o r H ' s u n w i l l i n g ness t o do so, o r because i t i s o b v i o u s . Whether i t w i l l be S o r H t h a t aggravates o r s o l v e s a 4 seems t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e i n t e r a c t i v e CNT. 2. THE INTRODUCTION OF A DISCONTINUITY
A d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s a l a c k o f balance, a gap, a b r e a k i n c o n t i n u i t y . C e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c forms used t o express o n e ' s own ideas, f e e l i n g s , e v a l u a t i o n s , o r wishes a r e assumed t o i n t r o d u c e such a gap i n t h e semantic world, so f a r rendered c o n t e x t u a l l y r e l e v a n t by means o f t h e p r e v i o u s l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t . Normally, such a break needs r e p a i r i n g t o ensure completeness and smoothness i n a C, o r , b e t t e r , t o recompose a semantic w o r l d t h a t i n some way has been d i s r u p t e d . I n o t h e r words, a g- has t o be solved, b u t , b e f o r e t h i s i s done, once c l u e s have been g i v e n t h a t a 4 e x i s t s , i t has ' t o be rendered e x p l i c i t . Thus i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , once S s i g n a l s a d, H w i l l have e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t h e l i k e l y c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e C, t h a t i s , H w i l l expect t h a t S w i l l s o l v e t h e i n t r o d u c e d 2 o r w i l l make e x p l i c i t what i t i s and then proceed t o s o l v e i t . I n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s H m i g h t do i t , e.g., i f H has been a s s i g n e d t h i s t a s k , i m p l i c i t l y o r e x p l i c i t l y , o r i f H b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s s h o u l d be h i s / h e r own t a s k . I n b o t h cases, H w i l l do so on t h e b a s i s o f h i s / h e r hypotheses a b o u t t h e l i k e l y g o a l s o f S e i t h e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o r t h e s o l u t i o n o f a A. 2.1
L e t us a n a l y z e some examples o f a
S1
I t ' s easy, b u t ...
S2
We c o u l d do i t , b u t
S3 S4 S5 S6
Peter Peter Peter Peter
i s nice is nice i s nice i s nice
but but but but
...
not stupid n o t always clever too stupid
d
introduction.
Scl I t ' s going t o take time H1 -21 B u t what? H1 -22 What's t h e problem?! Hcl You d o n ' t want t o do i t ? Hcl I know, i t ' l l t a k e so much t i m e ! I wonder i f we s h o u l d sc2 H C ~ I ~t ' s t o o expensive, you t h i n k Yes, perhaps we s h o u l d n ' t Hc2 2
I f a S had s a i d e i t h e r S1 o r S2, H c o u l d e x p e c t t h a t a c o h e r e n t c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e u n f i n i s h e d u t t e r a n c e (UTT) would be something l i k e S c l o r Sc2 (Sc, Hc: S ' s o r H's c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e UTT). I n b o t h cases, i n f a c t , t h e r e i s o p p o s i t i o n between t h e two a s s e r t i o n s . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s necessary once S has p o i n t e d o u t i t s e x i s t e n c e by means o f t h e c o n j u n c t i o n but. I n S c l , S b l o c k s t h e i d e a t h a t "easy" t h i n g s can be done i n l i t t l e t i m e and t h e i n f e r ence p o s s i b l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t t h a t " i t " s h o u l d / i t ' s g o i n g t o be done. By means o f Sc2, S i n t r o d u c e s t h e doubt t h a t t h e a c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n S2 i s
140
COHERENCE
advisable, thus s i g n a l l i n g t h a t H ' s possible inference i s n o t c o r r e c t . I n terms o f R i e g e r ' s (1974) d e f i n i t i o n o f i n f e r e n c e s t y p e s , S c l and Sc2 block a n " a c t i o n p r e d i c t i o n i n f e r e n c e " . They b o t h r e f e r t o a s t a t e o f a f f a i r s t h a t d e v i a t e s f r o m t h e p o s s i b l e and l i k e l y e x p e c t a t i o n s generated by t h e p r e v i o u s UTT ( s e e a l s o Abraham, 1975; U i l s o n , 1976; Posner, 1977). That i s , depending upon t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e UTT p r e c e d i n g t h e a d v e r s a t i v e conjuncti o n , t h e use o f but -- and s i m i l a r c o n j u n c t i o n s - - w i l l l i m i t t h e e x t e n t o f an i n f e r r e d r e s u l t , deny a m o t i v e , an enablement c o n d i t i o n , a usual f u n c t i o n o r a p r e d i c t i o n . What i s i m p o r t a n t i s t h e f a c t t h a t S i m p l i c i t l y i n s t r u c t s H about t h e c o r r e c t p a t h s t h a t e x i s t a c c o r d i n g t o S and i n r e l a t i o n t o S ' s hypotheses a b o u t H ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s ( f o r example, S 3 - S 6 ) . 2.2 The r e m a i n i n g examples i n 2.1 r e p r e s e n t a p p r o p r i a t e h y p o t h e t i c a l r e p l i e s by H t o S1 o r S2. They show t h a t H would have t o t a k e i n t o account t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d by t h e p r e v i o u s S i n o r d e r t o produce an UTT t h a t a d e q u a t e l y commented on i t . H1 and H2 r e p r e s e n t r e q u e s t s t o s p e c i f y what i s t h e i n t e n d e d d; t h e y c o u l d be u t t e r e d i f H wanted t o s i g n a l a d i s b e l i e f i n i t s existence, t h u s i m p l i c i t l y t e l l i n g S t h a t he/she should n o t introduce because i t would d i s r u p t t h e C . They c o u l d a l s o be produced w i t h a a c o o p e r a t i v e aim i f H c o u l d n o t p r e d i c t t h e 4 on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a v a i l a b l e ( m o s t l y c o n t e x t u a l ) i n f o r m a t i o n , o r i f H p r e f e r r e d S h i m / h e r s e l f t o complete t h e C. H ' s a c t u a l r e a c t i o n t o UTTs l i k e S1 and S2 would v e r y much depend upon CNT f a c t o r s such as H ' s degree o f a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h S, nonverbal clues c o n c o m i t a n t w i t h t h e UTT, and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . The p r o d u c t i o n i t s e l f o f S1 o r S2, as much as S ' s r e c e p t i o n o f H1 o r H2, would be based upon t h e same k i n d o f v a r i a b l e s . Hcl r e p r e s e n t s a t e n t a t i v e c o m p l e t i o n f o r S1. I t shows H ' s s e l e c t i o n o f 1 one o u t o f a s e t o f p o s s i b l e d, S m i g h t have had i n mind and i t expresses H ' s q u e s t i o n a b o u t i t s c o r r e c t n e s s . H c l shows i n s t e a d H ' s c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e s e l e c t e d d and h i s / h e r agreement w i t 6 S ' s doubts, t h u s w i t h S ' s i n t r o duction o f a t o o . I n HcZ1, H ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S ' s i n t e n t i o n s and pref e r r e d c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i s expressed i n a f o r m ( " y o u t h i n k " ) t h a t s i g n a l s H ' s w i s h t o be c o r r e c t e d i f wrong, w h i l e Hc2 i s a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f a con2 f i d e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n both o f t h e and o f i t s s o l u t i o n .
3
<
2.3 A h e a r e r may o f c o u r s e d i s r e g a r d S ' s i n t e n t i o n t o s e t up a d i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l domain w i t h r e s p e c t t o an a c t i o n o r i t e m r e f e r r e d as t h e examples below show. Hcl and Hc2 would n o t r e p r e s e n t a p p r o p r i a t e 3 3 r e a c t i o n s t o t h e i n p u t UTT S1 o r S2 s i n c e t h e y v i o l a t e a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l conv e n t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e s a d j a c e n t UTTs -- b o t h i n t r a - and i n t e r - t u r n -- t o be semantically congruent w i t h t h e previous context.
to,
Hc13
A l l r i g h t , we s h a l l do i t !
H
c
~ L e~t ' s go!
However, speakers may change t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s o r g o a l s even w i t h i n a s h o r t t i m e . Hc13 c o u l d be u t t e r e d by S p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e r e were a s h o r t pause between t h e two UTTs o r t h a t S o r H had i n d i c a t e d i n some way t h a t a 4
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
141
should n o t be i n t r o d u c e d (e.g., i f S n o t i c e s H ' s s i g n s o f i m p a t i e n c e toward I n t h e l a t t e r case H would be aware t h a t S had changed h i s / h e r him/her). goals and would d i s r e g a r d S1 on t h e assumption t h a t t h e l a s t UTT expresses S ' s r e a l i n t e n t i o n s a t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e . The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e S ' s and H's r o l e i s t h a t S i s f r e e t o i n t r o d u c e a o r signal t h a t there i s a and t h e n change h i s / h e r mind, w h i l e H has t o t a k e i n t o account b o t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n and t h e s i g n a l l i n g o f a d, u n l e s s H wants t o d i s r u p t t h e C on purpose. Both S and H a r e f r e e t o a g g r a v a t e / p e r p e t u a t e a d o r s o l v e i t , though t h e y may n o t have t o do i t . These h y p o t h e t i c a l examples show t h a t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d i s a psychol o g i c a l l y and s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l e v a n t phenomenon. To d i s r e g a r d t h e i n t r o d u c i n f a c t , amounts t o p r o d u c i n g i n c o h e r e n t and p r a g m a t i c a l l y tion o f a i n a p p r o p r i a t e communications t h a t d i s r u p t a l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n , u n l e s s t h e r e a r e c o n c u r r e n t f a c t o r s t h a t modify t h e i m p o r t o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f , o r s i m p l y t h e h i n t o f a 9 i n t h e w o r l d c o n s i d e r e d by t h e , l i n g u i s t i c C .
c,
2.4 D i s c o n t i n u i t i e s may be i n t r o d u c e d and s i g n a l l e d by means o f o t h e r l i n g u i s t i c forms. But i s a v e r y commonly used c o n j u n c t i o n t o s i g n a l t h a t incoming i n f o r m a t i o n c o n f l i c t s somewhat w i t h t h a t a l r e a d y given, i . e . , i t i s used f o r t y p e ( a ) o f d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s . However, but i s a l s o used t o g i v e a c l u e t h a t a p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d o r known c o n t e x t has t o be r e a c t i v a t e d because t h e incoming i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o , and has t o be e v a l u a t e d w i t h respect t o t h a t context. S7 S8 S9
B u t d i d n ' t you say t h a t you were g o i n g t o t h e movies? B u t you d o n ' t have t h a t much money! B u t w o n ' t he be t i r e d o f j u s t l i s t e n i n g ? !
Though t h e y a r e n o t preceded by any UTT t o which t h e a d v e r s a t i v e c o n j u n c t i o n m i g h t be r e l a t e d , S7, S8, and S9 r e p r e s e n t examples o f UTTs t h a t would be a p p r o p r i a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l openings under c e r t a i n circumstances. T h i s i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n t r o d u c e d i s r e l a t e d t o a s i t u a t i o n a l CNT t h a t i s known t o b o t h S and H and t h e r e f o r e needs n o t be expressed e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e UTT. The use o f b u t - - t h a t can be dispensed w i t h i n a l l these examples w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g their meaning -- seems t o have t h e f u n c t i o n o f s i g n a l l i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e c o n f l i c t i n g elements i n t h e p r e s e n t CNT i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e ' g i v e n ' CNT. S assumes t h a t t h i s m i g h t have escaped H ' s a t t e n t i o n and t h u s e x p l i c i t l y i n t r o d u c e s a ' S t o p ! ' s i g n a l . I n S7 t h e c o n f l i c t i s r e l a t e d t o S ' s knowledge o f H's i n t e n t i o n s and t h e unexpected showing up o f H. I n S8 t h e c o n t r a s t i s about H's p r e s e n t a c t i o n and h i s / h e r f i n a n c i a l I n S9 t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i s a b o u t t h e l i k e l y l a c k o f i n t e r e s t by a state. t h i r d p a r t y toward a p r o l o n g e d i n t e r a c t i o n between S and H. I t should be noted t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r u s e o f but seems t o be v e r y f r e q u e n t i n d a i l y interactions.
<
According t o my own o b s e r v a t i o n s and p a r t i a l l y on t h e b a s i s o f e x c e r p t s from tapes o f d a i l y c o n v e r s a t i o n s , but i s a l s o used as a means t o j u s t i f y a S ' s
COHERENCE
142
i n t e r r u p t on o f a n o t h e r S o r t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n a f t e r a introduced, except a t a o c c u r r e d . I n t h e s e cases t h e r e i s no r e a l t i c level We may t h u s e x t e n d o u r c o n c e p t o f i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a to t h i s p a r t c u l a r use of but, t h a t once more corresponds t o g i v i n g H a t h a t t h e r e i s change f r o m t h e expected c o u r s e o f e v e n t s .
fi
silence pragmainclude signal
F i n a l l y , but i s used i n normal c o n v e r s a t i o n s as a l i n g u i s t i c d e v i c e t o r e f l e c t a " c o n t e x t space t r a n s i t i o n " , as Reichman (1978) terms i t . That i s , i t s i g n a l s a change from a t o p i c under d i s c u s s i o n t o one t h a t was previousl y d i s c u s s e d . Her d a t a s u p p o r t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . However, i n t h i s case too, t o see t h e use of b u t as a means t o s i g n a l t h a t t h e r e i s a 4 a d e q u a t e l y c a p t u r e s b o t h a S ' s u r p o s e and t h e s t r u c t u r a l e f f e c t d e r i v e d from i t w i t h r e s p e c t t o a g i v e n d i s c o u r s e u n i t . Moreover, due c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h u s g i v e n t o t h e H ' s need t o be aware o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a A, s i n c e o t h e r w i s e he/she would n o t understand p r o p e r l y what i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p r e s e n t and a p r e c e d i n g t e x t I r n i t ; and so i t t a k e s , i n t o a c c o u n t both t h e S ' s and t h e H ' s t a s k s and g o a l s . The second t y p e o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s i n t r o d u c e d whenever i t i s signal2.5 l e d t h a t new i n f o r m a t i o n has ( n e c e s s a r i l y ) t o be sought w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t known o r g i v e n . S10 S11 S12 S13
T h i s s o l u t i o n i s t h e b e s t one. N o t o n l y t h i s ... N o t o n l y t h i s s o l u t i o n i s t h e b e s t one... T h i s i s t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n . Why? ... Why i s t h i s t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n ? ...
S10 ans S11 c o n t a i n t h e phrase n o t o n l y as a means of s i g n a l l i n g t h e i n t r o may be i n t r o d u c e d o n l y a f t e r d u c t i o n o f a d. As w i t h p r e v i o u s examples, a a c e r t a i n a s s e r t i o n has been made (S10) o r r i g h t away ( S l l ) . A s t i l l d i f f e r e n t means o f i n t r o d u c i n g a d i s p r o v i d e d by r e c o u r s e t o what normally would be c o n s i d e r e d a r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n , as i n S12 and S13. I n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t w i l l be o b v i o u s t h a t S i s n o t r e a l l y w a i t i n g f o r H t o prov i d e an answer ( t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e d ) , though H m i g h t do i t s i n c e , a t least s u p e r f i c i a l l y , t h e UTT m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d as a normal q u e s t i o n . Thus, by means o f a q u e s t i o n , S w i l l proceed t o usually, a f t e r introducing a g i v e t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h o u g h t t o be necessary t o s u p p o r t t h e t r u t h value o f a previous assertion. Nonrhetorical questions might also be h y p o t h e s i z e d t o i n t r o d u c e a A.
c
c
D i s c o n t i n u i t i e s may be i n t r o d u c e d by s t i l l o t h e r means which charac2.6 t e r i z e t h e t h i r d type o f namely r e f e r r a l t o e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t e x i s t ence o f a1 t e r n a t i v e s .
c,
S14 S15 S16
I n s t e a d o f g o i n g o u t ...
S ~ 1 4 ~we c o u l d watch t e l e v i s i o n ! Sc14 l e t ' s i n v i t e few f r i e n d s ! P e t e r e a t s much. I n s t e a d S i l v i a ea$s t o o l i t t l e . P e t e r i s p l a y i n g , i n s t e a d he should be s t u d y i n g .
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
143
I n s t e a d o f p l a y i n g P e t e r s h o u l d be s t u d y i n g He always l o o k s v e r y happy.. I t seems a good i d e a ... Hc19 B u t you d o n ' t want t o ! S20 He t h i n k s i t ' s f i n e ... I t i s n ' t ! i n t h a t i t i s obvious t h a t S intends t o p o i n t o u t I n s t e a d of s i g n a l s a the existence o r necessity o f a d i f f e r e n t action o r evaluation i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t mentioned. I n s t e a d , and on t h e c o n t r a r y and on t h e o t h e r hand, have t h e same f u n c t i o n . The e f f e c t o b t a i n e d seems t o be t h a t o f u n d e r l i n i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e o r c o n f l i c t between two a l t e r n a t i v e s , t h u s making i t more s a l i e n t f o r H.
S17 S18 S19
.
has been s e t up can be seen i n S14, f o r example, i f we assume t h a t That a S does n o t complete t h e UTT w i t h Sc14. H c o u l d t h e n l i k e l y r e p l y w i t h something l i k e H1-2 o r Hcll : These UTTs would be a p p r o p r i a t e because t h e y 2 ~ ~ be would t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e i n t r o d u c e d 4. F o r t h e same reason H c would inappropriate . I n S18-S20 t h e r e i s a t l e a s t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a d i s s i g n a l l e d l i n g u i s t i c a l l y by means o f v e r b s such as t o seem, t o t h i n k and t o l o o k (and t o b e l i e v e , t o appear, e t c . ) . T h a t i s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t S i n t e n d s t o s i g n a l t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d o r obvious appearance/state o f an a c t o r / a c t i o n / i t e m and i t s r e a l s t a t e . O f t e n these verbs a r e used i n t h e p a s t t e n s e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r v e r b i n t h e Whether S i n t e n d s t o p r e s e n t t e n s e (e.g., "It h o u g h t t h a t ... b u t now..."). actually introduce a by t h e s e means can o f t e n be decided o n l y by r e l y i n g on a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n such as p r o s o d i c f e a t u r e s , nonverbal communication, o r c o n t e x t u a l l y based knowledge. O f c o u r s e t h e UTT - - i f any - - t h a t f o l l o w s one o f t h e s e t y p e s may d i s p e l a l l doubts. Hc19, t h u s , c o u l d be an approp r i a t e r e p l y t o S19. The use o f & would o n l y r e i n f o r c e o r c o n f i r m t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d by t h e p r e v i o u s S. S20 would be an example o f S ' s e x p l i c i t mention t h a t there i s a d.
<
2.7 Another way t o i n t r o d u c e a d i s a v a i l a b l e t o speakers. I t s t i l l expresses t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a t h e t h i r d t y p e , namely t h e r e f e r r a l t o a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s i s achieved by u s i n g any k i n d o f c o n d i t i o n a l sentences.
S21
S22 523
I f one were t o j u d g e P e t e r on t h e b a s i s o f h i s t h e o r i e s , ( a ) e v e r y t h i n g would be f i n e ! ( b ) N e v e r t h e l e s s h e ' s n o t as bad as he seems t o be. I f I l i v e d near my o f f i c e I ' d be i n t i m e f o r work. I f I had worked h a r d e r , I c o u l d have managed.
Sentence ( a ) i n S21 s i g n a l s t h a t t h e r e f e r r e d a c t i o n ( j u d g i n g P e t e r on t h e b a s i s o f h i s t h e o r i e s ) i s n o t t h o u g h t t o be t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e one and t h a t a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e has t o be a p p l i e d i n o r d e r t o assess P e t e r ' s q u a l i t i e s b e t t e r . The d i s a b o u t a p o s s i b l e and a necessary c o n d i t i o n . The main c l a u s e i m p l i c i t l y expresses t h e c o n c e p t t h a t P e t e r i s "bad". The a l t e r n a t i v e p a t h t o be f o l l o w e d i s n o t mentioned e x p l i c i t l y e i t h e r , b u t i t i s
144
COHERENCE
l i k e l y t h a t i t d e a l s w i t h P e t e r ' s b e h a v i o r . I n ( b ) t h e r e i s another d i n t r o d u c e d , r e l a t e d t o t h e i n f e r e n c e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s UTT. Sentence ( b ) l i m i t s t h e e x t e n t t o which t h i s i n f e r e n c e i s t r u e . I t should be n o t e d t h a t ( b ) i s n o t an i n s t a n c e o f a g g r a v a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y introduced On t h e o t h e r hand, i t does n o t p r o v i d e a s o l u t i o n f o r i t e i t h e r . The f i r s t d i s o f t h e t h i r d t y p e , t h e second one, i n t r o d u c e d by n e v e r t h e l e s s , i s o f t h e f i r s t t y p e . S21 can be compared, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s , w i t h S24 and S25-S26.
<.
S24 S25 S26
P e t e r i s n i c e b u t s t u p i d . N e v e r t h e l e s s you can c o u n t on him. I d i d n ' t g a i n much f r o m t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s I managed t o pay my d e b t s . I managed t o pay my d e b t s though I d i d n ' t g a i n much
...
<
I n S24 t h e f i r s t i s s i m i l a r t o t h e second one, i n t h a t b o t h l i m i t t h e e x t e n t t o which i n f e r e n c e s d e r i v e d f r o m a p r e v i o u s a s s e r t i o n a r e v a l i d . o f t h e f i r s t t y p e a r e i n t r o d u c e d , w h i l e S25 and S26 r e p r e s e n t Thus two i n s t a n c e s o f i n t r o d u c t i o n of one d o n l y . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d however t h a t t h e b l o c k e d i n f e r e n c e i s d i f f e r e n t i n t h e two K s , namely, "S d i d n o t manage t o pay h i s d e b t s " i n S25, and "S g o t much money f r o m somewhere" i n S26. T h i s f a c t i s v e r y r e l e v a n t f r o m a communicational s t a n d p o i n t and i t i s p o s s i b l y r e l a t e d t o S ' s knowledge o f H ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g examples i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t .
<
S27 S29
Peter i s n i c e b u t s t u p i d Though s t u p i d , P e t e r
...
S28 530
Peter i s s t u p i d but n i c e Peter though s t u p i d
...
D i f f e r e n t s t r e s s and d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a l v a l u e a r e assigned t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " n i c e " and " s t u p i d " depending upon what i s presented f i r s t and what c o n j u n c t i o n i s used i n which p l a c e .
2.8 Even i n c o m p l e t e c o n d i t i o n a l UTTs s i g n a l t h a t a 6 o f t h e t h i r d t y p e i s i n t r o d u c e d . The main d i f f e r e n c e between 531 and t h e f o l l o w i n g examples i s t h a t t h e l a t t e r a r e based upon S ' s assumptions o f shared knowledge o r upon S ' s u n w i l l ingness t o g i v e t h e necessary i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y . S31 S32 S33
I f we were r i c h , I would i m m e d i a t e l y buy t h a t house! I would i m m e d i a t e l y buy t h a t house! I f we were r i c h
...
S31 i s analogous t o S21-523 i n terms of i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d. T h a t i s , i t s i g n a l s t h a t t h e r e i s a d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e r e a l s t a t e i n which S and Y a r e n o t r i c h and a d e s i r e d s t a t e i n which t h e y have much money and can a f f o r d t o buy a house. Assuming t h a t S32-S33 were u t t e r e d i n a g i v e n c o n t e x t t h a t enabled H t o ' i n t e r p r e t ' t h e s e UTTs, t h e y would convey t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n as S31, as f a r as t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d i s concerned. Depending upon t h i s c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , H c o u l d i n f a c t r e p l y t o S32 w i t h Hc3Z1 o r Hc32 t o S33 w i t h Hc3Z1 o r Hc33. 2'
x
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
Hc32 1 Hc3Z2 Hc33
145
Elhy, d o n ' t you have enough money?! I know, Jane d o e s n ' t want to move... Yeah ...i f we were r i c h !
I t can be hypothesized t h a t fi introduced by these means t y p i c a l y a r e n o t solved, s i n c e t h e i r s o l u t i o n i s obvious t o both p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e interaction. 2.9 Speakers usually have a c e r t a i n number (possibly i n f i n i t e ) of options available t o them to v e r b a l i z e the experience or t h e conceptual r e a l i t y they want to t a l k about. T h u s t h e S ' s choice t o use constructions such a s t h e ones discussed here should be based on pragmatic goals t h a t a r e relevant t o a t t a i n i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l l y superior goals and should a l s o be congruent with the S ' s knowledge of communicational r u l e s and c o n s t r a i n t s . Assuming t h a t G r i c e ' s maxims (1967) o f q u a n t i t y , q u a l i t y , r e l a t i o n and manner a r e valid and t h a t speakers adhere t o them, what is t h e purpose and the e f f e c t of saying things t h a t do not correspond to r e a l i t y ( e . g . , conditional sentences), t h a t give H redundant information ( e . g . , t h e 'known' information usually preceding but and s i m i l a r conjunctions, t h a t mislead him/her (by asking questions n o t meant to be answered), o r t h a t r e f e r t o s t a t e s o r conditions not wanted o r believed t o be c o r r e c t in t h e f i r s t place? Despite the above negative summary, t h e contradiction i s only apparent. The main motive f o r introducing a d i s c o n t i n u i t y -- and t h e r e f o r e f o r doing a l l the nasty a c t i o n s mentioned -- seems t o be a desire/need to s e t u p an anchor point i n r e l a t i o n t o which t h e message unfolds and has t o be evaluated. The s e t t i n g u p of a fi can be seen a s i m p l i c i t l y expressing a s e t of action/ comprehension i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e hearer o r audience of a C . (il) (i2) (i3) (i4) (i5) (i6) (i7) (i8)
There i s s t a t e / o b j e c t / i t e m X ( i n which we a r e i n t e r e s t e d ) Assertion/predication Y (and W, Z , e t c . ) express properties of X From Y we (you) may derive Y (and Y *, Yg' - - . Y ) STOP! Before we (you) do ( i 3 j we (you) have t o consider s t a t e / o b j e c t / item K K i s r e l a t e d to X K modifies Y K modifies Y1 ( a n d Y ...Y ) 2' An adequate evaluation of X must take into account K
For UTTs l i k e S1 and $2 only i n s t r u c t i o n s ( i 1 ) - ( i 4 ) a r e given though even ( i 4 ) i s expressed only p a r t i a l l y since i t amounts t o t h e Stop s i g n a l . I n S3-S6 a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e given -- here X would be "Peter" and Y " P e t e r ' s niceness", while K would be " P e t e r ' s s t u p i d i t y " .
An UTT l i k e S7 could be t r a n s l a t e d i n t h e following terms. X i s Peter, Y i s t h e non-expressed a s s e r t i o n "Peter has gone t o see t h e movies", Y1 i s something l i k e "Peter will show u p i n two hours", K i s "Peter e n t e r s t h e
146
COHERENCE
house o f S b e f o r e t h e two hours have passed". K i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Y and 1 . . t h u s w i t h Y . Y c a n n o t be t r u e . By means o f S7 t h e speaker i s making e x p l i c i t t h i s l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g w i t h t h e purpose o f a s k i n g H whether Y i s s t i l l t r u e s i n c e i t c o n f l i c t s w i t h K. Whether a l l o r o n l y a s u b s e t o f t h e s e o r s i m i l a r instructionsareimplicitly conveyed, and i n what o r d e r , seems t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e communicative c o n t e x t , t h a t i s , t o p e r t i n e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f S and H such as amount o f shared knoweledge, g o a l s o f b o t h p a r t i c i p a n t s , and i n f o r m a t i o n expressed by nonverbal c l u e s . I n w r i t t e n t e x t s , i n f a c t , i t w i l l r a r e l y happen t h a t a d i s s i g n a l l e d b u t n o t made e x p l i c i t , w i t h perhaps t h e e x c e p t i o n o f s h o r t n o t e s o r l e t t e r s t o f r i e n d s o r c o l l e a g u e s who can s u p p l y t h e unexpressed in f orma t i on. F u r t h e r , w h i l e f o r most o f t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l examples used i t c o u l d be assumed t h a t p a r t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o a d was known t o H, i n l o n g e r l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n s t h i s assumption m a y n o t be v a l i d . Every UTT may convey new i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d s i g n a l s t o what (see S27-S30). i n f o r m a t i o n S i s a s s i g n i n g more r e l e v a n c e o r c e n t r a l Moreover, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a d may be seen as a means o f s u b s t a i n i n g the H ' s a t t e n t i o n , by a r o u s i n g i n h i i / h e r a s t a t e o f expectancy; as a means o f s i m p l y l e t t i n g H be aware o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a d i n r e l a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e / i t e m s wants t o f o c u s on; as a means o f s a t i s f y i n g interpersonal o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h o u t renouncing the expression o f a c e r t a i n e v a l u a t i o n (e.g., H: "What do you t h i n k o f t h e new w a l l ' s c o l o r ? " , S: " I t ' s v e r y n i c e , b u t perhaps t h e n e x t t i m e you c o u l d be more d a r i n g and p a i n t i t red! " ) .
it7
A v e r y i m p o r t a n t r o l e o f t h e s t r a t e g y o f i n t r o d u c i n g a d i s i n terms c f the t e x t s t r u c t u r e and development, i . e . , as a means o f j u s t i f y i n g t h e t e x t p r o d u c t i o n and/or as a c l e a r c l u e o f t e x t u n f o l d i n g and s t r u c t u r e . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n a r e c e n t a r t i c l e a b o u t p s y c h o l o g i c a l aspects o f c o n t i n u i n g a d u l t e d u c a t i o n (Leon, 1978), t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n ends w i t h t h e sentence: " F i r s t of a l l , what image do we have a b o u t t h e a d u l t s t u d e n t ? " and, o f course, t h e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s d e d i c a t e d t o t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s d, w h i l e , t o r e a d e r s , t h e use o f f i r s t o f a l l s i g n a l s a n o t h e r d. I t arouses t h e expectancy t h a t t h e a u t h o r t h i n k s i t necessary t o c o n s i d e r other a s p e c t s o f t h e t o p i c " a d u l t e d u c a t i o n " besides t h e image o f a d u l t s t u d e n t s . 3. RECOURSE
TO DISCONTINUITIES
I N SPONTANEOUS CCNVERSATIONS
Do p e o p l e ' u s e ' t h e s t r a t e g y o f i n t r o d u c i n g d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n t h e i r speech? Are a g g r a v a t e d and s o l v e d ? Are t h e r e i n d i v i d u a l and c o n t e x t r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s ? What r o l e does t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f d p l a y w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e t e x t s t r u c t u r e ? I n o r d e r t o s t a r t p r o v i d i n g a p l a u s i b l e answer t o these q u e s t i o n s f o u r t a l k s were t r a n s c r i b e d and a n a l y z e d (Zammuner, 1981 ) . Speakers A and B t a l k e d a b o u t t h e a b o r t i o n i s s u e i n a p u b l i c debate; EL and UC t a l k e d a b o u t women's c o n d i t i o n i n a s e m i - p u b l i c c o n t e x t . A l l t a l k s were
9
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
147
introductions t o t h e debate i t s e l f ; thus they a r e lenghty monologues. The abortion debate was characterized by a much higher degree of formality and by t h e speakers' a t t i t u d e of opposition and non-cooperation towards most of t h e i r audience. Given these contextual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i t was hypothesized that speakers in t h e two debates would organize t h e i r t a l k s d i f f e r e n t l y , i . e . , use d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s and with d i f f e r e n t frequency. More s p e c i f i c d more frequently, and to a l l y , speakers A and B were expected t o introduce use more o f t e n type two of d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s . 3.1 To be a b l e t o compare t h e four t a l k s , t h e t o t a l number of words ( W ) and the t o t a l number of Cognitive Manoeuvres produced by each speaker were used a s parameters. The obtained r e s u l t s show t h a t on t h e average speakers used content and function words w i t h t h e same frequency. Roughly 45% of a l l words were content words. These r e s u l t s a r e s i m i l a r t o those obtained by Martin and Strange (1968) i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s of spontaneous speech; thus, our speakers behaved normally in t h i s respect. Since speakers talked f o r d i f f e r e n t amounts of time, t h e r a t i o between number of words and number of Cognitive Manoeuvres ( C M ) allows us t o compare the complexity of t h e four t a l k s in terms of t h e s t r a t e g i e s speakers used to s t r u c t u r e t h e i r speech. That i s , we have an index t h a t t e l l s us how many words on the average were necessary f o r each speaker t o express one strategy. Speaker B's t a l k has been found t o be the most semantically complex, i . e . , she produced the highest number of s t r a t e g i e s in comparison t o t h e number of words used t o express them. I n o t h e r words, she was semantically l e s s redundant than t h e o t h e r speakers. On the other hand, speaker EL was the most redundant one, while A and UC were r a t h e r s i m i l a r to each o t h e r and not very d i f f e r e n t from B. This f i r s t r e s u l t i s a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d to t h e f a c t t h a t EL took g r e a t c a r e t o ensure t h a t her t a l k was understandable and accepted - - she was the only speaker who produced d u b i t a t i v e forms w i t h some frequency, talked in a very plain and q u i e t manner, used emphatic s t r e s s less often and s e t u p many frames of reference f o r her subsequent speech. These r e s u l t s already point out t h e need t o consider speakers' goals concerning t h e communication in order t o understand individual d i f f e r e n c e s . Speakers Content words ( W ) Function words ( W ) Number W per 1 CM CM:
Introduce a d Aggravate a Resolve a $
uc
EL 47.1% 52.9%
44.6% 55.4%
A 46.2% 53.8%
B 45.0% 55.0%
4.86
3.62
3.51
3.12
2.0% 0.9% 1.5%
4.4% 0.4% 3.5%
1.6% 1 .6% 1.6%
4.8% 1.8% 4.8%
Table 1 The introduction, aggravation o r perpetuation, and s o l u t i o n of d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s (d) i n r e l a t i o n t o t o t a l number of Cognitive Manoeuvres ( C M ) and of words ( W ) produced by E L , UC, A , and B.
14%
COHERENCE
Both UC and B, i t s h o u l d be noted, t a l k e d as second speakers. T h i s t o o m i g h t p a r t i a l l y h e l p e x p l a i n t h e g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y between them t h a t also i s n o t i c e a b l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a A. Both UC and B used t h i s s t r a t e g y more t h a n t w i c e as o f t e n as EL and A, u s i n g as a parameter t h e t o t a l number o f s t r a t e g i e s used by each speaker ( t a b l e 1 ) . I f we l o o k o n l y a t t h e t o t a l number o f t i m e s a was i n t r o d u c e d , r e s u l t s a r e even more s t r i k i n g s i n c e EL, UC, A, and B produced t h i s s t r a t e g y 4, 9, 2, and 27 times, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a g g r a v a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s l y i n t r o d u c e d i s not v e r y common f o r any speaker, b u t A and B p e r p e t u a t e d a 4 t w i c e as o f t e n as EL and UC. T h i s r e s u l t seems t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n t e x t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . A and B t a l k e d u s i n g r h e t o r i c a l means more o f t e n . The s o l u t i o n o f a s h o u l d t h e o r e t i c a l l y be as f r e q u e n t as i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n . From t h e s e d a t a i t can be n o t e d t h a t t h i s happens o n l y f o r speakers B and A. On t h e one hand, t h i s r e s u l t c a n be r e l a t e d t o t h e s t r o n g e r c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t a f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n p u t s on speakers so t h a t they, e x e r c i s e more control o v e r t h e i r t a l k . On t h e o t h e r hand, i t was observed t h a t a few t i m e s severa l A were i n t r o d u c e d i n s u c c e s s i o n and o n l y one g e n e r a l s o l u t i o n was provided. F u r t h e r , g i v e n t h e c o o p e r a t i v e atmosphere o f t h e debate on women's c o n d i t i o n , i t happened t h a t a s o l u t i o n was p r o v i d e d by someone f r o m t h e audience a f t e r EL o r UC had i n t r o d u c e d i t . S o l u t i o n s by speakers o t h e r than t h e f o u r mentioned were n o t computed. I n t h e more f o r m a l debate on abortion nobody f r o m t h e audience would e v e r have t h o u g h t o f v i o l a t i n g t h e i m p l i c i t r u l e o f n o n - i n t e r r u p t i o n o f a speaker. The use o f r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s was v e r y i m p o r t a n t i n t h e s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e analyzed t a l k s . Speaker A, f o r i n s t a n c e , began h e r t a l k by formulating two such q u e s t i o n s and by o r g a n i z i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g t a l k as a s o l u t i o n t o d . However, t h i s i n t u r n was s t r u c t u r e d i n terms o f o t h e r s t r a t e g i e s these (e.g., g i v i n g premises, d r a w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s , s t r e s s i n g something, e t c . ) . Thus, a t a l o c a l l e v e l , t h e e f f e c t o f i n t r o d u c i n g a 4 m i g h t be v e r y narrowl y d e l i m i t e d , b u t , a t a h i g h e r l e v e l , i t makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r speakers t o o r g a n i z e more o r l e s s l a r g e chunks o f i n f o r m a t i o n . The same t e x t s t r u c t u r e i n t r o d u c e d by r e f e r r a l t o was even more pronounced i n B ' s t a l k , i n which a l t e r n a t i v e s , by means o f s i g n a l l i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s , and by means o f r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s , were v e r y f r e q u e n t and served as t h e 'backbone' o f most o f h e r t a l k . D i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n t r o d u c e d by EL and UC generall y had a l o c a l l y r e l e v a n t e f f e c t o n l y , though UC a t t i m e s showed a tendency t o behave as B d i d , p a r t i c u l a r l y toward t h e end o f h e r t a l k .
3.2 The above r e s u l t s -- though p r e s e n t e d v e r y b r i e f l y - - s u p p o r t the c l a i m t h a t r e c o u r s e t o semantic d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i s a t e x t p r o d u c t i o n s t r a t e g y whose e f f e c t s a r e e v i d e n t b o t h a t a l o c a l and a t a more general l e v e l . From a communicative p e r s p e c t i v e t h e r e c o u r s e t o 4 is j u s t i f i e d as w e l l as necessary i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t o n e ' s audience f r o m drawing c o n c l u s i ons t h a t a r e t h o u g h t t o be i n a p p r o p r i a t e , t o s i g n a l t h e ' d i r e c t i o n ' o f a communication, and t o m a i n t a i n t h e a u d i e n c e ' s a t t e n t i o n . The r e c o u r s e t o d, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e t y p e o f $ i n t r o d u c e d and t h e means used t o s i g n a l o r s e t i t up, as w e l l as whether i t i s s o l v e d , show t h e speaker's
SEMANTIC DISCONTINUITIES AS TEXT PRODUCTION STRATEGIES
149
concern f o r his/her audience and t h e attempt t o a t t a i n his/her goals taking into account conversational r u l e s and contextual v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s t e n t a t i v e l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e a r e both individual and contextual d i f f e r ences in t h e recourse t o d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s . Experimental work and more data on spontaneous conversations a r e needed t o judge what degree of i n t e r a c t i o n there i s between individual tendencies and context r e l a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the recourse t o semantic d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s .
Though t h e a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out with I t a l i a n t e x t s , i t seems t h a t a fi i s introduced in t h e same way in English and in French as well. Here, too, further s t u d i e s a r e necessary. However, as f a r a s t h e s t r a t e g y per s e i s concerned, my opinion is t h a t i t i s t o be found i n t h e cognitive r e p e r t o i r e of every person. I t s l i n g u i s t i c means may vary from language t o language, b u t i t s extension and nature should be very generalizable. Given t h i s , a d i f f e r e n t problem remains t o be examined, namely, t h e introduction of a 4 without recourse t o e x p l i c i t l i n g u i s t i c devices. This i s s u e seems too complex t o be approached a t t h i s s t a g e of inquiry. REFERENCES Some semantic properties of some conjunctions. I n S . P . Corder Abraham, W . and E.Roulet ( E d s . ) , Some Implications of Linguistic Theory f o r Applied Linguistics. Bruxelles: Aimav and Didier, 1975. Text, Discourse, and Process. London: Longman, 1980. de Beaugrande, R . ---- Text and sentence in discourse planninq. I n J.S.PetOfi ( E d . ) , Text vs Sentence. Basic Questions o f Text L i n g u i s t i c s . Hamburg:. Buske Verlag, 1979. C r e a t i v i t y in verbalization and i t s implications f o r t h e Chafe, W . L . nature of s t o r e d knowledge. In R.O.Freedle ( E d . ) , Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company, 1977. van Dijk, T . A . Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse 2, 113-126. Processes, 1979, ---- Text and Context. London: Longman, 1977. Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood: Ablex Freedle, R . O . Publishing Company, 1977. Logic and conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard Grice, H.P. University, 1967. I n P.Cole and J.L.Morgan ( E d s . ) , Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Leon, A. Aspetti psicologici dell'educazione permanente. In M.Debesse and G.Mialaret ( E d s . ) , Educazione Permanente e Formazione Continua. Rome: Armando Armando, 1980. I t a l i a n t r a n s l a t i o n of Education Permanente e t Animation S o c i o c u l t u r e l l e . Paris: PUF, 1978. The perception of h e s i t a t i o n s in spontaneous Martin, J.G., and Strange, W . speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 427-432. Posner, R . Problemes fondamentaux de linguistique: Signification e t usage des connecteurs propositionnels dans l e s langues nature1 l e s . Mimeo, Technical University of Berlin, 1977.
150
COHERENCE
Reichman, R . C o n v e r s a t i o n a l coherency. C o g n i t i v e Science, 1978, 2, 283-327. R i e g e r , C.J. Conceptual Memory: A Theory and Computer Program f o r Process i n g t h e fleaning C o n t e n t o f N a t u r a l Language U t t e r a n c e s . PhD D i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Rules and t o p i c s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . C o g n i t i v e Science, 1977, Schank, R. 1, 421-441. Schmidt, S. J . T e x t t h e o r i e / p r a g m a l i n g u i s t i k . I n H.P .A1 thaus, H.Henne, and H.E.Wiegand (Eds.), L e x i c o n d e r Germanistischen L i n g u i s t i k . Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1973. The n a t u r e o f t e x t . In J . S . P e t o f i (Ed.), T e x t vs Sentence. Segre, C. B a s i c Q u e s t i o n s o f T e x t L i n g u i s t i c s . Hamburg: Buske Verlag, 1979. P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s and N o n - t r u t h C o n d i t i o n a l Semantics. New Wilson, D. York: Academic Press, 1976. Zammuner, V.L. Speech P r o d u c t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s i n D i s c o u r s e P l a n n i n g : A T h e o r e t i c a l and E m p i r i c a l I n q u i r y . Hamburg: Buske V e r l a g , 1981. A n a l y z i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s : The r o l e o f Zammuner, V.L. and Job, R. C o g n i t i v e Manoeuvres i n l i n g u i s t i c p l a n n i n g . The I t a l i a n Journal o f Psychology, 1979, 6, 81-98. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h i s r e s e a r c h has been p a r t i a l l y supported by a N.A.T.O. Study V i s i t Award. The a u t h o r whishes t o t h a n k t h e Department o f Experimental Psychol o g y o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f L e i d e n f o r i t s h o s p i t a l i t y and N.H.Frijda, o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Amsterdam, f o r h i s h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m and comments on t h i s research.
INFERENCE
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
HOW DO YOU F I L L I N THIS xxx? ON SOME INTERPRETATION PROCESSES
Yvonne Waern Department of Psychology The U n i v e r s i t y o f Stockholm, Sweden
T h i s r e p o r t aims a t d e s c r i b i n g how readers reason as t h e y search and i n t e r p r e t a m i s s i n g word i n a g i v e n t e x t . Each o f t h i r t y - s e v e n psychology s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o t h i n k aloud w h i l e they attempted t o i n t e r p r e t a m i s s i n g word i n s h o r t t e x t s . The t h i n k i n g aloud protocols i n d i c a t e d t h a t the protocols d i f f e r e d , depending upon how t h e t e x t was encoded. The common t h o u g h t o p e r a t i o n s c o n s i s t e d i n 1 ) l o c a t i n g schemata f r o m p r i o r knowledge, 2) s u g g e s t i n g an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w i t h i n t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s o f t h e schemata and encoding, and 3) checking. D i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s were used t o decide which o p e r a t i o n t o use and when.
There a r e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t e x t s , which make t e x t p r o c e s s i n g i n t e r e s t i n g from a c o g n i t i v e p o i n t o f view: on t h e one hand t e x t s a r e u s u a l l y redundant w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i d e a t h e y convey, on t h e o t h e r t h e y a r e incomp l e t e i n t h e same r e s p e c t . When r e a d i n g a t e x t , t h e r e a d e r must adaDt t o these t e x t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A v e r y redundant t e x t can be q u i c k l y read, once t h e r e a d e r d e t e c t s t h e redundancies. A v e r y i n c o m p l e t e t e x t w i l l have t o be c a r e f u l l y r e a d and t h e gaps f i l l e d i n w i t h t h e h e l p o f o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e t e x t o r t h e r e a d e r - s p r i o r knowledge. L e t me c o n s i d e r a s p e c i a l k i n d o f incompleteness, i . e . when c e r t a i n words a r e l e f t o u t from a conn e c t e d t e x t . I n t h i s case, t h e redundancy o f t h e t e x t as a whole may ena b l e t h e r e a d e r t o understand t h e meaning o f t h e m i s s i n g word. The soc a l l e d " c l o z e " t e s t s o f r e a d i n g comprehension a r e based on t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The p r e s e n t s t u d y poses t h e q u e s t i o n : What do people do when t h e y encounter an incompleteness i n a t e x t ? What processes a r e i n v o l v e d , and what s t r a t e g i e s do p e o p l e use? The t a s k chosen t o e l u c i d a t e t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g example: "She was a c a p n o t i c . She s i m p l y d i d n o t want t o smoke." What does t h e word " a c a o n o t i c" mean? T h i s t y p e o f t a s k , i . e . i n t e r p r e t i n g words f r o m a c o n t e x t , was s t u d i e d by Werner & Kaplan (1952). I t may now be p o s s i b l e t o come up w i t h some new i n s i g h t s t o Werner & Kaplan-s a n a l y s i s by employing t h e t o o l s o f informat i o n p r o c e s s i n g psychology as w e l l as making use o f t h e modern developments i n m o d e l i n g t e x t comprehension. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s o f a word i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t a s k can complement t h e s t u d y o f t e x t comprehension. 152
HOW DO YOU FILL I N THIS xxx?
153
The n o v e l t i e s i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as compared t o Werner & Kaplan-s a r e three: Task r e q u i r e m e n t s w i l l be a n a l y z e d (based on Werner & KaDlan-s f i n d i n g s as w e l l as o u r c u r r e n t knowledge o f t e x t - p r o c e s s i n g ) . Next, process t r a c i n g d a t a i n t h e f o r m o f t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s w i l l be c o l l e c t e d . And f i n a l l y , t h e p r o t o c o l s w i l l be analyzed, t a k i n g t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s as t h e point o f departure. Task a n a l y s i s A task a n a l y s i s aims a t p r o v i d i n g s u g g e s t i o n s f o r t h e processes t h a t a r e r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e t a s k , as w e l l as p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n these p r o cesses. There a r e two problems i n h e r e n t i n a t t e m p t s t o p e r f o r m a t a s k anal y s i s f o r t h e word i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t a s k . The f i r s t has t o do w i t h t h e l e v e l o f d e s c r i p t i o n : Complex processes can be regarded as b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d from simpler processes, which i n t u r n c o n s i s t o f even s i m p l e r processes and so on, u n t i l we r e a c h t h e l e v e l o f " e l e m e n t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n processes". To d a t e there i s no consensus as t o t h e l e v e l on which t e x t comprehension processes should be d e s c r i b e d . T h i s problem w i l l be r e s o l v e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t y p e o f d a t a t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n . Here I w i l l address t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s . The second problem r e l a t e s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge. F i n d i n g t h e meaning o f an u n f a m i l i a r word f r o m i t s c o n t e x t i s a t a s k t h a t r e l i e s h e a v i l y upon p r i o r knowledge. T h i s means t h a t t h e task performance w i l l d i f f e r , depending upon t h e r e a d e r - s p r i o r knowledge. I t a l s o means t h a t t h e processes w i l l d i f f e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s w i l l have t o t a k e i n t o account d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f v a r i a t i o n s i n p r i o r knowledge. The main r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e word i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t a s k were f o r m u l a t e d by Werner & Kaplan as f o l l o w s : "Adequate s i g n i f i c a t i o n i s based on t h e comprehension o f a word as possessing a s t a b l e and r e l a t i v e l y s e l f - c o n t a i n e d meaning; i t a l s o presupposes t h e p e r c e p t i o n and h a n d l i n g o f a sentence as a semantically d e f i n i t e e n t i t y " . (Werner & Kaplan, 1952, o p . c i t . p. 1 4 . ) I t should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Werner & Kaplan-s s t u d y d e a l t w i t h c h i l d r e n , whereas t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n d e a l s w i t h a d u l t s . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e development found by Werner & Kaplan, a d u l t s s h o u l d be a b l e t o meet t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s . Thus, t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s w i l l have t o c o n s i d e r o t h e r aspects.
As mentioned above, i t must be acknowledged t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge may l e a d t o d i f f e r e n t processes. P r i o r knowledge may be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as t h e e x i s t e n c e o f "schemata", c o v e r i n g conceptual r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . I w i l l use t h i s concept t o c o v e r d i f f e r e n t suggestions, p u t f o r w a r d by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , such as t h e concept o f "schema", used by Rumelh a r t ( c f . Rumel h a r t & Ortony, 1977), o r "frame", used by Minsky (1975), o r " s c r i p t " , used b y Schank ( c f . Schank & Abelson, 1977). I n t h i s r e p o r t I w i l l use t h e concept t o c o v e r t h e semantic aspect, i . e . most l i k e t h e " s c r i p t " n o t i o n and, f o r t h e moment, a v o i d c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f o r m a l n o t i o n o f t e x t grammar, which i s n o t r e l e v a n t i n t h e v e r y s h o r t t e x t s used. Schemata may l i e on d i f f e r e n t conceptual l e v e l s , c o v e r i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e , on a low l e v e l s i n g l e words o r p r o p o s i t i o n s , and on a h i g h l e v e l whole s i t u a t i o n s . D u r i n g r e a d i n g a t e x t , schemata r e l a t e d t o t h e t e x t w i l l be evoked. The l e v e l o f these schemata w i l l depend upon t h e u n i t o f t e x t c o n s i d e r e d and encoded a t t h e moment o f e v o k i n g t h e schema. The t e x t o f f e r s d i f f e r e n t encoding p o s s i b i l i t i e s . An o v e r v i e w o f some o f t h e s e i s g i v e n i n F i g u r e 1.
INFERENCE
154
Case I
Unfamiliar word
Case 11
Text
Case 111
/ 1 \
Word Relation
Figure 1.
Word context
I
Relation Cue
Relation
Cue context
Case IV
Different encoding p o s s i b i l i t i e s and t h e i r l a b e l s .
Case I covers an encoding of t h e unfamiliar word. I t w i l l evoke phonetic associations t o the word, together w i t h t h e i r semantic meanings. Case I1 covers an encoding of the t e x t as a whole (disregarding the unfamil i a r word). I t w i l l evoke p r i o r knowledge consisting of s i m i l a r situations or events. Case 111 covers an encoding of t h e t e x t i n t o t h r e e p a r t s : one, where the word i s contained; one, containing a cue t o the word; and one indicating t h e r e l a t i o n between the word p a r t and t h e cue p a r t . I t w i l l evoke associat i o n s t o t h e cue, and a l s o conceptual relationships concerned w i t h the cue and t h e r e l a t i o n between cue p a r t and word p a r t . Case IV covers an encoding o f the t e x t i n t o s t i l l g r e a t e r d e t a i l s as shown in the f i g u r e . A prototypical example i s an analogy, which w i l l evoke p r i o r knowledge concerned w i t h the cue and i t s context and w i t h the different r e l a t i o n s expressed in t h e t e x t . To continue t h e a n a l y s i s , a second suggestion w i l l be made. Within each encoding case, t h e same principal operations w i l l be required. They may b e described as follows: 1 ) i d e n t i f y i n g t h a t a word i s unfamiliar o r missing; 2 ) seeking p r i o r knowledge schema ( o r schemata); 3) suggesting a conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h e basis of this schema ( t h e s e schemata) and the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed by the encodings; 4 ) suggesting a word, which covers t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . One of t h e operations 3 and 4 may be ootional; 5 ) checking of intermediate and f i n a l r e s u l t s . When a check leads t o an unsatisfactory r e s u l t , the process may repeat i t s e l f , w i t h changes o f encoding, schemata, o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . This analysis reveals t h a t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process a s a whole will be longer and more complex from Case I1 through Case I11 t o Case IV. More schemata w i l l be involved as well as more r e s t r i c t i o n s . This a l s o means t h a t t h e more d e t a i l e d the encoding, the g r e a t e r the chance f o r unsatisfactory intermediate r e s u l t s . This task a n a l y s i s w i l l now be used i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of comments, given by s u b j e c t s performing the task under a thinking-aloud i n s t r u c t i o n .
HOW DO YOU FILL I N THIS xxx?
155
METHOD Subjects T h i r t y - s e v e n undergraduate psychology s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s t u d y . Although p a r t i c i p a t i o n was v o l u n t a r y , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments i s a c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t . Materi a1 The t e x t s c o n s i s t e d o f two clauses ( o r sentences), one, where a word was missing o r u n f a m i l i a r , t h e o t h e r c o n t a i n i n g a cue f o r t h e word. The clauses were r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t ways. The words were t a k e n f r o m a d i c t i o n a r y o f unusual words . ( H e i f e t z Byrne, 1974). I n Table 1 each word i s p r e s e n t e d i n a sample sentence, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e intended r e l a t i o n s h i p . The t e x t s have been t r a n s l a t e d from Swedish, where the u n f a m i l i a r words were s p e l l e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y .
Table 1 .
Examples of t e x t used.
Text
Intended r e l a t i o n s h i p
She was acapnotic. She had never smoked and did not want t o s t a r t e i t h e r . He wanted t o impress people. Thherefore h i s jactancy was rather great. The l i f t was f u l l of chankings. In p a r t i c u l a r , she noted evidence of a zealous use of s n u f f . Hmartiology i s as u s e f u l f o r a prospective sinner as psychology f o r a prospective psychologist. Some people regarded him as an ezample of the e z i n a n i t i o n of c l a s s i c a l thought, but he was, i n f a c t , a s u b t l e and thorough2y philosophical t h i n k e r in the b e s t classical t r a d i t i o n .
Paraphrase Cause Subordination Metaphor or ana2ogy Contrast
The t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e words a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d i c t i o n a r y a r e g i v e n i n Table 2.
Table 2.
D e f i n i t i o n s of the u n f m i 2 i a r words used.
Word
De f i n ; tion
Acapnotic Exinani t i o n Chanking Hmartiology Jactancy
A non-smoker Loss; d e s t i t u t i o n
Spat-out food, such as rind or p i t s The study of sin Boasting; bragging
156
INFERENCE
Each word was used once i n each of t h e f i v e d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s . Thus, 25 d i f f e r e n t t e x t s were constructed. Each s u b j e c t read f i v e d i f f e r e n t t e x t s , each containing one of t h e unfamiliar words and one of the relations. PROCEDURE
The subjects were given the t e x t s , one a t a time, with the following ins t r u c t i o n : "Read t h i s aloud and say aloud a l l your thoughts while you read". After reading each t e x t , the subjects were asked t o 1 ) paraphrase the meaning of the t e x t , and 2 ) t r y t o define the meaning of the unfamiliar (o r missing) word. The subjects were given some t r a i n i n g on the thinkingaloud method before the actual experiment. Twenty subjects read the texts with the unfamiliar word i n s e r t e d , the o t h e r seventeen read the t e x t s w i t h xxx i n s e r t e d i n the place o f the unfamiliar word. RESULTS
Pro toco 1 ana 1ys i s Each protocol was studied w i t h respect t o the following: 1 ) case analysis. Each protocol was judged as r e f l e c t i n g one or several of the cases, suggested by the task analysis; 2 ) process a n a l y s i s . In each protocol, t r a c e s of the operations suggested by the task analysis were judged. Protocols indicating operations n o t contained i n the task analysis were sorted i n t o a residual category. The r e s u l t s wi 11 be presented f i r s t by analyzing protocols representing "pure" cases and "simple" case combinations. The protocols containing comments which reveal operations not covered by the case analysis will be discussed. F i n a l l y , some s t r a t e g i e s which can give r i s e t o t h e thinking behind the protocols w i l l be suggested. Case I .
Word schema.
As mentioned above, twenty subjects were given the unfamiliar word in t h e
t e x t . T h u s , 100 protocols could r e f l e c t t h e use of a word schema. Only two protocols i n d i c a t e t h a t the word schema alone was used. One of these i s presented i n Table 3. This protocol r e f l e c t s a l l operations suggested by the task analysis: 1 ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the foreign word ( t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n in reading); 2 ) t h e seeking ( o r here, d i r e c t finding) of a word schema (comment 1 ) ; 5) a r e s u l t of a check (comment 4 ) ; and 4 ) a suggested i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the word (comment 5 ) . The proposed operation 3 ) , containing a sugaestion of a concept of the word, i s not expressed in t h i s protocol. As indicated i n the task a n a l y s i s , t h i s operation i s optional.
HOW DO YOU FILL IN THIS xxx?
Table 3. Text:
157
An excrmple o f Case I , word schema alone.
The engine worked l i k e a c h i l d who doesn't l i k e t h e food o f f e r e d :
i t took i n t h e m a t e r i a l and s p a t o u t t h e chankings (Swedish: lank i n g a r ) a t t h e same p l a c e . Comment
Interpretation
1 . Yes, t h i s reminds me o f "lanka" which you use when you p l a y cards, they are t h e s e small cards ( t h i s comment occurs when t h e t e x t has been read a s f a r a s "chankings") 2. " a t t h e same place" 3. Rereads t h e whole t e z t 4 . Yes, r know t h a t 5 . I t h i n k "chankings" means small garbage.
The s u b j e c t a s s o c i a t e s d i r e c t l y t o some word schema. Continued reading. Encoding t e x t . Check w i t h p o s i t i v e r e s u l t . Word suggestion.
The protocol in Table 3 i s i n t e r e s t i n g , not only because i t contains a l l the operations suggested, b u t a l s o because i t discloses how the context res t r i c t i o n ( i . e . engine) changes the original schema (small cards) t o a suggestion, which b e t t e r f i t s the context (small garbage). This can be i n t e r preted as an example of an assimilation-accommodation cycle, very s i m i l a r t o those described by Piaget ( e . g . 1963). F i r s t the word i s assimilated t o the schema, then the schema accommodates t o the context. Case 11. Text schema. This case was defined as being based upon an encoding of the t e x t as a whole, o r an encoding of t h e word clause alone without any r e l a t i o n t o the context c 1 a use. Case I 1 alone i s r e f l e c t e d in 35 of the protocols. Table 4 . Table 4 . Text:
One example i s given in
Example o f a p r o t o c o l , p r o v i d i n g evidence f o r t h e use of Case I I .
The machine worked l i k e a c h i l d who doesn't Like t h e food o f f e r e d :
it took i n t h e m a t e r i a l and s p a t o u t t h e xxx a t t h e same p l a c e . (xxx = chankings) Coment
Interpretation
I.
Suggestion of word already during reading.
Products a t t h e same p l a c e (Experimenter: What d i d you think, then?) 3. Well, I saw some time ago some candy f a c t o r y , where t h e y d i d t a k e i n d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s and t h e r e was a l o t o f t h a t s t u f f which you u s u a l l y q u e s t i o n i n o t h e r circumstances, which came o u t i n t h e form o f candy. 2.
Schema f o r t h e f a c t o r y situation.
INFEREWE
158
The s u b j e c t - s comment a f t e r t h e s u g g e s t i o n can e i t h e r be a c o n s t r u c t i o n by a f t e r t h o u g h t o r a r e a l r e t r o s p e c t i o n . Whatever t h e case, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h e d e t a i l o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n , (candy f a c t o r y ) . The suggested i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s much more g e n e r a l ( p r o d u c t s ) . Again, t h i s can be regarded as a r e s u l t o f an assimilation-accommodation process. Here, t h e p a r t i c u l a r schema i s r e p l a c e d by a more g e n e r a l one, p r o b a b l y due t o t h e l a c k o f detail i n the context. F o r a comparison w i t h t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s a l l p r o t o c o l s were i n t e r p r e t e d and encoded as i n d i c a t e d i n t h e example. Only one o c c u r r e n c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r o p e r a t i o n was counted i n each p r o t o c o l . T a b l e 5 shows t h e number and prop o r t i o n of p r o t o c o l s , where t r a c e s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s suggested were found. Table 5 .
Frequencies and proportions of comments, r e f l e r t i n g processes suggested i n t h e task a n a l y s i s for Cuse IT.
Comment r e f e r r i n g t o
bnfami liar word
group Frequency Proportion I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of unfami 1i a r word Text schema Conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Word suggestion Check Total. number o f protocols
4 4 4
6 4 8
.50
.so . so -75 .50
Missing word group Frequency Proportion
_-
__
9
.33
12
.44
24 20 27
.89
.74
I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t much o f t h e p r o c e s s i n g suggested i s n o t expressed. This i s t y p i c a l f o r t h e t h i n k i n g a l o u d procedure. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e m i s s i n g t r a c e s . They m i g h t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n s suggested are n o t performed a t a l l , o r a r e performed i n an automated way, so t h a t they w i l l n o t b e a t t e n d e d to, o r t h a t t h e y a r e heeded b u t n o t mentioned. Here, t h e r e e x i s t s a p o s s i b i l i t y t o compare t h e comments g i v e n w i t h t h e actual occurrence o f an o p e r a t i o n . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e u n f a m i l i a r word s h o u l d have been performed by e v e r y s u b j e c t who r e a d t h e u n f a m i l i a r word and accepted t h e t a s k . However, o n l y 50 % o f t h e p r o t o c o l s show any t r a c e o f t h i s process. I f we compare t h e r e s t o f t h e comments w i t h t h i s f i g u r e , we f i n d t h a t a l l o p e r a t i o n s suggested by t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s a r e represented i n t h e p r o t o c o l s t o about t h e same e x t e n t o r h i g h e r , w i t h one exception. T h i s e x c e p t i o n concerns comments r e l a t e d t o t h e t e x t schema i n t h e missing word group. I n t h i s group t h e t a s k seems e a s i e r . More p r e c i s e word sugg e s t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were g i v e n by these subj e c t s . An easy t a s k may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as one, where t h e s u b j e c t s process ready-made approaches t o s o l v e t h e t a s k , and t h u s do n o t have t o a t t e n d t o t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e processes. The s u b j e c t s who a r e g i v e n the u n f a m i l i a r word can choose between d i f f e r e n t approaches, w h i c h m i g h t make them more a t t e n t i v e t o d e t a i l .
Case 111. Clause schema. T h i s case was i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p r o t o c o l s whenever t h e s u b j e c t s mentioned a cue i n some way, o r a t t e m p t e d t o map a cue a g a i n s t t h e u n f a m i l i a r o r m i s s i n g word.
HOW DO YOU FILL IN THIS x x x ?
159
Case I11 i s the most common "pure" case, covering 63 protocols. i s given in Table 6. Table 6. Text:
One example
ExampZe of a protocoZ, providing evidence f o r t h e use o f Case I i I .
He s t a r t e d t o study hamartiology. His f i r s t book contained a des c r i p t i o n of d i f f e r e n t types of s i n .
Comment
interpretation
1 . Yes, I wonder of course what hmartioZogy means. 2. I t seems t o be something p h i losophical. 3. Sins, t h a t ' s so a b s t r a c t . 4 . O r could i t be something t o do w i t h r e l i g i o n ? 5. He studied t h e Bible i n some way too, t r y i n g t o f i n d out d i f f e r e n t types of s i n performed. 6 . I t must have something t o do w i t h r e l i g i o n .
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of unfami l i a r word. Expression of schema. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of cue. Search f o r a l t e r n a t i v e schema f o r t h e cue. A f u r t h e r deve lopment of the context part schema; probably as a part of a check. A conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , which i s accepted.
We see i n Table 6, how the subject i s trying some d i f f e r e n t schemata on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f a b s t r a c t i o n : philosophy, r e l i g i o n , Bible. I t i s int e r e s t i n g t o note how the s u b j e c t s h i f t s a t t e n t i o n from the cue (comment 3) t o the t e x t a s a whole (comment 5 ) . This i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r the socalled hermeneutic c i r c l e , ( c f Palmer, 1969).
All the protocols r e f l e c t i n g Case I11 were analyzed f o r comparison with the task a n a l y s i s as exemplified in Table 6 . Counting only one occurrence,of each operation t r a c e per protocol, the f i g u r e s presented in Table 7 a r e obtained. TabZe 7 .
Frequencies and proportions of comments, refZecting processes suggested i n t h e t a s k analysis f o r Case I I I .
Coment r e f e r r i n g t o
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of unfamiliar word Text schema Cue schema Conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Word suggestion Cheek Total nwnber of protocols
Unfami l i a r word group Frequency Proportion
28 3
.78
29 29 22
.80 .80
30 36
.80
.08 .60
Missing word group Frequency Proportion
0 20 18 37 29 37
0 .54 .49
1.00 .78
160
INFERENCE
The f i g u r e s i n T a b l e 7 show t h a t t h e comments correspond r a t h e r w e l l t o t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s . The few a s s o c i a t i o n s t o t h e t e x t as a whole may be regarded as a c o m b i n a t i o n o f schemata, b u t were p l a c e d h e r e because these associat i o n s were so w e l l i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e process as a whole. I f we compare t h e o p e r a t i o n t r a c e s found i n t h e d i f f e r e n t groups, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e group g i v e n t h e u n f a m i l i a r word a r e much more e x p l i c i t about t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s u l t s o f o p e r a t i o n s , l e a d i n g t o the s u g g e s t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e u n f a m i l i a r word group do n o t a l ways a r r i v e a t a s p e c i f i c word suggestion, which on t h e o t h e r hand, the s u b j e c t s i n t h e m i s s i n g word group do. The e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e d i f f e rences may be t h e same as was suggested f o r Case I 1 above: t h e t a s k gets " e a s i e r " , when t h e word i s n o t presented.
Case IV. Analogy schema. T h i s case was analvzed o n l v f o r t h e t e x t s . which c o n t a i n e d an e x o l i c i t anal o g y . Three texts: and a ;otal o f 21 p r o t o c o l s , were r e l e v a n t f o r a Case I V a n a l y s i s . O f these, o n l y f i v e p r o t o c o l s showed c l e a r evidence o f u s i n g a n a l o g i c a l reasoning. A n example o f p u r e a n a l o g i c a l r e a s n i n g i s found i n T a b l e 8. The comments a r e i n agreement w i t h t h e a n a l y s i s o f analog c a l reasoning suggested by S t e r n b e r g (1977). Table 8. Text:
An example o f analogicaZ reasoning.
A prospective sinner can have as much use of t h e study of hmart i o l o g y as a psychologist has of the study of psychology.
Comment
Interpretation
1. WelZ then hamartiology must be r e l a t e d t o sinner as psychology t o psychologist. 2. Psychology for a psychologist t h a t must be the most important. 3. What can t h a t mean, it must be 4 . Psychology, t h a t i s the science of the psyche. 5 . Then hamartiology must mean the science of sin.
Encoding i n t o an analogy.
...
Schema f o r cue related t o cue context. Search f o r concept. Schema f o r cue. Suggestion f o r word.
Simple case combinations. I t was f o u n d t h a t two o f t h e cases suggested c o u l d e a s i l y be i d e n t i f i e d i n one and t h e same o r o t o c o l . These concern combinations w i t h Case I , t h e word schema search. O t h e r case combinations were more d i f f i c u l t t o discern. L e t me h e r e g i v e some examples of Case I , combined w i t h some o t h e r cases. Such combinations a r e r e f l e c t e d by 32 p r o t o c o l s , b e l o n g i n g o f course, t o those 100 who were g i v e n t e x t s c o n t a i n i n g t h e u n f a m i l i a r word. I n many o f t h e combinations w i t h Case I, t h i s case was a t t e m p t e d f i r s t , and abandoned for some o t h e r case when no s u g g e s t i o n c o u l d be found. An example i s shown i n T a b l e 9.
HOW DO YOU F I L L I N THIS xxx?
161
The p r o t o c o l f r o m s u b j e c t 4 i n T a b l e 9 shows how t h e word schema search i n c o m e n t s 3-5 i s abandoned and a c o n t e x t d i r e c t e d process i s s t a r t e d by a t t e n d i n g t o t h e t e x t as a whole. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l why t h e s u b j e c t does n o t develop a c l e a r s u g g e s t i o n f r o m t h e g e n e r a l concept (something which i s t h e o p p o s i t e t o ...). Maybe t h e word search o p e r a t i o n i s t o o d i s t u r b i n g , as i n d i c a t e d by t h e s u b j e c t - s own comment 8.
Table 9 .
Tezt:
Example of a p r o t o c o l , providing evidence f o r a ease s h i f t from Case I t o Case I I I .
Many people considered him t o be an example of t h e e x i n a n i t i o n o f c l a s s i c a l thought; b u t he was, i n f a c t , a s u b t l e and thoroughly philosophical t h i n k e r i n t h e b e s t c l a s s i c a l t r u d i t i o n .
Comment 1.
Exinanition?
Interpretation Queer word.
2 . Well, t h a t e x i n a n i t i o n , that i s r e a l l y d i s t u r b i n g . 3. Ex, t h a t means out o r out of. 4. Inan, I don't know a t aZl what t h a t means. 5. I t kind of d e s t r o y s t h e whole text. 6 . So, it must be something which i s t h e opposite t o being a thoroughly philosophical t h i n k e r , since i t says: 7 . "He was, i n f a c t , a thoroughly philosophical t h i n k e r . " 8. What you stumble on i s t h e word kind o f , and you want t o g e t i t s meaning from t h e o t h e r t h i n g s , 9. but t h i s i s t h e only t h i n g it i s possible t o g e t out o f t h i s , I t h i n k .
Identification of unfamiliar word. Hung-up on u n f a m i l i a r word. Attempt t o use word schema (Case I ) . Continued attempt w i i h word schema. Indicates d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h encoding. Expresses t h e r e l a t i o n between word and cue, derived from Eneoding t h e cue. Comment r e l a t e d t o the thought process. Abandoning t h e t a s k .
I n o t h e r p r o t o c o l s , Case I i s n o t abandoned b u t combined i n some way w i t h another case. T h i s o f t e n r e q u i r e s an a d a p t a t i o n o f e i t h e r t h e word t o t h e c o n t e x t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r t h e c o n t e x t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t h e word schema. An example o f an a d a p t a t i o n of t h e c o n t e x t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t h e word schema i s f o u n d i n T a b l e 10.
162
INFERENCE
Table 10.
A n example of a protocol i n d i c a t i n g an adaptation of the
t e x t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o a word schema. Text:
His exinanition consisted i n a decline i n the value i n the bonds he owned.
Comment 1.
Interpretation
Existence?
Yes, maybe. (Examiner: How do you mean?) 3. That a l l h i s a s s e t s consisted i n the bonds he owned, and i f the ualue of t h e bonds declines, then h i s existence i s a t stake. 2.
4.
Yes.
Suggestion based upon word schema. Check and ( p a r t i a l ) acceptance. The suggestion of the word changes t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t e x t as a whole an a s s i m i l a t i o n / d i s t o r t i o n effect. Suggestion accepted.
An example of an a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e word t o t h e c o n t e x t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s g i v e n i n T a b l e 11.
Table 11.
Text:
An example of an adaptation of t h e word t o the context interpretation.
She d i d not show any great jactancy. r e l u c t a n t t o show her a b i l i t y .
Comment
Rather, she was somewhat
Interpretation
1. She did not show any great jactancy 2. Could i t be something w i t h estimation of h e r s e l f . 3. "I" (Swedish: j a g ) and " j a c t " would be c l o s e enough. 4. Self-reliance or something ( t h e continuation i n d i c a t e s how the cue i s u s e d ) .
...
Concept, based upon context. Adaptation of word context. Suggestion f o r word.
These examples f r o m s i m p l e case combinations show, t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s i n terms o f o p e r a t i o n s t o be performed has t o be supplemented w i t h an a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t r a t e g y used w i t h t h e s u b j e c t . The s t r a t e g y s o e c i f i e s , when a cert a i n o p e r a t i o n s h a l l be used. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e r e a d e r has t o decide where t o s t a r t , h m t o c o n t i n u e , i f t h e f i r s t a t t e m p t f a i l s , and when t o end t h e process. I n t h e cases p r e s e n t e d i n Tables 9 and 10, a s i m p l e des c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t r a t e g y used may b e made as f o l l o w s :
HOW DO YOU F I L L
IN THIS xxx?
163
1) S t a r t w i t h Case I ( s e a r c h f o r word schema). 2 ) I f no word schema i s found, t r y a n o t h e r case. 3) I f a word schema i s found, seek a schema f o r t h e t e x t w i t h i n t h e conf i n e s o f t h e w o r d schema found. 4) I f a schema has been found f o r b o t h t e x t and word, i n s e r t t h e schema o f t h e word i n t h e schema f o r t h e c o n t e x t . 5) I f t h e word schema f i t s i n t h e c o n t e x t schema, accept word schema as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e word. 6) I f t h e word schema f i t s t h e c o n t e x t , use t h e word schema f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e word, and end. 7) I f no word i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s found, and a t t e m p t s have been made w i t h i n some cases, end. F o r t h e p r o t o c o l e x e m p l i f i e d i n T a b l e 11 a somewhat d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y must be proposed. The f o l l o w i n g r u l e s may be suggested: 1) S t a r t by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t e x t (Case I 1 o r 111). 2 ) I f a c o n t e x t schema i s found, use t h e c o n t e x t schema t o f i n d a conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 3) I f a c o n c e p t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has been found, check a g a i n s t word schema. 4) I f a schema has been f o u n d f o r b o t h t e x t and word, i n s e r t t h e schema o f t h e word i n t h e schema f o r t h e c o n t e x t . 5) I f t h e w o r d schema f i t s i n t h e c o n t e x t schema, use t h e conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h e word. By combining d i f f e r e n t r u l e s f o r how t o s t a r t , proceed, and t e r m i n a t e , a v e r y g r e a t v a r i e t y o f sequences o f o p e r a t i o n s may be o b t a i n e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g processes a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e d i n t h e p r o t o c o l s , as w e l l as o t h e r p o s s i b l e processes.
Residual So f a r , 142 o r 75 % o f t h e c o l l e c t e d p r o t o c o l s have been d e s c r i b e d by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s . The r e m a i n i n g 47 p r o t o c o l s i n d i c a t e operat i o n s , n o t covered by t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s . I w i l l n o t go i n t o t h e d e t a i l of these, b u t s i m p l y c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e p r o t o c o l s r o u g h l y as c o n t a i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g : D i f f i c u l t i e s i n f i n d i n g an adequate word s u g g e s t i o n , f a i l u r e o f p r e l i m i n a r y encodings, encoding d i f f i c u l t i e s , and d i s t o r t i o n s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S i n c e t h e t a s k a n a l y s i s aimed a t e s t a b l i s h i n g requirements f o r a s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , p o s s i b l e o p e r a t i o n s b e h i n d unsuccessful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n processes were, o f course, n o t analyzed. There may be s e v e r a l reasons f o r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o f a i l . The r e s i d u a l p r o t o c o l s o b t a i n e d may r e p r e s e n t some o f t h e most common reasons. DISCUSSION I t can now be asked how t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t e s t o and supplements c u r r e n t t e x t p r o c e s s i n g models.
Most e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h on comprehension processes d u r i n g r e a d i n g have used o b s e r v a t i o n s o f r e a d i n g times, u s i n g more o r l e s s f i n e - g r a i n e d u n i t s o f a n a l y s i s , (e.g. eye f i x a t i o n s by J u s t & Carpenter, 1980, Carpenter & J u s t , 1977, o r r e a d i n g t i m e s f o r s i n g l e phrases by H i l l e r & K i n t s c h , 1980). The r e a d i n g t i m e s can be used t o check hypotheses about r e a d i n g and comprehens i o n processes, b u t t h e y cannot themselves g i v e r i s e t o any ideas about
164
INFERENCE
t e x t p r o c e s s i n g . T h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s a r e r i c h enough i n i n f o r m a t i o n t o suggest unforeseen processes as w e l l as t o c o n f i r m t h e e x i s t e n c e o f h y p o t e s i z e d processes. I n t h e p r e s e n t data, t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s have conf i r m e d and supplemented t h e c e n t r a l suggestions found i n r e c e n t t e x t proc e s s i ng model s . F i r s t , t h e importance o f t h e reader's p r i o r knowledge has been confirmed. The p r e s e n t d a t a r e v e a l e d t h a t a g r e a t deal of t h e p r o c e s s i n g c o n s i s t e d o f evoking p r i o r knowledge, h e r e c a l l e d schemata. Second, t h e p r o c e s s i n g b e h i n d a t t e m p t s t o l i n k new m a t e r i a l t o f a m i l i a r mat e r i a l has been d e t a i l e d . The p o s s i b i l i t y o f f i n d i n g o r c o n s t r u c t i n g such a l i n k has been suggested t o be an i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y p e o p l e have i n p r o c e s s i n g t e x t s , ( c f H a v i l a n d & C l a r k , 1974, K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978, and M i l l e r & K i n t s c h , 1980). The p r e s e n t d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t s e v e r a l o p e r a t i o n s a r e i n v o k e d i n t h e l i n k i n g : l o c a t i n g schemata, sugg e s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s o f schemata and encoding, and checking t h e p a r t and end r e s u l t s . One unforeseen process was found i n some o f t h e p r o t o c o l s , i . e . a process which adapted schemata t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o schemata. T h i s process can be regarded as an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e l i n k i n g process. I n c o n s t r u c t i n g a l i n k between t e x t as encoded and p r i o r knowledge, encodings as w e l l as schemata may have t o be s l i g h t l y changed. T h i s change i s superv i s e d by t h e checking o p e r a t i o n , which i n d i c a t e s when a change i s admissible and when a s u g g e s t i o n i s t o o remote t o be a c c e p t a b l e . The data g i v e very few i n d i c a t i o n s about how a d m i s s i b i l i t y o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s determined. The a d a p t a t i o n process and t h e checking o p e r a t i o n may thus p r e s e n t two areas, where f u r t h e r i n s i g h t i s d e s i r a b l e . A f u r t h e r i n s i g h t g a i n e d by examining t h e p r o t o c o l s c o n s i s t s of t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t e x t p r o c e s s i n g models must t a k e account o f t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s used b y r e a d e r s t o process t e x t s . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d i f f e r e n t encodings e x i s t means t h a t a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n o f how t o s t a r t i s req u i r e d . S t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g how t o proceed and t e r m i n a t e are r e q u i r e d when t h e search does n o t g i v e any r e s u l t , o r when t h e checking r e v e a l s , t h a t a proposed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n does n o t f i t . S t r a t e g i e s have been g i v e n v e r y l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n t o t e x t processing, whereas s t r a t e g i e s emerge as a most i m p o r t a n t concept i n problem s o l v i n g research, ( c f Newel1 & Simon, 1972). T e x t p r o c e s s i n g may n o t always be l i k e n e d t o problem s o l v i n g . However, when d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e , such as when i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e n o t i m m e d i a t e l y found, a problem s o l v i n g account o f t e x t p r o c e s s i n g may be f r u i t f u l . FOOTNOTE The i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been s u p p o r t e d by a g r a n t f r o m t h e Swedish Council f o r Research i n t h e Humanities and S o c i a l Sciences. Data have been I am g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d t o J a n e t Powell a t c o l l e c t e d by Susanne Askwall. Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y f o r g i v i n g me t h e words and l e t t i n g me use t e x t s , w r i t t e n by her, i n some p r e l i m i n a r y t h i n k i n g - a l o u d sessions.
HOW DO YOU FILL IN THIS xxx?
165
REFERENCES
Reading comprehension as eyes see i t . I n Carpenter, P . A . & J u s t , M.A. M.A. J u s t & P.A. Carpenter ( E d s . ) . Cognitive processes in comprehension, H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 1977. Hav-d, S . E . & Clark, H . H . Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension, Journal of Verbal Learning a n d Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 512-521. HeiGtz Byrne, J . Mrs. Byrne-s dictionary of unusual, obscure, a n d preposterous words. Secaucus, New Jersey: University Books, Citadel Press, 1974. J u s t , M . A . & Carpenter, P. A . A theory of reading: From eye f i x a t i o n s t o comprehension. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 329-354. Kintsch. W . & van Diik. T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comDrehension and production. Psychoiogical Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.' Miller, J.R. & Kintsch, W . Readability and r e c a l l of s h o r t prose passages: A t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Journal o f Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1980, 6, 335-354. Minsky, M . A framework f o r representing knowledge. I n P.H. Winston ( E d . ) . The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1975. Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. Human problem solving. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Palmer, R . E . Hermeneutics. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger a n d Gadamer. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1969. Piaget, J . The o r i g i n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e i n children. New York: W . W . Horton, 1963. Rumelhart, D . E . & Ortony, A. The representation of knowledge in memory. In R . C . Anderson, R.J. Spiro & W.E. Montague ( E d s . ) . Schooling and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 1977. Schank, R . & Abelson, R . S c r i p t s , Plans, Goals and Understanding. An inquiry i n t o human knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 1977. Sternberg, R.J. I n t e l l i g e n c e , information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential a n a l y s i s o f human a b i l i t i e s . H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 1977. Werner, H. &-Kaplan, E . The a c q u i s i t i o n of word meanings: A developmental study. Monographs of the Society f o r Research i n Child Development, 1952, 2, No. 1. (Whole No. 5 1 ) .
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
INFERENCE PROCESSES I N DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION MEASURED BY SENTENCE READING TIMES K a r l F. Wender I n s t i t u t f u r Psychologie Technische U n i v e r s i t a t Braunschweig
When r e a d i n g a t e x t a person w i l l sometimes have a c h o i c e between s e v e r a l i n f e r e n c e s t o connect two e v e n t s . I n such an ambiguous s i t u a t i o n t h e r e a d e r w i l l n o t always immedia t e l y draw one o f t h e i n f e r e n c e s . I f an a d d i t i o n a l cue p o i n t s t o one o f t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h e n t h e r e a d e r w i l l e s t a b l i s h t h i s c o n n e c t i o n . D i f f e r e n t s t o r i e s were cons t r u c t e d c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a c o n s i s t e n t , an i n c o n s i s t e n t , and a w i t h o u t - a n t e c e d e n t c o n d i t i o n . Sentence r e a d i n g t i m e was measured. The r e s u l t s l i e i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n b u t do n o t r e a c h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . INTRODUCTION Many a u t h o r s have s t r e s s e d t h e importance o f i n f e r e n c i n g d u r i n g d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g . Trabasso and N i c h o l a s (1980), f o r example, f o l l o w John Dewey, when t h e y s t a t e t h a t t h e process o f i n f e r e n c i n g i s most c e n t r a l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e meaning o f a t e x t . Others argue t h a t i n f e r e n c e s and e l a b o r a t i o n s a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r remembering and r e c a l l (Anderson, 1980). M o d i f y i n g t h e t i t l e o f a book about c a u s a l i t y by Mackie (1974), one might say t h a t i n f e r e n c e s a r e t h e cement o f d i s c o u r s e . A l t h o u g h many s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r o l e o f i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e s t i l l remain open questions. When g i v e n a p i e c e o f a t e x t i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t numerous i n f e r e n c e s and e l a b o r a t i o n s can be drawn based upon i t . T h i s has been c a l l e d t h e explosion o f i n f e r e n c e s ( R i e g e r , 1975). One q u e s t i o n now i s which o f a l l p o s s i b l e inferences a r e established a t a given time. I n t h i s paper we w i l l examine cases i n which s e v e r a l i n f e r e n c e s a r e p o s s i b l e t o connect two p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n a t e x t . T h i s may be l o o k e d a t as an ambiguous s i t u a t i o n . We make t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n such a s i t u a t i o n t h e r e a d e r w i l l n o t always i m m e d i a t e l y choose one o f t h e i n f e r e n c e s . I n o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e a d e r w i l l s e l e c t an a p p r o p r i a t e i n f e r e n c e when he g e t s an a d d i t i o n a l p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t disambiguates the situation. T h i s view i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f S i n g e r (1979) who found t h a t t h e agent, p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases where n o t i n f e r r e d d u r i n g sentence encoding b u t r a t h e r a t t h e t i m e when t h e i n f e r e n c e was r e q u i r e d by a t e s t sentence. The t e x t m a t e r i a l we use i n t h i s experiment i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f Thorndyke ( 1 9 7 6 ) . However, he used a r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t whereas we employ a techn i q u e t h a t was i n t r o d u c e d i n a s i m i l a r c o n t e x t by H a v i l a n d and C l a r k
166
INFERENCE PROCESSES IN DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION
167
(1974). The procedure c o n s i s t s of presenting a t e x t sentence by sentence and measuring the sentence reading time. This assumes t h a t the time subj e c t s need t o read a sentence i s r e l a t e d t o t h e ongoing processes. The technique has the advantage t h a t something about the time course of inferencing can be s a i d .
I n t h i s experiment we consider sentences of t h e form "event A has as a possible consequence event B . " For example "The hamburger chain owner was a f r a i d t h a t h i s love f o r French f r i e s might ruin h i s marriage." The love f o r French f r i e s i s event A and the ruined marriage i s event B. In general there may be many reasons why event A leads t o event B. The question of i n t e r e s t here i s which of the possible reasons does the reader i n f e r and a t which point in time does he draw t h e inference. This may depend on several conditions. In t h i s experiment we t r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e a few of them. I n general o u r hypothesis i s t h a t t h e reader will draw an inference only i f in some sense he i s invited t o do so. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i f a sentence s t a t e s t h a t "A possibly leads t o 6 " and i f in, the precedin.9 text nothing relevant has been said about t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , then t h e reader will n o t necessarily search f o r a possible inference. I f , on t h e o t h e r hand, the preceding t e x t contains a possible reason, then t h e reader will look f o r a connection between t h i s information and the sentence t h a t " A possibly leads to B".
Our experimental approach i s t o measure sentence reading times. Assuming t h a t drawing an inference takes some measurable amount of time we predict t h a t reading t h e sentence "A possibly leads t o B" should take more time i f the t e x t has already given some r e l e v a n t information. To give an example, i f t h e sentence about t h e hamburger chain owner's love f o r French f r i e s i s preceded by a sentence s t a t i n g t h a t his wife did n o t l i k e f a t men then t h e reader may draw t h e inference t h a t the cause f o r ruined marriage i s t h e hamburger chain owner's weight problem. We consider one f u r t h e r case. In some of o u r s t o r i e s t h e sentence "A leads t o 6" i s followed by a statement t h a t t h e protagonist decided t o take some a c t i o n t o prevent B from occuring. This sentence will be e a s i e r t o understand i f t h e reader already has a hypothesis i n mind about why A leads t o B. Otherwise he will have t o draw an appropriate inference. Hence we pred i c t a s h o r t e r reading time f o r t h e sentence about t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ' s preventive a c t i o n i f t h e sentence "A possibly leads t o B" i s preceded by a statement about a possible reason. METHOD Subjects. So f a r 1 2 a d u l t subjects have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e experiment. m h e m were native speakers of German. Materials. The verbal materials consisted of t h r e e basic s t o r i e s . From each basic s t o r y s i x d i f f e r e n t versions were derived. For each basic s t o r y t h e r e was a s e t of c r i t i c a l sentences which were e i t h e r included or not included in a s p e c i f i c version of a s t o r y . The s t o r i e s were between 13 and 18 sentences long. The way in which t h e d i f f e r e n t versions were constructed may be i l l u s t r a t e d
168
INFERENCE
by t h e s t o r y a b o u t Johanna. Johanna i s d e s c r i b e d as a coed l i v i n g t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s i n an apartment. Because she has had a disagreement w i t h her f a t h e r he does n o t pay f o r h e r s t u d i e s any more. T h e r e f o r e she has t o work f o r h e r l i v i n g and she t a k e s a j o b a t a n i g h t c l u b . The s e t o f c r i t i c a l sentences was as f o l l o w s . I n t h e experiment t h e s t o r i e s were presented i n German.
(1 A )
D u r i n g t h e day she was o f t e n v e r y t i r e d and c o u l d n o t c o n c e n t r a t e on h e r s t u d i e s .
(1 B )
She was c a r e f u l t h a t her p r u d i s h p r o f e s s o r d i d n o t hear about her j o b i n the nightclub.
(2 )
She was a f r a i d t h a t t h e j o b i n t h e n i g h t c l u b m i g h t r u i n her academic c a r e e r .
(3 A)
She decided t o l o o k f o r a d a y t i m e j o b .
( 3 B)
She decided t o l o o k f o r a more r e s p e c t a b l e j o b .
T a b l e 1 shows which o f t h e c r i t i c a l sentences were i n c l u d e d i n each o f t h e v e r s i o n s of t h i s s t o r y . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s whether each s p e c i f i c s t o r y was c l a s s i f i e d as c o n s i s t e n t , i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r w i t h o u t a n t e c e d e n t . The l o g i c b e h i n d t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was as f o l l o w s . T a b l e 1: C r i t i c a l
No. o f story
7,
2,
8 , 14 9,
condition
sentences in c 1 u d e d
1,
3,
sentences included i n s t o r i e s 1 t o 6
13
15
consistent
1 A,
2,
3 A
1 B,
2,
3 A
inconsistent
2,
3 A
without antecedent
- ,
10, 16
1 A,
2,
3 B
inconsistent
5 , 11, 1 7
1 B,
2,
3 B
consistent
2,
3 6
without a nt e c e d e nt
4,
6, 1 2 , 1 8
- ,
Sentence ( 2 ) s t a t e s Johanna's f e a r t h a t t h e j o b i n t h e n i g h t c l u b m i g h t have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on h e r academic c a r e e r . I n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t why one may draw one o r more o u t o f s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s . Two p o s s i b l e reasons a r e g i v e n i n sentences (1 A ) and (1 6 ) . The r e a d e r may t a k e these as a n t e c e d e n t s f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e i n f e r e n c e a b o u t t h e d e s t r u c t i v e e f f e c t o f n i g h t c l u b j o b s on academic l i f e . Sentences ( 3 A ) and ( 3 B ) d e s c r i b e a p o s s i b l e consequence Johanna may d e c i d e t o t a k e . I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t sentence ( 3 A ) i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o sentence (1 A ) and a l s o ( 3 B ) i s r e l a t e d t o ( 1 B). Thus s t o r i e s number 1 and 5 a r e c a l l e d con-
INFERENCE PROCESSES IN DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION
169
s i s t e n t . On t h e o t h e r hand, i f sentences (1 B ) and ( 3 A ) or sentences ( 1 A ) and ( 3 B ) appear together in one s t o r y we c a l l t h i s condition inconsistent. If n e i t h e r sentence ( 1 A ) nor sentence (1 B) i s included we c a l l t h i s t h e condition without antecedent. The experimental design followed a 3 x 3 Latin-square with Procedure. A(-) condition ( c o n s i s t e n t , i n c o n s i s t e n t , w i t h o u t antecedent), ( B ) s t o r i e s , and ( C ) groups of subjects. Each group of subjects consisted of f o u r members. Subjects were t e s t e d individually. S t o r i e s were presented sentence by sentence on an CRT screen. There was one additional f i r s t s t o r y t h a t was used t o f a m i l i a r i z e subjects with t h e task and was n o t included in t h e a n a l y s i s . Each sentence remained on t h e screen u n t i l t h e subject pressed a key. Then t h i s sentence disappeared and was replaced t h e next sentence. Time was measured from t h e appearance of t h e sentence u n t i l t h e subject pressed t h e key. Subjects were i n s t r u c t e d t o read t h e sentences with normal speed and t o t r e a t them a s a coherent s t o r y . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Two dependent v a r i a b l e s were analyzed. The f i r s t was t h e reading time f o r sentence 2 . The second was t h e reading times f o r sentences 3 A and 3 B which were averaged. For sentence 2 t h e c o n s i s t e n t a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t cond i t i o n s were combined since these make no d i f f e r e n c e before sentence 3 has occurred.
For sentence 2 we have two conditions t o compare: With antecedent ( s t o r i e s 1, 2, 4 , and 5) and without antecedent ( s t o r i e s 3 and 6 ) . From o u r hypot h e s i s we derive t h e prediction t h a t under t h e condition with antecedent reading times should be longer t h a n without antecedent.
I n t h e data mean reading times were almost i d e n t i c a l , 2532 msec. with antecedent and 2515 msec. without antecedent. Although in t h e predicted direct i o n the d i f f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y nonsignificant. The predictions f o r sentence 3 were a s follows. When coming t o sentence 3 in a c o n s i s t e n t t e x t t h e reader has already f o u n d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between sentences 1 and 2. Since t h i s r e l a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with sentence 3 reading time f o r sentence 3 should be r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t . Under t h e incons i s t e n t condition, on t h e contrary, t h e reader d e t e c t s a p a r t i a l contrad i c t i o n which should lead t o an increased reading time. For t h e condition without antecedent we a l s o predict t h a t reading sentence 3 should take longer than under t h e c o n s i s t e n t condition. If sentence 1 i s not contained in a t e x t then no information about t h e connection between sentences 2 and 3 has been a v a i l a b l e before sentence 3 appears. Therefore combining sentences 2 and 3 should take longer, which means an increased reading time f o r sentence 3. Whether reading time f o r sentence 3 under t h e inconsistent condition should be longer o r s h o r t e r than under t h e condition without antecedent i s not c l e a r . A t l e a s t we d o n ' t have a s p e c i f i c prediction. Mean reading times f o r sentence 3 a r e given i n Table 2 . An a n a l y s i s of variance following a 3 x 3 Latin-square had t h e following r e s u l t s . The f a c t o r s ( A ) condition and ( B ) s t o r y were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . The f a c t o r ( C )
170
INFERENCE
g r o u p o f s u b j e c t s and t h e g e n e r a l i n t e r a c t i o n term reached s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the 1 % level. Table 2:
Mean r e a d i n g t i m e s ( m s e c . ) f o r s e n t e n c e 3 G i i s t h e g r o u p number
The mean r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r f a c t o r A show t h e p r e d i c t e d o r d e r . However, the d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t l a r g e enough t o r e a c h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Theref o r e t h e c o n c l u s i o n s have t o be v e r y c a u t i o u s . The r e s u l t t h a t t h e observed d i f f e r e n c e s d i d n o t r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e may be due t o t h e small sample size. Hence o u r n e x t s t e p i s t o i n c l u d e more s u b j e c t s .
A s t r o n g e f f e c t i n t h e d a t a comes f r o m t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . As a main e f f e c t t h i s may n o t be so i n t e r e s t i n g . If,however, as o u r d a t a suggest, t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s and c o n d i t i o n s and/or s t o r i e s t h i s may r e s u l t f r o m d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s s u b j e c t s employ. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l have t o l o o k f o r means t o h a n d l e them. As a f u r t h e r remark we want t o p o i n t t o two d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . One i s t o l o o k for a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e measurement o f sentence r e a d i n g t i m e s w i t h a r e c o g n i t i o n o r r e c a l l procedure. T h i s would be d e s i r a b l e t o v a l i d a t e t h e e x p e r i mental approach. A second p o s s i b i l i t y would be t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n more d e t a i l t h e c o n d i t i o n s which l e a d t o t h e s e l e c t i o n o f one i n f e r e n c e i n an ambiguous s i t u a t i o n . Memory l o a d as w e l l as r e a l w o r l d knowledge may be influential. F o r t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y we come t o t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o t s i g n i f i c a n t we have t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t the v e r b a l m a t e r i a l as w e l l as t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure a r e w e l l s u i t e d f o r o u r purposes. T h e r e f o r e , r a t h e r t h a n g i v i n g up o u r h y p o t h e s i s we w i l l continue the investigation.
INFERENCE PROCESSES IN DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION
171
REFERENCES Anderson, J.R. Cognitive psychology and i t s implications. San Francisco: Freeman, 1980. Haviland, S . , and Clark, H. What's new? Acquiring information a s a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 512-521. Mackie, J.L. The cement of t h e universe, a study of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Rieger, C . Conceptual memory. In R . Schank ( E d . ) . Conceptual information processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975. Singer, M. Processes of inference during sentence encoding. Memory & Cognition, 1979, 1,192-200. Thorndyke, P.W. The r o l e o f inferences in discourse comprehension. and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 437-466. nal o f Verbal Learning --
Jour-
Trabasso, T . , and Nicholas, D.W. Memory and inferences in t h e comprehension of n a r r a t i v e s . In F . Wilkening, J. Becker, and T . Trabasso ( E d s . ) . Information i n t e g r a t i o n by c h i l d r e n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT:
A PROCESS MODEL
Murray S i n g e r Department o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada
S i n g e r (1979, 1981) has p r e s e n t e d d a t a s u p p o r t i n g a process model t h a t addresses sentence v e r i f i c a t i o n and q u e s t i o n answering i n r e l a t i o n t o antecedent sentences. The p r e s e n t s t u d y asked whether t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e model a r e a c c u r a t e when t h e antecedent messages a r e b r i e f t e x t s . I n Experiment 1, r e a d e r s v e r i f i e d sentences t h a t were t r u e o r f a l s e , and e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t , i n r e l a t i o n t o antecedent passages. I n Experiment 2, r e a d e r s used t h e responses YES, NO, o r DON'T KNOW t o answer q u e s t i o n s about b r i e f passages. The response l a t e n c i e s were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e model. N e i t h e r t h e response l a t e n c i e s n o r t h e e r r o r r a t e s were p r o h i b i t i v e l y i n f l a t e d , r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e measured when s i n g l e sentences were used as t h e a n t e c e d e n t messages. D u r i n g t h e f i r s t h a l f of t h e 197O's, p r o p o s a l s were made c o n c e r n i n g a s e r i e s o f sentence v e r i f i c a t i o n models ( C a r p e n t e r & J u s t , 1975; C l a r k & Chase, 1972; Glucksberg and Trabasso, 1973; Trabasso, R o l l i n s , & Shaughnessy. 1971). These models q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l l y s p e c i f i e d t h e mental o p e r a t i o n s t h a t a r e executed when one has t o d e c i d e if a sentence i s t r u e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a p i c t u r e , a n o t h e r sentence, o r l o n g - t e r m knowledge o f t h e w o r l d . I n two r e c e n t s t u d i e s , these methods have been a p p l i e d t o t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t e s t sentences i n r e l a t i o n t o r e a l i s t i c messages ( S i n g e r , 1979, 1981). S i n g e r (1981) p r e s e n t e d one model t h a t s p e c i f i e d t h e processes t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t e s t sentences t h a t , i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r antecedents, a r e (1) e i t h e r t r u e o r f a l s e , and ( 2 ) e i t h e r e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t . A second model i n c l u d e d r e f e r e n c e , f o r t h e f i r s t time, t o t h e r e a d e r ' s o p t i o n o f responding DON'T KNOW, i n a d d i t i o n t o TRUE and FALSE. T h i s model generated t h e a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t c o r r e c t DON'T KNOW responses would be f a s t e r t h a n c o r r e c t FALSE responses. The d a t a used t o e v a l u a t e these models were d e r i v e d f r o m t a s k s such as t h e f o l l o w i n g . S u b j e c t viewed an antecedent sentence l i k e t h e a u n t made t h e purchase a t t h e shop on a t e l e v i s i o n screen f o r 3.0 seconds. Immediately a f t e r , t h e a n t e c e d e n t was r e p l a c e d b y a c o r r e s p o n d i n g t e s t sentence, l i k e t h e a u n t bought some f l o w e r s . The s u b j e c t s had up t o 4.0 seconds i n which t o j u d g e t h e t e s t sentence TRUE, FALSE, o r DON'T KNOW, responding by means o f a p p r o p r i a t e l y l a b e l l e d switches. One l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e s e s t u d i e s i s t h a t t h e messages t h a t have served as t h e antecedent m a t e r i a l s have c o n s i s t e d o f a s i n g l e sentence. T h i s approach made t h e i n i t i a l e v a l u a t i o n o f these models e a s i e r i n a t l e a s t two ways. (1) Readers can m a i n t a i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a s i n g l e sentence i n a s h o r t - t e r m w o r k i n g memory ( K i e r a s , 1981; K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978). W i t h one-sentence messages, s u b j e c t s have n o t needed t o execute searches of l o n g - t e r m memory (LTM) which a r e more t i m e consuming (Norman, 1976), and most l i k e l y more v a r i a b l e i n d u r a t i o n .
172
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MODEL
173
( 2 ) Longer t e x t s would be expected t o r a i s e t h e r e a d e r s ' e r r o r r a t e s f o r a t l e a s t two reasons. F i r s t , t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t each f a c t would n o t be s t o r e d i n LTM. Second, r e a d e r s m i g h t f a i l t o r e t r i e v e a s t o r e d f a c t i n t h e a l l o t t e d t i m e , because of t h e i n c r e a s e d c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e message. I f e r r o r r a t e s were h i g h , t h i s would mean t h a t a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t t r i a l s would be based on t h e r e a d e r ' s a c c u r a t e guesses, r a t h e r t h a n t h e o p e r a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d by t h e proposed model. I t would t h u s be m i s l e a d i n g t o i n t e r p r e t t h e response l a t e n c i e s as r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e model.
D e s p i t e t h e s e p i t f a l l s , S i n g e r ' s (1981) v e r i f i c a t i o n models need t o be e v a l u a t e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o d a t a based on more e x t e n s i v e t e s t s . Otherwise, t h e y w i l l n o t s e r v e as u s e f u l i n s t r u m e n t s f o r a s s e s s i n g what a r e a d e r has l e a r n e d f r o m a message. The p r e s e n t s t u d y was designed f o r t h i s purpose. The Model The model i s r e f e r r e d t o as VAIL, an acronym f o r " V e r i f y i n g t h e A s s e r t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Language." While d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s o f VAIL comment upon d i f f e r e n t v e r i f i c a t i o n t a s k s , a l l v e r s i o n s a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d i n t h a t t h e y c o n s i s t o f component o p e r a t i o n s drawn f r o m a v e r y l i m i t e d s e t . For t h i s reasons, t h e e s s e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e model can be e x p l a i n e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o any v e r s i o n . VAILl i s t h e v e r s i o n t h a t addresses t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t e s t sentences t h a t a r e e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t , and t r u e o r f a l s e , i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r antecedents. Consider sentence s e t ( 1 ) . Sentences ( l a ) and ( l b ) a r e p o s s i b l e antecedents, and ( l c ) and ( I d ) a r e p o s s i b l e t e s t s . F o r example, a f t e r r e a d i n g ( l b ) , t h e p a t i e n t was examined a t t h e h o s p i t a l , one can judge sentence ( I d ) , a p r i n c i p a l examined t h e p a t i e n t , t o be f a l s e . The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t I d c o n f l i c t s w i t h the implication o f ( l b ) t h a t the r e l e v a n t agent i s ' a i o c t o r . Sequences ( l a - l c ) , ( l a - l d ) , ( l b - l c ) , and ( l b I d ) exemplify t h e experimental conditions e x p l i c i t true, e x p l i c i t f a l s e , i m p l i c i t t r u e , and i m p l i c i t f a l s e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . (1)
a. b. c. d.
The d o c t o r examined t h e p a t i e n t a t t h e h o s p i t a l . The p a t i e n t was examined a t t h e h o s p i t a l . A d o c t o r examined t h e p a t i e n t . A p r i n c i p a l examined t h e p a t i e n t .
VAIL1, shown i n F i g u r e 1, comments upon t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e test sentence i n t h i s t a s k . ( F i g u r e 1 a l s o shows f e a t u r e s o f a second v e r s i o n o f VAIL, d i s c u s s e d b e l o w ) . A t stage 1, t h e t e s t sentence i s encoded t o i t s p r o p o s i t i o n a l form. F o r example, t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l n o t a t i o n f o r a d o c t o r examined t h e p a t i e n t i s (EXAMINE, DOCTOR, PATIENT) ( K i n t s c h , 197-i~ assumed t h a t " g i v e n " and "new" i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e t e s t sentence a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( H a v i l a n d & C l a r k , 1974).
A t stage 2, t h e r e a d e r matches t h e g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n , p a t i e n t ( m o d i f i e d by
t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , the), w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e antecedent. Stage 3 i s a t e s t t h a t asks whether t h e antecedent r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n c l u d e s any i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e case ( F i l l m o r e , 1968) o f t h e new element o f t h e t e s t sentence. I n t h e p r e s e n t example, t h e new element, d o c t o r ( m o d i f i e d by t h e i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , a), f i l l s t h e agent case. For t h e sequence ( l b - l c ) , t h e o u t p u t o f s t a g e 3 i s "no", s i n c e ( l b ) does n o t m e n t i o n an agent. I n t h i s event, t h e r e a d e r searches LTM a t
INFERENCE
174
1 ENCODE TEST SENTENCE
FIND MATCH FOR "GIVEN" IN ANTECEDENT REPRESENTATION
3 DERIVE NEEDED INFORMATION FROM LTM
ANTECEDENT
N (VAIL 2 )
INFORMATION
L
4 CHANGE TRUTH INDEX
1 INFORMATION
OUTPUT RESPONSE
Figure 1 Combined Flowchart f o r Process Models VAILl and VAILZ
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MODEL
175
stage 3 ' , t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s a concept t h a t t y p i c a l l y f i l l s t h e "empty" case. F o r sequence ( l b - l c ) , t h i s search r e t r i e v e s t h e f a c t t h a t d o c t o r i s t h e a g e n t t h a t u s u a l l y conducts medical e x a m i n a t i o n s . A t stage 4, t h e new element o f t h e t e s t sentence i s compared e i t h e r w i t h t h e c o n c e p t f i l l i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g case i n t h e antecedent r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r w i t h t h e concept r e t r i e v e d f r o m LTM. When a match i s found, t h e s u b j e c t can o u t p u t a response i n d e x , i n i t i a l i z e d a t TRUE ( C l a r k & Chase, 1972), a t stage 5 . I n t h e e v e n t o f a mismatch, t h e response i n d e x must be changed from TRUE t o FALSE a t s t a g e 4 ' b e f o r e a response i s made.
VAILl s p e c i f i e s t h a t o p e r a t i o n s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 a r e common t o a l l f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , and t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n , 3 ' needs t o be executed f o r t h e i m p l i c i t c o n d i t i o n s and 4 ' f o r t h e f a l s e c o n d i t i o n s . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s , S i n g e r (1979, Experiment 4 ) measured mean c o r r e c t l a t e n c i e s o f 1926, 2167, 2302, and 2480 msec f o r t h e t r u e e x p l i c i t , f a l s e e x p l i c i t , t r u e i m p l i c i t , and f a l s e i m p l i c i t c o n d i t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . A d d i t i o n a l assumptions o f t h e model a r e d e s c r i b e d by S i n g e r (1981). Other versions o f VAIL d i f f e r s l i g h t l y f r o m VAIL1, and one i n p a r t i c u l a r w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f Experiment 2 . EXPERIMENT 1 The f i r s t experiment was designed t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e p r e d i c t i o n s of V A I L l a r e supported when t h e antecedent message c o n s i s t s o f a b r i e f t e x t r a t h e r t h a n a s i n g l e sentence. I n p a r t i c u l a r i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t c o r r e c t response l a t e n c i e s would be l o n g e r f o r t e s t sentences e x p r e s s i n g i d e a s i m p l i c i t i n t h e t e x t t h a n f o r e x p l i c i t ones, and l o n g e r f o r f a l s e t h a n t r u e t e s t sentences. Method M a t e r i a l s . The v e r b a l m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e d o f 24 p r o s e passages and c o r r e s p o n d i n g t e s t sentences. The passages were based upon s e t s of sentences l i k e s e t 1, d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . Each passage c o n s i s t e d of t h r e e sentences, which d e s c r i b e d a s i m p l e s i t u a t i o n o r e v e n t . The 24 sentence s e t s were drawn f r o m t h e 36 i n s p e c t e d by S i n g e r (1979, Experiment 4 ) . O f t h e 24, 8 s e t s addressed each o f t h e agent, p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases ( F i l l m o r e , 1968). The c r u c i a l sentence comprised e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r second o f i t s passage, b u t n e v e r t h e t h i r d . Table 1 shows one sample s e t o f m a t e r i a l s . The s u b j e c t s c o u l d view t h e passage e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t t h e p a r e n t h e t i c a l phrase, f o l l o w e d by a t e s t sentence t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e word e i t h e r b e f o r e o r f o l l o w i n g t h e s l a s h . The f o u r p a s s a g e - t e s t combinations correspond t o t h e f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s o b t a i n e d by c r o s s i n g e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t and t r u e - f a l s e .
INFERENCE
176
Table 1 Sample M a t e r i a l s f o r Experiment 1 ( I n s t r u m e n t Case) Antecendent o r T e s t Antecendent
Test
Passage o r Sentence The h i k e r s doused t h e b o n f i r e ( w i t h t h e w a t e r )aO. The r i s i n g sun was t h e s i g n a l t o move on. had been t h e n i c e s t o f t h e i r campsites. The h i k e r s used some water/shearsc.
This
aThe c r i t i c a l a n t e c e d e n t sentence i s u n d e r l i n e d . bThe phrase i n parentheses was i n c l u d e d i n t h e e x p l i c i t antecedents, and excluded i n t h e i m p l i c i t antecedents. CThe t r u e and f a l s e t e s t sentences used t h e words b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e slash, r e s p e c t i v e l y . From t h e 24 s e t s o f m a t e r i a l , f o u r l i s t s were c r e a t e d , each of which i n c l u d e d 2 p a s s a g e - t e s t s sequences f o r each o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o b t a i n e d by c r o s s i n g e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t , t r u t h , and case. Across t h e l i s t s , each s e t of m a t e r i a l s appeared i n each e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n e x a c t l y once. The c r i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e sentence s e t s a r e ones t h a t most members o f t h e s u b j e c t D o p u l a t i o n agree about, a c c o r d i n g t o norms d e s c r i b e d by S i n g e r (1977, 1979). S i n g e r ' s s u b j e c t s were asked t o s p e c i f y t h e t h r e e concepts most l i k e l y t o fill a p a r t i c u l a r case i n r e l a t i o n t o some a c t i o n . F o r t h e phrase, h i t t h e n a i l , f o r example, 96% o f s u b j e c t s gave hammer as the f i r s t c h o i c e i n s t r u m e n t . The 24phrasesexamined h e r e made i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t agreed w i t h t h e f i r s t c h o i c e s o f 89.0% of s u b j e c t s i n t h e norming s t u d i e s . Four p a s s a g e - t e s t sequences were i n c l u d e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of each l i s t f o r p r a c t i c e . F i n a l l y , t h e c h o i c e o f t h e f a l s i f y i n g elements l i k e shears i n T a b l e 1 has been d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l by S i n g e r (1979, p . 198). S u b j e c t s . The s u b j e c t s were 53 male and female s t u d e n t s o f I n t r o d u c t o r y Psychology a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba. A l l s u b j e c t s were n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h . They p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f a course r e q u iremen t . Procedure. The s e s s i o n s were conducted w i t h groups o f one t o f o u r s u b j e c t s . Each group was randomly assigned t o view one o f t h e f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l l i s t s . The passages and t e s t sentences were d i s p l a y e d on t e l e v i s i o n m o n i t o r s c o n t r o l l e d by a DEC PDP8/A computer. S u b j e c t s r e g i s t e r e d t h e i r responses by means of two s w i t c h e s l a b e l l e d TRUE and FALSE. The s e s s i o n c o n s i s t e d o f 4 p r a c t i c e and 24 e x p e r i m e n t a l t r i a l s . The subj e c t h e l d h i s / h e r i n d e x f i n g e r s on t h e response s w i t c h e s . On each t r i a l , a f i x a t i o n p o i n t appeared on t h e screen f o r 3 sec. I m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s , t h e s u b j e c t viewed t h e t h r e e sentences c o m p r i s i n g a passage, one sentence a t a t i m e . Each sentence appeared f o r 3 sec. A f t e r t h e removal o f t h e t h i r d sentence, t h e screen remained b l a c k f o r 5 sec. The s u b j e c t t h e n had 4 sec t o v i e w t h e t e s t sentence and r e g i s t e r a response. Responses and response l a t e n c i e s were r e c o r d e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y . The i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l was 5 sec. The s u b j e c t d i d n o t r e c e i v e feedback a f t e r each t r i a l . P r a c t i c e t r i a l s were n o t e x p l i c i t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f o r t h e s u b j e c t s .
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MODEL
177
Results I n a l l analyses, t h e e f f e c t s o f concern were e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t , t r u t h , and case. Whether t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a r e "between-" o r " w i t h i n - " depends on whether s u b j e c t s o r m a t e r i a l s i s t h e random v a r i a b l e . E r r o r s . S u b j e c t s made e r r o r s by p r e s s i n g t h e i n c o r r e c t s w i t c h o r by f a i l i n g t o respond w i t h i n t h e 4 sec l i m i t . A c r i t e r i o n o f 14 c o r r e c t reponses f o r t h e 24 e x p e r i m e n t a l t r i a l s was adopted. On t h i s b a s i s , t h e d a t a o f one s u b j e c t , who made 12 e r r o r s , were d i s c a r d e d . The e r r o r r a t e s f o r Experiment 1 a r e shown i n parentheses i n Table 2. The mean e r r o r r a t e was .125. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was a p p l i e d t o these values, a l t e r n a t e l y t r e a t i n g s u b j e c t s and m a t e r i a l s as t h e random v a r i a b l e . (An There was a main e f f e c t o f case o n l y f o r t h e a l e v e l o f - 0 5 i s adopted). subjects-random a n a l y s i s , F1(2,98)=4.31, @e=.21, w i t h mean v a l u e s of .164, .114, and .098 f o r t h e agent, p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t and t r u t h e f f e c t s were n o t s i n i f i c a n t . Case i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t r u t h , f1(2,98)=14.9, E e = . 1 9 , !1(2,217=13.5, MSe=.007, and 1,49)=4.10, @e=.22, -.21)=3.87, m a r g i n a l l y w i t h e x p l i c i t-imp1 i c i t, ,b( MSe=.009, ~ = . 0 7 . F i n a l l y , t h e subjects-random a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e s u b j e c t group v a r i a b l e , a l t h o u g h t h e group main e f f e c t was n o t i t s e l f s i g n i f i c a n t , E<1. Table 2 Response L a t e n c i e s (msec) and E r r o r Rates ( i n Parentheses) f o r Experiment 1 True
Fa1 se
Case
Expl ic i t
Imp1 i c i t
Explicit
Imp1 i c i t
Agent
1921 (.14)
2172 (.22)
2273 (.18)
2488 ( . 12)
Patient
1931 (.06)
2038 (.08)
2279 (.14)
2393 (.18)
Instrument
1896 ( . l o )
2028 (.22)
2183 ( . 0 3 )
2066 ( . 0 5 )
Response l a t e n c i e s . O f p a r t i c u l a r concern a r e t h e c o r r e c t response l a t e n c i e s , a l s o shown i n T a b l e 2 . A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e a p p l i e d t o t h e s e scores r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s b o t h o f e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t and t r u t h . S u b j e c t s needed 2000 msec t o repond on t r u e t r i a l s , and 2280 msec on f a l s e t r i a l s , h(1,49)=53.7, MSe=195704, 1,21)=37.8, MSe=49801. The mean c o r r e c t l a t e n c i e s f o r e F 1 i c i t and i m p l i c t i t e m s were 2082 and 2197 msec, 1,49)=14.4, E e = 1 5 4 9 9 5 , Q(1,21)=7.7, @e=40765. The case respectively, main e f f e c t reached s i g n i f i c a n c e o n l y f o r t h e subjects-random a n a l y s i s , 51(2,98)=13.0, E e = 1 1 8 9 5 8 , w i t h v a l u e s of 2218, 2160, and 2043 msec f o r t h e agent, p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases, r e s p e c t i v e l y . As i n t h e e r r o r a n a l y s i s , s e v e r a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e s u b j e c t group f a c t o r emerged as s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e subjects-random a n a l y s i s , and t h e s u b j e c t group main e f f e c t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .
3(
El(
I n s p e c t i o n o f T a b l e 2 r e v e a l s t h a t of t h e s i x comparisons o f e x p l i c i t versus i m p l i c i t l a t e n c i e s , t h e r e was one r e v e r s a l : F o r t h e f a l s e i n s t r u m e n t c o n d i t i o n , c o r r e c t l a t e n c i e s o f 2183 and 2066 msec were measured f o r t h e e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t t e s t s i t e m s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t by t r u t h by case i n t e r a c t i o n , however, was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .
178
INFERENCE
D i s c u s s i on The l a t e n c y scores a r e i n good agreement w i t h t h o s e d e r i v e d from t h e s i n g l e sentence a n t e c e d e n t procedure ( S i n g e r , 1979): Analyses r e v e a l e d main e f f e c t s of t h e e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t f a c t o r and o f t r u t h , w i t h no i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two. The f a c t t h a t i m p l i c i t l a t e n c i e s exceed e x p l i c i t l a t e n r e l i a b l y draw h i g h l y p r o b a b l y pragmatic c i e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u b j e c t s do i n f e r e n c e s d u r i n g r e a d i n g . S i n g e r (1979) a t t r i b u t e d t h i s t o t h e v e r y large number o f i m p l i c a t i o n s o f even s i m p l e messages. By now, s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t g u i d e i n f e r e n c e p r o c e s s i n g i n r e a d i n g have been examined, i n c l u d i n g t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t e x t coherence (Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979; Singer, 1980), and t h e m a t i c r e l a t e d n e s s (Walker & Meyer, 1980).
not
One concern about e x t e n d i n g t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s t o b r i e f t e x t antecedents was t h a t i t would r e s u l t i n h i g h e r e r r o r r a t e s . The e r r o r analyses, however, r e v e a l e d e f f e c t s n e i t h e r of e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t n o r t r u t h . More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e o v e r a l l e r r o r r a t e o f .125 i s comparable t o t h a t of .110 measured by S i n g e r (1979, Experiment 4 ) , whose antecedent messages were s i n g l e sentences.
Given t h e n o n s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t by t r u t h by case i n t e r a c t i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o assess t h e e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t r e v e r s a l d e t e c t e d f o r t h e f a l s e i n s t r u m e n t l a t e n c i e s . I t should be n o t e d t h a t , though Singer (1979) d i d n o t o b t a i n t h i s r e v e r s a l , h i s f a l s e i n s t r u m e n t m a t e r i a l s y i e l d e d t h e s m a l l e s t o f t h e s i x e x p l i c i t - i m p l i c i t d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s suggests t h a t , above and beyond t h e c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s measured here, t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c semantic f e a t u r e s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l m a t e r i a l s may have a d i s c e r n a b l e impact on t h e r e s u l t s . T h i s i s s u e w i l l r e c e i v e f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n l a t e r . The o v e r a l l mean c o r r e c t l a t e n c y o f 2140 msec f o r Experiment 1 was a c t u a l l y l o w e r t h a n t h e v a l u e o f 2219 rnsec measured u s i n g s i n g l e sentences as t h e a n t e c e d e n t s ( S i n g e r , 1979, Experiment 4). T h i s i s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g , g i v e n t h a t t h e p r e s e n t s u b j e c t s needed t o examine t h e i r memory f o r more d e t a i l e d message t h a n d i d S i n g e r ' s . T h i s r e s u l t i s , however, i n good agreement w i t h t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f e r r o r r a t e s measured i n t h e two s t u d i e s . While i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t between-experiment s u b j e c t d i f f e r e n c e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s l a t e n c y p a t t e r n , t h i s does n o t seem v e r y l i k e l y , s i n c e b o t h experimentsused d a t a f r o m more t h a n 40 i n d i v i d u a l s drawn f r o m t h e same p o o l . I n conclusion, t h e r e s u l t s g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t VAIL1, and i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n t e c h n i q u e may be f r u i t f u l l y used w i t h b r i e f passages as t h e antecedent messages. EXPERIMENT 2 The t a s k s t h a t have been addressed by p r e v i o u s sentence v e r i f i c a t i o n models ( C a r p e n t e r & J u s t , 1975; C l a r k & Chase, 1972; Trabasso e t a l . , 1971) p e r m i t t e d s u b j e c t s t o respond o n l y TRUE o r FALSE. S i n g e r (1981) has argued t h a t , i n r e l a t i o n t o r e a l i s t i c messages, s u b j e c t s s h o u l d be g i v e n t h e o p t i o n o f s a y i n g t h a t t h e y do n o t know whether a t e s t i t e m i s t r u e o r f a l s e . Consider sentence s e t ( 2 ) . When sentence ( 2 d ) f o l l o w s (Za), i t i s t r u e ; and when i t f o l l o w s (Zb), i t i s f a l s e . J u s t as o b v i o u s l y , we can agree t h a t t h e t r u t h v a l u e o f 2d i s unknown when i t f o l l o w s ( 2 c ) . (2)
a. b. c. d.
The The The The
tourist tourist tourist tourist
ate ate ate ate
t h e egg on t h e p a t i o . t h e f i s h on t h e p a t i o . on t h e p a t i o . an egg.
179
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MODEL
Singer (1981) p r e s e n t e d a model, VAIL2, which addresses t h i s t a s k . As shown i n F i g u r e 1, t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between VAILP and V A I L l i s as f o l l o w s . F o r VAIL1, t h e f a i l u r e o f t e s t 3 l e d t o an a t t e m p t t o r e t r i e v e t h e needed i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m LTM a t s t a g e 3 ' . F o r t h e p r e s e n t t a s k , t e s t 3 f a i l s o n l y f o r t h e DON'T KNOW (DK) c o n d i t i o n . Consider t h e sequence (2c2d). Antecedent ( 2 c ) s p e c i f i e s no p a t i e n t case, t h e case o f t h e "new" t e s t element, T h i s p e r m i t s c o n t r o l t o f l o w f r o m stage 3 d i r e c t l y t o s t a g e 4 ' , where t h e response i n d e x i s changed f r o m TRUE t o DK. The s u b j e c t may then respond a t stage 5. F o r TRUE and FALSE i t e m s , t h e necessary mental o p e r a t i o n s a r e t h e same as t h o s e d e s c r i b e d f o r VAIL1.
a.
VAILP t h u s s p e c i f i e s t h e sequences 1-2-3-4-5, 1-2-3-4-4'-5, and 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 ' - 5 f o r TRUE, FALSE, and DK i t e m s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t generates t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t FALSE l a t e n c i e s w i l l exceed DK l a t e n c i e s by t h e d u r a t i o n o f the matching t e s t , stage 4. VAIL2 a l s o p r e d i c t s f a s t e r TRUE t h a n FALSE l a t e n c i e s . The TRUE t e s t s i n c l u d e one more c o n t e n t word i n common w i t h t h e i r a n t e c e d e n t s t h a n do t h e FALSE t e s t s ( i .e., t h e c r i t i c a l element, Since t h i s e x t r a o v e r l a p m i g h t speed up t h e TRUE responses, t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t concerns t h e FALSE-DK comparison. F i n a l l y , t h e t r u t h index i s a g a i n assumed t o be i n i t i a l i z e d a t TRUE, and i t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t i t t a k e s t h e same a m o u n t o f t i m e t o change t h e t r u t h i n d e x t o OK as t o FALSE.
a)
The purpose o f Experiment 2 was t h u s t w o f o l d : t o i n s p e c t t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f VAIL2, and t o f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e p r e s e n t paradigm f o r assessing knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n f r o m t e x t . Method M a t e r i a l s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l m a t e r i a l s were 27 passages based upon sentence s e t s l i k e ( 2 ) above. As i n Experiment 1, each passage expanded upon i t s sentence s e t t o d e s c r i b e a s i m p l e s i t u a t i o n o r e v e n t i n t h r e e sentences. There were n i n e passages f o r each o f t h e agent, p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases. Table 3 shows one sample passage and c o r r e s p o n d i n g t e s t i t e m s . Table 3 Sample M a t e r i a l s f o r Experiment 2 ( P a t i e n t Case) Antecedent o r T e s t Antecendent
Question
Passage o r Q u e s t i o n The a u n t purchased t h e f l o w e r s a t t h e shop.a The a u n t purchased t h e pen a t t h e sh0p.b The a u n t made t h e purchase a t t h e shop.C Then she t o o k a t a x i t o t h e s t a t i o n . The v i s i t would be f u n . D i d t h e a u n t purchase some f l o w e r s ?
a C r i t i c a l sentence f o r YES a n t e c e d e n t . b C r i t i c a 1 sentence f o r NO antecedent. C C r i t i c a l sentence f o r DON'T KNOW a n t e c e d e n t . Table 3 shows t h a t t h e t e s t i t e m s were phrased as q u e s t i o n s t o be answered r a t h e r t h a n sentences t o be v e r i f i e d . C l a r k and C l a r k (1977, p . 111) have n o t e d t h a t , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an a n t e c e d e n t l i k e t h e a u n t purchased t h e f l o w e r s a t t h e shop, i t does n o t make much d i f f e r e n c e whether we v e r i f y t h e t e s t sentence, t h e a u n t purchased some f l o w e r s , o r answer t h e q u e s t i o n , did
INFERENCE
180
the aunt purchase some flowers. Because answering yes-no questions seems solnewhat more natural than verifying sentences, the subjects were instructed t o answer questions using t h e responses YES, N O , and D K . The VAIL2 analysis and p r e d i c t i o n s , however, a r e n o t changed. The questions f o r the agent case passages were phrased in the passive, as i n was the book read by a chemist? The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t i t i s more usual f o r the new element of t h e question, which i s the element being i n t e r r o g a t e d , t o appear a t t h e end of the question ( c f . Clark & Clark, 1977, Chapter 3). In order t o use agent questions with t h i s "usual" given-new order, i t was necessary t o phrase t h e agent questions in the passive voice. Three t e s t l i s t s were contructed. Each l i s t included 27 experimental passage-question sequences: t h r e e f o r each of the nine conditions obtained by crossing response (YES, NO, D K ) with case. Across the l i s t s , each passage occurred once in each response condition. Four p r a c t i c e passage-test sequences were included a t the beginning of each l i s t .
An examination of Table 3 shows t h a t the crucial sentences in the YES and NO conditions included t h r e e nouns, a s compared with only two f o r the DK condition. While t h e complexity of t h e passages would make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r subjects t o use t h i s information, s i x f i l l e r sequences were nevertheless added t o obscure t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h e f i l l e r passages, the crucial antecedent sentences included only two nouns, b u t the answer f o r t h e corresponding t e s t items were e i t h e r YES o r NO. Subjects. The subjects were 31 individuals drawn from the same pool as that used f o r Experiment 1. Procedure. The procedure was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t described f o r Experiment 1. The subjects r e g i s t e r e d t h e i r responses by means of t h r e e switches labelled YES, N O , and D K . Since the crucial comparison was between the N O and DK conditions, a l l subjects used t h e i r l e f t index f i n g e r f o r the YES switch, and t h e index and middle f i n g e r s of t h e i r r i g h t hand f o r the N O and DK switches. The f i n g e r assignments f o r NO and D K were made in a random fashion. Results Errors. A c r i t e r i o n of 17 c o r r e c t responses in 27 experimental t r i a l s was s e t . Of t h e 31 p a r t i c i p a n t s , 6 did not meet t h i s standard, and t h e i r d a t a were discarded. The proportion of e r r o r s f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t experimental conditions a r e shown in parentheses in Table 4. Across a l l conditions, the e r r o r r a t e was .229. The only e f f e c t t o reach significance was t h e response by case i n t e r a c t i o n , El(4,88)=7.58, M&=.59, b(4,48)=7.71, M&=1.18. Table 4 Response Latencies (msec) and Error Rates ( i n Parentheses) f o r Experiment 2 Case Agent Patient Instrument
YES 2810 ( . 2 5 ) 2249 (.13) 2188 (.16)
NO
2815 (.18) 2590 (.16) 2632 (.41)
DON'T KNOW 2870 (.34) 2477 (.34) 2390 (.09)
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MODEL
181
Response l a t e n c i e s . The mean c o r r e c t response l a t e n c i e s a r e a l s o shown i n Table 4. Analyses o f v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d a main e f f e c t of response, F (2,44) F (2,48)=6.26, M&=3654611, w i t h means of 2416, d 7 9 , and =7.89, %=143124, 2579 msec f o r YES, and DK responses, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The e f f e c t o f case was a1 so s i g n i f i c a n t , E l ( 2,44)=20.5, MSe=220897, F2=(2,24)=6.92, &= 5279568 w i t h means o f 2831, 2439, and 2404 msec f o r t h e a g e n t , p a t i e n t , and i n s t r u m e n t cases, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
d,
The NO l a t e n c i e s exceeded t h e DK v a l u e s f o r t h e p a t i e n t and i n s t r u m e n t , b u t n o t t h e a g e n t case. The c o r r e s p o n d i n g response by case i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t o n l y f o r t h e subjects-random a n a l y s i s , F (4,88)=4.26, %=117359. F i n a l l y , s e v e r a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e subject-Aroup v a r i a b l e reached s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e subjects-random a n a l y s i s , b u t t h e group main e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Discussion I n c o n t r a s t w i t h Experiment 1, t h e e r r o r r a t e o f .229 f o r t , h i s experiment was s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e v a l u e o f .114 measured f o r t h e s i n g l e sentence procedure ( S i n g e r , 1981, Experiment 1 ) . Even so, t h i s r a t e was i n f l a t e d by e r r o r r a t e s o f o v e r .5 f o r 9 o f t h e 8 1 s e n t e n c e - s e t by response combinations. The mean e r r o r r a t e f o r t h e s e 9 i t e m s was .625 ( s = . 0 4 3 ) . Without t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e s e o u t l i e r s , t h e mean e r r o r r a t e i s reduced t o .180, w h i c h i s n o t u n u s u a l l y h i g h f o r s t u d i e s o f t h i s s o r t ( c f . C l a r k & Chase, 1972, Table 5 ) . Most o f t h e i t e m e r r o r r a t e s o f o v e r .5 can be t r a c e d t o some u n a n t i c i p a t e d b u t reasonable semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e r e a d e r s . For example, an i n t e n d e d NO sequence was t h e j a n i t o r c l e a n e d t h e j a r w i t h t h e brush, d i d t h e j a n i t o r use a c l o t h ? Most s u b j e c t s responded DK, presumably because a c l o t h m i q h t have been used i n a d d i t i o n t o a brush. T h i s examole i n d i c a t e s t h a t semantic f a c t o r s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d i n VAIL can sometimes e x e r t a l a r g e impact on q u e s t i o n answering. The d a t a o f s i x s u b j e c t s had t o be d i s c a r d e d due t o f a i l u r e s t o meet t h e adopted c r i t e r i o n f o r c o r r e c t responses. Most o f t h e e r r o r s made by t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d t h e i n t e r c h a n g i n g o f t h e NO and DK responses. Many o f t h e e r r o r s were l i k e l y due t o c o n f u s i o n s o f t h e s o r t mentioned f o r t h e j a n i t o r example. The f a i l u r e o f l a r g e numbers o f s u b j e c t s t o perform t h e t a s k c o r r e c t l y would t h r e a t e n t h e use of t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s . I n g e n e r a l , however, t h e absence o f e r r o r main e f f e c t s of response and case i n Experiment 2 i s r e a s s u r i n g , i n t h a t i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e response l a t e n c y d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s i m p l y due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i f f i c u l t y across t h e c o n d i t i o n s . The error-measure response by case i n t e r a c t i o n , f u r t h e r m o r e , seems due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s w i t h h i g h e r e r r o r r a t e s (see Table 4) were t h o s e t h a t i n c l u d e d most o f t h e i t e m s w i t h e r r o r r a t e s o v e r .5, as f o l l o w s : instrument-NO, ~ = 2 agent-DK, ; ~ = 3 ;p a t i e n t - D K , ~ = 2 . Most i m p o r t a n t i s t h e f a c t t h a t DK l a t e n c i e s once a g a i n exceeded t h e NO l a t e n c i e s . T h i s p a t t e r n was d e t e c t e d o n l y f o r t h e p a t i e n t and i n s t r u m e n t cases, w h i l e t h e agent case showed l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e f r o m one response condi t i o n t o t h e o t h e r . I t i s q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t t h e use o f t h e p a s s i v e v o i c e f o r t h e agent q u e s t i o n s obscured t h e response e f f e c t f o r t h a t case. One reason f o r t h i s s u g g e s t i o n i s t h a t S i n g e r ' s (1981) a g e n t t e s t i t e m s were p r e s e n t e d i n t h e a c t i v e v o i c e , and h i s NO l a t e n c i e s exceeded b o t h t h e DK and YES
182
INFERENCE
values, a s predicted. C e r t a i n l y , the passive construction seems t o have had an overall impact on the agent l a t e n c i e s : They exceeded the others by about 400 msec. The mean c o r r e c t latency f o r Experiment 2 was 2558 msec, which i s 365 msec slower than the value measured by Singer (1981) using the single-sentence antecedent procedure. This i s a difference t h a t was a n t i c i p a t e d , since readers i n the present study needed t o examine the i n t e r n a l representation of a more complex message.
GENERAL DISCUSSION The present r e s u l t s a r e generally c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e single-sentence antecedent experiments of Singer (1979, 1981). They provide additional support f o r t h e VAIL model and i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e present procedures may provide a useful technique f o r examining the information t h a t readers a b s t r a c t from a message.
Care i s necessary in the use of a l t e r n a t e response options l i k e D K . Glucksberg andMcCloskey (1978), f o r example, i n s t r u c t e d subjects t o respond DK r a t h e r than NO t o Bob had a p e n c i l , did Bob have a book. I n t h e i r study, t h e l o g i c was t h a t Bob may have had a book a s well a s a pencil. Instructions t o subjects must precisely convey t h e intended use of each option. The VAIL model makes no reference t o c e r t a i n semantic f a c t o r s t h a t presumably do influence performance in these t a s k s . Rips, Shoben, and Smith (1973), f o r example, have shown t h a t i t takes longer t o agree t h a t "a b a t i s n o t a bird" than "an elephant i s not a b i r d . " Future elaborations of VAIL should address such e f f e c t s . The VAIL model promises t o generate t e s t a b l e predictions f o r wh- questions: ones t h a t ask who, what, o r where about a s i t u a t i o n . For the sequence the aunt made t h e purchase a t t h e s t o r e , what did t h e aunt buy, VAIL statest h a t a test l i k e s t a s e 3 (Fiqure 1) would e s t a b l i s h t h a t the antecedent included no information f o r t h e relevant c a s e , the p a t i e n t . The reader could then respond " d o n ' t know." The extension of VAIL t o other question types c a r r i e s t h e promise of f u r t h e r expanding our understanding of the representation of t e x t and the processes o f question answering. REFERENCES Carpenter, P . A . , & J u s t , M. A , Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic model of v e r i f i c a t i o n . Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 45-73. Clark. H. H . . & Chase, W . G . On t h e process of comparinq sentences against p i c t u r e s : Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 472-517. Clark, H . H., & Clark, E . V . Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Inc., 1977. Fillmore, C . J . The-case f o r case. In E. Bach and R . Harms ( E d s . ) , e r s a l s i n l i n g u i s t i c theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968. Glucksberg, S., & McCloskey, M. Knowing t h a t you d o n ' t know: Rapid decisions about ignorance. Paper presented a t t h e annual meeting of t h e Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, November, 1978. Glucksberg, S . , Trabasso, T . , & Wald, J . Linguistic s t r u c t u r e s and mental operations. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5,338-370. Haviland, S. E . , & Clark, H. H. What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. JDurnal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13,512-521.
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM TEXT: A PROCESS MOOEL
183
Hayes-Roth, B., & Thorndyke, P . W. I n t e g r a t i o n o f knowledge f r o m t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18,91-108. K i e r a s , D. E. Component processes i n t h e comprehension of s i m p l e prose. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1981, 3, 1-23. K i n t s c h , W. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f meaning i n memory. H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1974. K i n t s c h , W., & van D i j k , T. A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 363-394. Norman, D. A. Memory and a t t e n t i o n : An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n q (2nd e d . ) . New York: W i l e y , 1976. Rips, L . J., Shoben, E . J., & Smith, E . E . Semantic d i s t a n c e and t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f semantic r e l a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior-, 1973, 1-20, Singer, M. I n f e r e n c e s about i n s t r u m e n t s : Response norms. M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba, 1977. S i n g e r , M. Processes o f i n f e r e n c e i n sentence encoding. Memory andC o g n i t i o n , 1979, 192-200. Singer, M. The r o l e of c a s e - f i l l i n g i n f e r e n c e s i n t h e coherence of b r i e f passages. D i s c o u r s e Processes, 1980, 3, 185-201. Singer, M. V e r i f y i n g t h e a s s e r t i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s o f language. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1981, 20, 46-80. Trabasso, T., R o l l i n s , H., & Shaughnessy, E . Storage and v e r i f i c a t i o n stages i n p r o c e s s i n g concepts. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1971, 2, 239-289. Walker, C . H . , and Meyer, B. J. F. I n t e g r a t i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of informat i o n i n t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1980, 19, 263-275.
12,
7,
FOOTNOTE I d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o o t n o t e . T h i s r e s e a r c h was supported by g r a n t A9800 f r o m t h e h i a t u r a l Sciences and E n g i n e e r i n g Research C o u n c i l o f Canada, and a g r a n t f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba and SSHRC Fund Committee o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba. I would l i k e t o thank A d r i a n K u r y l i w , who conducted t h e s e s s i o n s o f Experiment 2.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
MEMORY
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
MEMORY FOR TEXT
Walter Kintsch Department o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Colorado Boulder, Colorado U.S.A. The e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f memory i s now about 100 y e a r s o l d , and we have l e a r n e d a g r e a t deal from i t . The a s s o c i a t i o n i s t i c concepts and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l designs i n t r o d u c e d by Ebbinghaus have dominated t h e f i r s t 80 y e a r s o f memory r e s e a r c h . I n t h e l a s t two decades t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach has taken a h o l d i n t h e f i e l d o f memory and g r e a t l y expanded and complemented t h e e a r l i e r r e s u l t s . Indeed, i n t h e s h o r t years between a b o u t 1959 ( t h e d a t e o f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f a new method f o r a s s e s s i n g s h o r t - t e r m memory by P e t e r s o n & P e t e r s o n ) and 1972 ( t h e d a t e o f C r a i k & L o c k h a r t ' s a r t i c l e on l e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g ) we have seen a v e r i t a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l o s i o n i n memory research. We have l e a r n e d much about memory, b u t o f course we d o n ' t know e v e r y t h i n g . Indeed, t h e problems a b o u t which we have adequate knowledge today a r e q u i t e r e s t r i c t e d i n scope. F i r s t o f a l l , t h e b u l k o f o u r experiments and t h e o r i e s concerns e p i s o d i c memory, as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m general knowledge.] Secondly, memory r e s e a r c h has been concerned w i t h l i s t s o f items (words, nonsense s y l l a b l e s , even sentences), b u t n o t w i t h t e x t s . Thus, we know q u i t e w e l l how p e o p l e remember a l i s t o f words i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y , b u t v e r y l i t t l e about how t h e y l e a r n p h y s i c s i n school f r o m l i s t e n i n g t o a l e c t u r e , r e a d i n g a t e x t b o o k , o r d o i n g problems. The t e m p t a t i o n a t t h a t p o i n t i s t o say t h a t we know t h e wrong t h i n g s , o r t h a t what we know i s n o t w o r t h knowing. I t g e t s s t r e n g t h e n e d by some s i m p l e o b s e r v a t i o n s . I t i s w e l l known t h a t i f s u b j e c t s i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y a r e p r e s e n t e d a l i s t o f 40 common words a t a r a t e o f one word e v e r y 2 seconds, t h e y w i l l be a b l e t o r e c a l l i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s about 6-7 words, m o s t l y from t h e v e r y end o f t h e l i s t (e.g., Murdock, 1962). On the o t h e r hand, i f s u b j e c t s r e a d a s i m p l e s t o r y f o r t h e same amount o f time, t h e y may r e a d about 200 words and t h e n r e c a l l 80-100 o f these words, though f o r t h e most p a r t n o t v e r b a t i m . What i s t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y work, i f p e o p l e r e c a l l more t h a n 10 times as much f r o m a t e x t t h a n from a l i s t ? The comparison can e a s i l y be pushed t o g r e a t e r extremes: suppose someone spends hours t o r e a d a n o v e l ; he o r she c o u l d t h e n reproduce and r e c o n s t r u c t m a j o r p o r t i o n s o f t h a t n o v e l . Ebbinghaus h i m s e l f was about t h e o n l y one t o devote hours t o l e a r n i n g nonsense l i s t s - o n l y t o succumb t o a v a r i e t y o f i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s . T e x t memory i s so s u p e r i o r t o performance i n t h e usual l a b o r a t o r y l i s t l e a r n i n g paradigms t h a t i t i s easy t o doubt t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e l a t t e r . As J e n k i n s asked i n 1974: "Do y o u remember t h a t o l d t h e o r y o f memory? W e l l , f o r g e t i t ! " . N e v e r t h e l e s s , we be1 i e v e t h a t t h a t o l d t h e o r y h o l d s t h e key t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t e x t memory, and t h a t i f we want t o e x p l a i n t h e phenomena o f t e x t memory, we need t h e concepts and models o f t h e 186
MEPIORY FOR TEXT
187
t r a d i t i o n a l memory l i t e r a t u r e , f o r a l l t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s . E p i s o d i c t e x t memory i s b e s t u n d e r s t o o d w i t h i n t h e framework o f c u r r e n t memory t h e o r y . To make t h i s argument, we b e g i n t h i s c h a p t e r w i t h a b r i e f s y n o p s i s o f c u r r e n t memory t h e o r y . We s h a l l t h e n make e x p l i c i t t h e way i n which e p i s o d i c t e x t memory i s r e l a t e d t o l i s t l e a r n i n g r e s u l t s , and f i n a l l y discuss i n d e t a i l t h e memorial i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a model of t e x t comprehens i o n t h a t s e v e r a l c o l l e a g u e s and I have been d e v e l o p i n g o v e r t h e p a s t few years ( v a n D i j k & K i n t s c h , Forthcoming; M i l l e r , 1981). 1.
Some P r i n c i p l e s o f Memory D e r i v e d From L i s t L e a r n i n g Experiments.
A r e v i e w of t h e memory l i t e r a t u r e would be q u i t e beyond t h e scope o f t h i s paper. I n s t e a d , I assume a t l e a s t a s u p e r f i c i a - l s i m i l a r i t y w i t h t h a t l i t e r a t u r e , and m e r e l y c i t e some o f t h e r e l e v a n t p r i n c i p l e s o f memory as we know them f r o m l i s t l e a r n i n g experiments. These same p r i n c i p l e s w i l l l a t e r be a p p l i e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f t e x t memory. F i r s t , t h e r e i s t h e n o t i o n o f s h o r t - t e r m memory. O f p r i m a r y concern i s i t s l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y . The c a p a c i t y r e s t r i c t i o n i s i n terms o f chunks. A c o u s t i c r e h e a r s a l i s a p r e f e r r e d way o f m a i n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n s h o r t term memory. Memory i s a b y p r o d u c t o f p r o c e s s i n g - one remembers what one does. The l e v e l o f p r o c e s s i n g i s , however, d e c i s i v e , because deeper, more e l a b o r a t e p r o c e s s i n g r e s u l t s i n b e t t e r memory codes. Imagery s u p p o r t s memory e s p e c i a l l y we1 1. R e t r i e v a l i s j u s t as i m p o r t a n t as encoding. The r e t r i e v a l cue must be a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e encoded memory episode. The n a t u r e o f t h e encodingr e t r i e v a l i n t e r a c t i o n determines t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f memory. R e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s a r e systems i n which each r e t r i e v a l cue n o t o n l y r e t r i e v e s a memory, b u t a l s o produces t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e t r i e v a l cue f o r t h e n e x t episode. E x i s t i n g knowledge s t r u c t u r e s f o r m t h e b a s i s o f r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s . New i n f o r m a t i o n becomes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o l d s t r u c t u r e s which are o f t e n h i e r a r c h i c a l i n nature. These f a m i l i a r p r i n c i p l e s o f l a b o r a t o r y memory h o l d t h e key t o an explanat i o n o f t e x t memory.
2.
E p i s o d i c T e x t Memory.
I f a person reads a t e x t , what he o r she remembers about t h i s t e x t i s c a l l e d e p i s o d i c t e x t memory, i n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e common use o f t h e term e p i s o d i c memory. The q u e s t i o n I r a i s e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s paper i s why e p i s o d i c t e x t memory (ETM) i s so much b e t t e r t h a n e p i s o d i c memory f o r a l i s t o f random words. I n a g e n e r a l sense, t h e answer i s of course obvious: t e x t s a r e so much b e t t e r o r g a n i z e d , t h e y a r e meaningful, t h e y o f t e n i n t e r e s t us, we have much more e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t e x t s t h a n w i t h random word l i s t s o r nonsense s y l l a b l e s - t h e r e f o r e t e x t s can be r e membered so much b e t t e r . Such an answer i s c o r r e c t , b u t n o t v e r y h e l p f u l . What we need t o know i n d e t a i l a r e t h e mechanisms t h a t a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t e x t memory.
188
MEMORY
The h y p o t h e s i s made h e r e i s t h a t memory f o r t e x t i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t e x t comprehension.2 To understand ETM we must, t h e r e f o r e , s t a r t w i t h comprehension models. The f i r s t v e r s i o n o f o u r model f o r t e x t comprehens i o n ( K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978) was a l r e a d y concerned w i t h t h i s problem. Indeed, successFu1 p r e d i c t i o n o f t e x t r e c a l l was one o f t h e main achievements o f t h a t model ( K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978; M i l l e r & K i n t s c h , 1980; Vipond, 1980; S p i l i c h , Vesonder, C h i e s i & Voss, 1979). However, i n s p i t e of i t s p r e d i c t i v e adequacy, t h e model i s c l e a r l y o v e r s i m p l i f i e d i n i t s t r e a t m e n t o f memory, and needs t o be r e v i s e d . S i n c e o u r p r e s e n t model i s a d i r e c t descendant o f t h a t e a r l i e r work, we s h a l l f i r s t r e c a p i t u l a t e the p r i n c i p a l memory assumptions o f t h e K i n t s c h & van D i j k model, and then p o i n t o u t i n which ways t h e s e a r e d e f i c i e n t . S h o r t - t e r m memory p l a y s a c r u c i a l r o l e i n t h e K i n t s c h & van D i j k model. T e x t i s b e i n g processed i n c y c l e s ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g , say, t o s e n t e n c e s ) . I n o r d e r t o r e l a t e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m one t e x t c y c l e t o t h e n e x t , some proposit i o n s from t h a t c y c l e have t o be r e t a i n e d i n a s h o r t - t e r m memory b u f f e r w h i l e t h e i n p u t f r o m t h e n e x t c y c l e i s b e i n g processed. Formal s t a t i s t i c a l r u l e s ( t h e " l e a d i n g edge s t r a t e g y " ) a r e used t o d e c i d e which p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e t o be r e t a i n e d i n each c y c l e . The c a p a c i t y o f t h e b u f f e r i s s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d , t h e a c t u a l number o f p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t i t c o n t a i n s b e i n g a f r e e parameter t o be e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e data. These e s t i m a t e s were e i t h e r one o r two i n t h e M i l l e r & K i n t s c h data, w h i l e s l i g h t l y higher e s t i m a t e s were o b t a i n e d elsewhere. The l o n g - t e r m memory assumptions o f t h e K i n t s c h & van D i j k model a r e very s i m p l e : each t i m e a p r o p o s i t i o n i s processed, i t i s s t o r e d i n l o n g - t e r m memory w i t h some p r o b a b i l i t y , which a g a i n has t o be e s t i m a t e d from t h e data. I n t e r e s t i n g r e c a l l p r e d i c t i o n s r e s u l t f r o m t h i s model, nevertheless, because some p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e processed more t h a n o t h e r s , and t h e n a t u r e o f p r o c e s s i n g i s n o t t h e same f o r a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s . The reason why some p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e processed r e p e a t e d l y i s t h a t some p r o p o s i t i o n s have t o be h e l d i n t h e s h o r t - t e r m memory b u f f e r between c y c l e s t o assure t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e t e x t base. Thus, each t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n has e i t h e r 1, 2, chances o f b e i n g s t o r e d i n l o n g - t e r m memory, depending on whether and how o f t e n i t was s e l e c t e d f o r r e t e n t i o n i n t h e s h o r t - t e r m memory b ~ f f e r . S~i n c e t h e l e a d i n g edge s t r a t e g y tends t o p i c k o u t i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s f o r t h e b u f f e r , which a r e t h e r e f o r e more l i k e l y t o be s t o r e d , t h e model makes t h e c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n t h a t c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e r e c a l l e d b e s t . Thus, s t r u c t u r a l l y i m p o r t a n t , s a l i e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e more l i k e l y t o be s t o r e d i n memory, n o t because o f t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l r o l e p e r se, b u t because t h e comprehension processes t e n d t o be more concerned w i t h them t h a n w i t h s t r u c t u r a l l y u n i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s : t h e y a r e processed i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s , and hence more l i k e l y t o be s t o r e d . S t r u c t u r e i s , o f course, i m p o r t a n t i n t e x t memory, b u t i t i s t h e s t r u c t u r e - p r o c e s s i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t must be considered, n o t j u s t s t r u c t u r e p e r se.
.....,
However, n o t o n l y t h e q u a n t i t y b u t a l s o t h e q u a l i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g can vary: most t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s p l a y a r o l e o n l y i n t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t . I n t h e model, t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e assigned a s t o r a g e p r o b a b i l i t y p. Some p r o p o s i t i o n s , however, a r e g l o b a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and used f o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e , t o o , o r a r e themselves d e s i g n a t e d as m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s . Thus, t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c e i v e a d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f p r o c e s s i n g , r e f l e c t e d i n t h e model by a s t o r a g e p r o b a b i l i t y m, y>p. The model, t h u s , makes some q u i t e s i m p l e and s e n s i b l e assumptions: e v e r y t h i n g
MEMORY FOR TEXT
189
i s processed f o r t h e m i c r o s t r u c t u r e , w i t h some memorial consequence measured by t h e parameter F, w h i l e some p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e a l s o processed a t t h e m a c r o l e v e l , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e parameter m. Furthermore, some p r o p o s i t i o n s may p a r t i c i p a t e i n more than one p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e and t h e r e f o r e have repeated chances o f b e i n g s t o r e d i n memory. Note t h a t t h i s memory mechanism concerns s t o r a g e o n l y . The K i n t s c h & van D i j k model does n o t have a r e t r i e v a l component: e v e r y t h i n g i s r e t r i e v e d w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s proportional t o the p r o b a b i l i t y o f storage. There a r e a number o f reasons why we t h i n k t h a t t h i s model o f t e x t memory i s t o o s i m p l e . F i r s t , some e x p e r i m e n t a l f i n d i n g s have been r e p o r t e d r e c e n t l y t h a t i n d i c a t e some a d d i t i o n a l c o m p l e x i t i e s . More i m p o r t a n t , however, i s a second reason: t h e model e x p l a i n s t o o l i t t l e , i t makes t o o l i t t l e c o n t a c t w i t h what we know a b o u t memory, p a r t i c u l a r l y about t h e importance o f r e t r i e v a l processes. There i s , f o r i n s t a n c e , n o t h i n g i n t h i s model t h a t m i g h t t e l l us why p e o p l e f i n d i t so much e a s i e r t o remember a t e x t t h a n a word l i s t . T h i s seems t n us t h e most s a l i e n t phenomenon about t e x t memory, b a d l y i n need o f e x p l a n a t i o n . I n t h e K i n t s c h & van D i j k model, when p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e f i r s t processed a t t h e m i c r o l e v e l , a l l a r e t r e a t e d a l i k e e x c e p t t h a t a t t h e end o f each p r o c e s s i n g c y c l e some a r e s e l e c t e d f o r r e p r o c e s s i n g i n t h e n e x t c y c l e and t h e r e f o r e a r e r e c a l l e d b e t t e r . Such a model suggests t h a t d u r i n g i n i t i a l encoding, t h a t i s on f i r s t r e a d i n g , a l l p o r t i o n s o f t h e t e x t s h o u l d be r e a d a t about t h e same r a t e . The d i f f e r e n c e s between w e l l r e c a l l e d and p o o r l y r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s comes a b o u t because o f r e p r o c e s s i n g i n l a t e r c y c l e s . I n terms o f eye movements, one would t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t t h a t those portions o f the t e x t t h a t correspond t o important, f r e q u e n t l y r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s show a g r e a t e r i n c i d e n c e o f r e g r e s s i v e f i x a t i o n s , because t h e r e a d e r has t o r e t u r n t o them i n c o n s t r u c t i n g a c o h e r e n t t e x t base. Freq u e n t l y , t h i s would be a p u r e l y mental process, b u t r e a d e r s m i g h t a l s o s u p p o r t r e i n s t a t e m e n t searches i n memory w i t h r e g r e s s i v e eyemovements t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o r t i o n s o f t h e t e x t . T h a t i s e x a c t l y what Mandel (1980; a l s o 1979) f o u n d i n an M.A. t h e s i s done a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Colorado. Phrases t h a t correspond t o i m p o r t a n t , f r e q u e n t l y r e c a l l e d p r o p o s i t i o n s were between 2.7 and 5.6 t i m e s more l i k e l y t o be t h e t a r g e t o f a r e g r e s s i v e eyemovement t h a n phrases d e a l i n g w i t h u n i m p o r t a n t d e t a i l . (The l a r g e r r a t i o s were observed f o r t h e more d i f f i c u l t t e x t s ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, Flandel a l s o observed something t h a t suggests t h a t r e g r e s s i v e eyemovements do n o t g i v e us t h e whole s t o r y b e h i n d t h e r e c a l l s u p e r i o r i t y o f i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s : t h e r e was a l s o a s m a l l b u t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t tendency t o f i x a t e more o f t e n words b e l o n g i n g t o h i g h - l e v e l , important propositions than low-level propositions, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f reg r e s s i o n s . H i g h l e v e l p r o p o s i t i o n s r e c e i v e d between 1.3 and 1.2 t i m e s as many f i x a t i o n s as l o w - l e v e l p r o p o s i t i o n s . I t i s as i f t h e r e a d e r s e l e c t e d t h e i m p o r t a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e t e x t r i g h t away f o r s p e c i a l p r o c e s s i n g . Mandel’s c o n c l u s i o n s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e s u l t s o f an experiment r e p o r t e d by C i r i l o & Foss (1980). C i r i l o and Foss embedded a s h o r t sentence i n t o d i f f e r e n t s t o r y c o n t e x t s i n such a way t h a t i n one case i t p l a y e d a s u p e r o r d i n a t e r o l e i n t h e t e x t - b a s e h i e r a r c h y , and i n t h e o t h e r a lowl e v e l r o l e . When t h e sentence was h i g h i n t h e s t o r y s t r u c t u r e , r e a d i n g times averaged 1954 msec, b u t when i t was l o w i n t h e h i e r a r c h y , t h e same sentence was r e a d o n l y f o r 1672 msec ( d a t a f o r t h e i r Experiment I ) . Thus, t h e r e may be cues i n t h e t e x t i t s e l f t h a t s i g n a l t o t h e r e a d e r t h e importance of a sentence o r phrase when i t i s f i r s t encountered, and make
190
MEMORY
them read i t more c a r e f u l l y . Before we abandon the a t t r a c t i v e l y simple explanation f o r the r e c a l l s u p e r i o r i t y e f f e c t offered by the Kintsch & van D i j k model in the face of these data, we should consider some a l t e r n a t i v e explanations within the framework of t h e model. We have so f a r considered only t h e microprocessing component of the model. I t would seem q u i t e possible t h a t t h e reading time e f f e c t s obtained by C i r i l o & Foss a n d Mandel have t o do with macroprocessing: the well-recalled propositions which received e x t r a reading time might have been propositions t h a t were macrorelevant, which f o r t h a t reason were processed longer and r e c a l l e d b e t t e r . tlandel worked with very s h o r t paragraphs out of context f o r which the macrostructure was q u i t e ambiguous. Macroprocesses might have been more important in the C i r i l o & F o s s experiment, where the s t r o n g e s t reading time e f f e c t s were observed. Of course, t h e r e i s no way t o be sure t h a t t h i s explanation of the reading time data in the C i r i l o and Foss experiment i s c o r r e c t , w i t h o u t a complete re-analysis o f t h e i r t e x t s and data within the framework of the Kintsch & van Dijk model. B u t the explanatiqn i s p l a u s i b l e enough, so t h a t we are tempted t o accept i t a t l e a s t provisionally. The absence o f a r e t r i e v a l component i s a more s e r i o u s problem f o r the Kintsch & van Dijk model. Indeed, r e t r i e v a l processes in general have received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n by students of t e x t memory. This i s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g , since r e t r i e v a l plays such a central r o l e in c l a s s i c a l memory theory. A study t h a t suggests t h a t i t might play a n equal r o l e with respect to t e x t memory i s one by Anderson & Pichert (1978), in which encoding perspectives and r e t r i e v a l cues were varied systematically. Anderson & Pichert had t h e i r subjects read a description of a house either from the perspective of a house buyer o r a burglar. Subjects f i r s t rec a l l e d the t e x t w i t h the same perspective a s they used in reading, and then attempted a second r e c a l l with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o change t h e i r perspect i v e . The r e s u l t s showed t h a t the change in t h e r e t r i e v a l cue produced more recall of t h e previously unimportant information, b u t l e s s of the previously relevant information. For instance, in t h e i r Experiment 1 , subjects recalled 7.1X of t h e newly relevant information, in addition t o what they had recalled before, b u t a t the same time missed 7.29: of the information t h a t had become i r r e l e v a n t . While the whole area of r e t r i e v a l e f f e c t s in t e x t memory deserves a great deal more investigation than i t has received so f a r , i t i s c l e a r t h a t a theory l i k e Kintsch & v a n Dijk which lacks a r e t r i e v a l component a l t o gether i s inadequate in t h i s respect. We a l s o suggest t h a t the lack of a r e t r i e v a l model i n Kintsch & van Dijk prevented i t from dealing with the main problem of t e x t memory: why i t i s so much b e t t e r than l i s t memory. 3.
Text memory i s expert memory
Memory f o r t e x t i s hard t o compare d i r e c t l y with memory f o r l i s t s , because i t i s generally n o t verbatim. I t i s c l e a r , nevertheless, t h a t people can remember t e x t s much b e t t e r than word l i s t s , whatever the exact numbers might be. We must, however, q u a l i f y t h i s statement i n an important way: i t i s t r u e only i f we compare t e x t memory with the usual laboratory performance of inexperienced s u b j e c t s . I f we take expert memorizers, performance l e v e l s t h a t compare very well with t h e t e x t memory of average s u b j e c t s a r e not r a r e a t a l l . There i s a long tine of reports of t r u l y fabulous f e a t s of memory (Chase & Ericsson, 1981): the discussion of the
MEMORY FOR TEXT
191
"art of memory" as i t was practiced in c l a s s i c a l a n t i q u i t y by Yates (1966), the memory of experienced telegraphsrs (Bryan 8 Harter, 1899), the s k i l l s of experts in mental c a l c u l a t i o n (Muller, 1911; Hunter, 1962), the memory performance of chess players (de Groot, 1966; Chase & Simon, 1973), laboratory s u b j e c t s who were t r a i n e d i n t h e use of mnemonic devices (Bower, 1972), or who invented t h e i r own ideosyncratic s t r a t e g i e s f o r remembering (Chase & Ericsson, 1981). I n comparison with these s t u d i e s , t e x t memory does not appear extraordinary a t a l l . These mnemonists, however, were experts in the use of p a r t i c u l a r menomonic techniques, and i t might seem unfair t o compare what they do w i t h the t e x t memory of ordinary people, who a s we know do q u i t e poorly in l i s t - l e a r n i n g , laboratory experiments. We argue t h a t they do so badly in these laboratory tasks because they a r e p u t i n t o a s i t u a t i o n f o r which they have no well-developed mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s . When the same people a r e asked t o remember t e x t s , however, they behave l i k e experts (given t e x t s about s u i t a b l y f a m i l i a r s u b j e c t s ) . As we have t r i e d t o show in van Dijk & Kintsch (forthcoming), people have very well practiced, highly over-learned comprehension s t r a t e g i e s - they a r e t r u e experts when i t comes t o comprehend ordinary t e x t s . We s h a l l show t h a t these same comprehension s t r a t e g i e s a l s o serve a s mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s and support a level of t e x t memory t h a t i s q u i t e comparable t o expert memory i n o t h e r areas. I n o r d e r t o make t h i s argument, we s h a l l f i r s t have t o consider in some d e t a i l t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of expert, s k i l l e d memory . A recent paper by Chase and Ericsson (1981) provides an e x c e l l e n t account of these f e a t u r e s , and we s h a l l do no more here than summarize t h e i r main conclusions. Chase and Ericsson discuss a case study of one SF who learned t o memorize sequences of over 80 random d i g i t s in a memory span task. The memory span t e s t i s o f t e n considered primarily a short-term memory task, and s i n c e we have some r a t h e r s o l i d evidence about the capac i t y l i m i t a t i o n s of short-term memory, i t seems puzzling how SF was able t o expand t h i s capacity t o t h a t extent. He did not; S F ' s short-term memory capacity was completely normal and unchanged. Chase & Ericsson have e x c e l l e n t evidence f o r t h i s claim. The chunks t h a t SF formed always consisted of 3-4 d i g i t s . The phonemically coded rehearsal groups in short-term memory were s i m i l a r l y l i m i t e d , and always l e s s than 5 o r 6. SF could never keep the order s t r a i g h t f o r more than 3 o r 4 groups (which eventually forced him i n t o inventing a hierarchical organization scheme t o overcome t h i s problem). Thus, t h e working capacity of SF short-term memory was no d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of ordinary subjects who can remember only 7 o r 9 items on a d i g i t span test.
If i t wasn't short-term memory, how, then, did SF do i t ? The t r i c k involves e f f i c i e n t use of long-term memory, almost making i t i n t o a functional equivalent of short-term memory. F i r s t of a l l , t h e r e i s a chunking mechanism t h a t binds stimulus t r a c e s t o a hierarchical semantic s t r u c t u r e . SF invented a complex s e t of s t r a t e g i e s t o encode d i g i t sequences i n terms of running times, something he was both i n t e r e s t e d and f a m i l i a r with. He became expert a t generating encoding f e a t u r e s f o r d i g i t s t r i n g s i n terms of running times which then served a s unique r e t r i e v a l cues f o r t h a t s t r i n g . Not unlike t h e o r a t o r i n Cicero's Rome, he deposited t h e to-be-remembered numbers i n p a r t i c u l a r places i n h i s semantic s t r u c t u r e about running times (e.g., under 1-mile-times, near-worldrecord). This binding process takes place i n working memory, and i s a form of chunking: a r i c h , well-organized knowledge base about running times permits the immediate recognition of relevant p a t t e r n s which a r e
192
MEMORY
bound t o semantic f e a t u r e s i n t h e r u n n i n g - t i m e s t r u c t u r e . Retrieval i s achieved because t h e c u r r e n t l o c a t i o n i n t h a t r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e a c t i v a t e s t h e l o n g - t e r m memory t r a c e s t h a t have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . I n t h i s way SF c o u l d d i r e c t l y access a l a r g e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n , a l m o s t as i f i t a l l were s t i l l h e l d i n s h o r t - t e r m memory, b u t w i t h o u t o v e r b u r d e n i n g h i s s h o r t term memory. I n s h o r t - t e r m memory a small s e t o f i n f o r m a t i o n can be accessed w i t h o u t search, w h i l e i n s k i l l e d memory a much l a r g e r i n f o r m a t i o n s e t can be accessed a l m o s t e q u a l l y w e l l , because f u t u r e i n f o r m a t i o n r e quirements had been a n t i c i p a t e d and a s s o c i a t i o n s were formed w i t h i n a semantic system t h a t serves as a r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e . There a r e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s o f t h i s process. F i r s t , t h a t i t i n v o l v e s t h e use o f a r i c h knowledge base. None o f t h i s would be p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t S F ' s e l a b o r a t e network o f r u n n i n g times. T h i s i s a l s o t h e case f o r a l l t h e o t h e r cases of s k i l l e d memory t h a t have been s t u d i e d . The second concerns t h e r a p i d i t y w i t h which t h e s e s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l operat i o n s occur. The r e l e v a n t p a t t e r n s f r o m semantic memory a r e r e t r i e v e d q u i c k l y and e f f i c i e n t l y , w h i l e r e t r i e v a l f r o m e p i s o d i c memory ( t h a t i s , t h e memorized s t r i n g i t s e l f ) i s somewhat slower. Speed i n a l l these cases i s c r u c i a l , because o t h e r w i s e t o o much i n f o r m a t i o n would have t o be h e l d i n s h o r t - t e r m memory f o r r e a d y access. A v e r y l a r g e amount o f p r a c t i c e i s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e t h i s can be achieved. The analogy w i t h t e x t memory i s s t r i k i n g . T e x t memory i s v e r y good, i f r e a d e r s have t h e e l a b o r a t e knowledge base t o s u p p o r t i t . Comprehension s t r a t e g i e s have r e c e i v e d an enormous amount o f p r a c t i c e i n t h e course o f a p e r s o n ' s l i f e , and t h e y a r e f a s t and a u t o m a t i c . More t h a n t h a t , t h e model o u t l i n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s d e s c r i b e s e x a c t l y t h e k i n d of b i n d i n g o f new, t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o e x i s t i n g knowledge sources t h a t we have found t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f e x p e r t memory. Knowledge frames w i t h t h e i r s l o t s f i l l e d w i t h t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s form e f f e c t i v e r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s f o r t e x t memory. O n l y a few unusual p e o p l e can l e a r n t o remember 8 0 - i t e m s t r i n g s o f random numbers; o n l y v e r y few p e o p l e a r e r e a l mnemonic e x p e r t s when i t comes t o d e a l i n g w i t h such m a t e r i a l s . When i t comes t o d e a l i n g w i t h everyday t e x t s , everybody i s an e x p e r t . Thus, t h e use o f t h e t e r m " e x p e r t " m i g h t s t r i k e one as i n a p p r o p r i a t e here, b u t i t m e r e l y r e f l e c t s t h e obvious f a c t t h a t when i t comes t o everyday l i f e , a l l p e o p l e a r e indeed e x p e r t s . As soon as more s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge i s r e q u i r e d t o understand a t e x t , d i f f e r e n c e s a r i s e among p e o p l e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r e x p e r t i s e : chemists can remember c h e m i s t r y papers, and p s y c h o l o g i s t s psychology papers, b u t n o t t h e layman. T e x t memory i s e x p e r t o n l y so l o n g as t h e r e a d e r has a v a i l a b l e a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d knowledge base t o o r g a n i z e t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e t e x t . Indeed, i t i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o c o n s i d e r cases o f t e x t memory where i t i s c l e a r l y not e x p e r t . A s i m p l e way t o d e s t r o y a r e a d e r ' s e x p e r t i s e a t comprehension i s t o g i v e him something t o r e a d f o r which he o r she does n o t have t h e necessary knowledge background. A l t h o u g h anectodal e v i d e n c e comes r e a d i l y t o mind s u g g e s t i n g t h a t performance breaks down i n such cases, experimenta l d e m o n s t r a t i o n s do n o t e x i s t , perhaps because t h e y a r e a l l t o o obvious. However, i n s e v e r a l experiments i t has been shown t h a t more f a m i l i a r t e x t s a r e r e c a l l e d b e t t e r t h a n l e s s f a m i l i a r ones. Thus, K i n t s c h , Kozminsky, McKoon, Streby, & Keenan (1975) found b e t t e r memory f o r h i s t o r y paragraphs which were o f n a r r a t i v e f o r m t h a n f o r more d e s c r i p t i v e and u n f a m i l i a r s c i e n c e paragraphs. Graesser, Hoffman & C l a r k (1980) found t h a t n a r r a t i v i t y was t h e most i m p o r t a n t t e x t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t o r e d i c t e d ease o f
PIEMORY FOR TEXT
193
comprehension - presumably because n a r r a t i v e s a r e concerned w i t h human a c t i o n s , a t o p i c f o r w h i c h e v e r y r e a d e r i s a t r u e e x p e r t , h a v i n g b u i l t up a r e l e v a n t knowledge base n o t o n l y w h i l e r e a d i n g innumerable s t o r i e s , b u t above a l l i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s e v e r y day o f h i s o r h e r l i f e . Another way t o s t u d y t e x t comprehension and memory w i t h o u t knowledge i s t o make t h e knowledge sources which would be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a t e x t u n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e reader. B r a n s f o r d & Johnson (1972), i n a well-known experiment, have done t h a t . They w r o t e a paragraph (e.g., a b o u t washing c l o t h e s ) i n such a way t h a t t h e r e a d e r never c o u l d f i g u r e o u t what t h e t e x t was about, c o u l d n o t a c t i v a t e h i s o r h e r knowledge t o i n t e r p r e t t h e paragraph, and remembered o n l y a few d i s j o i n t b i t s o f i t (3.6 o u t o f 14 i d e a u n i t s ) . However, t h e same paragraph w i t h a t i t l e t h a t i d e n t i f i e d t h e knowledge sources r e l e v a n t t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s t e x t was understood and remembered q u i t e w e l l ( 8 o u t of 14 i d e a u n i t s ) . When s u b j e c t s were a l l o w e d t o use t h e i r e x p e r t i s e on t h e t o p i c , comprehension and memory were assured; b u t when t h e y were p r e v e n t e d from d o i n g so, t h e i r memory f o r t h e uncomprehended t e x t was no b e t t e r t h a n f o r a l i s t o f random words. E x p e r t and non-expert memory a r e d i r e c t l y c o n t r a s t e d here.4 4.
R e t r i e v a l i n e p i s o d i c t e x t memory.
Within t h e l i m i t s o f t h i s presentation, i t i s n o t possible t o describe i n d e t a i l t h e g e n e r a l model o f t e x t comprehension which we have been developInstead, I s h a l l merely sketch the i n g (van D i j k & K i n t s c h , f o r t h c o m i n g ) . rough o u t l i n e s o f t h e model - d e s c r i b i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y i s happening, - and t h e n show how t h i s model o f comprehension serves as a n a t u r a l now base f o r a model o f t e x t memory.
how
F i g u r e 1 shows t h e b a s i c components o f t h e model. Comprehension i s t r e a t e d as a process t h a t o c c u r s i n p a r a l l e l a t s e v e r a l l e v e l s , w i t h a s p e c i a l k i n d o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e x t b e i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each l e v e l . Processing a t each l e v e l i s autonomous, b u t t h e o u t p u t s o f t h e v a r i o u s l e v e l s i n t e r a c t i n i m p o r t a n t ways. S t a r t i n g w i t h t h e t e x t i t s e l f , we have a v e r b a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h a t i s , s t r i n g s o f words o r g a n i z e d i n t o phrases, sentences and paragraphs t h a t s e r v e as t h e i n p u t t o t h e system. A p a r s i n g process (which i s c i r c u m v e n t e d i n t h i s model) d e r i v e s f r o m t h e v e r b a l i n p u t a sequence o f semantic u n i t s ( a t o m i c p r o p o s i t i o n s ) which r e p r e s e n t t h e meani n g elements o f t h e t e x t . The focus o f t h e model i s on t h e f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g t h a t t h e s e semantic t e x t u n i t s undergo. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we deal e x p l i c i t l y w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f semantic u n i t s i n t o chunks c a l l e d t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s . The b a s i c process h e r e i s t h a t t h e model makes some s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n s t o f o c u s on a p a r t i c u l a r semantic u n i t , r e t r i e v e s f r o m i t s knowledge base a knowledge s t r u c t u r e ( f r a m e ) t h a t corresponds t o t h a t semantic u n i t and uses t h a t knowledge s t r u c t u r e t o o r g a n i z e t h e o t h e r semantic t e x t u n i t s . As f a r as p o s s i b l e , new t e x t u n i t s w i l l be f i t t e d i n t o t h e s l o t s o f t h e chosen frame o r appended t o i t as m o d i f i e r s . When t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n p u t changes so t h a t t h e semantic u n i t s can no l o n g e r be r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e s e n t l y a c t i v a t e d frame, i t w i l l be r e p l a c e d i n working memory by a new one t h a t i s more s u i t a b l e , w h i l e t h e o l d frame which i s by now f i l l e d w i t h t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s s t o r e d i n e p i s o d i c t e x t memory (ETM). Thus, r e a d i n g a t e x t i n t h i s model r e s u l t s i n t h e s t o r a g e o f a sequence o f i n t e r r e l a t e d chunks o f t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n . F o r m a l l y , each such chunk has t h e s t r u c t u r e of a ( t e x t ) p r o p o s i t i o n . 5 When p e o p l e r e a d a t e x t t h e y n o t o n l y f o r m a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h a t t e x t ( t h e e p i s o d i c t e x t memory) b u t t h e y a l s o use t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h a t t e x t
194
MEMORY
t o form ( o r update) t h e i r model of t h e world. T h u s , in addition t o the episodic t e x t memory ( t h e memory f o r t h e t e x t proper) we have, in general, another level of episodic memory f o r t h e information i t s e l f , d i s t i n c t from the way i n which i t was presented in the p a r t i c u l a r t e x t . T h u s , i f one reads an a r t i c l e in the newspaper a b o u t the decision t o build neutron bombs, one not only c o n s t r u c t s a memory representation f o r t h a t a r t i c l e , b u t the memory about neutron bombs i t s e l f may be modified, and the l a t t e r modification may s t i l l be e f f e c t i v e long a f t e r the a r t i c l e per s e i s forgotten. MACROSTRUCTURE
PROPOSITIONS
SEMANTIC UNITS
WORDS, PHRASES Figure 1 The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e van Dijk & Kintsch model o f comprehension
Finally, memory f o r a t e x t i s not only memory f o r a l l the d e t a i l in the t e x t , b u t a l s o f o r i t s g i s t . That i s , a representation of the macros t r u c t u r e of the t e x t i s generated along with the propositional t e x t base. Indeed, as we show elsewhere, the macrostructure i s o f t e n necessary for the successful construction of the propositional representation i t s e l f . This macrostructure i s hierarchical a n d f u l f i l l s a very important function in a r e t r i e v a l system: by h i e r a r c h i c a l l y subordinating t h e t e x t proposi-
MEMORY FOR TEXT
195
t i o n s under v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s an e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e i s o b t a i n e d . I t i s o f course t r u e t h a t t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d ( f r e q u e n t l y , one t e x t p r o p o s i t i o n r e f e r s t o a n o t h e r , o r t o elements of a n o t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n ) , b u t i t i s t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e t h a t makes e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l p o s s i b l e i n recall
.
A c o n c r e t e example as i n F i g u r e 2, m i g h t h e l p t o c l a r i f y t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d p r o c e s s i n g l e v e l s d e s c r i b e d above. F i g u r e 2 shows a sentence a t t h e bottom which i s t o be t a k e n as an e x c e r p t f r o m a l o n g e r t e x t . The sentence i s t h e n broken down i n t o semantic u n i t s - t h e r e s l r l t o f t h e p a r s i n g process. A s y n t a c t i c s t r a t e g y i s used t o p i c k t h e sentence p r e d i c a t e as t h e b a s i s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Thus, a " n a i l i n g " frame i s
John r e p a i r e d t h e house
OO'r \
0 0 /
0
0
/
0
/
0
\
Object:
-
Location:
Modifier:
\
\
\
-
\
\ \ \ \
(LOOSE, SHINGLES) (ON, SHINGLES,ROOF)
CAREFUL
(CAREFUL, NAIL) (NAIL,JOHN,SHINGLES)
(ON,SHINGLES ,ROOF) (LOOSE:,SHINGLES)
Figure 2 An example o f t h e k i n d o f a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e d by t h e van D i j k & K i n t s c h model o f comprehension
196
MEMORY
r e t r i e v e d from long-term memory and those s l o t s of the frame t h a t a r e ref e r r e d t o in the t e x t a r e connected with the appropriate textual informat i o n . We know t h a t n a i l i n g needs an agent, and "John" i s specified as agent; we know t h a t n a i l i n g requires a c e r t a i n kind of o b j e c t , a board, plank, e t c . , and "shingles" i s s p e c i f i e d by the t e x t ; furthermore, both "shingle" and " n a i l i n g " a r e modified; f i n a l l y , a location s l o t i s specified. Note t h a t o t h e r possible s l o t s of the n a i l i n g frame a r e not a c t i v a t e d . For instance, no instrument (such as a hammer) i s mentioned i n the t e x t and the instrument s l o t i s therefore not a c t i v a t e d . On the basis of t h e proposition shown i n Figure 2 a n d o t h e r s l i k e i t not shown, a macroproposi t i o n "John r e p a i r s the house" i s generated, which dominates a whole s e t of propositions, and may i n t u r n be dominated by other, higher order macropropositions. Note t h a t the macroproposition may never have been s t a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the t e x t , b u t may be inferred. A processing model has t o show how a l l t h i s i s produced in real time. Again, I can n o t go i n t o any d e t a i l s , b u t the basic ideas a r e sketched i n Figure 3. A sequence of words :s the input t o a working r e g i s t e r , where the mu1 t i - l e v e l analyses described above a r e performed. Processing in the working r e g i s t e r i s governed by a control schema, which represents the r e a d e r ' s goals, i n t e r e s t s , and o t h e r high-level information, e.g., t h a t one i s reading a newspaper s t o r y , e t c . The working r e g i s t e r has d i r e c t access t o a limited capacity short-term memory buffer. This buffer holds the current t e x t proposition, so t h a t new semantic u n i t s can be added t o i t as they a r e formed. When a new proposition i s generated, the old one i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o episodic t e x t memory. Reading, thus, generates a string of i n t e r r e l a t e d propositions in episodic memory. A t c e r t a i n points in
CONTROL SCHEMA
GT-\
EPI SOD1 C TEXT . MEMORY i
TEXT INPUT
Figure 3 The processing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e van D i j k & Kintsch model o f comprehension
MEFlORY FOR TEXT
197
t h i s process macropropositions a r e formed which a r e a l s o stored i n episodic text memory. T h u s , t h e r e s u l t of reading i s n o t merely a s t r i n g of propositions, b u t a s t r i n g with a hierarchical superstructure. This superstructure i s generated r a p i d l y , unconsciously, and with l i t t l e e f f o r t during normal reading. I t guarantees e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l from episodic memory (we s h a l l neglect here episodic memory proper). Note t h a t e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l i s often required during reading, n o t j u s t a t r e c a l l : s i t u a t i o n s will a r i s e when previous textual information will have t o be b r o u g h t back from ETM i n t o the working r e g i s t e r f o r one reason or another ( s e e , f o r example, the reinstatement searches of Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Depending on the level of i n t e g r a t i o n achieved during reading and t h e extent t o which a s u i t a b l e macrostructure had been formed, such reinstatements of e a r l i e r information may be more o r l e s s successful and more o r l e s s resource consuming. I n the ideal case of real "expert" reading, when a person has a v a i l a b l e rich knowledge sources t o build complex b u t well structured propositions, and has formed an elaborate macrostructure, r e t r i e v i n g information from ETM might r e l a t i v e l y f a s t a n d almost as easy as r e t r i e v i n g information from STM. A t the o t h e r extreme, when no organization of the semantic t e x t u n i t s i s achieved ( a s in the experiment by Bransford & Johnsons, 1972, referred t o e a r l i e r ) , r e t r i e v a l from ETM can break down e n t i r e l y .
Our present model makes the same assumption about memory storage t h a t was made in the Kintsch & van Dijk model: memory i s regarded a s a consequence of processing; what i s remembered i s what has been processed. Propositions processed more than o t h e r s (e.g., because they a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y c e n t r a l , o r because they a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t and macrorelevant) a r e remembered b e t t e r , in proportion t o t h e amount of processing they have received. These assumptions were elaborated i n t o a q u a n t i t a t i v e model i n the Kintsch & van Dijk theory, and while I can not do t h i s here, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e same assumptions can serve once more as the basis of a model f o r memory storage. Unlike in the Kintsch & van Dijk theory, however, t h e present model a l s o contains an e x p l i c i t r e t r i e v a l component. The r e t r i e v a l of a proposition depends on t h e strength of t h e connections between i t and i t s macroproposition. Strength i s a matter of processing: those propositions t h a t were used in i n f e r r i n g a macroproposition a r e assumed t o be more strongly related t o i t than others t h a t were i r r e l e v a n t t o the inference. Retrieval d i f f e r e n c e s a l s o occur within propositions: we make the assumption t h a t semantic u n i t s t h a t f i l l frame s l o t s a r e more r e t r i e v a b l e t h a n semantic u n i t s t h a t a r e merely appended t o t h e proposition as modifiers. Furthermore, i f the macropropositions a r e themselves organized in some schematic way (e.g., corresponding t o a s t o r y schema), then those macropropositions t h a t f i l l t h e s l o t s of the schema become more e a s i l y ret r i evabl e. Recall in t h i s model i s a j o i n t function o f storage and r e t r i e v a l . The more processing a proposition ( o r macroproposition) has received, the g r e a t e r i t s s t o r a g e probability. On top of t h a t , however, there a r e ret r i e v a l d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e various processing l e v e l s : macropropositions t h a t a r e schema conforming, propositions t h a t were macrorelevant and hence are d i r e c t l y connected t o macropropositions, and f i n a l l y semantic elements f o r which t h e r e a r e pre-existing s l o t s in a proposition a r e more readily retrieved than t h e i r l e s s advantaged co-elements.
198
5.
MEMORY
The mnemonic properties of episodic t e x t memory.
Let us now look a t t h e properties of such a system as a r e t r i e v a l structure. I n a recent review of mnemonic devices Bellezza (1981) discusses four properties of mnemonic systems. Belezra was concerned with t r a d i tional mnemonics, such as the method of loci o r chained p a i r s . However, the argument made here i s t h a t readers construct a r e t r i e v a l system with s i m i l a r properties as an integral p a r t of the process of t e x t comprehension. If one reads as an expert, i n t h e sense noted above, t h e n episodic t e x t tiiemory w i l l be an e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l system, not because one has performed any special mnemonic coding operations, but because of the very nature of comprehension. Bellezza (1981) notes four important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e f f i c i e n t ret r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s the c o n s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the retrieval cue: a t each point in the process, i t must be possible t o construct the next r e t r i e v a l cue r e l i a b l y and rapidly. (For instance, in the method of l o c i , c o n s t r u c t i b i l i t y i s achieved by the prememorized system of places, i n the method of linked chains by t h e overlap among t h e elements of the c h a i n ) . I n order t o be e f f e c t i v e , r e t r i e v a l cues must a l s o have high d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y , t o avoid confusion between them. (Once again, in the method of loci we have the requirement t o make the various places as d i f f e r e n t from each other a s p o s s i b l e ) . The next requirement i s t h a t of a s s o c i a b i l i t y . The t o be remembered material can e a s i l y be associated with good r e t r i e v a l cues. Rich, eldborate cues t h a t provide many potent i a l l i n k s , and high imagery, concrete cues a r e indicated by t h i s requirement. Finally, r e t r i c v a l s t r u c t u r e s must have t h e property of i n v e r t i b i l i t y , because t h e t o be remembered material i s often not associated d i r e c t l y with the r e t r i e v a l cue b u t via some mediator (e.g., a phonetic one, as when one i s trying t o remember " o r i g i n " a s "orange"). I t i s n o t enough t o r e t r i e v e the mediator in t h i s case, b u t one must a l s o be able t o i n v e r t i t t o t h e original item t h a t was t o be remembered. The s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e generated by our model during t e x t comprehension have precisely these properties - and t h a t i s why t e x t memory i s so good under normal conditions. C o n s t r u c t i b i l i t y i s guaranteed by the hierarchical macrostructure. A good macrostructure provides r e l i a b l e guidance t h r o u g h a t e x t , one proposition serving a s t h e cue f o r t h e next one, via t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n t o t h e i r superordinate node. These associations a r e strong because the superordinates were constructed from t h e subordinate propositions. This processing, we assume, leaves i t s t r a c e in memory in the form of an a s s o c i a t i o n . Thus, r e t r i e v a l of a s t o r y , f o r instance, i s assumed t o be t o p down, from the most superordinate macroproposition (perhaps the t i t l e ) t o the macroproposition dominating the f i r s t episode of t h e s t o r y , from which one a f t e r the o t h e r of the lower level macroproposit i o n s a r e r e t r i e v e d , plus t h e i r associated micropropositions. Note t h a t t h e ordering of propositions a t a given level m u s t be determined by other f a c t o r s than t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n t o a common superordinate: a t lower levels in a s t o r y these m i g h t be temporal and e s p e c i a l l y causal r e l a t i o n s , while a t t h e top level of the s t r u c t u r e schemata may play a very important role in the ordering of macropropositions. I f one reads a s t o r y which has cert a i n conventional components (such as exposition, complication, resolution), t h e ordering of the macropropositions i s in p a r t determined by t h e fixed s l o t s of the s t o r y schema. Hence, conventionally organized t e x t s ( l i k e s t o r i e s , arguments, procedural d e s c r i p t i o n s ) should give r i s e t o especially s t a b l e and well d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e t r i e v a l s t r u c t u r e s . Indeed, t h e r e a r e
MEMORY FOR TEXT
199
reports i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t schematically w e l l organized t e x t s are rec a l l e d b e t t e r t h a n t e x t s w i t h o u t a schematic o r g a n i z a t i o n (Meyer, Brandt, & B l u t h , 1980) and t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between such t e x t s i s indeed i n t h e m a c r o s t r u c t u r e , as c l a i m e d h e r e ( K i n t s c h & Yarbrough, 1981). How d i s c r i m i n a b l e t h e m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s o f a t e x t a r e from each o t h e r i s , i n g e n e r a l , n o t under t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e r e a d e r b u t i s determined by t h e nature o f the t e x t i t s e l f . I n s t o r i e s , d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y i s u s u a l l y no problem because a u t h o r s a r e t r y i n g t o make t h e d i f f e r e n t episodes novel and i n t e r e s t i n g , and hence d i s t i n c t . However, i f s t o r i e s a r e w r i t t e n i n such a way t h a t t h e y c o n t a i n many s i m i l a r episodes, c o n f u s i o n s o c c u r i n r e c a l l , as was observed by Bower, B l a c k & T u r n e r (1979). Hence, d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y among t h e m a c r o p r o p o s i t i o n s o f a t e x t appears t o p l a y a r o l e analogous t o d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y among t h e r e t r i e v a l cues i n a mnemonic system. A s s o c i a b i l i t y , t o o , i s o n l y i n d i r e c t l y under t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e comprehend e r and i s i n p a r t determined by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t o be comprehended m a t e r i a l . A s s o c i a b i l i t y depends on r i c h and e l a b o r a t e knowledge sources which can s e r v e as a b a s i s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a t e x t . Imagery c e r t a i n l y a l s o p l a y s a r o l e a t t h i s p o i n t : c o n c r e t e , e a s i l y imaged m a t e r i a l s may n o t be any e a s i e r t o comprehend than a b s t r a c t m a t e r i a l s , b u t i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n i s accompanied by t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f imagery i n one case b u t n o t i n t h e o t h e r , h i s d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c a l l can be expected. No s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y o f imagery e f f e c t s i n t e x t memory as y e t e x i s t , b u t anectodal evidence tends t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n j e c t u r e s made h e r e . Something c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i n v e r t i b i l i t y o f mnemonics may a l s o p l a y a r o l e i n t e x t memory. We have assumed t h a t t h e t e x t i s o r g a n i z e d i n terms o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , which a r e r e t r i e v e d v i a t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l m a c r o s t r u c t u r e . Now c o n s i d e r what happens when a p r o p o s i t i o n i s r e t r i e v e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e v a r i o u s s l o t s o f t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n and i s t h e r e f o r e h i g h l y a v a i l a b l e . However, semantic u n i t s t h a t d i d n o t f i t i n t o any p r e - e x i s t i n g s l o t b u t were m e r e l y appended t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i n t h e f o r m o f m o d i f i e r s may be much l e s s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . Hence we p r e d i c t t h a t even i f a p a r t i c u l a r chunk o f t e x t ( a p r o p o s i t i o n ) i s r e t r i e v e d , those p o r t i o n s o f i t t h a t a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y i m p o r t a n t a r e r e c a l l e d b e t t e r t h a n t h e p o r t i o n s which p l a y no s t r u c t u r a l r o l e . Whether o r n o t t h e analogy w i t h t h e i n v e r t i b i l i t y o f mnemonic d e v i c e s i s a compel1 i n g one, t h e r e t r i e v a l disadvantage o f m o d i f i e r elements appears t o be a r e a l one, as suggested by t h e common o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t a d j e c t i v e s and adverbs, which t e n d t o end up i n t h e m o d i f i e r s l o t s o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , a r e among t h e most p o o r l y r e c a l l e d p a r t s o f a t e x t .
5.
Some p r e l i m i n a r y e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s .
Under i d e a l c o n d i t i o n s , t e x t memory has a l l t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f a h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e t r i e v a l system, because comprehension by i t s v e r y n a t u r e r e s u l t s i n s t r u c t u r e s t h a t f u n c t i o n t h a t way. I n van D i j k & K i n t s c h ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) a number of e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s a r e d e s c r i b e d t h a t t e n d t o s u p p o r t e m p i r i c a l l y one or t h e o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h i s c l a i m . The a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t p r o s e r e c a l l d a t a even t h e e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f o u r model possessed t o a q u i t e s a t i s f a c t o r y degree ( K i n t s c h & van D i j k , 1978), b u t more a n a l y t i c experiments a r e r e q u i r e d t o assess o u r model t h a n o v e r - a l l f r e e r e c a l l data. I s h a l l d e s c r i b e here some p r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s f r o m a p i l o t s t u d y t h a t bear more d i r e c t l y on some o f t h e c r u c i a l assumptions about memory and p r o p o s i t i o n a l chunking t h a t we have made. The s t u d y i s modelled
MEMORY
200
c l o s e l y a f t e r one by Ericsson & Chase (1981). These authors investigated the chunking t h a t t h e i r memory expert was employing f o r remembering strings of random numbers. They knew through protocol analyses a n d from other experimental r e s u l t s p r e t t y well what numbers were being chunked together and where the chunk boundaries were. Thus, they could s e l e c t small groups of d i g i t s from the t o be remembered s t r i n g s in such a way t h a t they did or did n o t coincide with a chunk boundary. These d i g i t groups were used as r e c a l l cues: the subject was i n s t r u c t e d t o r e c a l l the d i g i t s following or preceding them in the o r i g i n a l s t r i n g . The r e s u l t s were q u i t e interesting and strongly supported the chunking hypothesis. Whenever the recall cue formed only p a r t of a chunk, the r e s t of the chunk was recalled very well; however, i f t h e recall cue coincided with a chunk boundary so t h a t the d i g i t s following i t belonged t o a d i f f e r e n t chunk, r e c a l l was more d i f f i c u l t . The chunks as determined from the protocol a n a l y s i s thus appeared t o be functional u n i t s in r e c a l l . Much the same procedure can be used with t e x t . Again, our theory t e l l s us where the chunk boundaries a r e supposed t o be, so t h a t i f we cue recall with a group of words t h a t i s o r i s not a t a chunk boundary, we would expect s i m i l a r performance differences a s in the case of Ericsson & Chase's mnemonist. We have used a non-technical psychological research report as our stimulus material. Subjects l i s t e n e d t o i t in 250-word fragments. After each fragment a phrase 6-10 words long from the passage j u s t read was repeated, and the subject had t o t r y t o r e c a l l the words immediately following t h a t phrase i n the o r i g i n a l t e x t . Subjects were i n s t r u c t e d t o r e c a l l verbatim i f possible, or whatever they could remember. O u r preliminary r e s u l t s a r e q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g . Consider an example of a recall cue t h a t ends abruptly in the middle of a chunk:
(1)
CUE:
This discrepancy r e f l e c t s not only our
CONTINUATION: s o c i e t y ' s concentration of formal educational e f f o r t . . Three i l l u s t r a t i v e responses from subjects a r e the following:
(2a)
RESPONSE:
(2b) RESPONSE: ( 2 c ) RESPONSE:
s o c i e t y ' s concentration of e f f o r t . .
.
s o c i e t y ' s focus on formal education.. . the s h i f t in concentration of educational research..
.
What we see from these examples i s f i r s t of a l l t h a t subjects a r e able t o respond with a good continuation t h a t more o r l e s s completes the chunk c o r r e c t l y . Secondly, t h e s u b j e c t s ' response i s l a r g e l y verbatim: in ( 2 a ) t h e r e a r e some omissions, in ( 2 b ) there i s both an omission and the use of a synonym, b u t otherwise the responses s t i c k q u i t e c l o s e t o the t e x t ; (2c) i s l e s s precise, b u t two of the principal content words a r e s t i l l reproduced. That i s not a bad f e a t , considering t h a t the subjects heard the t e x t only once, and t h a t another 150 words followed t h e p a r t i c u l a r t e x t passage i l l u s t r a t e d here. Clearly, subjects were not r e c a l l i n g from shortterm memory, by any reasonable d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s term. Now l e t us consider an example where t h e r e c a l l cue completes a chunk and hence forces the subject t o r e t r i e v e t h e next one: ( 3 ) CUE: As shown primarily by the work of Schaie, CONTINUATION: a peak in i n t e l l e c t u a l performance occurs l a t e r for current a d u l t cohorts than indicated by crosssectional research.
MEMORY FOR TEXT
201
The s u b j e c t s ' responses appear t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t now. F i r s t of a l l , we can draw a complete blank in about a t h i r d of a l l cases, where the subject simply can not remember anything (This has never happened, so f a r , when the cue and t h e response were p a r t of the same organizational t e x t u n i t ) . If there i s a response, i t tends t o be more of a paraphrase of the original t e x t than a verbatim reproduction, such as (4a) RESPONSE: some a b i l i t i e s don't reach t h e i r peak u n t i l sometime l a t e r . (4b) RESPONSE: the peak occurs much l a t e r t h a n previously believed and no decline in i n t e l l i g e n c e . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i s a response l i k e ( 4 c ) . (4c) RESPONSE: ( a f t e r a long l a t e n c y ) : He was finding r e s u l t s t h a t d i f f e r e d from t h e previously held ideas. This response suggests t h a t the subject was not a b l e t o r e t r i e v e the successor proposition in response t o the r e c a l l cue, b u t instead managed a p a r t i a l reconstruction of i t s g i s t by accessing the appropriate macroproposition. (For t h i s p a r t of t h e t e x t t h a t macropropositions probably were something l i k e Old research shows X - in c o n t r a s t - Schaie shows Y ) . Given t h a t we have only unsystematic p i l o t data of unproven r e l i a b i l i t y and representativeness, t h e conclusions drawn from these data must remain tent a t i v e . However, several f e a t u r e s of o u r model f o r t e x t memory appear t o be r e f l e c t e d i n these r e s u l t s . I t seems t h a t i f subjects a r e given a ( s u f f i c i e n t l y discriminable) portion of t e x t as a r e t r i e v a l cue, they a r e able t o complete t h e t e x t u n i t of which t h a t r e t r i e v a l cue i s a p a r t under the conditions of our experiment. Though never p e r f e c t , t h e i r completions tend t o be p a r t l y verbatim, o r f a i r l y close paraphrases of the original t e x t . We have tapped d i r e c t l y i n t o the t e x t representation, a n d a r e g e t t i n g back a low-level, incomplete b u t f a i r l y accurate record. I f , on the o t h e r h a n d , t h e cue i s such t h a t a continuation response involves ret r i e v i n g the chunk ( t e x t proposition) next i n l i n e , t h i s i s n o t always possible. The subject may be unable t o remember anything a t a l l , or gene r a t e s a reconstructive response on the basis of a macroproposition. Even i f t h e c o r r e c t t e x t proposition i s r e t r i e v e d , the response now tends t o be l e s s verbatim ( i f we can trust our sketchy data t h a t f a r ) . Presumably, ret r i e v a l has occurred top down, via the macroproposition, and what i s retrieved i s a conceptual, propositional representation, with l e s s of a chance of r e t r i e v i n g t h e actual words and phrases from which t h i s propositional representation had been generated. With cues l i k e ( 1 ) we tap d i r e c t l y in both the propositional level and t h e l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l ; cues l i k e ( 3 ) , on the o t h e r hand, a r e f a r t h e r removed from t h e i r successor words in the original t e x t - they have t o g e t t o them via a superordinate macroproposition and the micropropositional representation. If these data hold u p , they might help us t o understand b e t t e r t h e nature of t e x t memory and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o "expert" memory and conventional laboratory phenomena. Clearly, I am unable as y e t t o s u b s t a n t i a t e empiric a l l y t h e speculations I have offered here i n t h i s respect. A t b e s t , perhaps, I can claim t o have made a p l a u s i b l e s t o r y . B u t i t i s , I think, a s t o r y worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g , because i f i t i s t r u e , a t l e a s t in i t s general o u t l i n e s , i t can account f o r t e x t memory in a very natural way: no special theory of t e x t memory i s needed a t a l l , t h e e x i s t i n g theory of comprehension plus some r a t h e r well-known general p r i n c i p l e s of memory s u f f i c e f o r the understanding of episodic t e x t memory.
202
MEMORY
Footnotes:
1 . The t r a d i t i o n a l term i n psychology i s "semantic memory," b u t "knowledge" more c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s the intended meaning. Tulving (1972) distinguished between episodic and semantic memory: episodic memory i s the memory f o r having something personally experienced in a p a r t i c u l a r context; semantic memory corresponds t o general , context-i ndependent, impersonal knowledge. Intermediate, p a r t l y decontextualized memory episodes a r e a l s o possible. 2. This claim does not mean t h a t memory and comprehension a r e one and the same, o r even t h a t memory i s d i r e c t l y proportional t o comprehension. 3. I n p r i n c i p l e the model could be e a s i l y extended t o account f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some t e x t propositions a r e not encoded a t a l l . Indeed, Miller & Kintsch (1980) make use of t h i s f e a t u r e f o r redundant information i n the t e x t , which subjects frequently do not reproduce on a recall t e s t , e i t h e r because they f a i l e d t o encode i t , o r because of output r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t prevent redundancies, even in those cases where t h e , redundancies were present in t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t ,
4. A recent study by Alba, Alexander, Hasher, & Caniglia (1981) supports t h e contention t h a t we a r e dealing here with a r e t r i e v a l problem. No differences were found between the t i t l e and n o - t i t l e conditions when a recognition t e s t was used instead of a r e c a l l t e s t . Apparently, subjects were a b l e t o comprehend t h e t e x t s without t i t l e s a t a surface level and s t o r e information about t h a t level i n memory, b u t they were unable t o build the propositional s t r u c t u r e s t h a t people o r d i n a r i l y construct during reading, with t h e r e s u l t t h a t whatever memory t r a c e s were formed remained inaccessible on a r e c a l l t e s t .
e apologize f o r a s h i f t in terminology: what i s here c a l l e d "semantic 5. W u n i t " ( o r "atomic proposition") corresponds t o the "proposition" of Kintsch & van D i j k (1978); what we now c a l l "proposition" was discussed e a r l i e r as " f a c t " .
REFERENCES Alba, J.W., Alexander, S.G.,Hasher, L . and Caniglia, K. The r o l e of context i n the encoding of information. Journal of Experimental Psycho1 ogy: Human Learning and Memory, 1981 , 7 , 283-292. Anderson, R.C. and P i c h e r t , J.W. Recall of previously unrecallable information following a s h i f t in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 1 7 , 1-12.
MEMORY FOR TEXT
203
B e l l e t t a , F.S. Mnemonic d e v i c e s : C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and c r i t e r i a . R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1981, 51, 247-275. Bower, G.H. Mental imagery and a s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g . I n L.W. Gregg (Ed.) C o g n i t i o n i n l e a r n i n g and memory. New York: W i l e y , 1972. Bower, G.H., B l a c k , J.B. and T u r n e r , T.J. S c r i p t s i n memory f o r t e x t . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1979, 11, 177-220. B r a n s f o r d , J. and Johnson, M.K. C o n t e x t u a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r understandi n g : Some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f comprehension and r e c a l l . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 717-726. Bryan, W.L. and H a r t e r , N. S t u d i e s on t h e t e l e g r a p h i c language: The a c q u i s i t i o n o f a h i e r a r c h y o f h a b i t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1899, 6, 346 -375. S k i l l e d memory. I n J.R. Anderson (Ed.) Chase, W.G. and E r i c s s o n , K.A. C o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n . - H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum; 1981. Chase, W.G. and Simon, H.A. 1973, 4, 55-81.
P e r c e p t i o n i n chess.
C o g n i t i v e Psychology,
C i r i l o , R.K. and Foss, O.J. T e x t s t r u c t u r e and r e a d i n g t i m e f o r sentences. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 96-109. C r a i k , F.I.M. and L o c k h a r t , R.S. L e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g : A framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 671-684. van D i j k , T.A. and K i n t s c h , W. S t r a t e g i e s o f comprehension. Academic Press, f o r t h c o m i n g .
New York:
S t r u c t u r a l components o f Graesser, A.C., Hoffman, N.L. and C l a r k , L.F. r e a d i n g t i m e . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 135-151. P e r c e p t i o n and memory versus t h o u g h t : Some o l d i d e a s and de Groot, A.D. r e c e n t f i n d i n g s . I n B. K l e i n m u n t z (Ed.) Problem s o l v i n g : Research, Method, and Theory. New York: Wiley, 1966. Hunter, I.M.L. An e x c e p t i o n a l t a l e n t f o r c a l c u l a t i v e t h i n k i n g . J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 1962, 53, 243-258. Remember t h a t o l d t h e o r y o f memory? J e n k i n s , J.J. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1974, 29, 785-795.
British
Well, f o r g e t i t !
K i n t s c h , W. and van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and product.ion. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.
204
MEMORY
K i n t s c h , W., Kozminsky, E . , S t r e b y , W.J., McKoon, F. and Keenan, J.M. Comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t as a f u n c t i o n o f c o n t e n t v a r i a b l e s . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 196-214. K i n t s c h , W. and Yarbrough, J.C. The r o l e o f r h e t o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n t e x t comprehension. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, i n press. Mandel, T.S. Eye movement r e s e a r c h on t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f short t e x t s . B e h a v i o r Research Methods and I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , 1979, 11, 180-1 87. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between eye movements and p r o p o s i t i o n a l t e x t Mandel, T.S. s t r u c t u r e . Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Colorado, 1980. Meyer, B.J.F., Brand, D.M. and B l u t h , G.J. Use o f t o p l e v e l s t r u c t u r e i n t e x t : Key f o r r e a d i n g comprehension o f n i n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1980, 16, 72-103. M i l l e r , J.R. A computer s i m u l a t i o n model o f t e x t comprehension. (Forthcoming) R e a d a b i l i t y and r e c a l l of s h o r t p r o s e passaM i l l e r , J.R. and K i n t s c h , W. ges: A t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: Human L e a r n i n g and Memory, 1980, 6, 335-354. Murdock, B.B., Jr. The s e r i a l p o s i t i o n e f f e c t i n f r e e r e c a l l . Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 482-488. M u l l e r , G.E. laufes.
Journal o f
Zur Analyse d e r G e d a c h t n i s t a t i g k e i t und des V o r s t e l l u n g s v e r Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r Psychologie, Erganzungsband 5, 1911.
Peterson, L.R. and Peterson, M.J. S h o r t - t e r m r e t e n t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s , J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 193-198. S p i l i c h , G.J., Vesonder, G.T., C h i e s i , H.L. and Voss, J.F. Text processing o f domain-related information f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h hiqh and low domain knowledge. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1979, 18, 275-290. T u l v i n g , E . E p i s o d i c and semantic memory. I n E. T u l v i n g and W. Donaldson (Eds.) O r g a n i z a t i o n o f memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Vipond, D. M i c r o - and macroprocesses i n t e x t comprehension. Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 276-296. Yates, F.A.
The a r t of memory.
Journal o f
London: Rutledge and Kegan, 1966.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING Steen F. Larsen I n s t i t u t e o f Psychology U n i v e r s i t y o f Aarhus 8240 Risskov Denmark
U p d a t i n g o n e ' s knowledge i s necessary t o keep i t c u r r e n t d e s p i t e c o n t i n u o u s changes i n t h e w o r l d . U p d a t i n g i s argued t o be b a s i c t o s u r v i v a l and t o d e v e l o p i n g a knowl e d g e o f h i s t o r i c a l events, i n c l u d i n g o n e ' s p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y . T e x t s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n t r i b u t e t o update knowl e d g e o f t h e w o r l d beyond p e r s o n a l experience, e.g., i n t h e case o f news r e p o r t s . A d i s t i n c t i o n between c o r r e c t i v e u p d a t i n g ( m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c u r r e n c y o f knowledge) and p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g ( m a i n t a i n i n g o u t - o f - d a t e knowl e d g e ) i s proposed and s e v e r a l subtypes a r e o u t l i n e d . I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e process o f u p d a t i n g , a numb e r o f e m p i r i c a l problems a r e p o i n t e d o u t . INTRODUCTION When we r e a d o r l i s t e n t o a t e x t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , we u s u a l l y encounter much i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s new t o us. B u t i t i s seldom t o t a l l y new i n t h e sense t h a t we cannot r e l a t e i t i n any way t o o u r p r e v i o u s knowledge. A p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f r e l a t i o n t o p r e v i o u s knowledge which o c c u r s q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y i s t h a t t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n may s e r v e t o update o u r p r i o r knowl e d g e . T h a t i s , we r e g i s t e r t h e new p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n as r e p r e s e n t i n g a more c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n t h e w o r l d t h a n t h e s i t u a t i o n we a l r e a d y know. The p r e s e n t paper i s concerned w i t h such knowledge u p d a t i n g . The c o g n i t i v e process o f knowledge u p d a t i n g owes i t s e x i s t e n c e t o t h e f a c t t h a t a v a s t number o f phenomena i n t h e w o r l d a r e n o t s t a t i c b u t r a t h e r change o v e r t i m e . The s t u d y o f l e a r n i n g and memory has focused almost e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge a b o u t t h e i n v a r i a n t p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e w o r l d , o r , a t t h e most, knowledge about events t h a t have a l r e a d y been concluded so t h a t no f u r t h e r changes w i l l t a k e p l a c e . I n c o n t r a s t , u p d a t i n g i s concerned w i t h knowledge a b o u t ongoing events i n r e a l t i m e where i t i s a b a s i c problem t h a t o n e ' s knowledge may a t any moment be rendered o u t - o f - d a t e by subsequent events. I t i s my c l a i m t h a t knowledge u p d a t i n g p r o v i d e s a p e r s p e c t i v e on knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n i n g e n e r a l t h a t d i f f e r s f r o m t h e ones t h a t a r e e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n e i t h e r t h e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g t r a d i t i o n o r t h e d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g t r a d i t i o n . T h i s has o n l y been p a r t l y r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e s m a l l h a n d f u l o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s who have d e a l t w i t h d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e concept o f u p d a t i n g .
By way o f i n t r o d u c t i o n , u p d a t i n g may be d e f i n e d as a k i n d o f knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n t h a t serves t h e f u n c t i o n o f keeping t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s knowledge c u r r e n t d e s p i t e c o n t i n u o u s changes i n t h e w o r l d which i s t h e o b j e c t o f 205
206
MEMORY
knowledge. T h i s i m p l i e s f o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e u p d a t i n g process. F i r s t , t h e person must r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t he b e l i e v e s t o r e f l e c t t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i n t h e w o r l d i n some r e s p e c t . Second, he must r e l a t e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t o h i s knowledge o f a p r e v i o u s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w h i c h he r e c o g n i z e s as a p r e c u r s o r o f t h e new one. T h i r d , he must c o r r e c t h i s knowledge f o r t h e changes i n t h e w o r l d t h a t a r e i n d i c a t e d by t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n . F o u r t h , he must d e a l w i t h t h e p i e c e s o f knowledge t h a t a r e no l o n g e r c o n s i d e r e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n ( o u t d a t e d knowledge): Should t h e y be r e t a i n e d -- t h u s r u n n i n g t h e r i s k t h a t t h e y may be confused w i t h c u r r e n t knowledge; o r s h o u l d t h e y be disposed o f - - w i t h t h e r i s k t h a t t h e y m i g h t become u s e f u l on a l a t e r o c c a s i o n ? W i t h t h i s a b s t r a c t t a s k a n a l y s i s i n mind t h e r o l e o f u p d a t i n g i n everyday l i f e , i n p r e v i o u s research, and i n an e c o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s h a l l now be c o n s i d e r e d . I n l a t e r s e c t i o n s , t h e problems o f c o r r e c t i n g p r e v i o u s knowl e d g e and o f r e t a i n i n g o u t - o f - d a t e knowledge w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l , and f i n a l l y an account o f t h e process o f u p d a t i n g w i l l be proposed. CONTEXTS OF UPDATING Everyday knowledge u p d a t i n g The everyday importance o f knowledge u p d a t i n g has been p o i n t e d o u t o n l y a c o u p l e o f t i m e s b e f o r e . Thus, Rand S p i r o (1977) c l a i m e d t h a t u p d a t i n g o f o n e ' s knowledge i s "one o f t h e main reasons i n everyday l i f e f o r r e l a t i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n t o o l d " ( p . 140), b u t he d i d n o t develop t h i s l i n e o f t h o u g h t . R o b e r t B j o r k and h i s a s s o c i a t e s ( B j o r k , 1978; B j o r k & Landauer, 1978) have done t h e most e x t e n s i v e s t u d i e s o f u p d a t i n g . They have g i v e n s e v e r a l examples t o demonstrate t h a t u p d a t i n g i s a common memory t a s k ; e.g., "we need t o remember where we l e f t t h e c a r today, we need t o remember o u r c u r r e n t phone number, and we need t o rememberwhat t h e trump s u i t i s on t h i s r ( B j o r k , 1978, p. 237). B j o r k a l s o c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e d e c i s i v e r o l e o f u p d a t i n g i n many j o b environments, f r o m a i r - t r a f f i c cont r o l l e r s t o s h o r t - o r d e r cooks, where permanent s t o r a g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n would n o t o n l y be u s e l e s s b u t a l s o r i s k t h e danger o f i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , I have argued t h a t u p d a t i n g i s p r o m i n e n t i n some areas where i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y a c q u i r e d f r o m t e x t s (Larsen, Note 1 ) . F o r i n stance, a l l r e s e a r c h e r s a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e problem of keeping t h e i r knowledge o f new e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s and t h e o r e t i c a l developments c u r r e n t . P. more commonly known example, a t l e a s t t o p e o p l e i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l i z e d c o u n t r i e s , i s t h e d a i l y u p d a t i n g o f knowledge o f w o r l d e v e n t s by means o f t h e news s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by papers, r a d i o , t e l e v i s i o n , and so on. A d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h i s i s a v a i l a b l e i n a s t u d y o f memory f o r r e a l - l i f e news (Larsen, Note 2 ) . Among i n f o r m a t i o n i n a r a d i o news b u l l e t i n , news about c u r r e n t events were s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r r e c a l l e d t h a n new f a c t s about past e v e n t s (new "background i n f o r m a t i o n " ) . Thus, a s t r a t e g y t h a t f a v o r e d u p d a t i n g seemed t o be spontaneously employed by t h e s u b j e c t s . Research on knowledge u p d a t i n g These examples suggest t h e b r o a d scope of u p d a t i n g processes i n everyday l i f e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of u p d a t i n g a r e v e r y few, as a r e stud-
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING
207
i e s o f many o t h e r mundane memory t a s k s ( N e i s s e r , 1978). I n t h e c h a p t e r b y Rand S p i r o mentioned above ( S p i r o , 1977), he a s s e r t e d t h a t d i s c o u r s e memory s t u d i e s had i g n o r e d u p d a t i n g b y u s i n g f i c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s so t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s had no p r e v i o u s knowledge a v a i l a b l e t o update. T h i s c r i t i c i s m i s u n d o u b t e d l y c o r r e c t . B u t f r o m a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t o f view, t h e reason t h a t u p d a t i n g has been i g n o r e d b y d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h i s r a t h e r t h a t i n t e r e s t has been focused on p r e v i o u s knowledge o f a g e n e r a l n a t u r e , v a r i o u s l y c a l l e d schemata, frames, s c r i p t s , s t o r y grammars, e t c . (Johnson and Mandler, 1980). Since such knowledge s t r u c t u r e s a r e n o t s p e c i f i c t o any p a r t i c u l a r episode, t h e y cannot be updated by i n f o r m a t i o n about s p e c i f i c events (Larsen, i n p r e s s ) . T h i s does n o t e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f upd a t i n g s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n assigned t o a schema o r s c r i p t , a problem t h a t Schank and Abelson (1977) have t r e a t e d b r i e f l y a s w i l l be shown l a t e r . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g approach, t h e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g t r a d i t i o n has f o r a c e n t u r y been concerned w i t h s p e c i f i c knowledge (accomp a n i e d b y a t o t a l n e g l e c t o f g e n e r a l knowledge). But t h e n o t i o n o f upd a t i n g appears f o r e i g n t o v e r b a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y . F i r s t , because a l l knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n i s conceived as t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f a s s o c i a t i o n s so t h a t o u t - o f - d a t e knowledge cannot be c o r r e c t e d , i t can o n l y be overwhelmed by s t r o n g e r a s s o c i a t i o n s or l a b o r i o u s l y unlearned. Second, because assoc i a t i o n s a r e assumed t o be c o n t e n t - f r e e , t h e temporal o r causal r e l a t i o n s between s u c c e s s i v e events cannot be d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e o r e t i c a l l y f r o m any o t h e r a s s o c i a t i o n s . Moreover, t h e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g t r a d i t i o n has employed a r t i f i c i a l experimental m a t e r i a l s t o a f a r greater extent than the d i s course s t u d i e s c r i t i t i c i z e d by S p i r o (1977). I n s p i t e o f these f a c t s , t h e experiments by B j o r k ' s group, which w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d l a t e r , have f e d on i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m t h e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g approach and i t s i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e o r y o f f o r g e t t i n g . P a r t i c u l a r l y , t h e t h e o r y has drawn a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t o u t d a t e d knowledge niay i n t e r f e r e w i t h memory f o r c u r r e n t i n formation. Ecology o f u p d a t i n g :
C o r r e c t i o n and p r o g r e s s i o n
The main reason f o r t h e n e g l e c t o f u p d a t i n g presumably goes deeper, namely, t h e fundamental s t a t u s o f t h i s conceDt i n knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n has n o t been r e a l i z e d . As i n d i c a t e d above, t h e need f o r knowledge u p d a t i n g a r i s e s f r o m t h e c o n t i n u o u s stream o f changes i n t h e w o r l d around us t h a t i s a b a s i c c o n d i t i o n o f e x i s t e n c e . The o n t o l o g i c a l t h e s i s t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d i s i n c o n t i n u o u s movement goes back a t l e a s t t o t h e Greek p h i l o s o p h e r H e r a c l i t u s about 500 B.C., and i t i s a c o r n e r s t o n e o f d i a l e c t i c m a t e r i a l i s t p h i l o s o p h y ( K r o b e r , 1974). As a consequence, any organism t h a t i n some way s t o r e s knowledge o f t h e w o r l d must f a c e t h e fundamental t a s k o f keeping i t s knowledge i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . I f t h i s t a s k i s i g n o r e d o r f a i l s , t h e knowledge w i l l a f t e r a p e r i o d be inadequate f o r s u p p o r t i n g a c t i o n and t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a c t i o n . We may say t h a t u p d a t i n g i s t h e e c o l o g i c a l l y p r i m a r y f o r m o f knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n , i n t h e sense t h a t t h e s u r v i v a l v a l u e o f knowledge depends d e c i s i v e l y upon keeping i t m a x i m a l l y current. C o r r e c t i v e u p d a t i n g . The t a s k o f u p d a t i n g d e s c r i b e d so f a r may be c a r r i e d o u t s i m p l y by c o r r e c t i n g p i e c e s o f knowledge t h a t a r e r e c o g n i z e d as b e i n g o u t of d a t e . T h a t i s , c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e p l a c e s o u t d a t e d knowledge, w h i c h i s c o m p l e t e l y l o s t or d e l e t e d i n t h e process. An organism t h a t has o n l y t h i s c o r r e c t i v e u p d a t i n g a t i t s d i s p o s a l w i l l know t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e
208
MEMORY
o f t h e w o r l d and n o t h i n g e l s e . Perhaps t h e most p r i m i t i v e case o f correct i v e u p d a t i n g i s seen i n t h e o r i e n t i n g r e f l e x and i t s h a b i t u a t i o n t h a t occurseven i n v e r y p r i m i t i v e animals as a r e a c t i o n t o changes o f stimulus d e t a i l s w i t h i n an o t h e r w i s e c o n s t a n t s i t u a t i o n (Sokolov, 1977). Corrective u p d a t i n g may be s u f f i c i e n t f o r s u r v i v a l i n many cases, n o t o n l y i n p r i m i t i v e a n i m a l s b u t a l s o i n some human t a s k s where i t would be u s e l e s s t o c a r r y around a burden o f p a s t knowledge. R e c a l l , f o r i n s t a n c e , B j o r k ' s example o f remembering where one has l e f t t h e c a r . As B j o r k noted, out-ofd a t e i n f o r m a t i o n m i g h t even cause c o n f u s i o n , o r , i n o t h e r words, i t r e q u i r e s mental c a p a c i t i e s f o r h a n d l i n g i t and keeping i t f r o m i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h ongoing b e h a v i o r . P r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t has obvious advantages f o r s u r v i v a l t o know more t h a n j u s t t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e environment. I n t h e midst o f c o n t i n u a l change, some aspects o f t h e w o r l d a r e r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e , other aspects v a r y i n a l a w f u l way, whereas s t i l l o t h e r s v a r y randomly ( a t l e a s t as f a r as t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a g i v e n organism w i l l a l l o w i t t o p e r c e i v e ) . I f an organism s h a l l be a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e such d i f f e r e n c e s and e v e n t u a l l y t o d e t e c t t h e laws o f change, i t must t o some e x t e n t r e t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s o u t o f d a t e so t h a t p a s t e v e n t s can be compared w i t h c u r r e n t and f u t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n s . When a more or l e s s complete c h a i n o f o u t d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e t a i n e d as antecedents o f t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n , i t c o n s t i t u t e s a c h a r t o f t h e p r o g r e s s i o n o f e v e n t s t h a t has r e s u l t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e . T h e r e f o r e , I propose t h e t e r m p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g f o r cases where c o r r e c t i o n o f changes i s supplemented b y some r e t e n t i o n o f o u t d a t e d pieces o f knowledge. P r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e k i n d o f knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n h a b i t s and s k i l l s . I n such c u m u l a t i v e l e a r n i n g , i n d i v i d u a l e v e n t s b l e n d t o g e t h e r and become i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h e f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o r a p t i t u d e Of t h e organism. I n Jerome B r u n e r ' s (1969) words, t h i s i s "memory w i t h o u t r e c o r d " , whereas t h e p a s t events i n p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g p r e s e r v e a t l e a s t some o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y -- i t i s "memory w i t h r e c o r d " o f i t s circumstances o f a c q u i s i t i o n , a l t h o u g h many o f t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e o r i g i n a l r e c o r d may w e l l be l o s t . Because p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g i n v o l v e s r e t e n t i o n o f s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o g r e s s o f e v e n t s i n time, i t i s a necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r a t t a i n i n g a " h i s t o r i c a l consciousness" i n r e l a t i o n t o c u r r e n t events -t h a t i s , an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e w o r l d has developed. B u t p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r o v i d e t h a t unders t a n d i n g which i n v o l v e s more t h a n j u s t a knowledge o f h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s . A l t h o u g h a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s problem i s beyond t h e p r e s e n t paper, i t w i l l be argued l a t e r t h a t an i m p o r t a n t b e g i n n i n g i s t o c o n s i d e r how t h e outdated i n f o r m a t i o n -- t h e h i s t o r i c a l knowledge -- i s o r g a n i z e d . E p i s o d i c and f a c t u a l u p d a t i n g So f a r , i t has been t a c i t l y assumed t h a t t h e knowledge t o be updated conc e r n s t h e w o r l d o u t s i d e and i s independent o f t h e person. But t h e knowledge p e o p l e have a l s o i n c l u d e s themselves and t h e t h i n g s t h a t t h e y have persona l l y e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e p a s t . Because new e x p e r i e n c e s a r e c o n t i n u o u s l y made and t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e person undergoes c o n t i n u o u s change, updating o f t h i s knowledge must be v e r y i m p o r t a n t . Consider a s i t u a t i o n where new i n f o r m a t i o n i s a c q u i r e d b y d i r e c t experience, w i t h t h e s u b j e c t as an eye-
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING
209
w i t n e s s o r p a r t i c i p a n t . T h i s new i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l b y n e c e s s i t y r e f l e c t a more r e c e n t s i t u a t i o n t h a n any o t h e r known by t h e person. I t may t h e n be used f o r u p d a t i n g i n two r e s p e c t s , depending upon which k i n d o f p r e v i o u s knowledge i t i s r e l a t e d t o . On t h e one hand, i t may update t h e p e r s o n ' s knowledge o f what he has h i m s e l f experienced, h i s a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l o r e p i s o d i c knowledge. T h i s e p i s o d i c u p d a t i n g w i l l keep t h e p e r s o n ' s knowl e d g e o f h i s own d o i n g s c u r r e n t , and i t may add one more b i t t o h i s p e r sonal h i s t o r y , which i s presumably a c o n d i t i o n f o r an i n d i v i d u a l ' s sense o f c o n t i n u i t y i n h i s l i f e . I t w i l l r e s u l t i n knowledge l i k e , f o r i n s t a n c e , "The l a s t novel I r e a d was D o r i s L e s s i n g ' s Memoirs o f a S u r v i v o r " . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e newly e x p e r i e n c e d s i t u a t i o n may a l s o be r e l a t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s knowledge o f events i n t h e w o r l d independent o f h i s experience, t o h i s f a c t u a l and h i s t o r i c a l knowledge ( w h i c h s h o u l d n o t be conf u s e d w i t h h i s g e n e r a l i z e d and c o n c e p t u a l knowledge, o f t e n c a l l e d semantic knowledge ( s e e Larsen, i n p r e s s ) ) . T h i s f a c t u a l u p d a t i n g i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n p u r e f o r m by cases where we know t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e and background o f o u r immediate s u r r o u n d i n g s w i t h o u t remembering t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f a c q u i r i n g t h a t knowledge. However, knowledge a c q u i r e d b y d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e most o f t e n appears t o be coded b o t h e p i s o d i c a l l y and f a c t u a l l y . B u t f a c t o r s l i k e p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t , a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e events, and f u n c t i o n a l importance o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l changes p r o b a b l y i n f l u e n c e b o t h c o d i n g and retention. O f course, we a l s o a c q u i r e knowledge t h a t r e p r e s e n t s permanent qua1 i t i e s o f t h e w o r l d , o r i s m i s t a k e n l y t h o u g h t t o do so. Such knowledge cannot be used f o r f a c t u a l u p d a t i n g , a l t h o u g h t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f a c q u i r i n g i t may update one's e p i s o d i c knowledge. Hence, you do n o t update y o u r knowledge o f French each t i m e you l e a r n a new word ( u n l e s s y o u s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e t h a t t h e word has come i n use r e c e n t l y ) ; r a t h e r y o u r knowledge of French i s i n c r e a s e d . I n o t h e r words, becoming w i s e r i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y an i n s t a n c e o f u p d a t i n g .
The problems o f a c q u i r i n g a p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y have a l m o s t never been s t u d i e d ( b u t see L i n t o n , 1978); b u t i t i s suggested t h a t t h e concept o f e p i s o d i c u p d a t i n g w i l l be a u s e f u l p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e i n t h i s endeavour. P r e s e n t l y , we s h a l l f o c u s on f a c t u a l u p d a t i n g , however. Updating i n t e x t processing I n some r e s p e c t s , u p d a t i n g f r o m t e x t s p r e s e n t s more c o m p l i c a t e d problems t h a n u p d a t i n g f r o m d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e . The g e n e r a l i s s u e o f l e a r n i n g by e x p e r i e n c e versus l e a r n i n g a t second hand has a l o n g h i s t o r y i n p h i l o s o p h y , b u t i t has r a r e l y been c o n s i d e r e d i n c o g n i t i v e psychology as N e i s s e r n o t e d i n t h e l a s t paragraph o f h i s 1976 book. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f knowledge u p d a t i n g , t h e r e a r e two fundamental problems. F i r s t , knowledge o b t a i n e d f r o m a t e x t i s never c u r r e n t i n a s t r i c t sense. Even i n t h e news media t h e t e x t has t o be prepared some t i m e a f t e r t h e events d e s c r i b e d and some t i m e b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n . The concept o f u p d a t i n g would l o s e i t s p r e c i s i o n , if t h e c u r r e n c y c r i t e r i o n was g i v e n up so t h a t any a c q u i s i t i o n o f t i m e - r e f e r e n c e d i n f o r m a t i o n was counted as u p d a t i n g (e.g., l e a r n i n g new d e t a i l s a b o u t Napoleon's d e a t h does n o t update y o u r knowledge). To s o l v e t h i s c u r r e n c y problem, t h e s u b j e c t ' s c o n d i t i o n s o f knowing must be t a k e n i n t o account, r e q u i r i n g o n l y t h a t t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d r e p r e s e n t t h e n e a r e s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n which
210
MEMORY
i s a v a i l a b l e t o him. Thus, even though t h e s u b j e c t may be aware t h a t the s i t u a t i o n has p r o b a b l y changed a l r e a d y , he may c o n s i d e r t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h e b e s t p i c t u r e o f t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s t h a t he can get w i t h t h e e f f o r t he i s w i l l i n g t o spend. The second problem w i t h u p d a t i n g f r o m t e x t s concerns w h i c h a r e a o f knowl e d g e i s t o be updated. A t e x t n o t o n l y p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e s i t u a t i o n i t d e s c r i b e s ( i t s r e f e r e n c e ) , b u t a l s o more o r l e s s e x p l i c i t l y bears e v i d e n c e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which i t was produced (e.g., who a u t h o r e d i t , under what c o n d i t i o n s , f o r what r e a s o n s ) . T h i s i s c l e a r l y seen i n news and s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t s . F o r i n s t a n c e , a t r e a t i s e on Napoleon i n 1814 may have been produced i n 1980, and a news s t o r y w r i t t e n i n New York y e s t e r d a y may d e s c r i b e e v e n t s i n I r a n t h e day b e f o r e . Therefore, the s u b j e c t may update e i t h e r h i s knowledge o f t h e s i t u a t i o n o f r e f e r e n c e o r h i s knowledge o f t h e s i t u a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n ( o r b o t h ) , depending upon what p r e v i o u s knowledge he has a c c e s s i b l e and t a k e s an i n t e r e s t i n keeping upto-da t e . I n t h e case o f a s c i e n t i f i c t e x t , t h e s i t u a t i o n o f r e f e r e n c e i s t h e o b j e c t t h a t i s s t u d i e d . T h i s i s u s u a l l y n o t time-dependent. Consequently, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d does n o t update t h e s u b j e c t ' s knowledge, b u t r a t h e r i n c r e a s s o r r e v i s a i t . The s i t u a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s an e v e n t i n t h e development o f t h e s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e concerned. Hence, i f t h e s u b j e c t views t h e t e x t as r e p r e s e n t i n g c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g i n t h e f i e l d more a c c u r a t e l y t h a n h i s p r e v i o u s knowledge, i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e t e x t may be used t o update h i s knowledge o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o g r e s s and p r e s e n t s t a t e o f s c i e n c e . Note t h a t t h i s u p d a t i n g does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l y a b e l i e f i n t h e v e r i d i c a l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , which i s an i s s u e belonging t o t h e sphere o f r e f e r e n c e o f t h e t e x t . The s u b j e c t may w e l l b e l i e v e the new " f a c t s " o r t h e o r i e s t o be wrong; o n l y t h e most naCve o r o p t i m i s t i c r e s e a r c h e r w i l l r e g a r d t h e l a t e s t i n s c i e n c e as b e i n g i p s 0 f a c t o t h e best. I t i s p r e c i s e l y t o d i s t i n g u i s h s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h f r o m s c i e n t i f i c news t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e and p r o d u c t i o n aspects o f a t e x t s h o u l d be k e p t a p a r t . News r e p o r t s i n some way i l l u s t r a t e t h e o p p o s i t e o f s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t s . News i s consumed t o update knowledge o f t h e w o r l d , n o t t o i n c r e a s e i t i n any s u b s t a n t i v e sense. (Sometimes t h e purpose i s o n l y t o ensure t h a t n o t h i n g i m p o r t a n t has happened, b u t even then, sc-cal l e d background mater i a l s may i m p a r t an i n c r e a s e d knowledge t o t h e p u b l i c ) . Thus, a l t h o u g h the r e f e r e n t s o f t h e news s t o r i e s u s u a l l y dominate i n p e o p l e ' s minds, t h e p r o d u c t i o n a s p e c t o f t h e t e x t may o c c a s i o n a l l y a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n . I f we assume t h e a t t i t u d e o f a news e d i t o r , we r e l a t e t h e r e p o r t t o p r e v i o u s knowledge a b o u t j o u r n a l i s t s , news agencies, p o s s i b l e purposes o f manipul a t i o n , t h e debate on "freedom o f i n f o r m a t i o n " , e t c . T h i s knowledge may t h e n be updated i n s t e a d o f ( o r s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h ) knowledge concerning t h e r e f e r e n t s . F o r i n s t a n c e , y o u r r e a c t i o n t o a t e l e g r a m f r o m t h e French p r e s s agency AFP i n Teheran m i g h t be, "Well, I t h o u g h t t h a t t h e French had l e f t I r a n s e v e r a l months ago, b u t t h a t i s a p p a r e n t l y n o t so". F i n a l l y , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o f r e a d i n g o r l i s t e n i n g t o a t e x t may update t h e s u b j e c t ' s e p i s o d i c knowledge, h i s autob i o g r a p h y , j u s t l i k e any o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e may do. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y t o happen i f t h e t e x t r e f e r s t o events t o which t h e s u b j e c t attaches deep p e r s o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . A famous example i s t h a t many people seem t o remember t h e i r r e a c t i o n and what t h e y were d o i n g when t h e y r e c e i v e d news o f P r e s i d e n t Kennedy's a s s a s s i n a t i o n (Greenberg, 1964). A l s o , i t i s a common
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING
21 1
and f r u s t r a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e t o r e c a l l when and where one has r e a d a paper a t t h e expense o f r e c a l l i n g i t s c o n t e n t s . V A R I E T I E S OF UPDATING C o r r e c t i v e u D d a t i na The u p d a t i n g process w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l , b e g i n n i n g w i t h an a t t e m p t t o e x p l i c a t e t h e two aspects o f u p d a t i n g t h a t were i n t r o d u c e d above, c o r r e c t i o n and p r o g r e s s i o n . Some n o t i o n s t o t h i s end may be d e r i v e d from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . One of t h e programs t h a t Schank and Abelson (1977) w r o t e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r theory o f s c r i p t s incorporated f a c i l i t i e s f o r c o r r e c t i v e updating. This program -- c a l l e d FRUMP f o r F a s t Reading Understanding and Memory Program -- was designed f o r skimming newspaper a r t i c l e s d e a l i n g w i t h c e r t a i n t y p e s o f news e v e n t s f o r which t h e program was equipped w i t h schematic knowledge, s o - c a l l e d " s k e t c h y s c r i p t s " . The s c r i p t s had open s l o t s f o r some o f t h e v a r i a b l e s o f t h e news s t o r i e s . F o r example, t h e s c r i p t f o r v e h i c l e a c c i dents had s i x s l o t s : t y p e o f v e h i c l e , o b j e c t o f c o l l i s i o n , g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n , number o f deaths, number i n j u r e d , and a l l o c a t i o n o f f a u l t . When FRUMP encounters a newspaper a r t i c l e t h a t i s i d e n t i f i e d as d e s c r i b i n g a v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t , t h i s s c r i p t i s i n s t a n t i a t e d and FRUMP t h e n searches f o r and r e t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t f i t s i n t o t h e s l o t s , whereas e v e r y t h i n g e l s e i s ignored. The d e c i s i v e p o i n t i s t h a t FRUMP i s a l s o a b l e t o update t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i t has g a t h e r e d i f i t i s l a t e r p r e s e n t e d w i t h a n o t h e r news s t o r y about t h e same event. Two t y p e s o f u p d a t i n g c o r r e c t i o n s a r e p o s s i b l e . F i r s t , i f a s l o t had n o t been f i l l e d because o f m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e f i r s t s t o r y , a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e second s t o r y i s s i m p l y i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e s l o t . Second, i f t h e more r e c e n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e second s t o r y d i f f e r s from t h e p r e v i o u s knowledge o b t a i n e d from t h e f i r s t one, t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n i s s u b s t i t u t e d i n t o t h e s l o t , t h u s e r a s i n g t h e o l d s l o t value. FRUMP i l l u s t r a t e s t h e approach o f schematic d i s c o u r s e t h e o r i e s v e r y c l e a r l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e g e n e r a l knowledge o f t h e s c r i p t i s n o t a f f e c t e d , o n l y t h e s p e c i f i c knowledge assigned t o t h e v a r i a b l e s i n t h e s c r i p t i s updated. To what e x t e n t FRUMP s i m u l a t e s human performance has n o t been i n v e s t i g a t e d . B u t f r o m t h e p r e s e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s a r e o b v i o u s . S i n c e t h e open s c r i p t v a r i a b l e s have t o be determined i n advance, FRUMP cannot r e t a i n a n y t h i n g unusual as humans a r e a p t t o do. T h i s drawback m i g h t b e overcome b y p r o v i d i n g f o r a t h i r d t y p e o f c o r r e c t i o n s , namely a d d i t i o n o f new v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e d by t h e r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, such a mechanism would c r e a t e f u r t h e r problems c o n c e r n i n g procedures f o r l i m i t i n g t h e number o f v a r i a b l e s , and so on. Furthermore, t h e k i n d o f s t o r i e s t h a t FRUMP can process a r e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f events t h a t a r e i n s t a n t a n e o u s , so t o speak -- t h e y happen i n a moment and a r e f i n i s h e d when t h e s t o r y i s r e c e i v e d . T h e r e f o r e , no subsequent events have t o be accomodated l a t e r . Only c o r r e c t i o n s o r c o m p l e t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n a l information a r e possible. I t i s n o t c l e a r how FRUMP s h o u l d be m o d i f i e d t o d e a l w i t h t h e l o n g c h a i n s of events t h a t a r e f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e news -- sometimes v e r y l o n g ones indeed, l i k e t h e M i d d l e E a s t peace negot i a t i o n s . A t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , namely t h a t FRUMP a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e l e t e s o u t d a t e d s l o t values, j u s t l i k e o r d i n a r y computer memo-
21 2
MEMORY
r i e s do. T h i s i s a most s e r i o u s shortcoming, as t h e n e x t s e c t i o n w i l l c o n f i r m ; a l t h o u g h p e o p l e o f t e n seem t o have s h o r t memories, t o t a l erasure o f knowledge o f t h e p a s t i s t o o r a d i c a l . On t h e assumption t h a t s c r i p t s ( o r s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r e s ) a r e adequate f o r d e s c r i b i n g knowledge o f events, t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s o f u p d a t i n g c o r r e c t i o n s have t h u s f a r emerged: ( 1 ) No change o f o l d s l o t v a l u e . ( 2 ) I n s e r t i o n o f v a l u e i n empty s l o t . ( 3 ) S u b s t i t u t i o n o f new v a l u e f o r o l d v a l u e . ( 4 ) A d d i t i o n o f new v a r i a b l e t o a c c e p t unexpected v a l u e . I t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e t h a t more e x t e n s i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f p r e v i o u s knowledge a r e sometimes necessary. Imagine, f o r i n s t a n c e , y o u r r e a c t i o n t o t h e news t h a t A y a t o l l a h Khomeini had d e c l a r e d h i m s e l f a S o v i e t agent. Such changes may i n v o l v e c o r r e c t i o n s o f knowledge s t r e t c h i n g f a r i n t o t h e past and t h u s o v e r l a p w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f p r o g r e s s i v e u p d a t i n g . T h i s concept w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n , b e f o r e s p e c u l a t i n g on t h e processing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t types o f corrections.
Progressive updating The problems o f p r o g r e s s i o n i n u p d a t i n g have been e x p l o r e d by Robert Bjork and h i s c o l l a b o r a t o r s . S t a r t i n g f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e v e r b a l learni n g t r a d i t i o n , t h e i r methodology was a v a r i a n t o f t h e s t a n d a r d p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e paradigm. I n one experiment ( B j o r k & Landauer, 1978) t h e mater i a l s were l i s t s o f p a i r e d names, one male and one female. The p a i r s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t s as t h e names o f persons who were m a r r i e d t o each o t h e r (A + B), d i v o r c e d (A - B), perhaps r e m a r r i e d (A + C), and so on. Through d i f f e r e n t sequences o f s h i f t i n g p a r t n e r s h i p s , i t was t h e s u b j e c t s ' t a s k t o remember t h e f i n a l m a r i t a l s t a t u s and t h e name o f t h e spouse o f each " s t i m u l u s person" i n v o l v e d ( i . e . , t h e A names). The r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e name o f a f o r m e r spouse was v e r y o f t e n g i v e n i n s t e a d o f t h e corr e c t , " c u r r e n t " one. Thus, o u t d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t erased as i m p l i e d by t h e FRUMP model o f c o r r e c t i v e u p d a t i n g . Rather, i t competed w i t h the c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n and seemed t o w i n t h e b a t t l e as o f t e n as n o t . I n both cases, t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l was low, however. Another experiment ( B j o r k and McClure, c i t e d i n B j o r k , 1978) was concerned w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f o u t d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . The m a t e r i a l s were p a i r s o f u n r e l a t e d nouns w i t h c o n s t a n t l y changing response terms ( t h e A-B, A-C, A-D, . . paradigm). O r g a n i z a t i o n was m a n i p u l a t e d by i n s t r u c t i n g t h e s u b j e c t s t o use t h r e e d i f f e r e n t encoding s t r a t e g i e s . B j o r k & McClure found t h a t the encoding s t r a t e g i e s d i f f e r e d i n t h e degree t o which t h e y f a v o r e d r e c a l l o f t h e l a s t response terms ( i . e . , t h e c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ) as w e l l as r e c a l l of e a r l i e r ( o u t d a t e d ) responses. However, one s t r a t e g y y i e l d e d b e t t e r r e c a l l o f b o t h c u r r e n t and o u t d a t e d responses t h a n any o t h e r , namely, a soc a l l e d s t r u c t u r a l u p d a t i n g s t r a t e g y where t h e s u b j e c t s were asked t o cons t r u c t a s i m p l e s t o r y , s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e s t i m u l u s word and i n c l u d i n g each new response word i n a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e s t o r y l i n e . B j o r k assumed t h a t t h e encoding o f s u c c e s s i v e new words w i t h t h e s t o r y as a n o r g a n i z i n g s t r u c t u r e had p r e s e r v e d i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e o r d e r o f t h e words, t h u s s p e c i f y i n g w h i c h word was t h e most r e c e n t one. However, he d i d n o t attempt t o propose a t h e o r y o f t h e phenomena o f u p d a t i n g , b u t r a t h e r viewed t h e r e s u l t s as a c h a l l e n g e t o i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e o r y .
.
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING IN TEXT PROCESSING
213
Conclusions from these s t u d i e s must be cautious since the materials and procedures were very f a r from everyday updating. In p a r t i c u l a r , the use of unrelated words and names f a c i l i t a t e d confusions; the s t o r y l i n e s were t o t a l l y uncontrolled, s u b j e c t i v e constructions instead of being based in the o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e of the m a t e r i a l s ; and the information could not be r e l a t e d t o o t h e r events experienced concurrently in the s u b j e c t s ' normal course of l i f e . Nevertheless, i t i s apparent t h a t the way out-of-date knowledge i s organized has a g r e a t impact on memory and may d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t retention of c u r r e n t and past information. From o t h e r research, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the construction of a coherent s t o r y i s an especi a l l y powerful tool f o r remembering. Several o t h e r ways of organizing temporally s p e c i f i e d information a r e suggested by common experience, however. I propose t h a t t h r e e principal types be distinguished: ( 1 ) Unordered: The knowledge items t h a t have been replaced by more recent ones a r e retained as a mere c o l l e c t i o n without internal ordering. An everyday example i s when people t a l k about "the good old days" and mix together happy memories from any period in t h e i r past. ( 2 ) Successive: The outdated pieces of knowledge a r e ordered in a fixed sequence b u t a r e otherwise not connected. The sequence may o r may n o t be s p e c i f i e d in r e l a t i o n t o calendar time. Historical events t h a t a r e remembered merely by the year they happened may serve as an example. ( 3 ) S t r u c t u r a l : The outdated knowledge i s incorporated i n t o a s t r u c t u r e of r e l a t i o n s , a causal o r intentional chain of antecedent and consequent events, e . g . , a coherent s t o r y . The s t r u c t u r e may be hierarchi c a l t o a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r e x t e n t , involving higher-order r e l a t i o n s . I should be evident t h a t these types of organization cannot be equally e f f e c t i v e i n terms of e i t h e r retention of past knowledge o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from c u r r e n t information. Consider, f o r instance, knowledge of the exchange r a t e of t h e US d o l l a r . If past r a t e s were t o t a l l y unordered, one could perhaps remember the top and bottom r a t e s from recent years, b u t not the movements of t h e r a t e ; s t i l l , the magnitude of the current r a t e might be reasonably well r e c a l l e d . I n case of successive organization, the p a t t e r n s of movement should be known, l i k e in a graph, perhaps even specif i e d in time; most of us presumably have a rough p i c t u r e of t h i s kind covering t h e l a s t 5-10 y e a r s . A s t r u c t u r a l organization might in addition include p r i n c i p l e s o r reasons t o account f o r t h e movements, f o r example, t h a t a drop i n the r a t e resulted when the USA l e f t the gold standard a b o u t 1970, and t h a t t h e present, high exchange r a t e i s caused by a high r a t e of i n t e r e s t i n t h e S t a t e s . Again, many people may have such i s o l a t e d s t r u c t u r a l organizers, whereas only bankers and businessmen a r e l i k e l y t o possess a t i g h t e r s t r u c t u r e , a hierarchical s c r i p t . This example i l l u s t r a t e s a number of issues raised by the concept of progressive updating. How s e l e c t i v e i s r e t e n t i o n ? What i s s e l e c t e d ? How i s a r e l a t i o n t o calendar time established? What i s the r e l a t i o n between such factual knowledge of the p a s t and the person's autobiographical knowledge? What means may be used f o r s t r u c t u r a l organization and how a r e they acquired? Instead of pursuing these questions, the next section will give a general o u t l i n e of the process of updating and suggest some p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r empirical research.
M EM0R Y
21 4 THE PROCESS
OF UPDATING
Automatic and c o n t r o l l e d u p d a t i n g The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n i m p l i e s t h a t t h e occurrence o f u p d a t i n g i s t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t dependent upon t h e s u b j e c t ' s p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e informat i o n o b t a i n e d . T h i s was s o b o t h i n r e g a r d t o how t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n was r e l a t e d t o p r i o r knowledge and w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n c y of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . The q u e s t i o n t h e n a r i s e s whether updating i s c a r r i e d o u t a u t o m a t i c a l l y as a p r i m i t i v e r o u t i n e o f t h e c o g n i t i v e system, o r whether i t i s a s p e c i a l s t r a t e g y c o n t r o l l e d by h i g h e r - o r d e r , e x e c u t i v e processes ( S h i f f r i n and Schneider, 1977). The s t u d i e s by Schank and Abelson (1977) and by B j o r k (1978) appear t o i m p l y t h a t u p d a t i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y a u t o m a t i c , a l t h o u g h B j o r k acknowledges t h a t i t may be i n f l u e n c e d by r e h e a r s a l and encoding s t r a t e g i e s . On t h e o t h e r hand, i n a conference d i s c u s s i o n S p i r o and Meyer (1977; see a l s o Meyer, 1977) agreed t h a t upd a t i n g was a s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g s t r a t e g y , i n c o n t r a s t t o r e a d i n g f o r complete comprehension and memory; b u t t h e y d i s a g r e e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e s t r a t e g i e s i n everyday l i f e . Whereas Meyer c l a i m e d t h a t u p d a t i n g was r e s t r i c t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s when a r e a d e r skims a t e x t , S p i r o m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e u p d a t i n g s t r a t e g y i s t y p i c a l o f everyday r e a d i n g . I n t h e more p r e c i s e sense o f u p d a t i n g t h a t i s used here, t h e i s s u e i s l e s s c l e a r c u t . E p i s o d i c u p d a t i n g would seem t o be o r d i n a r i l y an a u t o m a t i c process. We seldom t u r n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f o u r p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y i n t o an i n t e n t i o n a l p r o j e c t , t h i n k i n g something l i k e , " T h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t event i n my l i f e , I must remember i t by any means"; b u t i n s i t u a t i o n s o f major d e c i s i o n s o r c r i s e s i t may, o f course, happen. S i m i l a r l y , much o f our f a c t u a l u p d a t i n g appears t o be a u t o m a t i c , perhaps on a v e r y l o w l e v e l o f c o n t r o l as suggested by t h e mechanism o f h a b i t u a t i o n and by t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y v a l u e o f keeping t r a c k o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l changes ( c f . above). Since progressive updating i s considered l e s s p r i m i t i v e than pure correction, t h i s argument a l s o i m p l i e s t h a t t h e f o r m e r i s more a c c e s s i b l e t o , and more dependent on, i n t e n t i o n a l c o n t r o l t h a n t h e l a t t e r . I n t e x t p r o c e s s i n g t h e case may be somewhat d i f f e r e n t . T e x t processing i s an a c t i v i t y t h a t i s p u r e l y concerned w i t h t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f knowledge, and t h e r e f o r e t h e p e r s o n ' s purposes i n r e l a t i o n t o knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n a r e n o t obscured b y t h e p r a c t i c a l g o a l s t h a t u s u a l l y c o n t r o l o u r dealings w i t h t h e n o n - t e x t u a l environment. News, s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t s , and o t h e r k i n d s of documentary t e x t s p r e s e n t c l e a r examples o f t e x t p r o c e s s i n g t h a t a r e o f t e n c o n t r o l l e d by an i n t e n t i o n a l u p d a t i n g s t r a t e g y - - a w i s h t o know what i s new. O f course, even such t e x t s may be processed d i f f e r e n t l y , f o r i n s t a n c e t o e n t e r t a i n , i n which case u p d a t i n g i s r e l e g a t e d t o an i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t of t h e main a c i t i v i t y . F i c t i o n a l t e x t s r e a d p r i m a r i l y f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n a s i m i l a r way; b u t t h e e n t i r e problem o f f i c t i o n a l versus n o n - f i c t i o n a l t e x t p r o c e s s i n g i s l a r g e l y unexplored. Three components o f t h e u p d a t i n g process I t would be premature t o propose a t h e o r y of u p d a t i n g . However, updating must be c o n s i d e r e d j u s t one o f t h e many t a s k s t h e human c o g n i t i v e system i s a b l e t o p e r f o r m . T h e r e f o r e , t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f such a t h e o r y should be comgatiible w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d c o g n i t i v e t h e o r i e s . With t h i s c o n s t r a i n t i n mind, t h e main components o f t h e u p d a t i n g process may be o u t l i n e d as three phases t h a t a r e c y c l i c a l l y r e l a t e d :
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING
21 5
R e c o g n i t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s between t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n and r e l e v a n t p r e v i o u s knowledge. ( 2 ) Coding o f a p p r o p r i a t e c o r r e c t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f knowledge of t h e progression o f events. ( 3 ) R e t e n t i o n o f c u r r e n t as w e l l as p a s t knowledge. The second phase comprises u p d a t i n g p r o p e r and i s assumed t o be t h e h e a r t o f t h e process, i n accordance w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f encoding s p e c i f i c i t y ( T u l v i n g and Thornson, 1973). (1)
R e c o g n i t i o n . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f u p d a t i n g , r e c o g n i t i o n concerns how t h e s u b j e c t evokes t h o s e p a r t s o f h i s p r e v i o u s knowledge which may be updated by t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s i s a problem o f a c c e s s i n g and r e t r i e v i n g knowledge, where q u e s t i o n s may be asked about t h e c o n d i t i o n s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f d i f f e r e n t areas o f a s u b j e c t ' s knowledge (e.g.. r e cency, o r g a n i z a t i o n , f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e ) . Also, c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s i n t h e new message a r e presumably used as i n d e x v a r i a b l e s t o g a i n access t o t h e p e r t i n e n t knowledge, t h u s p o s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n whether d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s a r e e q u a l l y e f f i c i e n t . I t may be, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n s and p r o m i n e n t persons a r e good cues because t h e y a r e f a m i l i a r ones; on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e y may be bad cues because t h e f a m i l i a r i t y means t h a t t h e y a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h many d i v e r s e knowledge i t e m s . A s i m i l a r problem has been i n v e s t i g a t e d b y Reder and Anderson (1930). So f a r , r e c o g n i t i o n has been d e s c r i b e d as a bottom-up, d a t a - d r i v e n process (Norman and Bobrow,1975). T h i s may c o v e r i n c i d e n t a l u p d a t i n g . But i n cases o f i n t e n t i o n a l u p d a t i n g , e x p e c t a t i o n s d e r i v e d f r o m p r i o r knowledge must be assumed t o d i r e c t an a c t i v e search f o r m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , consequences o f events, e t c . , t o s a t i s f y open v a r i a b l e s i n t h e p r e v i o u s knowledge s t r u c t u r e . A top-down o r c o n c e p t u a l l y d r i v e n model w i l l f i t t h i s process more c l o s e l y , t h u s t u r n i n g t h e problem o f a c c e s s i n g p r e v i o u s knowledge i n t o one o f t u n i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e system t o be s e n s i t i v e t o u p d a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Coding. The two aspects o f u p d a t i n g which were d i s t i n g u i s h e d e a r l i e r , c o r r e c t i o n and p r o g r e s s i o n , may be viewed as processes o f coding t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n . C o r r e c t i o n c o n s i s t s i n c o d i n g t h e changes t h a t have occurred, p r o g r e s s i o n i n c o d i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e s u b j e c t ' s p r i o r body o f knowledge about t h e event. Three t y p e s o f c o r r e c t i o n s were n o t e d i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f Schank and Abels o n ' s (1977) FRUMP program, s u b s t i t u t i o n and i n s e r t i o n o f new values, and a d d i t i o n o f new v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e d b y t h e i n p u t . Besides, a p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o d i n g "no change" was i n c l u d e d , e.g., t o account f o r t h e f r e q u e n t experi e n c e t h a t t h e r e was " n o t h i n g new" i n t h e news ( i - e . , a t l e a s t n o t h i n g w o r t h n o t i n g ) . Among t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o s t u d y whether t h e d i f f e r e n t c o r r e c t i o n s a r e made e q u a l l y r e a d i l y . F o r i n s t a n c e , a d d i t i o n o f new v a r i a b l e s would seem t o r e q u i r e more p r o c e s s i n g r e s o u r c e s t h a n t h e o t h e r t h r e e because i t i n v o l v e s changes i n t h e g e n e r a l framework ( s c r i p t ) a p p l i e d t o t h e event. Again, s u b s t i t u t i o n should r e q u i r e more e x t e n s i v e p r o c e s s i n g t h a n t h e r e m a i n i n g two because t h e o u t d a t e d s l o t v a l u e must be d e a l t w i t h . P r o g r e s s i o n -- t h e c o d i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p r i o r knowledge and i t s r e l a t i o n t o new i n f o r m a t i o n -- was c l a s s i f i e d i n t o unordered, successive, and s t r u c t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n . S t u d i e s o f news memory (e.g., F i n d a h l and H o i j e r , 1975) have suggested t h a t unordered p r o g r e s s i o n i s v e r y common, b u t t h e e x a c t c o n d i t i o n s p r o m o t i n g t h e use o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e p o o r l y understood. On t h e assumption t h a t people always a t t e m p t t o p e r -
21 6
MEMORY
c e i v e some meaning i n events i n terms o f p r e v i o u s l y known s c r i p t s , i t may be p r o f i t a b l e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e k i n d s o f s c r i p t s p e o p l e a p p l y -- and what s c r i p t s a r e a v a i l a b l e a t a l l . As an example, people o f t e n seem t o i n t e r p r e t s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l events i n terms o f t h e whims and m o t i v e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a c t o r s . I f such s c r i p t s d e r i v e d f r o m p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n are a p p l i e d , t h e person w i l l presumably miss t h e h i g h e r - o r d e r , p o l i t i c a l and economic reasons t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e long-range s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e events; t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f r e l a t e d episodes w i l l t e n d t o be reduced t o unordered c u r i o s i t i e s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e VIP's who a r e i n v o l v e d . To s t u d y these problems, one m i g h t examine t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e s u b j e c t s concerning succeeding i n f o r m a t i o n , e i t h e r by a procedure o f g e n e r a t i o n o r by r e a c t i o n t i m e measures. R e t e n t i o n . O f course, r e t e n t i o n o f b o t h c u r r e n t and o u t d a t e d knowledge must depend upon t h e c o d i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f knowledge. A c c o r d i n g t o common sense as w e l l as t h e e x t e n s i v e e m p i r i c a l evidence f r o m r e s e a r c h on memory, unordered, successive, and s t r u c t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n may be assumed t o enhance r e t e n t i o n w i t h i n c r e a s i n g p r o b a b i l i t i e s . When e r r o r s o f r e t e n t i o n o c c u r we may g a i n some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o g r e s s i v e organi z a t i o n . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f t h e c u r r e n t v a l u e o f some v a r i a b l e i s f o r g o t t e n w i t h o u t any awareness on t h e p a r t o f t h e s u b j e c t , t h i s w i l l suggest an unordered p r o g r e s s i o n t h a t cannot s p e c i f y t h e p o i n t wtiere a p i e c e o f knowl e d g e i s m i s s i n g . I n t r u s i o n s o f o u t d a t e d knowledge s h o u l d be p a r t i c u l a r l y r e v e a l i n g o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n employed. One o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h e concept o f u p d a t i n g concerns how t h e c o n c r e t e d e t a i l s o f day-to-day u p d a t i n g become i n t e g r a t e d t o f o r m a more g e n e r a l view o f what has happened d u r i n g a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e . I n t h e o r y , s c r i p t s o f a v e r y h i g h o r d e r may be invoked t o account f o r t h i s development o f a knowledge o f contemporary h i s t o r y . The process appears v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o i n v e s t i g a t e because o f i t s l o n g range and t h e m u l t i t u d e o f i m p r e s s i o n s t h a t may c o n t r i b u t e t o i t . N e i s s e r ' s (1981) i n g e n i o u s s t u d y o f John Dean's memory may be seen as an example o f a viable approach, b u t such cases a r e v e r y uncommon. An i n t r i g u i n g problem i n t h i s c o n t e x t i s t h e r e v i s i o n s o f knowledge t h a t may o c c u r when a course o f events i s l a t e r r e f l e c t e d upon. Such r e f l e c t i o n i s p r o b a b l y done by most p e o p l e now and then, and i t i s v e r y common around t h e t u r n o f a y e a r o r a decade, when numerous comments i n t h e media o f f e r views t h a t may serve the i n d i v i d u a l as models f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g h i s own experience. A f i n a l n o t e about methods Many o f t h e q u e s t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h t h a t have been suggested i n t h e present paper s h o u l d be q u i t e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t o s t u d y b y a d a p t i n g e s t a b l i s h e d I t i s an easy s t e p t o d e v i s e m a t e r i a l s t h a t a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y methodology. r e a l i s t i c , and t o p r e s e n t i t s u c c e s s i v e l y so t h a t t h e g r a d u a l process o f b u i l d i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e events d e s c r i b e d can be examined. I n t e r m i t t e n t t e s t s o f t h e s t a t e o f knowledge a t t a i n e d by t h e s u b j e c t ( f r e e r e c a l l , f o r c e d c h o i c e , r e a c t i o n t i m e ) and c o n c u r r e n t measurement o f reading t i m e w i l l be u s e f u l methods i n t h i s e f f o r t .
KNOWLEDGE UPDATING I N TEXT PROCESSING
REFERENCE 1.
2.
21 7
NOTES
Larsen, S.F. Memory f o r r a d i o news: Discourse s t r u c t u r e and knowledge u p d a t i n g ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports Aarhus, Vol. 5, No. 1 ) . Aarhus: U n i v e r s i t y o f Aarhus, I n s t i t u t e o f Psychology, 1980. Larsen, S.F. T e x t p r o c e s s i n g and knowledge u p d a t i n g i n memory f o r r a d i o news. M a n u s c r i p t s u b m i t t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n , 1981.
REFERENCES
In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The The u p d a t i n g o f human memory. Bjork, R.A. psychology o f l e a r n i n g and m o t i v a t i o n ( V o l . 1 2 ) . New York: X a d e m i c Press, 1 9 / 8 . B j o r k , R.A. and Landauer, T.K. On keeping t r a c k o f t h e p r e s e n t s t a t u s of people and t h i n g s . I n M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. M o r r i s and R.N. Sykes ( E d s . ) . P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory. New York: Academic Press, 1978. The Bruner, J.S. M o d a l i t i e s o f memory. I n G.A. T a l l a n d and N. Waugh (Eds.). -_ p a t h o l o g y o f memory. New York: Academic Press, 1969. F i n d a h l , 0. and H o i j e r , B. E f f e c t o f a d d i t i o n a l v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n on r e t e n t i o n o f a r a d i o news program. J o u r n a l i s m Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 52, 493498. Greenberg, B.S. D i f f u s i o n o f news o f t h e Kennedy a s s a s s i n a t i o n . ___ Public O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1964, 28, 225-232. Johnson, N.S. and Mandler, J.MTA t a l e o f two s t r u c t u r e s : U n d e r l y i n g and s u r f a c e forms i n s t o r i e s . P o e t i c s , 1980, 9, 51-86. Krober, G. Bewegung. I n G. Klaus and M. Buhr ( r d s . ) . P h i l o s o p h i s c h e s Wort e r b u c h ( V o l . 1, 1 0 t h e d . ) . L e i p z i g : VEB B i b l i o g r a p h i s c h e s I n s t i t u t , 1974. Larsen, S.F. S p e c i f i c background knowledge and knowledge u p d a t i n g . In J . Allwood and E. H j e l m q v i s t (Eds.). Foregrounding background. Stockholm: Doxa, i n p r e s s . L i n t o n , M. Real w o r l d memory a f t e r s i x y e a r s : An i n v i v o s t u d y o f v e r y l o n g t e r m memory. I n M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. M o r r i s and R.N. Sykes (Eds.). P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Meyef, B.J.F. What i s remembered f r o m prose: A f u n c t i o n o f passage s t r u c t u r e . I n R.D. F r e e d l e (Ed.). Discourse p r o d u c t i o n and comprehension. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1977. Neisser, U. C o g n i t i o n and r e a l i t y . San F r a n c i s c o : Freeman, 1976. Neisser, U. Memory: What a r e t h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s ? I n M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. M o r r i s and R.N. Sykes ( E d s . ) . P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory. New York: Academic Press, 7978. Neisser, U. John Dean's memory: A case study. C o g n i t i o n , 1981, 9, 1-22. Norman, D.A. and Bobrow, D.G. On d a t a - l i m i t e d and r e s o u r c e - l i m i t e d processes. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1975, 7, 44-64. Reder, L.M. and Anderson, J.R, A p a r t i a l r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e paradox o f i n t e r f e r e n c e : The r o l e o f i n t e g r a t i n g knowledge. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1980, 12, 447-472. Schank, R.CFand Abelson, R.P. S c r i p t s , plans, goals, and understanding. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. S h i f f r i n , R.M. and Schneider, W. C o n t r o l l e d and a u t o m a t i c human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : 11. P e r c e p t u a l l e a r n i n g , a u t o m a t i c a t t e n d i n g , and a 84, 127-190. general t h e o r y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1977, __
218
MEMORY
Sokolov, E.N. B r a i n f u n c t i o n s : Neuronal mechanisms o f l e a r n i n g and memory. Annual Review o f Psychology, 1977, 28, 85-112. S p i r o , R.J. Remembering i n f o r m a t i o n f r o i n t e x t : The "state-of-schema" approach. I n R.C. Anderson, R.J. S p i r o and W.E. Montague ( E d s . ) . Schooli n g and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. S p i r o , R.J. and Meyer, B.J.F. Open d i s c u s s i o n on t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Meyer and C a r t e r . I n R.C. Anderson, R.J. S p i r o and W.E. Montague (Eds.). S c h o o l i n g and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. T u l v i n g , E . and Thomson, D.M. Encoding s p e c i f i c i t y and r e t r i e v a l processes 80, 352-373. i n e p i s o d i c memory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1973, -
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . EInmmer and W.Kintsch (eds.) 0N o r t h - ~ o l ~ nPublishing d Company, I982
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE: A R E V I E W Ronald E. Johnson Purdue U n i v e r s i t y W. L a f a y e t t e , I n d i a n a U.S.A.
A widespread assumption i s t h a t t h e inducement o f remembering i s l a r g e l y a m a t t e r o f f i n d i n g approp r i a t e r e t r i e v a l cues. I n t h e p r e s e n t paper t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed t o a s c e r t a i n t h e conditions under w h i c h r e t r i e v a l cues a s s i s t i n t h e remembering o f prose. S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i s g i v e n t o comparisons i n which cues a r e g i v e n p r i o r t o a t t e m p t s a t rememb e r i n g as opposed t o cues t h a t a r e p r o v i d e d a f t e r l e a r n e r s have a t t e m p t e d r e c a l l on t h e i r own. A t tention also i s directed t o the relative effectiveness o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f r e t r i e v a l cues. Based upon t h e r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e , i t may be concluded t h a t we know s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e about t h e t y p e s o f cues t h a t can be used t o f a c i l i t a t e ( o r h i n d e r ) t h e remembering o f i n t a c t p r o s e passages. R e t r i e v a l cues have been f o u n d which markedly i n f l u e n c e t h e remembering o f sentences p r e s e n t e d i n i s o l a t i o n , b u t e f f o r t s t o induce t h e remembering o f i n t a c t p r o s e passages g e n e r a l l y have n o t been s u c c e s s f u l . The remembering o f i n t a c t p r o s e appears t o be s u r p r i s i n g l y i m p e r v i o u s t o t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o r n o n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f o r m a l r e t r i e v a l cues. What determines t h e amount o f remembering t h a t l e a r n e r s show? Perhaps t h e most i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t i s t h e degree o f o r i g i n a l l e a r n i n g . T y p i c a l l y , t h e h i g h e r t h e degree o f o r i g i n a l l e a r n i n g , t h e b e t t e r i s remembering. Another d e t e r m i n a n t o f remembering i s t h e e x t e n t t o which o t h e r l e a r n i n g s i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e remembering o f t h e t a r g e t c o n t e n t . Although i n t e r f e r e n c e c l e a r l y i s an i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f t h e remembering o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s and l i s t s o f words, t h e e v i d e n c e i s much l e s s c o n v i n c i n g f o r t h e remembering o f prose. Evidence can be f o u n d f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e i n rememb e r i n g p r o s e (e.g., Anderson & Myrow, 1971; Bower, 1974), b u t such i n t e r f e r e n c e becomes e v i d e n t o n l y under a l i m i t e d s e t o f circumstances. Yet, f o r g e t t i n g t a k e s p l a c e - even f o r c o n t e n t t h a t has been l e a r n e d w e l l . I f such f o r g e t t i n g cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r f e r e n c e , t h e n what i s r e s p o n s i b l e ? One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t t h e l e a r n e r l a c k s a p p r o p r i a t e r e t r i e v a l cues f o r remembering. I n a sense t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i m p l y s h i f t s t h e problem o f e x p l a i n i n g why t h e c o n t e n t i s f o r g o t t e n t o t h e problem o f e x p l a i n i n g why r e t r i e v a l cues become i n c r e a s i n g l y u n a v a i l a b l e o r e l s e i n e f f e c t i v e . However, b e f o r e t a k i n g t h e c u i n g e x p l a n a t i o n
21 9
220
MEMORY
s e r i o u s l y , i t would appear appropriate t o examine the empirical evidence t o determine the extent t o which textual remembering i s influenced by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of potential r e t r i e v a l cues. I n t h e present paper the l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed t o a s c e r t a i n t h e conditions under which r e t r i e v a l cues a f f e c t t h e remembering of prose. The scope of t h e review i s limited t o those s t u d i e s in which the prose u n i t t h a t was learned was as l a r g e o r l a r g e r than an i n t a c t sentence. Excluded from t h i s review then a r e s t u d i e s i n which t h e content t o be learned was phrase u n i t s such as adjective-noun combinations ( e . g . , Anisfeld, 1970; Cofer, Segal, S t e i n , & Walker, 1969; Horowitz & Prytulak, 1969). However, t h e review includes those s t u d i e s in which the presentat i o n of i n t a c t sentences t h e n was followed by r e t r i e v a l cues probing the remembering of individual words. A f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n was t o include only those s t u d i e s in which a r e t r i e v a l cue was presented a t t h e time of attempted r e t r i e v a l . Excluded, t h e r e f o r e , a r e s t u d i e s in which ckles were provided a t the time of learning. Although such cues may continue t o e x i s t in memory, a n d thereby influence r e t r i e v a l , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t t h e major e f f e c t of such cues i s t o d i r e c t learning r a t h e r than t o influence r e t r i e v a l . The review, however, does include such s t u d i e s when the experimenter also included other groups t h a t received e x p l i c i t r e t r i e v a l cues a t t h e time of remembering and not a t t h e time of learning.
The a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e t r i e v a l cues a t memory, however, did not automatically warrant t h e inclusion of t h e study in t h e review. Many studies, f o r example, were found in which t h e experimenter provided a l l groups with the same s e t of r e t r i e v a l cues a t t h e time of remembering. Such s t u d i e s , a l a s , do not provide information on t h e effectiveness of r e t r i e v a l cues. The review, however, does include those s t u d i e s in which f r e e o r noncued r e c a l l was followed by cued remembering. From a methodological viewpoint, t h e r e i s need t o a l e r t ourselves t o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t an e a r l i e r unaided t e s t of r e t e n t i o n may influence the outcomes of l a t e r t e s t s with cues. An advantage o f such s t u d i e s , though, i s t o provide information on t h e extent t o which r e t r i e v a l cues allow t h e l e a r n e r t o dredge u p information t h a t otherwise would not be remembered. Another potential p i t f a l l i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a prompt in r e t r i e v i n g d i f f e r e n t types of prose content may not be an accurate r e f l e c t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l effectiveness o f t h e prompt per s e . Instead, the d i f f e r i n g amounts of remembering may stem from t h e f a c t t h a t the various types of prose were not learned equally well. For example, i f l e a r n e r s encounter both normal sentences and sentences t h a t v i o l a t e normal expectations ( e . g . , "the t r a y loved the house"), and a subsequent cue r e s u l t s i n b e t t e r r e t r i e v a l of the normal sentence (Graesser, 1978), i t does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t t h e cue works b e t t e r with normal sentences. The outcome may simply r e f l e c t superior learning of t h e normal sentences. Finally, t h e review does not include those s t u d i e s in which t h e primary dependent v a r i a b l e was a measure of reaction time. There a r e many experiments in t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n which a contextual phrase o r a semantic probe was used e i t h e r as a priming stimulus o r as a r e t r i e v a l cue. Learners were requested t o respond a s quickly as possible t o whether the probe was somehow r e l a t e d t o a t a r g e t sentence ( e . g . , Green, 1975). Such
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
221
s t u d i e s were excluded f r o m t h e r e v i e w s i n c e t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s n o t obvious. For example, i f one t y p e o f probe bears g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e t a r g e t sentence t h a n a n o t h e r probe, would r e a c t i o n t i m e s be f a s t e r o r s l o w e r ? An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t h a t some e x p e r i menters i n t e r p r e t a f a s t e r response as e v i d e n c e o f c l o s e r semantic s i m i l a r i t y , w h i l e o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t e r s assume a s l o w e r response i s evidence o f s i m i l a r i t y . EFFECTS OF C U I N G
-
QUANTITATIVE OUTCOMES
F a c i l i t a t i o n o f Remembering. The l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e s c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t c u i n g can r e s u l t i n t h e r e t r i e v a l o f c o n t e n t t h a t n o r m a l l y would n o t have been r e t r i e v e d w i t h o u t t h e cues. As compared w i t h noncued groups, most o f t h e cued groups showed h i g h e r l e v e l s o f r e c a l l (e.g., C h i e s i , S p i l i c h & Voss, 1979, 29% t o 54% advantage o v e r noncued r e c a l l s ; S e h u l s t e r & Crouse, 1972, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100% advantage f o r cued group on c o n t e n t drawn f r o m t h e l a t e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e passage).
~N u l l Outcomes. A l t h o u g h c u i n g t y p i c a l l y f a c i l i t a t e s remembering, some s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d i n which t h e presence o f cues had n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t s . Summers & Fleming (1971), f o r example, found t h a t r e i n s t a t i n g a l l sentences o f a passage e x c e p t f o r t h e t a r g e t sentence had no i n f l u e n c e on t h e remembering o f t h e t a r g e t sentence. O t h e r experimenters r e p o r t i n g meager o r no f a c i l i t a t i o n from cues i n c l u d e B a r c l a y , B r a n s f o r d , Franks, M c C a r r e l l , & N i t s c h , 1974, Exp. 4; B r a n s f o r d , N i t s c h & Franks, 1977; Rubin, 1977, f r e e r e c a l l vs. c o n t e x t group i n Exp. 3; T i l l & Walsh, 1980, Exp. 1 & 2; Johnson, Notes 2, 3, & 4 ) . I n t e r f e r e n c e from C u i n . A few e x p e r i m e n t e r s a l s o have r e p o r t e d comp a r i s o n s i n which r e t r g e v a l cues i n t e r f e r e d w i t h r e t r i e v a l ( B a r c l a y e t a l . , 1974, Exp. 4; B r i t t o n , Meyer, Hodge, & Glynn, 1980, Exp. 2; K o l i n a , 1972; Johnson, Note 2 ) . I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , Schustack & Anderson (1979) r e p o r t e d an e x p e r i m e n t i n which some l e a r n e r s were i n f o r m e d a t t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g t h a t t h e b i o g r a p h i e s t h e y had p r e v i o u s l y s t u d i e d p a r a l l e l e d t h e b i o g r a p h i e s o f famous people. As compared w i t h l e a r n e r s who were n o t t o l d o f t h e p a r a l l e l , t h e l e a r n e r s who r e c e i v e d t h e cue more o f t e n e r r o n e o u s l y endorsed t h e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d statements as h a v i n g been i n the o r i g i n a l biographies. W i t h l o n g e r r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s l e a r n e r s m i g h t be Delayed R e t e n t i o n . expected t o f o r g e t n o t o n l y t h e semantic c o n t e n t o f t h e t e x t , b u t a l s o t h e i r s e l f - g e n e r a t e d r e t r i e v a l cues. T h e r e f o r e , i t m i g h t be p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f r e t r i e v a l cues would be r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r a t l o n g e r r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , few e x p e r i m e n t e r s have examined t h e e f f e c t s o f r e t r i e v a l cues a t d i f f e r e n t r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s . Rubin (1978) found t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e advantage o f c u i n g groups o v e r a no-cues group i n c r e a s e d a c r o s s r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s r a n g i n g up t o one month. With r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s o f 2, 7, o r 28 days, however, Summers & Fleming (1971) r e p o r t e d no advantage f o r cued groups a t any r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l . R e c o g n i t i v e Performances. Though most i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f r e t r i e v a l cues have used o n l y measures o f r e c a l l , s e v e r a l e x p e r i m e n t e r s have demonstrated t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues a l s o can i n f l u e n c e r e c o g n i t i o n (Baker & Santa, 1977; M o r r i s , 1978; Schustack & Anderson, 1979). I n t h e M o r r i s study, f o r example, c a p i t a l i z e d t a r g e t words were p r e s e n t e d i n sentence c o n t e x t s t h a t e i t h e r were congruent w i t h normal usage ( e . g . , "The PICKLE was served
MEMORY
222
with slaw") o r e l s e were incongruent ( e . g . , "The P I C K L E jammed the saxophone"). A t recognition t h e t a r g e t nouns were embedded e i t h e r in t h e i r original contextual frame, in new congruous contexts ( e . g . , "The P I C K L E was on top of t h e sandwich") o r in new incongruous contexts ( e . g . , "The PICKLE was c u t by the chain saw"). Overall, recognition of the t a r g e t nouns was best i n the old sentence context. Nouns presented o r i g i n a l l y in a congruous context, however, were b e t t e r recognized when embedded in a new congruous context then in a new incongruous context. The nouns o r i g i n a l l y presented in a n incongruous context, in c o n t r a s t , were b e t t e r recognized in a new incongruous context than in a new congruous context. Recognition thus was b e t t e r when the cuing context was more s i m i l a r t o t h e original encoding context. EFFECTS OF C U I N G
-
QUALITATIVE INFLUENCES
Retrieval cues can influence the type of e r r o r made in remembering. I n the Turner & Rommetveit (1968) study, f o r example, the nature of the r e t r i e v a l cue influenced the e x t e n t t o which t h e original sentences were transformed t o t h e a c t i v e o r passive voice in r e c a l l . Likewise, t h o u g h Schustack & Anderson's (1979) l e a r n e r s showed higher accuracy l e v e l s when reminded t h a t t h e previously studied content had p a r a l l e l s with famous characters, the l e a r n e r s a l s o were more l i k e l y t o f a l s e l y recognize thematically r e l a t e d f o i l statements. Primacy E f f e c t s . Aside from influencing t h e q u a l i t y of t h e remembered responses, cuing a l s o can influence t h e type of content t h a t i s remembered. I n a study by Sehulster & Crouse (1972), comparison was made of the effectiveness of cuing as a function o f t h e s e r i a l location of the information within a passage. The advantages of cuing were much more evident f o r information occurring l a t e r in t h e passage. When questions were used as probes f o r knowledge o f content within the passage, there were no s e r i a l position e f f e c t s . Without the cuing questions, howevcr, s t r o n g primacy e f f e c t s were evident in r e c a l l . Similarly, Rubin (1977) reported t h a t primacy e f f e c t s were l e s s when prompts were given f o r the long-term r e c a l l of previously memorized passages. A seemingly related outcome a l s o has been reported f o r t h e r e c a l l of information taken from a sequence of four biographies ( S e h u l s t e r , McLaughlin, & Crouse, 1974). Under f r e e r e c a l l , remembering was b e t t e r f o r information in e a r l i e r presented s t o r i e s than in l a t e r s t o r i e s . When r e c a l l was cued, improvements i n performance were evident primarily f o r content located in the later stories. Existing Knowledge and Cue Effectiveness. The influence of cues in determing the type of content t h a t i s remembered i s i l l u s t r a t e d f u r t h e r by the work of Meyer (1975) and her colleagues ( B r i t t o n e t a1 ., 1980). Under conditions o f f r e e r e c a l l , a paragraph ranked high in the logical s t r u c t u r e of a passage was remembered b e t t e r t h a n when t h a t same paragraph was ranked low. When l e a r n e r s were provided with a random assemblage of a l l t h e content words of the t a r g e t paragraph, however, and asked t o reproduce the t a r g e t paragraph as exactly as possible, the differences in performance were v i r t u a l l y eliminated. Owens, Bower, & Black's (1979) work a l s o suggests t h a t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of cues can m i t i g a t e the disadvantages of l e a r n e r s with lower l e v e l s of knowledge. Their l e a r n e r s read a s t o r y containing f i v e event sequences d e t a i l i n g the making of a cup of c o f f e e , going t o a doctor, shopping f o r
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
223
groceries, attending a l e c t u r e , and attending a play. P r i o r t o reading the s t o r y , some l e a r n e r s were given information suggesting t h a t t h e main character in the s t o r y was an unmarried coed who had become pregnant from an a f f a i r with her college professor. These l e a r n e r s were able t o r e c a l l more of t h e s t o r y than those who were not given the preliminary information. After t h e t e s t f o r unaided r e c a l l , learners in b o t h groups were given t h e episode t i t l e s as potential r e t r i e v a l cues f o r r e c a l l i n g additional content from the s t o r y . The learners who had not been exposed t o t h e motive description r e c a l l e d nearly four t i m e s as many new units as did those who had received t h e motive description. I n e f f e c t , the provision of t h e episode t i t l e s a s r e t r i e v a l cues e s s e n t i 2 l l y eradicated t h e overall d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l t h a t existed between the two groups on the o r i g i n a l t e s t of f r e e r e c a l l . Other data from t h e Owens e t a l . (1979) study suggest t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f a r e t r i e v a l cue might depend upon the organizational s t a t u s of the
l e a r n e r s ' knowledge. When aided by the motive d e s c r i p t i o n , learners apparently were able t o develop a n organizational s t r u c t u r e t h a t unified the incoming information from the f i v e episodes. Without 'the motivational d e s c r i p t i o n , l e a r n e r s apparently organized the d i f f e r e n t episodes i n t o separate chunks o r e n t i t i e s . Consistent with t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , during f r e e r e c a l l t h e motive-description group r e t r i e v e d information from more of the f i v e episodes (M=3.67) than did t h e no-description g r o u p (M=2.50). When the episode t i t l e s were used as r e t r i e v a l cues, however, the no-description g r o u p was able t o r e t r i e v e information from a s many episodes (M=4.75) as t h e motive-description g r o u p (M=4.56). This outcome suggests one possible explanation f o r t h e e f f e c t s of cuing. Cues may provide l e a r n e r s opportunity t o tap previously unrecalled c l u s t e r s o r chunks of r e l a t e d information. Before d e t a i l i n g additional support f o r t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , i t i s worth noting t h a t t h e Owens e t a l . (1979) study i s one of the few in the l i t e r a t u r e in which t h e experimenter was successful i n stimulating substantial additional r e t r i e v a l from a lengthy i n t a c t prose passage. Note too t h a t each of t h e i r f i v e r e t r i e v a l cues was d i r e c t e d toward a r a t h e r large t a r g e t c l u s t e r of 10 t o 13 sentences. Most experimenters, in c o n t r a s t , have r e s t r i c t e d t h e i r cuing e f f o r t s toward s i n g l e t a r g e t sentences o r toward individual words o r phrases within a s i n g l e sentence. The hypothesis t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues open new semantic chunks a l s o allows a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Anderson & P i c h e r t ' s (1978) data. Learners in t h a t study were given an encoding perspective ( e . g . , homebuyer) while reading a passage t h a t included a d e s c r i p t i o n of a home. After r e c a l l i n g as much as they could, l e a r n e r s were t o l d t o adopt a new perspective ( e . g . , a burglar) and t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r y again from t h e new perspective. Although the second rendering of the s t o r y r e s u l t e d in a loss of 2.9% t o 21% of the information t h a t was relevant t o t h e f i r s t perspective, there was a gain of 7 t o 10% f o r t h e information t h a t was r e l a t e d t o the r e t r i e v a l cues provided by the new perspective. Extending Anderson & P i c h e r t ' s (1978) work, Flammer & Tauber (Note 1 ) induced a s h i f t i n r e c a l l perspective e i t h e r p r i o r t o immediate r e c a l l or e l s e immediately p r i o r t o delayed r e c a l l . As compared with learners whose perspective did not change, the learners who had a new perspective showed +remembering of content r e l a t e d t o t h a t new perspective. Further, in a f i n a l r e c a l l in which learners were asked t o r e c a l l a l l
224
MEMORY
content from the s t o r y , regardless of t h e c o n t e n t ' s relevance t o a p a r t i c u l a r perspective, l e a r n e r s with a changed perspective were neither b e t t e r nor worse than those having no change in perspective. Clearly, any r e t r i e v a l gains t h a t were induced by a change in perspective were o f f s e t by l o s s e s in information r e l e v a n t t o t h e i n i t i a l perspective. I n an apparent contradiction t o t h e Owens e t a l . (1979) finding t h a t cues f a c i l i t a t e d performance more f o r l e a r n e r s with l e s s e r knowledge, Chiesi, S p i l i c h , & Voss (1979) r e p o r t data suggesting t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues provided more a s s i s t a n c e f o r l e a r n e r s having higher l e v e l s of knowledge of a content domain. Chiesi e t a l . f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d l e a r n e r s having high knowledge o r low knowledge of baseball. The two groups of learners then read 24 three-sentence passages on baseball. Following attempts a t f r e e r e c a l l , l e a r n e r s received a cued r e c a l l task in which the r e t r i e v a l cues were the f i r s t two sentences o r e l s e j u s t the second sentence. The t a r g e t sentences were t h e f i n a l sentence i n each t r i a d . As might be expected, t h e high knowledge l e a r n e r s performed b e t t e r in f r e e r e c a l l . I n c o n t r a s t with t h e Owens e t a l . (1979) f i n d i n g , however, t h e high knowledge learners showed a l a r g e r increase in r e c a l l (54%) t h a n did t h e low knowledge l e a r n e r s (29.4%). Moreover, when t h e r e had been no p r i o r recall of a p a r t of t h e t a r g e t sentence during f r e e r e c a l l , f a c i l i t a t i o n from cuing was g r e a t e r f o r the high knowledge group (80%) than f o r the low knowledge group (46%). In additional comparisons, S p i l i c h , Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss (1979) a l s o have reported evidence c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues benefit high knowledge l e a r n e r s more than low knowledge l e a r n e r s .
To resolve the apparent contradictions among s t u d i e s as t o whether cuing i s most beneficial t o t h e high knowledge l e a r n e r s o r t h e low knowledge l e a r n e r s , i t may be helpful t o think of r e t r i e v a l cues as being potentially f a c i l i t a t i v e whenever t h e cues allow l e a r n e r s t o t a p previously unrecalled chunks of the t a r g e t content. I n a d d i t i o n , cues may remind l e a r n e r s of potential r e t r i e v a l routes t h a t can be used t o f i n d missing t a r g e t content. The Owens e t a l . (1979) l e a r n e r s presumably had untapped t a r g e t knowledge t h a t was a s s o c i a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the episode l a b e l . Further, t h e episode label presumably was s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o the l e a r n e r ' s own organizat i o n a l representation so t h a t t h e r e could be a match between the external r e t r i e v a l cue and the l e a r n e r s ' own organizational representation. Why wasn't such knowledge equally helpful t o those who had been given the motive description? One l i k e l y explanation i s t h a t the advantage of these l e a r n e r s was evaporated by giving t h e no-description learners access t o t h e episode l a b e l s . By t h i s maneuver, both groups had equal access t o the f i v e episodes. The Anderson & Pichert (1978) l e a r n e r s , though, probably were able t o use t h e i r e x i s t i n g schematic knowledge about t h e second perspective t o form a r e t r i e v a l search in which matches might be made with previously unrecalled information. For example, with a burglar perspective, the l e a r n e r could r a i s e t h e question of whether the s t o r y mentioned valuables such as money, gold, o r diamonds. The r e t r i e v a l search might r a i s e s i m i l a r questions regarding t h e s u i t a b i l i t y of t h e house f o r an undetected burglary, the f e a t u r e s t h a t might enhance easy e n t r y i n t o t h e house, e t c . I n t h e Chiesi e t a l . (1979) study, l e a r n e r s with high knowledge may have used t h e i r superior knowledges of sequential events in baseball t o remember o r t o construct the probable t h i r d sentence i n the sequence. For t h e learners with low knowledge about baseball, providing them with the e a r l i e r
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
225
sentences may n o t have h e l p e d because t h e i r e x i s t i n g knowledges were n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w them t o b r i d g e t h e gap between t h e f i r s t two sentences and t h e t a r g e t sentence. Here, as i n t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a cue presumably i s r e l a t e d t o t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e cue a l l o w s l e a r n e r s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o open up a r e l a t e d body o f t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t has n o t been p r e v i o u s l y tapped. CHARACTERISTICS
OF CUES
Nonverbal Cues. A l t h o u g h most e x p e r i m e n t e r s have used v e r b a l r e t r i e v a l cues, s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have p r o v i d e d nonverbal cues t o s t i m u l a t e remembering. Rubin (1977), f o r one, t e s t e d l e a r n e r s ' remembering o f t h e words o f t h e i r n a t i o n a l anthem. When p r o v i d e d w i t h an i n s t r u m e n t a l r e n d i t i o n o f t h e melody, l e a r n e r s r e c a l l e d 65% o f t h e words. A noncued group, i n c o n t r a s t , r e c a l l e d 40% o f t h e words, w h i l e l e a r n e r s cued w i t h an i n a p p r o p r i a t e march melody r e c a l l e d o n l y 35% o f t h e words. D u r i n g l e a r n e r s ' a t t e m p t s a t t h e o r a l r e c a l l o f a t e x t u a l passage, Van Dam & B r i n k e r i n k - C a r l i e r (Note 5 ) sounded a buzzer whenever t h e y f e l t t h a t l e a r n e r s m i g h t "know more t h a n was j u s t s t a t e d . " The l e a r n e r t h e n was t o a t t e m p t a d d i t i o n a l r e c a l l o f c o n t e n t b e i n g r e c a l l e d p r i o r t o t h e sounding o f t h e buzzer. A l t h o u g h one m i g h t e x p e c t t h a t such i n t e r r u p t i o n s would i n t e r f e r e w i t h remembering, t h e s i g n a l e d l e a r n e r s r e c a l l e d more d e t a i l t h a n l e a r n e r s who were n o t i n t e r r u p t e d . Moreover, t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n s d i d n o t h i n d e r l e a r n e r s ' remembering o f t h e main i d e a s . The buzzer t h u s served as a g e n e r a l i z e d r e t r i e v a l cue f o r remembering d e t a i l t h a t o t h e r w i s e would have been o m i t t e d d u r i n g r e c a l l . An unanswered q u e s t i o n , however, i s t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e r e s u l t s a r e dependent upon e x p e r i m e n t e r s ' i n t u i t i o n s as t o when a d d i t i o n a l r e c a l l i s p o s s i b l e . I n a n o t h e r s u c c e s s f u l i n s t a n c e o f nonverbal c u i n g , T u r n e r & Rommetveit (1968) t e s t e d c h i l d r e n ' s memory f o r a u d i t o r i l y p r e s e n t e d sentences such as "The bunny was e a t i n g t h e c a r r o t " o r "The c a r r o t was e a t e n by t h e bunny." A t t h e t i m e o r p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e sentence was accompanied e i t h e r by a p i c t u r e o f t h e a c t o r , a p i c t u r e o f t h e acted-upon element, a t o t a l p i c t u r e w i t h b o t h elements, o r no p i c t u r e . A t t h e t i m e o f r e t r i e v a l , l e a r n e r s were cued w i t h one o f t h e t h r e e t y p e s o f p i c t u r e s . The presence o r absence o f a p i c t u r e a t t h e t i m e o f l e a r n i n g had l i t t l e e f f e c t on r e t e n t i o n . R e c a l l , however, was c o n s i s t e n t l y b e t t e r when l e a r n e r s were cued w i t h t h e t o t a l p i c t u r e t h a n w i t h t h e o t h e r two t y p e s o f p i c t o r i a l cues. When t h e o r i g i n a l sentence was i n t h e a c t i v e v o i c e , t h e b e s t p a r t i a l cue was t h e a c t o r p i c t u r e . F o r p a s s i v e - v o i c e sentences, however, t h e b e s t p a r t i a l cue was t h e acted-upon p i c t u r e . Moreover, t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p a r t i a l cue a l s o i n f l u e n c e d t h e t y p e o f e r r o r made i n r e c a l l . When t h e o r i g i n a l sentence was i n t h e a c t i v e v o i c e , t h e acted-upon cue a t r e t r i e v a l r e s u l t e d i n more r e c a l l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t o t h e p a s s i v e v o i c e . When t h e o r i g i n a l sentence was i n t h e p a s s i v e v o i c e , r e c a l l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t o t h e a c t i v e v o i c e were more l i k e l y w i t h t h e a c t o r p i c t u r e o r t h e t o t a l p i c t u r e . F i n a l l y , i n an a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e n o t i o n of e n c o d i n g s p e c i f i c i t y , l e a r n e r s who r e c e i v e d a p a r t i a l p i c t u r e a t encoding and a p a r t i a l p i c t u r e a t r e t r i e v a l performed b e t t e r i f t h e r e t r i e v a l cue was a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e t h a n t h e p i c t u r e shown a t l e a r n i n g . Only one o t h e r s t u d y was found i n w h i c h p i c t u r e s were used as r e t r i e v a l cues f o r p r o s e . Johnson (Note 4 ) p r e s e n t e d B a r t l e t t ' s "War o f t h e Ghosts" on s l i d e s one phrase a t a t i m e , w i t h each o f t h e 66 phrases accompanied by a p i c t u r e d e p i c t i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e s l i d e . A f t e r a f i v e day r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l , o n e - t h i r d o f t h e l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d a r e t r i e v a l
226
MEMORY
p a c k e t c o n t a i n i n g 22 o f t h e 66 p i c t u r e s p r i o r t o a 15-min r e c a l l p e r i o d . Others d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e r e t r i e v a l cues u n t i l a f t e r 10 min o f unaided r e c a l l . Some l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d p i c t u r e s d e p i c t i n g t h e 22 u n i t s judged t o be h i g h e s t i n s t r u c t u r a l importance, w h i l e o t h e r l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d p i c t u r e s d e p i c t i n g t h e 22 u n i t s j u d g e d l o w e s t i n importance. A c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d no r e t r i e v a l cues. Regardless o f which p i c t u r e s were r e c e i v e d , and r e g a r d l e s s o f when l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d t h e i r p i c t u r e s , t h e p i c t o r i a l cues had no i n f l u e n c e on remembering. L i t e r a l Prompts. Many s t u d i e s have examined t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f prompts i n c u i n g t h e r e t r i e v a l o f i n d i v i d u a l sentences. O f t e n t h e prompt has been a word o r a phrase t a k e n f r o m t h e t a r g e t sentence i t s e l f , and t h e l e a r n e r s ' t a s k was t o r e c a l l t h e r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f the sentence. The r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e s abundant evidence t h a t l i t e r a l cues can f a c i l i t a t e r e t r i e v a l (e.g., Anderson, 1972; Anderson & Bower, 1973). Even a f t e r r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s o f y e a r s , l i t e r a l cues s t i l l possess t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s t i m u l a t i n g remembering (Rubin, 1977). I f l e a r n e r s a r e g i v e n access a g a i n t o one o r two sentences p r e c e d i n g a t a r g e t sentence, remembering can be i n c r e a s e d ( C h i e s i e t a l . , 1979; Mistler-Lachman, 1973). The l i t e r a l c o n t e x t thus can have i n f l u e n c e t h a t crosses sentence b o u n d a r i e s .
A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e i n t e r e s t i n g e x c e p t i o n s , a usual outcome i s t h a t l i t e r a l cues r e s u l t i n more remembering t h a n paraphrased cues (e.g., Anderson, 1972; Gibbs, 1980). S u r p r i s i n g l y , even f o r i d i o m a t i c sentences, l i t e r a l prompts were f o u n d t o be more e f f e c t i v e t h a n prompts t h a t p r e s e r v e d t h e i d i o m a t i c meaning (Gibbs, 1980). Thus, f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n "You can l e t t h e c a t o u t o f t h e bag," t h e l i t e r a l cue " c a t " was more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e phrase " r e v e a l s e c r e t . " As t h e r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l l e n g t h e n s , however, t h e r e l a t i v e advantage o f a l i t e r a l cue o v e r a paraphrase o r g i s t cue may d i m i n i s h ( C a r t e r & Van Matre, 1975; Mistler-Lachmann, 1973). Such an outcome i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h knowledge t h a t l e a r n e r s ' memory f o r s y n t a c t i c - l e x i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n d e c l i n e s f a s t e r t h a n semantic knowledge (Begg & Wickelgren, 1974; Sachs, 1967). Grammatical Role. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a word prompt i s r e l a t e d t o t h e grammatical r o l e served by t h e prompt i n t h e o r i g i n a l sentence. S u b j e c t nouns, f o r example, r e s u l t i n more r e t r i e v a l t h a n o b j e c t nouns ( H o r o w i t z & P r y t u l a k , 1969; P e r f e t t i & Goldman, 1974). Blumenthal & Boakes (1967) a l s o r e p o r t noun prompts t o be more e f f e c t i v e t h a n a d j e c t i v a l prompts i n sentences such as "John i s eager t o p l e a s e " and "John i s easy t o please," b u t t h e a u t h o r s n o t e t h a t such a comparison i s confounded w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s o f t h e prompts. More i n t e r e s t i n g , perhaps, was t h e f i n d i n g o f a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between t y p e o f prompt and t y p e o f sentence. When t h e prompt noun ( " J o h n " ) had been t h e l o g i c a l s u b j e c t o f t h e sentence, t h e i n c r e m e n t i n performance o v e r f r e e r e c a l l was l a r g e r t h a n when t h e prompt noun was t h e l o g i c a l o b j e c t o f t h e sentence. F o r t h e a d j e c t i v a l prompts, however, t h e i n c r e a s e i n r e t r i e v a l was g r e a t e r when t h e a d j e c t i v e ( " e a s y " ) m o d i f i e d t h e whole sentence ("John i s easy t o p l e a s e " ) t h a n when t h e a d j e c t i v e ( " e a g e r " ) m o d i f i e d t h e noun ( " J o h n i s eager t o p l e a s e " ) .
A f r e q u e n t l y r e p l i c a t e d outcome i s t h a t v e r b s a r e l e s s e f f e c t i v e prompts
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
227
than s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t nouns (Anderson & Bower, 1972, 1973; H o r o w i t z & P r y t u l a k , 1969; Thios, 1975; Thorndyke, 1975). An acknowledged c o m p l i c a t i o n i n such comparisons, however, i s t h a t t h e v a r i o u s grammatical components themselves a l s o d i f f e r i n r e t r i e v a b i l i t y (Anderson, 1976; Anderson & Bower, 1973). E i t h e r i n t h e absence o f r e t r i e v a l cues ( C l a r k , 1966), o r i n response t o r e t r i e v a l cues (Anderson & Bower, 1972, 1973; Jones, 1979), verbs a r e n o t remembered as w e l l as nouns. T h i s outcome perhaps i s a consequence o f verbs b e i n g l o w e r i n concreteness t h a n nouns ( P a i v i o , 1971, p. 80; Raeburn, 1979). S a l i e n t t o t h i s i s s u e , H o r o w i t z & P r y t u l a k (1969) have m a r s h a l l e d broad s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e more e a s i l y r e t r i e v e d components o f a s s o c i a t i o n s a l s o t e n d t o be t h e most e f f e c t i v e as r e t r i e v a l cues. Given such r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as t o whether t h e l e s s e r c u i n g power o f verbs i s due t o t h e i r grammatical r o l e o r t o t h e i r semantic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as words. To u n r a v e l t h i s q u e s t i o n , Raeburn (1979) examined t h e c u i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f verbs which were equated w i t h nouns on concreteness and word f r e q u e n c y . I n one experiment, f o r example, t h e same r o o t word was used as t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e sentence (as i n "His d e s i g n completed t h e p r o j e c t " ) , as a verb (as i n " H i s a r c h i t e c t designed t h e p r o j e c t " ) , o r as a d i r e c t o b j e c t (as i n " H i s a r c h i t e c t completed t h e d e s i q n " ) . When t h e verbs were e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e nouns i n imagery, t h e verbs were remembered as w e l l as s u b j e c t nouns and o b j e c t nouns. Moreover, t h e verbs were e q u i v a l e n t t o nouns i n t h e i r c u i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Concreteness of R e t r i e v a l Cues. Raeburn's (1979) outcome t h u s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e concreteness o f t h e v e r b i s a d e t e r m i n a n t o f i t s c u i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . However, i n a d i r e c t m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e imagery l e v e l o f t h e v e r b , Thorndyke (1975) found no c u i n g advantage f o r h i g h imagery verbs. T h i s n u l l outcome h e l d whether t h e v e r b was t h e o n l y r e t r i e v a l cue o r whether t h e v e r b was used i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t nouns. Comparable t o Raeburn's f i n d i n g , however, t h e imagery l e v e l o f t h e v e r b was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o i t s r e t r i e v a b i l i t y as a t a r g e t . Anderson, Goetz, P i c h e r t , & H a l f f (1977) a l s o used c u i n g phrases t h a t d i f f e r e d i n concreteness. T h e i r sentences had s u b j e c t nouns w i t h c o n c r e t e m o d i f i e r s (e.g., "The p a r k i n g r e g u l a t i o n s annoyed t h e salesman") o r e l s e redundant m o d i f i e r s (e.g., "The o f f i c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s annoyed t h e salesman") P r i o r t o a t t e m p t i n g r e c a l l , l e a r n e r s were t e s t e d on a r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k c o n t a i n i n g t h e o r i g i n a l l y p r e s e n t e d s u b j e c t phrases i n t e r m i x e d w i t h d i s t r a c t o r phrases c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m t h e a l t e r n a t e v e r s i o n o f t h e sentences. When t h e o r i g i n a l noun phrase was used as a r e t r i e v a l cue f o r r e c a l l i n g t h e r e s t of t h e sentence, t h e c o n c r e t e noun phrases were more e f f e c t i v e as r e t r i e v a l cues. The s u p e r i o r i t y as a r e t r i e v a l cue, however, was e v i d e n t o n l y when l e a r n e r s had c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e c u i n g phrase d u r i n g t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k . Though n o t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d by t h e a u t h o r s , an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n m i g h t be t h a t t h e nonredundant m o d i f i e r s i m p l y adds a second cue t h a t t h e l e a r n e r can use i n r e t r i e v i n g t h e sentence. The redundant m o d i f i e r , i n c o n t r a s t , m e r e l y d u p l i c a t e s t h e e x i s t i n g cue. I f t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e Anderson e t a l . outcome i s v a l i d , t h e r e i s no c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t t h e concreteness o f a cue i s a determinant o f r e t r i e v a l effectiveness. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n , i t may be noted, undermines t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f P a i v i o ' s (1965, 1971) "conceptual-peg'' h y p o t h e s i s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e conceptualpeg h y p o t h e s i s , a s t i m u l u s word ( o r s u b j e c t noun) serves as a "peg" t o
228
MEMORY
which t h e response word ( o r o b j e c t noun) i s hooked d u r i n g l e a r n i n g . As quoted f r o m P a i v i o (1971, p. 248), " t h e more c o n c r e t e t h e s t i m u l u s , t h e more ' s o l i d ' i t i s as a conceptual peg and t h e b e t t e r t h e r e c a l l . " A b i t l a t e r , P a i v i o ( p . 248) s t a t e s t h a t " t h e conceptual-peg h y p o t h e s i s i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e t r i e v a l t h e o r y - a high-imagery i t e m i s e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e as a r e t r i e v a l cue f o r t h e t o - b e - r e c a l l e d a s s o c i a t e . " Though t h e r e i s much s u p p o r t i n g evidence f o r t h e conceptual-peg h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e remembering o f p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s , t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y no s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e r e t r i e v a l o f prose. Complexity o f Verb Cues. Verbs a l s o d i f f e r i n conceptual c o m p l e x i t y and may be decomposed i n t o d i f f e r i n g numbers o f " p r i m i t i v e a c t i o n s " (Schank, 1972). As analyzed by Thorndyke (1975), t h e v e r b i n t h e sentence "The d o c t o r watched t h e l a w y e r " c o n t a i n s o n l y one u n d e r l y i n g c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , namely, " d o c t o r l o o k - a t l a w y e r . " F o r t h e v e r b i n t h e sentence "The spy obeyed t h e b a r b e r , " t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e q u i r e s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o ( 1 ) message t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m b a r b e r t o spy, ( 2 ) message i n c l u d e d a r e q u e s t f r o m b a r b e r t o spy, ( 3 ) t h e spy performed t h e r e q u e s t e d a c t i o n , and ( 4 ) t h e s p y ' s performance t o o k p l a c e a t a l a t e r t i m e . S i n c e a complex sentence presumably r e q u i r e s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f more a s s o c i a t i v e l i n k s d u r i n g encoding, i t may be hypothesized t h a t t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e conceptual r e p r e s e n t a t i o n would i n f l u e n c e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e v e r b as a r e t r i e v a l cue. I n a t e s t o f t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , Thorndyke (1975) found t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g conceptual c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e v e r b was n o t a d e t e r m i n a n t o f i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i n d u c i n g r e t r i e v a l o f t h e r e m a i n i n g sentence elements. N o n l i t e r a l Cues. Some e x p e r i m e n t e r s have r e p o r t e d comparisons i n which g i s t cues have been more e f f e c t i v e t h a n l i t e r a l cues. A l t e r n a t e l y s t a t e d , r e t r i e v a l probes sometimes can be found w h i c h a r e more e f f e c t i v e i n i n d u c i n g remembering t h a n cues t h a t were a c t u a l l y p a r t o f t h e t a r g e t sentence (Anderson & Ortony, 1975; B a r c l a y e t a l . , 1974; C o r b e t t & Dosher, 1978; Gumenik, 1979; Marschark & P a i v i o , 1977). Anderson & O r t o n y (1975), f o r example, t e s t e d t h e remembering o f sentences such as "The f i s h a t t a c k e d t h e swimmer" w i t h t h e s u b j e c t noun as a cue ( " f i s h " ) o r an exemplar o f t h e noun t h a t f i t t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e sentence ( " s h a r k " ) . The o r i g i n a l l y p r e s e n t e d noun was a l e s s e f f e c t i v e r e t r i e v a l cue t h a n t h e s p e c i f i c exemplar. As i n t e r p r e t e d by Anderson & Ortony (1975), t h e l e a r n e r s had c o n s t r u c t e d an e l a b o r a t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t was p a r t i c u l a r i z e d i n t h e f o r m o f an exemplar t h a t f i t t h e meaning o f t h e sentence. To use t h e i r term, t h e general noun o f had become " i n s t a n t i a t e d " i n t o t h e s p e c i f i c exemplar o f shark. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , exemplars were e f f e c t i v e cues o n l y i n t h o s e sentences i n which t h e o v e r a l l meaning was a match f o r t h e r e l e v a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e exemplar. Thus, f o r a sentence such as "The f i s h avoided t h e swimmer," t h e word " s h a r k " was n o t a b e t t e r r e t r i e v a l cue t h a n " f i s h . " S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s were r e p o r t e d by Anderson, P i c h e r t , Goetz, S c h a l l e r t , Stevens, and T r o l l i p (1976).
fish
P u r s u i n g t h i s same i s s u e , Gumenik (1979) suggested t h a t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s I n s t e a d , he o f t h e s p e c i f i c cues m i g h t n o t be due t o i n s t a n t i a t i o n . h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e advantage o c c u r r e d because t h e semantic f e a t u r e s o f t h e s p e c i f i c cue o v e r l a p p e d more w i t h t h e t a r g e t c o n t e n t t h a n d i d t h e a s s o c i a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e general cue. I n a t e s t o f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , l e a r n e r s were p r e s e n t e d e i t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l sentences o r e l s e
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
229
just the predicates of t h e sentences. Since t h e r e was no s u b j e c t noun in the l a t t e r c a s e , there presumably was l i t t l e or no likelihood t h a t the unpresented general n o u n would become i n s t a n t i a t e d . The exemplar, nevertheless, cued the remembering of t h e phrase almost as well as when the general noun had been p a r t of the sentence. Moreover, in a second study, r e t r i e v a l cues t h a t were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the overall meaning of the sentence were j u s t as e f f e c t i v e cues as t h e presumed i n s t a n t i a t i o n s . I n the sentence "The weapon was protruding from the corpse," f o r example, "knife" was a b e t t e r cue than "weapon," b u t the r e l a t e d cue "murder" was j u s t a s e f f e c t i v e as " k n i f e . " To summarize, t h e evidence i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t l e a r n e r s routinely represent general nouns by s p e c i f i c exemplars. Probably such i n s t a n t i a t i o n occurs only when the overall meaning o f the sentence points t o an exemplar t h a t i s a b e t t e r match than t h e original noun. Both s t u d i e s , however, provide evidence t h a t l i t e r a l cues sometimes are not as e f f e c t i v e r e t r i e v a l cues as a r e those cues t h a t represent the g i s t of t h e sentence. Number of Retrieval Cues. Various types of evidence support the conclusion t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e number of a v a i l a b l e r e t r i e v a l cues, t h e b e t t e r i s remembering. Some experimenters have d i r e c t l y varied the number o f l i t e r a l cues provided to t h e l e a r n e r . When a sentence i s cued with two word prompts, remembering of t h e uncued portion i s b e t t e r than when only one prompt i s a v a i l a b l e (Anderson, J.R., 1976; Anderson & Bower, 1973; Anderson, R . C . , 1974; Corbett & Dosher, 1978; Foss & Harwood, 1975). Moreover, a f t e r learners have attempted r e c a l l aided by a s i n g l e prompt, the provision of a second cue t y p i c a l l y r e s u l t s in additional remembering (Anderson & Bower, 1973). Additional i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f t h i s p r i n c i p l e may be found in s t u d i e s in which f r e e r e c a l l i s followed by cued r e c a l l . Almost always, cuing r e s u l t s i n additional remembering. Geiselman (1974), f o r example, presented sentences one by one, and then informed t h e l e a r n e r as t o whether t h e j u s t presented sentence was t o be remembered or forgotten. Following an unexpected f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l f o r both types of sentences, l e a r n e r s were provided a completion t e s t in which t h e most important t a r g e t word o r phrase was missing. With t h e additional cuing context provided by t h e completion format, memory f o r t h e "remember" sentences improved from 74% in f r e e recall t o 87% on the completion t a s k . Improvement f o r the "forget" sentences went from 40% in f r e e r e c a l l t o 75% on the comoletions. Going one s t e p beyond the skeletonized completion format used by many i n v e s t i g a t o r s , Rubin (1977) t e s t e d l e a r n e r s ' remembering o f Lincoln's "Gettysberg Address" when cued with varying amounts of t h e verbatim t r a n s c r i p t . Learners could remember 7.5% of t h e content words on t h e i r own, 10.9% of t h e content words when a l l content words were replaced with blanks, and 26.4% of the content words when each of t h e blanks a l s o was accompanied by t h e c o r r e c t i n i t i a l l e t t e r o f each missing word. As t h e r e t r i e v a l context becomes more complete, one might expect t h a t guessing would play a l a r g e r r o l e in determining performance. Lending credence t o t h i s supposition, Hall & Geis (1980) reported t h a t the percentage of c o r r e c t words a t t a i n e d by guessing ranged from 7 t o 50%. The longer the sentence in which t h e t a r g e t ward was embedded, t h e g r e a t e r was the success r a t e i n guessing the missing word.
MEMORY
230
An improvement i n performance, however, i s n o t an i n e v i t a b l e outcome when a d d i t i o n a l c o n t e x t i s p r o v i d e d . Summers & Fleming (19711, f o r example, p r e s e n t e d 16 paragraphs and t h e n t e s t e d remembering w i t h 48 f a c t u a l m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s . A t r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s o f 2, 7, o r 28 days, l e a r n e r s a t t e m p t e d t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s e i t h e r unaided by r e t r i e v a l cues o r e l s e w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a l l t h e o r i g i n a l sentences except t h o s e sentences c o n t a i n i n g t h e e x a c t c o n t e n t t h a t was t e s t e d . D e s p i t e t h e l a r g e amount o f c o n t e x t p r o v i d e d , t h e presence o f t h e c o n t e x t u a l sentences d i d n o t f a c i l i t a t e performance a t any r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l . Learners i n a n o t h e r s t u d y (Johnson, Note 3 ) were p r o v i d e d t h e e n t i r e f i r s t h a l f o f a s t o r y as a p o t e n t i a l r e t r i e v a l cue f o r remembering t h e second h a l f . Remembering o f t h e f i n a l p o r t i o n o f t h e s t o r y was n o t f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e presence o f t h e i n i t i a l p o r t i o n . T h i s n u l l outcome o c c u r r e d r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e c o n t e x t was p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o a r e c a l l a t t e m p t o r e l s e p r o v i d e d a f t e r l e a r n e r s had a t t e m p t e d 10 minutes o f r e c a l l on t h e i r own. I n a n o t h e r s t u d y i n t h i s same s e r i e s (Johnson, Note 2), l e a r n e r s were p r o v i d e d e i t h e r w i t h no r e t r i e v a l cues, a l i s t i n g o f t h e 22 most i m p o r t a n t s u b u n i t s o f a 6 6 - u n i t s t o r y , o r e l s e a l i s t i n g o f t h e 22 l e a s t i m p o r t a n t s u b u n i t s . The cues were arranged e i t h e r i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l temporal o r d e r o r e l s e randomly. As i n t h e p r e v i o u s study, some l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d t h e i r cues p r i o r t o a t t e m p t i n g r e c a l l , w h i l e o t h e r s were n o t p r o v i d e d cues u n t i l t h e y had a t t e m p t e d r e c a l l on t h e i r own. The importance l e v e l o f t h e cues d i d n o t i n f l u e n c e r e c a l l , and n e i t h e r d i d t h e sequencing v a r i a b l e . C o n t r a r y t o e x p e c t a t i o n s , t h e presence o f t h e cues h i n d e r e d r e c a l l . When cues were p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o a t t e m p t s a t remembering, r e c a l l was worse d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l r e c a l l p e r i o d . When cues were p r o v i d e d i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l r e c a l l p e r i o d , r e c a l l was worse i n t h e f i n a l p e r i o d . C l e a r l y t h e r e a r e some i n s t a n c e s i n which a more complete r e t r i e v a l c o n t e x t does n o t f a c i l i t a t e remembering. C o n f i g u r a l P r o p e r t i e s o f M u l t i p l e Cues. An i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e r e a r e c o n f i g u r a l p r o p e r t i e s t h a t emerge f r o m a c o m b i n a t i o n o f two o r more r e t r i e v a l cues (Anderson & Bower, 1 9 7 2 ) . I f so, t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f two cues i n t o a u n i f i e d g e s t a l t m i g h t i n d u c e g r e a t e r remembering t h a n would be expected on t h e b a s i s o f t h e c u i n g power o f each of t h e two cues t a k e n s e p a r a t e l y . The encoding s p e c i f i c i t y h y p o t h e s i s , as w e l l as t h e c o n f i g u r a l o r G e s t a l t v i e w p o i n t , would p r e d i c t an advantage f o r a r e t r i e v a l environment t h a t most c l o s e l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e o r i g i n a l encoding. An a s s o c i a t i o n i s t , however, m i g h t assume t h a t t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e r o u t e s f o r r e t r i e v a l come f r o m i n d i v i d u a l word probes. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e v i e w p o i n t t h u s would deny t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an a d d i t i o n a l r e t r i e v a l r o u t e f r o m t h e c o n f i g u r a l c o m b i n a t i o n o f a two-word probe. To t e s t t h i s , Anderson & Bower (1972) p r e s e n t e d p a i r s o f sentences such as : ( 1 ) The c h i l d h i t t h e l a n d l o r d . ( 2 ) The m i n i s t e r p r a i s e d t h e l a n d l o r d . L e a r n e r s t h e n were t e s t e d f o r t h e i r r e c a l l o f t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t e i t h e r w i t h s i n g l e word cues or e l s e two cues. F o r t h e p r e s e n t example, t h e t e s t i n a frames were: The c h i l d the . s ( 4 ) The h i t the . v ( 5 ) The m i n i s t e r p r a i s e d t h e . slvl ( 6 ) The c h i l d p r a i s e d t h e . s1v2
(i)
.....
.....
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
231
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e g e s t a l t v i e w p o i n t , t h e c o n f i g u r a l cue o f t h e o r i g i n a l s u b j e c t and v e r b i n sentence ( 5 ) s h o u l d be a more e f f e c t i v e cue t h a n c r o s s o v e r frames such as sentence ( 6 ) i n which t h e s u b j e c t and v e r b a r e t a k e n f r o m s e p a r a t e sentences. The r e s u l t s o f Anderson & Bower's (1972) experiments showed t h a t t h e c r o s s o v e r cues were as e f f e c t i v e as t h e c o n f i g u r a l cues. Moreover, t h e amount o f r e t r i e v a l t o t h e c o n f i g u r a l cue d i d n o t exceed t h e amount o f r e c a l l t h a t had been p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h e p r o b a b i l i s t i c c o m b i n a t i o n o f r e c a l l a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e noun cue a l o n e and t h e v e r b cue alone. Since then, however, a number o f e x p e r i m e n t e r s have r e p o r t e d evidence showing t h a t t h e c o n f i g u r a l cue sometimes i s inore e f f e c t i v e t h a n would be p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h e r e c a l l induced b y t h e s e p a r a t e cues (Anderson, J . R., 1976, Chap. 10; Foss & Harwood, 1975; Marschark & P a i v i o , 1977; T i l l , 1977). Whether c o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s become e v i d e n t appear r e l a t e d t o a number o f f a c t o r s . The c o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t i s more l i k e l y t o o c c u r when l e a r n e r s have been induced t o encode t h e sentences m e a n i n g f u l l y (Anderson, J. R., 1976). C o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s a l s o a r e more e v i d e n t when a g i s t s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e i s used (Anderson, J . R., 1976, pp. 411-412). Foss & Harwood (1975) have suggested t h a t t h e e f f e c t can be demonstrated o n l y when t h e amount o f r e c a l l t o i n d i v i d u a l cues i s l o w . John Anderson's (1976, pp. 416-417) comparison o f experiments, however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s can o c c u r even when r e c a l l i s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h t o t h e s i n g l e cues. C o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s i n r e c a l l a l s o may be dependent upon whether t h e l e a r n e r s can r e c o g n i z e t h e cues as h a v i n g come f r o m t h e s t u d i e d sentence (Anderson, J . R., 1976, pp. 418-420; Anderson, R. C. e t a l . , 1977). A l t h o u g h no e m p i r i c a l comparisons have been r e p o r t e d , c o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s presumably would be more e v i d e n t i n some sentences t h a n o t h e r s . Maximal e f f e c t s m i g h t be p r e d i c t e d f o r sentences i n which t h e o b j e c t noun i s d i f f i c u l t t o r e c a l l f r o m e i t h e r t h e s u b j e c t cue a l o n e o r t h e v e r b cue a l o n e , b u t w h i c h c o u l d be remembered f r o m a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e two cues. P o s s i b l e examples o f such sentences m i g h t be "The m i n i s t e r h i t t h e booze," and "The m i s e r f i l l e d h i s p i l l o w . " F i n a l l y , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t a l l o f t h e p u b l i s h e d experiments a c t u a l l y p r o v i d e evidence o f c o n f i g u r a l p r o p e r t i e s i n c u i n g . The judgment o f whether c o n f i g u r a l e f f e c t s a r e i n e v i d e n c e depends upon t h e amount o f r e c a l l t h a t i s expected. With t h e Anderson & Bower (1972) f o r m u l a t h a t has been adopted by a l l e x p e r i m e n t e r s , t h e s u b j e c t probe and t h e v e r b probe a r e assumed t o account f o r s e p a r a t e p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c a l l v a r i a n c e . When b o t h cues a r e presented, some o f t h e r e c a l l i s a t t r i b u t e d o n l y t o t h e power o f t h e noun cue, and t h e r e m a i n i n g r e c a l l i s a t t r i b u t e d e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e v e r b cue. On many occasions, however, r e c a l l o f a p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t word can be induced e i t h e r by t h e s u b j e c t prompt a l o n e o r e l s e by t h e v e r b prompt alone. The two cues t h u s a r e n o t always independent i n t h e i r c a p a c i t i e s as i n d u c e r s o f r e c a l l . When such nonindependence o c c u r s , t h e p r e s e n t c o n f i g u r a l f o r m u l a l e a d s t o i n f l a t e d p r e d i c t i o n s f o r expected r e c a l l . A f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t cue and t h e v e r b cue a l s o possess some c a p a b i l i t y o f r e i n t e g r a t i n g each o t h e r . On a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f t h e r e t r i e v a l t r i a l s , then, what appears t o be a s i n g l e prompt i s a c t u a l l y two r e t r i e v a l cues. F o r t h e c r o s s o v e r c o m b i n a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t ,
232
MEMORY
t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f one o f t h e two cues p r o b a b l y i s l e s s l i k e l y t o induce t h e remembering o f t h e cue f r o m t h e o t h e r sentence. F u r t h e r , i n comp a r i s o n w i t h t h e two c o n f i g u r a l cues, t h e two c r o s s o v e r cues would appear t o be more independent o f each o t h e r i n t h e i r c a p a c i t i e s t o induce r e t r i e v a l o f t h e o b j e c t noun. I n sum, i f p r e d i c t i o n f o r m u l a s were developed t h a t t o o k i n t o account t h e d i f f e r i n g degrees o f independence o f t h e p r e d i c t o r cues, t h e d a t a m i g h t show c o n v i n c i n g evidence o f c o n f i g u r a l p r o p e r t i e s i n cuing. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUE AND TARGET Semantic S i m i l a r i t y . Cues v a r y i n t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e y a r e s i m i l a r t o t h e c o n t e n t t o be remembered. A t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l i t i s n o t easy t o p r o v i d e a s a t i s f a c t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s semantic s i m i l a r i t y . A judgment t h a t two cues d i f f e r i n t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o t a r g e t c o n t e n t may be based upon one o r a v a r i e t y o f judgmental dimensions. F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s always t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o engage i n t h e c i r c u l a r r e a s o n i n g t h a t one r e t r i e v a l cue m u s t have been more s i m i l a r t h a n a n o t h e r cue because t h e cue s t i m u l a t e d more r e c a l l . Nevertheless, a t t h e empirical l e v e l , t h e data v i r t u a l l y f o r c e the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues t h a t a r e more s i m i l a r t o t h e t a r g e t c o n t e n t a r e more e f f e c t i v e i n s t i m u l a t i n g remembering (Anderson, 1972; Anderson & McGaw, 1973; Anderson & Ortony, 1975; B a r c l a y e t a l . , 1974; Blumenthal & Boakes, 1967; Gumenik, 1979; Lesgold, 1972; Marschark & P a i v i o , 1977; M o r r i s , 1978; T i l l , 1977). As one example o f a s t u d y s u p p o r t i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , Anderson (1972) p r e s e n t e d sentences such as "The canary escaped from i t s cage." The most e f f e c t i v e cues were t h e o r i g i n a l nouns (90% r e c a l l ) . C l o s e l y r e l a t e d s u p e r o r d i n a t e cues (e.g., " b i r d " ) were more e f f e c t i v e (81% r e c a l l ) t h a n remote s u p e r o r d i n a t e s (e.g., " a n i m a l " , 72% r e c a l l ) . C l o s e l y r e l a t e d exemplars o f t h e remote s u p e r o r d i n a t e (e.g., " d u c k " ) were more e f f e c t i v e as cues (73% r e c a l l ) t h a n were d i s t a n t l y r e l a t e d exemplars (e.g., " t i g e r " ; 44% r e c a l l ) . A f i n a l example may be f o u n d i n t h e s t u d y by B a r c l a y e t a l . (1974). When l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d t h e sentence "The man l i f t e d t h e piano," t h e cue "something heavy" was e f f e c t i v e whereas t h e cue "something c u d d l y " was n o t e f f e c t i v e . When t h e sentence was "The man l i f t e d t h e i n f a n t , " however, "something c u d d l y " was e f f e c t i v e whereas "something heavy" was ineffective. A s s o c i a t i v e I n t e g r a t i o n Between Cue and T a r g e t . Formal s i m i l a r i t y between t h e cue and t h e t a r g e t may n o t be s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d u c e r e t r i e v a l . I n s t e a d , t h e f o r m a l s i m i l a r i t y must be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i m i l a r i t y as p e r c e i v e d by t h e l e a r n e r . A cue w h i c h i s n o t m e a n i n g f u l i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e t a r g e t c o n t e n t i s n o t l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e as a r e t r i e v a l a i d . H a l l & Geis (1980), f o r example, p r e s e n t e d some t a r g e t words (e.g.. " h o g " ) i n sentence c o n t e x t s t h a t e i t h e r were s e n s i b l e ("The hog i s f a t " ) o r n o t s e n s i b l e ("I made my h o g " ) . When l e a r n e r s were cued w i t h t h e c o n t e x t u a l frame o f a l l words except t h e t a r g e t word, o n l y t h e s e n s i b l e c o n t e x t s f a c i l i t a t e d r e t r i e v a l beyond t h e l e v e l s evidenced i n f r e e r e c d l l . Even a s e n s i b l e c o n t e x t may n o t be s u f f i c i e n t u n l e s s t h e l e a r n e r a c t u a l l y has e s t a b l i s h e d an a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e cue and t h e t a r g e t d u r i n g
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
233
encoding. Masson (1979), f o r example, p r e s e n t e d sentences such as "The c o n t a i n e r h e l d t h e a p p l e s . " A t t h e t i m e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e sentence e i t h e r was o r was n o t preceded by a cue (e.g., " b a s k e t " ) . Learners who r e c e i v e d such a cue were t o l d t h e cue m i g h t h e l p them i n comprehending t h e sentence. A f t e r w a r d s , h a l f t h e l e a r n e r s were g i v e n a f r e e r e c a l l t e s t , w h i l e t h e o t h e r l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e d t h e cues as a p o s s i b l e a i d i n r e t r i e v a l . For those who r e c e i v e d t h e cues a t r e c a l l , h a l f had n o t seen t h e cues p r e v i o u s l y . The r e t r i e v a l cues were e f f e c t i v e o n l y when t h e cues a l s o had been seen d u r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e sentences. R e t r i e v a l cues a l s o may be more e f f e c t i v e when t h e p r i o r c o n t e n t o f a passage focuses on t h e t o p i c d e s i g n a t e d by t h e prompt word. P e r f e t t i & Goldman (1974) p r e s e n t e d paragraphs i n which t h e l a s t sentence was t h e t a r g e t sentence f o r r e c a l l . F o r a t a r g e t sentence such as "The s e r f s r e b e l l e d a g a i n s t t h e baron," s e r f s was a more e f f e c t i v e cue f o r r e c a l l i n g t h e sentence t h a n was k ( 6 5 vs. 48%) r e c a l l , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) when t h e p r e c e d i n g c o n t e n t o f t h e paragraph focused on t h e s e r f s . When t h e p r e c e d i n g c o n t e n t focused on t h e baron, t h e cue -was almost as e f f e c t i v e as serfs (61 vs. 65% r e c a l l , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . As i n t e r p r e t e d by P e r f e t t i & Goldman, "a probe which has been t h e m a t i z e d by i t s o c c u r r e n c e i n a m e a n i n g f u l passage a c q u i r e s a r e t r i e v a l power t h a t i t otherwise lacks." P e r f e t t i & Goldman's (1974) c o n c l u s i o n may be v a l i d o n l y when t h e word used as a probe has been r e p e a t e d l y r e f e r e n c e d w i t h i n t h e t e x t . Even a t t h e i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a sentence, t h e sentence s t r u c t u r e n o r m a l l y a l l o w s a d i v i s i o n o f c o n t e n t i n t o t h a t which presumably has been r e f e r e n c e d b e f o r e ( " o l d o r g i v e n " ) and t h a t which i s now b e i n g a s s e r t e d ("new" i n f o r m a t i o n ) . F o l l o w i n g a s i n g l e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l i s t of u n r e l a t e d sentences, S i n g e r (1976) found t h a t t h e "new" noun o f a given-new sentence s e r v e d as a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r prompt t h a n t h e " o l d " noun (36.5% vs. 30.6% r e c a l l , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Encoding S p e c i f i c i t y . Under most c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i f a cue i s t o a c q u i r e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o induce remembering, t h e l i n k a g e between t h e cue and t h e t a r g e t must be e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e o f l e a r n i n g . A s u b s t a n t i a l number o f e x p e r i m e n t e r s have p r e s e n t e d ambiguous passages t h a t a r e d i f f i c u l t t o understand u n l e s s l e a r n e r s a r e p r o v i d e d a c l u e t o t h e main t o p i c o f t h e passage. Examples o f such passages i n c l u d e B r a n s f o r d & Johnson's (1972) "Washing C l o t h e s " and D o o l i n g & Lachman's (1971) " C h r i s t o p h e r Columbus D i s c o v e r s America.'' When such t i t l e s a r e p r o v i d e d __ o n l y a t t h e t i m e o f r e t r i e v a l , i . e . , as p o t e n t i a l r e t r i e v a l cues, remembering i s no b e t t e r t h a n i f t h e l e a r n e r had n o t r e c e i v e d t h e r e t r i e v a l cue ( B r a n s f o r d & Johnson, 1972; D o o l i n g & M u l l e t ; 1973). On t h e s u r f a c e , t h i s outcome appears t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e e a r l i e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t g i s t cues can enhance remembering. Indeed, t h e t i t l e would appear t o be t h e b e s t cue o f a l l f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e g i s t o f a passpge. When g i s t cues have been e f f e c t i v e , however, t h e t a r g e t sentences have been comprehensible. The c o n t e n t o f each sentence can be e a s i l y r e l a t e d t o known r e f e r e n t s , and t h e sentences a r e o b v i o u s l y i n t e r r e l a t e d v i a common r e f e r e n t s . F u r t h e r , t h o s e n o n l i t e r a l cues t h a t a r e e f f e c t i v e o s t e n s i v e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e essence o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e encoding e s t a b l i s h e d a t 1e a r n i n g .
234
MEMORY
For ambiguous passages, however, t h e content as a whole cannot be e a s i l y r e l a t e d t o l e a r n e r s ' e x i s t i n g knowledges. From a psychological viewpoint, i t i s not reasonable t o expect t h a t a t i t l e presented a t r e t r i e v a l would r e s u l t in t h e simultaneous transformation o f a l l input sentences i n t o a new i n t e r p r e t a t i v e format. Moreover, i t i s not reasonable t o assume t h a t such sentences a r e even represented in memory a t t h e time t h e t i t l e i s presented. I f t h i s a n a l y s i s i s v a l i d , then both types of s t u d i e s may be interpreted as providing support f o r Tulving's encoding s p e c i f i c i t y hypothesis. As documented by Tulving and Thompson (1973), t h e effectiveness of a r e t r i e v a l cue i n f a c i l i t a t i n g remembering appears dependent upon t h e extent t o which t h e r e t r i e v a l cue was associated with t h e t a r g e t a t t h e time of encoding. Within the prose l i t e r a t u r e , additional supporting evidence f o r t h e encoding s p e c i f i c i t y hypothesis may be found in experimental outcomes reported by Anderson (1972, 1974), Masson (1979), Morris (1978), Schustack & Anderson (1977), and Sefkow & Myers (1980). The encoding s p e c i f i c i t y hypothesis a l s o receives support from previously discussed s t u d i e s showing t h a t the more c l o s e l y t h e r e t r i e v a l context matches t h e o r i g i n a l learning context, t h e b e t t e r the remembering. SUMMARY
Perhaps the most i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the r e t r i e v a l l i t e r a t u r e i s t h e v i r t u a l absence of s t u d i e s in which r e t r i e v a l cues induced additional remembering of i n t a c t prose passages. A notable exception was t h e success o f Owens e t a l . (1979) i n stimulating additional r e t r i e v a l of a s t o r y by providing episode l a b e l s . Three additional s t u d i e s provided evidence of f a c i l i t a t i o n from other types of r e t r i e v a l cues, b u t these cues r e s u l t e d e i t h e r in countervailing losses of o t h e r information (perspective change, Anderson & Pichert, 1978), were applicable only t o t h e remembering of words i n musical scores (melody, Rubin, 1977), o r were dependent upon experimenters' i n t u i t i o n s as t o when cuing might be e f f e c t i v e (buzzer, Van Dam & Brinkerink-Carlier, Note 5 ) . Researchers, however, have been successful in assessing t h e influence of r e t r i e v a l cues on the remembering of unrelated sentences and words within such sentences. Based upon t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , a number of generalizations may be drawn. F i r s t , r e t r i e v a l cues t y p i c a l l y f a c i l i t a t e remembering. Studies have been reported, however, i n which cues had no influence o r even negative e f f e c t s on remembering. Thouah the data a r e s p a r s e , some evidence suggests t h a t r e t r i e v a l cues e x e r t a proportionately g r e a t e r influence a t longer retention i n t e r v a l s . Retrieval cues can influence t h e types of e r r o r s t h a t l e a r n e r s make in r e c a l l o r recognition. Cuing a l s o can influence t h e type of content t h a t i s remembered. T h u s , in some experiments, t h e presence of r e t r i e v a l cues eliminated t h e occurrence of primacy e f f e c t s . As t o whether r e t r i e v a l cues provide more a s s i s t a n c e t o l e a r n e r s with higher l e v e l s o r lower l e v e l s of knowledge r e l a t e d t o t h e t a r g e t passage, experiments can be found t h a t support e i t h e r outcome. T h e p a r t i c u l a r outcome t h a t occurs appears dependent upon the organizational s t a t u s of l e a r n e r s ' e x i s t i n g knowledges, t h e extent t o which t h e cues provide r e l e v a n t knowledges t h a t would otherwise be unavailable, and t h e extent
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
23 5
t o which l e a r n e r s can use t h e cues t o build new r e t r i e v a l routes t o knowledges t h a t a r e otherwise inaccessible. Both nonverbal and verbal cues can s t i m u l a t e additional remembering. For verbal cues, a typical outcome i s t h a t verbatim cues a r e more e f f e c t i v e than cues t h a t represent t h e g i s t . Some experimenters, however, have reported s t u d i e s in which t h e g i s t cues were more e f f e c t i v e . Such an outcome occurs primarily when t h e g i s t cue represents t h e overall meaning of t h e sentence b e t t e r than the verbatim cue. As time passes, and surface memory fades, the r e l a t i v e advantage of l i t e r a l cues a l s o fades. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a word cue a l s o i s r e l a t e d t o i t s grammatical r o l e . Subject nouns a r e more e f f e c t i v e than o b j e c t nouns; noun prompts a r e more e f f e c t i v e than a d j e c t i v e prompts; and verbs a r e l e s s e f f e c t i v e than nouns. The r e l a t i v e advantage of one type of grammatical cue over another appears dependent upon the extent t o which such cues a r e equated on o t h e r dimensions such as meaningfulness and word frequency. The s i z e of the advantage a l s o depends on t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t i e s of t h e sentence components t h a t a r e the r e t r i e v a l t a r g e t s . T h o u g h a number of experimenters have assumed t h a t the concreteness of r e t r i e v a l cues i s a determinant of e f f e c t i v e n e s s , the empirical evidence so f a r i s not convincing. S i m i l a r l y , t h e complexity o f the verb appears unrelated t o cuing e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Typically, t h e g r e a t e r t h e number o f r e t r i e v a l cues a v a i l a b l e t o the l e a r n e r , t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount t h a t was r e c a l l e d . Under c e r t a i n conditions, in f a c t , t h e presence of multiple cues resulted in configural increments in r e c a l l . Configural increments were evident primarily when sentences were encoded meaningfully, when g i s t representations were c r e d i t e d , and when r e c a l l t o s i n g l e cues was s u f f i c i e n t l y low t o allow incremental gains from multiple cues. Gains were not evident, however, when l e a r n e r s received access again t o l a r g e portions of the original t e x t and then attempted t o remember t h e remaining t a r g e t sentences. The s i m i l a r i t y of t h e cue t o t h e t a r g e t i s another important determinant of cuing e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Moreover, c o n s i s t e n t with the encoding s p e c i f i c i t y hypothesis, the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of r e t r i e v a l cues appears d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e extent t o which the meanings aroused by the cue overlap with t h e meanings established during t h e encoding of t h e t a r g e t sentences. REFERENCE NOTES
1. 2.
3.
Flammer, A . , & Tauber, M. m e i n time do organizational a i d s help? Paper presented a t t h e International Symposium on Text Processing, Fri bourg, Switzerland, September 1981. Johnson, R. E. Schemas, cuing, and the remembering of prose. Paper presented a t t h e meeting of t h e American Psychological Association, New Orleans, September 1974. Johnson, R . E . Contextual redintegration and t h e remembering of prose. Paper presented a t the meeting of t h e American Educational Research Association, Washington, D . C . , March 1975.
236
MEMORY
4.
Johnson, R. E . Retrieval cues in t h e remembering of prose. Paper presented a t t h e International Congress of Applied Psychology, Munich. W. Germany. Auaust 1978. Van Dam, G . ; & Brinkerink-Carlier, M. The reproduction of forward and downward knowledge during t e x t r e c a l l . Report No. 26, Psychological Laboratory, University of Utrecht, Netherlands, ADril 1981.
5.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J . R. Language, memory, a n d thought. New York: Wiley, 1976. Anderson, J . R . , & Bower, G. H . Configural properties i n sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 1 1 , 594-605. Anderson, J . R . , & Bower, G . H . Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. New E r k : V. H . Winston, 1973. Anderson, R . C . Semantic organization a n d r e t r i e v a l of information from sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 1 1 , 794-800. Anderson, R. C . Concretization and sentence learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 179-183. Anderson, R . C . , Goetz, E . T., P i c h e r t , J . W . , & Halff, H . M. Two faces of t h e conceptual peg hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1977, 3, 142-149. Anderson, R . C . , & McGaw, B. On the representation of meanings of general terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 101, 301-306. Anderson, R . C . , & Myrow, D . L . Retroactive i n h i b i t i o n of meaningful discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 81-94. Anderson, R . C . , & Ortony, A. On putting apples i n t o bottles-A problem of polysemy. Cognitive Psycholo , 1975, 7 , 167-180. Anderson, R. C . , & P i c h e r t , J . W. Recall%f previously unrecallable information following a s h i f t in perspective. Journal o f Verbal 17, 1-12. Learning and VePbal Behavior, 1978, Anderson, R . C . , P i c h e r t , J . W . , Goetz, E. T . , S c h a l l e r t , D. L., Stevens, K. V . , & T r o l l i p , S. R . I n s t a n t i a t i o n of general terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 5, 667-679. Anisfeld, M. False recognition of adjective-noun phrases. Journal of Experlnlental, 1970, 86, 120-122. Baker, L . , & Santa, J . L . Semantic i n t e g r a t i o n and context. Memory & Cognition, 1977, 5, 151-154. Barclay, J . R . , Bransford, J . D . , Franks, J . J . , McCarrell, N . S . , & Nitsch, K. Comprehension and semantic f l e x i b i l i t y . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 471-481. Begg, I . , & Wickelgren, W. A. Retention functions f o r s y n t a c t i c a n d lexical vs. semantic information i n sentence recoonition memory. Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2,353-359. Blumenthal, A. L . , & Boakes, R. Prompted r e c a l l of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 6 7 4 - 6 7 6 . Bower, G. H. S e l e c t i v e f a c i l i t a t i o n and i n t e r f e r e n c e i n r e t e n t i o n of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 1-8. Bransford, J . D. & Johnson, M. K. Contextual p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r understanding: Some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of comprehension and r e c a l l . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 1 1 , 717-726. Bransford, J . D., Nitsch, K. E . , & Franks, J . J . ScTi-dbling and t h e f a c i l i t a t i o n of knowing. I n R . C . Anderson, R . 3. Spiro, & W. E. Montague ( E d s . ) , Schooling and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1977, 31-55.
RETRIEVAL CUES AND THE REMEMBERING OF PROSE
237
Britton, B. K . , Meyer, B. J . , Hodge, M. H. & Glynn, S. M. Effects of t h e oraanization of t e x t on mernorv: Tests of r e t r i e v a l and resDonse c r i t e r i o n hypotheses. Journai of Experimental Psychology: ' Human Learning and Memory, 1980, 6, 620-629. Carter, J . F . , & Van Matre, N . H. Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67,900-904. Chiesi, H. L . , S p i l i c h , G . J . , & Voss, J . F. Acquisition of domainr e l a t e d information in r e l a t i o n t o high and 'low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 3, 257-273. Clark, H. H. The prediction of r e c a l l p a t t e r n s in simple a c t i v e sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 99-106. Cofer, C . N., Segal, E., S t e i n , J . , & Walker, H. Studies on f r e e r e c a l l of n o u n s following presentation under a d j e c t i v a l modification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 254-264. Corbett, A. T . , & Dosher, B. A. Instrument inferences i n sentence encoding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, lJ, 479-491. Dooling, D . J . , & Lachman, R. Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7971, g,216-222. Dooling, D . J . , & Mullet, R. L . Locus of thematic e f f e c t s in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 97,404-406. Foss, D. J . , & Harwood, D . A . Memory f o r sentences: Implications f o r human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14,1-16. Geiselman, R . E . P o s i t i v e f o r g e t t i n g of sentence m a t e r i a l . Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2, 677-682. Gibbs, R . W . , J r . S p i l l i n q the beans on understandinq and memory f o r idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 1986, 8, 149-156.' Graesser, A . C . Tests of a h o l i s t i c chunking model of sentence memory through analyses o f noun i n t r u s i o n s . Memory & Cognition, 1978, 6 , 527-536. Green, D. W. The e f f e c t s of task on t h e representation of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14,275-283 Gumenik, W. E. The advantaqe of s p e c i f i c terms over qeneral terms as cues f o r sentence r e c a i l : I n s t a n t i a t i o n o r r e t r j e v a l ? Memory & Cognition, 1979, 7 , 240-244. Hall, D. M., & Geis, M . F. Conqruitv and elaboration in f r e e and cued recall Journal of Experimentai Psychology: Human Learning a nd Memory, 1980, 5,/78-784. Horowitz, L . M., & Prytulak, L . S. Redintegrative memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 519-531. Jones, G . V . Multirate f o r g e t t i n g . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learnin and Memory, 1979, 5, 98-114. Kolina, J . G . , 111: Cued r e c a l l of prose as a function of t h e s t r u c t u r a l importance of t h e l i n g u i s t i c units. Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , California S t a t e College, Long Beach, 1972. Lesgold, A. M. Pronominalization: A device f o r unifying sentences in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 31 6-323. Marschark, M . , & Paivio, A. I n t e g r a t i v e processing o f concrete and a b s t r a c t sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 5, 217-231. Masson, M . E . J . Context and i n f e r e n t i a l cuins of sentence r e c a l l . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 173-185. Meyer, B . J . F. The organization o f prose and i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.
238
MEMORY
Mistler-Lachman, J . L. Depth of comprehension a n d sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 98-106. Morris, C . D . Acquisition-test i n t e r a c t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t dimensions of encoding. Memory & Cognition, 1978, 6 , 354-363. Owens, J . , Bower, G . H., & Black, J . B. T h e Tsoap opera" e f f e c t in s t o r y r e c a l l . Memory & Cognition, 1979, 7,185-191. Paivio, A. Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness i n paireda s s o c i a t e learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 4,32-38. Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. P e r f e t t i , C . A., & Goldman, S . R . Thematization and sentence r e t r i e v a l . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 70-79. Raeburn, V . P . The r o l e of the verb in sentence memory. Memory & Cognition, 1979, 7,133-140. Rubin, D. C. Very long-term memory f o r prose and verse. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 611-621. Sachs, J . S. Recognition memory f o r s y n t a c t i c a a semanti,c aspects of connected discourse. &e t i o n & Psychoph s i c s , 1967, 2 , 437-442. Schank. R . Conceutual deoendenc;: A theory of k t u r a l lanauTqe understanding. Cognitive' Psychoiogy, 1972,"3_, 552-631. Schustack, M . W . , & Anderson, J . R . Effects of analoqy t o p r i o r knowledge on memory f o r new information. Journal of Verbai Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 565-583. Sefkow, S . B., & Myers, J . L I Review e f f e c t s of inserted questions on learning from~prose. American Educational Research Journal, 1980, 1 7 , 435-447. S e h u l c e r , J . R., & Crouse, J . H . Storage and r e t r i e v a l of prose material. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 435-439. S e h u l s t e r , J . R . , McLaughlin, J . P, & Crouse, J . H . Separation of s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l processes in r e c a l l of prose. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 583-586. Singer, M. Thematic s t r u c t u r e and t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 13, 549-558. S p i l i c h , G . J . , Vesonder, G . T., Chiesi, H . L . , & Voss, J . F. Text processing o f domain-related information f o r individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 275-290. Summers, S . T . , & Fleming, J . S. Construction and reconstruction in memory. American Journal of Psychology, 1971, 84, 513-520. Thios, S . J . Memory f o r general and s p e c i f i c sentences. Memory & Cognition, 1975, 3, 75-77. Thorndyke, P . W . Conceptual complexity and imagery in comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 359-369. T i l l , R. E . Sentence memory prompted with i n f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1977, J:p 129-141. T i l l , R . E . , & Walsh, D. A. Encoding and r e t r i e v a l f a c t o r s in a d u l t memory f o r implicational sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 3, 1-16. Tulving, E., & Thompson, D. M. Encoding s p e c i f i c i t y and r e t r i e v a l processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 1973, &, 352-373. Turner, E . A . , & Rommetveit, R . Focus of a t t e n t i o n i n r e c a l l of a c t i v e and passive sentences. Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7,543-548.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING IN R E A D I N G Maryanne Martin Department of E xpe r i men t a 1 Psycho 1 oqy University of Oxford Oxford Enqland The r o l e of workinq memory i n mediating contextual influences upon reading i s i n v e s t i q a t e d . Efficiency of contextual processing i s assessed by the accuracy a n d latency with which people read heteronyms embedded i n disambiguating t e x t . Working memory i s manipulated by preloading readers with varying numbers of d i g i t s t o be subsequently r e c a l l e d . I t i s concluded t h a t i t i s the cen t r al executive r a t h e r t h a n the a r t i c u l a t o r y loop component of working memory t h a t i s c r u c i a l f o r contextual processing. INTRODUCTION
I t has been proposed by several t h e o r i s t s t h a t language comprehension r e q u i r e s the u t i l i s a t i o n of a working-memory space in which l i n g u i s t i c or l in g u i s t i c - b a s e d segments may be temporarily b o t h s t o r e d and processed ( e . g . , Baddeley & Hitch, 1 9 7 4 ; Bower, 1975; J u s t & Carpenter, 198C; LaBerge R Samuels, 1974). The present paper focusses upon one p a r t i c u l a r r o le t h a t working memory i s hypothesised t o perform in t e x t processing. This i s i t s r o l e i n mediating contextual influences upon the reading proc e s s . I t i s assumed t h a t these contextual influences a r e of several d i f f e r e n t forms, rangino from s y n t a c t i c ex p ect a tions on the one hand t o s c r i p t - b a s e d i m p l i c i t knowledoe o f the world ( e . g . , Bower, Black & Turner, 1979; Schank & Abelson, 1977) on the o t h e r , b u t t h a t i t may nevertheless be possible t o observe systematic c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by working memory u p o n t h e i r operation a s a whole. According t o Baddeley and Hitch ( e . g . , Baddeley, 1977; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Hitch & Baddeley, 1976), two important components of workina memory c o n s i s t of a c e n t r a l executive system and an a r t i c u l a t o r y loop. The c e n t r a l executive system i s involved i n information processing and decision taking as well as s t o r a g e , while i t i s the a r t i c u l a t o r y s t o r a a e loop t h a t endows short-term memory with i t s speech-dependent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The a r t i c u l a t o r y loop functions l i k e an audio tape loop of lim ite d duration (Baddeley, 1977), l i b e r a t i n ? an eq u i v al en t space in the c e ntra l executive component f o r processing purposes. I t i s capable of s t o r i n g a lim ite d amount, about t h r e e items, of speech or speech-recoded material in i t s o r d e r of i n p u t ; i f t h i s capacity i s not exceeded, l i t t l e stora ge demand on the c e n t r a l processing Component of the system w ill occur (Baddeley, 1976). On the o t h e r hand, the s t o r ao e of s i x items, f o r example, w ill require the use of b o t h t h e a r t i c u l a t o r y loop and the cen t ra l executive (Baddeley,l977).
239
240
MEMORY
From the Baddeley and Hitch model i t i s possible t o derive some relatively straightforward predictions. I f the a r t i c u l a t o r y loop i s a necessary component of the processing or storage of s e n t e n t i a l context, then holding three d i g i t s in memory while reading a sentence should be damaging t o performance. I f on the o t h e r hand the a r t i c u l a t o r y loop i s not normally involved in contextual f a c i l i t a t i o n then t h e r e should be no difference between reading performance with and without concurrent retention of three d i g i t s . Similarly, i f the central executive i s a necessary component of the processing o r storage of s e n t e n t i a l context, then holding s i x d i g i t s i n memory should be damaging compared t o holding o n l y three d i g i t s o r none a t a l l . Further, i f the central executive i s viewed as a pool of general processing capacity (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) then i f the number o f tempora r i l y s t o r e d d i g i t s i s increased beyond s i x , f o r example t o ten, then increased demands on the c e n t r a l executive should lead t o a f u r t h e r deteri o r a t i o n in context-dependent performance. In order t o i n v e s t i g a t e the role of context i n reading i t i s important t o be able t o assess empirically the e x t e n t of processing of the contextual t e x t . Possible methods include requiring subsequent r e c a l l of the text or asking questions concerning i t s content. Though u s e f u l , these methods do perhaps introduce atypical task demands i n t o the reading process. Thus for the experiment t o be reported a new task was devised.
I n the task used here, s u b j e c t s were asked t o read s i l e n t l y a l l b u t the l a s t word of a sentence, which was read aloud. Usually, i t would not be possible t o t e l l whether the context had been read, o r just the l a s t word. To overcome t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , the l a s t word i n t h i s experiment was chosen t o be a heteronym, t h a t i s , a word which i s pronounced in d i f f e r e n t ways dependinq on the meaning which i t c a r r i e s . For example, the word "sow" i s pronounced /saw/ i n the sentence "The seed packet had i n s t r u c t i o n s on how t o SOW", b u t pronounced /saw/ i n the sentence "The p i g l e t s followed a f t e r the SOW". Flonitoring the accuracy of pronunciation of the heteronyms allows a check on the processing of context in each condition. I t i s perhaps of i n t e r e s t t h a t homographs, words such as " b a n k " with two d i f f e r e n t meanings (money, river), have been used extensively t o investigate l e x i c a l coding ( e . g . , Conrad, 1974; Hogaboam & P e r f e t t i , 1975; Holmes, 1979; Marcel, 1980; Simpson, 1981; Tanenhaus, Leiman & Seidenberg, 1979). On the o t h e r hand, heteronyms have been l i t t l e used, t h o u g h with some recent notable exceptions ( e . g . , Carpenter & Daneman, 1981; blarren, Warren, Green, & Bresnick, 1 9 7 8 ) . METHOD
SUBJECTS Thirty-two women from the Oxford subject panel p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s experiment. They were aged between 18 an d 46 y e a r s . All had normal o r f u l l y corrected vision. They were each t e s t e d individually in a session l a s t i n g about one hour and f i f t e e n minutes. STIMULI AND APPARATUS Forty r e l a t i v e l y frequent heteronyms were s e l e c t e d from a l i s t compiled by Martin, Jones, Nelson and Nelson (1981). For each heteronym two d i f f e r e n t sentences were constructed, both containing the heteronym as l a s t word.
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING I N READING
241
The two d i f f e r e n t sentences unambiguously determined t h e two d i f f e r e n t senses ( a n d hence t h e two d i f f e r e n t p r o n u n c i a t i o n s ) o f t h e heteronym. Examples of two such sentences a r e The Sahara and K a l a h a r i a r e l a r g e DESERTS and I n t h e end t h e v i l l a i n g o t h i s j u s t DESERTS. I n t h e f i r s t sentence " d e s e r t s " i s s t a n d a r d l y pronounced / ' d e z a t s / , and i n t h e second / f d 1 - ~ 3 : t s / . The complete s e t o f e i g h t y sentences used i n t h e experiment, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o r r e c t p r o n u n c i a t i o n s f o r t h e heteronyms ( g i v e n i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l p h o n e t i c symbols) i s shown i n Table 1 . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was f o r each heteronym a c o n t r o l word t h a t d i d n o t f i t e i t h e r s e n t e n t i a l c o n t e x t . The c o n t r o l word was matched w i t h t h e heteronym i n t h r e e ways. F i r s t , i t had t h e same number o f s y l l a b l e s ; second, i t had t h e same i n i t i a l phoneme as t h e heteronym; t h i r d , i t s f r e q u e n c y was matched. The f r e q u e n c y o f t h e heteronym was assessed f r o m t h e Kuzera and F r a n c i s (1967) norms. The d i s t i n c t meanings o f a heteronym a r e n o t l i s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y i n t h e frequency norms, so i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o match a c o n t r o l word t o each meaning o f t h e heteronym s e p a r a t e l y . Instead, the best e s t i m a t e f o r each meaning was t a k e n t o be h a l f xhe o v e r a l l frequency of t h e heteronym. Thus c o n t r o l words were chosen such t h a t t h e y o c c u r r e d h a l f as f r e q u e n t l y as t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g heteronyms. As an example, t h e c o n t r o l word f o r t h e heteronym " d e s e r t s " was " d u l l e s t " . Each sentence frame ( i . e . , sentence w i t h o u t i t s heteronym) was t y p e d i n b l a c k ( 1 2 c h a r a c t e r s t o t h e i n c h ) on a 15.2 x 10.lcm b l a n k w h i t e c a r d . The sentence s t a r t e d 2.0cm f r o m t h e l e f t edge o f the c a r d and 5.2cm f r o m t h e t o p . I t began w i t h a c a p i t a l l e t t e r , w i t h t h e remainder ( e x c e p t i n i t i a l l e t t e r s o f p r o p e r nouns) i n l o w e r case. The heteronym ( o r c o n t r o l word) was t y p e d i n c a p i t a l s on a s e p a r a t e card, i n a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n 7.5cm f r o m t h e t o p of t h e c a r d . The cards were p r e s e n t e d i n a Cambridge t h r e e - f i e l d t a c h i s t o s c o p e l i n k e d t o an E l e c t r o n i c Development v o i c e key and Advance I n s t r u m e n t T C l l Timer Counter. The c o n c u r r e n t memory l o a d 1 i s t s were p r e p a r e d u s i n g digram-balanced L a t i n squares (Wagenaar, 1969) so t h a t each d i g i t o c c u r r e d e q u a l l y o f t e n i n each s e r i a l p o s i t i o n and e q u a l l y o f t e n n e x t t o e v e r y o t h e r d i g i t . The d i g i t s used were nought t o t e n , e x c l u d i n g seven (because o f i t s b i s y l l a b i c r a t h e r than m o n o s y l l a b i c n a t u r e ) . DESIGN
There were two s e t s o f sentences w i t h heteronyms, each s e t c o n t a i n i n g one member o f t h e p a i r o f sentences a p p r o p r i a t e t o each heteronym. The c o n t r o l sentences f o r t h e f i r s t s e t c o n s i s t e d o f t h e sentence frames f r o m t h e second s e t t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t r o l words i n s t e a d o f t h e heteronyms, and s i m i l a r l y t h e c o n t r o l sentences f o r t h e second s e t used t h e sentence frames o f t h e f i r s t s e t . The two s e t s o f s t i m u l i were each viewed by h a l f t h e s u b j e c t s . Each sentence was accompanied by a memory l o a d o f e i t h e r zero, t h r e e , s i x , o r ten d i g i t s . Each s u b j e c t was t e s t e d t e n times u s i n g each combination o f t h e f o u r memory l o a d s and t h e two types o f s e n t e n t i a l c o n t e x t , approp r i a t e and i n a p p r o p r i a t e . I n a d d i t i o n , each s u b j e c t f i r s t r e c e i v e d e i g h t p r a c t i c e t r i a l s . The 80 e x p e r i m e n t a l t r i a l s were made up o f e i g h t b l o c k s o f f i v e t r i a l s each i n each o f two h a l v e s o f t h e session. W i t h i n each
242
MEMORY Table 1 The Heteronyms ( i n CAPITALS), t h e i r Context, and thei r Pronunci a t i on People between f o r t y and f i f t y a r e middle-AGED /e1d3d/ The c h a r i t y was c a l l e d Help the AGED / ' e ~ d g ~ d / I n the s t r i n g q u a r t e t he played the double BASS /beIs/ A common B r i t i s h f i s h i s the BASS / b = s / The crowds i n S t Peters Square k n e l t t o be BLESSED / b l e s t / The Beatitudes a l l begin with the word BLESSED / ' b l e s r q She was dressed up i n buttons and BOWS / bouz/ The s h i p ' s cannon was f i r e d across the BOWS /bauz/ The Sahara and Kalahari a r e l a r g e DESERTS / Idezats/ I n the end the v i l l a i n got his j u s t DESERTS / ' d 1 1 z 3 : t s / He s a i d : Thank you, I d o n ' t mind i f I DO / d u / She f i n i s h e d singing the s c a l e : l a , t e , DO , & u / I t now matters l i t t l e whatever she says or DOES PAZ/ Female deer a r e known as DOES / d a u z j To loud applause she made her ENTRANCE / ' e n t r a n s / Her superb performance never f a i l e d t o ENTRANCE / I n i tra:ns/ The seasick g i r l looked green about the GILLS / q r l z / I n a p i n t measure t h e r e a r e f o u r GILLS /d311z/ In the cemetery he dug a GRAVE / ' g r e r v / Two types of accent i n French a r e acute and GRAVE / g r a : v / His e l d e r l y mother was an I N V A L I D / I I n v a l i d / Until i t was stamped the passport was I N V A L I D / I n i v a l I d / The employment exchange offered him a JOB / d 3 a b / Despite misfortune he was as p a t i e n t as JOB / I d p u b / A t the f i n i s h the champion was in the LEAD / l i : d / The old waterpipes were made of L E A D / l e d / The c h i l d ' s multiplication t a b l e s had been well L E A R N E D / 1 3 : n t / The mediaeval scholars were most LEARNED / ' 1 3 : n 1 d / This i s the house where he LIVES /11vJ I t i s s a i d t h a t a c a t has nine LIVES / l a I v z / There a r e s i x t y seconds in a MINUTE / I m I n I t / Compared with an elephant a mouse i s MINUTE / m a I ' n j u : t / The pregnant woman v i s i t e d the c l i n i c marked Ante-NATAL / IneItl/ A province of South Africa i s NATAL /na't;el/ The teacher s a i d : Poking out your tongue i s not very N I C E / n a i s / Her f a v o u r i t e r e s o r t on the French Riviera i s N I C E / n i : s / For lunch he a t e a Cornish PASTY / i p ; e s t I / Lack of fresh a i r made h i s face look PASTY / ' p e I s t r / The old man could a f f o r t few luxuries on h i s PENSION /'penJn/ A cheap French hotel i s c a l l e d a PENSION / ' P ~ : Q S X ~ : Q /
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING I N READING
243
The mahogany shone w i t h French POLISH / l p a l r J / The n a t i o n a l i t y o f t h e people i n Warsaw i s POLISH / ' p a u l r J / The s c a r e c r o w ' s c l o t h e s were o l d and RAGGED / ' r q I d / A t s c h o o l , t h e f a t c h i l d was u n m e r c i f u l l y RAGGED /rsg.d/ I l l i t e r a t e people c a n n o t w r i t e o r READ / r i : d / H i s e n c y c l o p a e d i c knowledge o f books showed t h a t he was w e l l READ / r e d / I n t h e l i b r a r y he s p e n t a l l his t i m e READING / ' r i : d I Q / T r a i n s f r o m O x f o r d t o London s t o p a t READING / ' r e d r g / The a t h l e t e b r o k e t h e w o r l d RECORD / ' r e k a : d / I n t h e s t u d i o t h e o r c h e s t r a had j u s t s t a r t e d t o RECORD / r I ' k a : d / He d i s l i k e d t h e r e q u e s t b u t he was t o o p o l i t e t o REFUSE / r r l f j u : z / The d u s t b i n men c o l l e c t e d a l l t h e REFUSE / I r e f j u : s / A f t e r a d e l a y t h e r e f e r e e o r d e r e d p l a y t o RESUME / r I i z j u : m / The main f i n d i n g s were summarised i n a b r i e f RESUME / I r e z j u : m e I / She p l a n t e d t h e seeds i n a s t r a i g h t ROW / r a w / The argument developed i n t o a t e r r i b l e ROW /raw/ The Cambridge b o a t sank b u t O x f o r d c o n t i n u e d ROWING / r a u r g / The a r g u m e n t a t i v e c o u p l e were always p u b l i c l y ROWING / r a u I o / The d r a i n s f l o w e d i n t o t h e main SEWER / s j u a / She was a b e t t e r k n i t t e r t h a n SEWER / ' S a m / When a snake sheds o l d s k i n i t i s s a i d t o SLOUGH / s l A f / He worked i n a c h o c o l a t e f a c t o r y i n SLOUGH / s l a w / The seed p a c k e t had i n s t r u c t i o n s on how t o SOW /saw/ The p i g l e t s f o l l o w e d a f t e r t h e SOW /saw/ D u r i n g t h e d r o u g h t w a t e r was i n s h o r t SUPPLY / s a c p l a r / The o l d man d i d h i s e x e r c i s e s s u r p r i s i n g l y SUPPLY / I S h p 1 1 I / A l e a d i n g p o r t i n Morocco i s c a l l e d TANGIER / t z n ' d g ~ a / The l a t e s t b a t c h o f lemons t a s t e d even TANGIER / t m r J I a / He was a l r e a d y l a t e b u t c o n t i n u e d t o TARRY / ' t = r r / I n t h e sun t h e r o a d s u r f a c e m e l t e d and became TARRY / I t a : r r / On h e a r i n g t h e s t o r y she wept b i t t e r TEARS / t r a z / The o l d c l o t h e s had many patches and TEARS / t e a z /
P a r i s i s famous f o r t h e E i f f e l TOWER /'taus/ The broken-down c a r was p u l l e d away by t h e TOWER /'taus/ The cinema was showing Gone W i t h The W I N D /wind/ The c l o c k ' s s t i f f s p r i n g was d i f f i c u l t t o WIND /waInd/ On t h e t o p o f t h e c l i f f s i t was v e r y WINDY / I w I n d I / The she1 t e r e d p a t h was meandering and WINDY / I w a I n d I / The swordsman i n f l i c t e d a g r i e v o u s WOUND /wu:nd/ Each day t h e c l o c k had t o be WOUND /waund/
244
MEMORY
block, the load and context conditions were consta nt (of course, the d i g i t s of the load d i f f e r e d on each t r i a l ) . Each combination of load and context occurred once i n each h al f of the s e s s i o n . The orde r i n which the cond i t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t was counterbalanced across subje c ts using a digram-balanced Latin square, and each sentence occurred equally ofte n with each d i g i t load. PROCEDURE Typed i n s t r u c t i o n s explaining t h e task were given t o each subje c t a t the s t a r t of the experiment. Subjects had t o memorize the i d e n t i t y a n d order of a s e t of d i g i t s a n d t o read aloud as f a s t as possible the word in c a p i t a l s t h a t followed t h e sentence frame. A t the s t a r t of each t r i a l the experimenter t o l d the s u b j e c t whether o r n o t the sentence frame was he1 pf u l , a n d the s i z e of the memory l o ad . Subjects looked a t the screen of the tachistoscope while t h e experimenter read aloud the d i g i t s a t a n even ra te of one d i g i t per second. Immediately a f t e r the l a s t d i g i t the subje c t s i l e n t l y read t h e sentence frame which was displayed f o r 4 s e c . This was immediately followed by a c a p i t a l i z e d word f o r another 4 ' s e c . The subject read t h i s word aloud as f a s t as possible i n t o a microphone. The time elapsed between the o n s et of the s i n g l e word and the s u b j e c t ' s response was noted by the experimenter, t o g et h er with the pronunciation of the word. Next, on t r i a l s with a memory load the word "Recall" was displayed. Subjects wrote down the d i g i t s they could remember from l e f t t o r i g h t in boxes i n response booklets, i n the o r d er the d i g i t s had been presented (guessing i f n e c e s s ar y ) . On t r i a l s without a memory load the word "Wait" was displayed i n s t e a d . RESULTS This s e c t i o n r e p o rt s the reading l a t e n c i e s and e r r o r s , and the d i g i t recall data . R E A D I N G LATENCIES Figure 1 shows the e f f e c t of varying concurrent memory load on the latency of c o r r e c t l y pronounced words preceded by e i t h e r appropriate o r inapprop r i a t e c o n t e x t . When an e r r o r was made i n pronouncing e i t h e r onie o r b o t h of a matched p a i r of words, the r eact i o n times f o r b o t h words were removed from c o n s i d e r a t i o n. The data were subjected t o a three-way a n a l y s i s of variance (c onte xt type by s i z e o f memory load by s u b j e c t s ) . \&lordswith a ppropria te contexts were read s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r (720.1 msec) than words with inappropriate cont e x t s (786.3 msec), F(1,31) = 68.74, p < 0.001. There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of s i z e of concurrent memory load (means were 778.3, 779.7, 800.7, and 807.2 msec f o r memory loads of zero, t h r e e , s i x , and ten items, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F( 3,93) = 4.00, p < 0.01. The appropriate-context data were f u r t h e r examined using a S c h e f f i S t e s t . Reading times were s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer f o r concurrent memory loads of s i x and ten items (744.0 msec) than f o r zero and t h r ee items (696.2 msec), p < 0.05, while the re were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n ces within these two p a i r s . Further i n t e r e s t r e l a t e s t o t h e i n f l u en ce on these data of the frequency of occurrence i n English o f the words t h a t were read. Because of the
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING I N READING
245
ambiguodsness o f f r e q u e n c i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t senses o f h e t e r o n y m s , o n l y t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e - c o n t e x t d a t a w e r e a n a l y s e d . The words were d i v i d e d i n t o two e q u a l h a l v e s o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r KuFera a n d F r a n c i s ( 1 9 6 7 ) f r e q u e n c i e s . The t w e n t y words i n t h e h i g h f r e q u e n c y g r o u p h a d a mean f r e q u e n c y o f 87.2, and t h e t w e n t y i n t h e l o w f r e q u e n c y g r o u p one o f 3.65. F i g u r e 2 shows t h e e f f e c t s o f w o r d f r e q u e n c y a n d o f memory l o a d . S l i g h t l y more d a t a were
Memory
Load
Figure 1 R e a d i n g L a t e n c i e s f o r D i f f e r e n t Memory Loads, w i t h F i l l e d and U n f i l l e d C i r c l e s r e f e r r i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y t o A p p r o p r i a t e and I n a p p r o p r i a t e Context
MEMORY
246
used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s t h a n t h e p r e v i o u s one s i n c e o n l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t p r o n u n c i a t i o n e r r o r s were excluded, and n o t a l s o d a t a yoked t o a p p r o p r i a t e - c o n t e x t p r o n u n c i a t i o n e r r o r s . A three-way a n a l y s i s o f variance ( w o r d f r e q u e n c y b y s i z e o f memory l o a d by s u b j e c t s ) showed t h a t h i g h f r e quency words were r e a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r (766.9 msec) t h a n l o w frequency words (816.1 rnsec), F(1,31) = 23.88, p < 0.001. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t o f memory load, F(3,93) = 1.10, o r o f an i n t e r a c t i o n between word f r e q u e n c y and memory l o a d , F(3,93) = 1.77.
U
a v) E
i= c
820t 800
0 .+ 8 780-
d?
j 7607400
3 Memory
6
10
Load
Figure 2 Reading L a t e n c i e s f o r D i f f e r e n t Memory Loads, w i t h F i l l e d and U n f i l l e d C i r c l e s r e f e r r i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y t o High and Low Word Frequency.
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING IN READING
247
R E A D I N G ERRORS
The l e v e l of accuracy of pronunciation was high t h r o u q h o u t . Those e r r o r s t h a t did occur can be categorized i n t o two types. The f i r s t c o n s i s t s of completely mistaken readings, f o r example "bass" read as "brace" ( a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t ) , a n d "impromptu" read as "important" (ina ppropria te c o n t e x t " ) . These e r r o r s occurred a t an extremely low and approximately constant r a t e throughout the experiment: f o r appropria te c onte xt, r a t e s were 0.6%, 0'6, OX and 0.3% ( f o r memory loads of zero, t h r e e , s i x , a n d t e n , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , while correspondinq r a t e s f o r inappropriate context were 0.675, Ox,, 0.3:; and 0.9'4. The second type of e r r o r c o n s i s t s of pronouncing a heteronym in one legal manner when the context p r es cr i b es t h e o t h e r , f o r example reading /'Invalid/ r a t h e r t h a n / I n v zl I d / i n the sentence "Until i t was stamped the passport was INVALID". This type of e r r o r (which can occur only in the a p p r o p r i a t e context co n d i t i o n ) was submitted t o a two way a na lysis of variance ( s i z e of memory load by s u b j e c t s ) . Mean r a t e s f o r loads of zero, t h r e e , s i x , and ten were 8 . 4 %, 9.4%, 1 1 . 3 % , and 10.6%, and did n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , F(3,93) = 0 . 4 8 . Analysis of t h e summation of b o t h types of e r r o r revealed t h a t memory load was not s i g n i f i c a n t e i t h e r as a main e f f e c t , F(3,93) = 0 . 4 5 , o r i n i n t e r a c t i o n with type of c onte xt, F(3,93) = 0 . 3 5 . ACCURACY OF RECALL
Fiqure 3 shows t h e percentage r e c a l l of the d i g i t l i s t s used as memory loads ( t h r e e , s i x , o r ten i t ems ) , as a function of s e r i a l position of
3digits f
90 ~
aJ 8070U
[x
c U
60-
L
50 -
al
40c
6 U
L
a"
302010I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 1 0
Serial
Position
Figure 3 Percentage Recall of Memory Loads o f Dif f e r e n t Lengths a s a Function o f Presentation S e r i a l POS i t i o n
2 48
MEMORY
presentation. An item was only scored as c o r r e c t i f i t s s e r i a l position as well a s i t s i d e n t i t y was c o r r e c t l y remembered. The t o t a l number of items r e c a l l e d from each l i s t was submitted t o a twoway analysis of variance (length of memory load l i s t by s u b j e c t s ) . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of the length of t h e l i s t , F ( 2 , 6 2 ) = 63.76, p < 0.001; on average, subjects c o r r e c t l y recalled 2.96, 4.61, a n d 4.44 items from l i s t s of lengths t h r e e , s i x , a n d ten, respectively. These mean r e c a l l l e v e l s were f u r t h e r examined using a ScheffG S t e s t , which revealed t h a t with three-item l i s t s subjects r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer items t h a n with e i t h e r six-item l i s t s , p -Z 0.001, or ten-item l i s t s , p < 0.001, b u t t h a t there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between six-item and ten-item lists. DISCUSSION Clear evidence t h a t contextual processing was g r e a t l y used i n the reported experiment, as a n t i c i p a t e d , i s provided by the high level of c o r r e c t disambiguation of heteronym pronunciation ( e . g . pronouncing "wound" as /waund/ r a t h e r than / w u : n d / when the context implies an i n j u r y ) . I n the absence of contextual processing, pronunciation would on average have been expected t o be c o r r e c t on 50% of occasions, b u t the actual value was approximately 90'; in a l l conditions. I t was indeed somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the percentage of c o r r e c t pronunciation did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y among d i f f e r e n t memory load conditions. Latency of c o r r e c t pronunciation did on the other hand vary systematically as a function of memory load. I t was found t h a t the imposition of a memory load of t h r e e d i g i t s did n o t impair the latency of contextually-based pronunciation r e l a t i v e to t h a t when reading normally. A load of s i x d i g i t s , on the o t h e r hand, produced a large decrement in performance, which remained a t approximately the same level when the load was increased s t i l l f u r t h e r t o ten d i g i t s . The absence of an e f f e c t of a three-item memory load suggests t h a t Baddeley and H i t c h ' s a r t i c u l a t o r y loop component of working memory i s n o t u t i l i z e d i n mediating the e f f e c t s upon reading of l i n g u i s t i c contextual information. This finding i s c o n s i s t e n t with those of Baddeley and Hitch (1974) themselves t h a t the a r t i c u l a t o r y loop i s n o t u t i l i z e d in verbal reasoning o r the comprehension of v i s u a l l y presented m a t e r i a l s , which are s i m i l a r l y unaffected by the retention o f three items. The impairment observed here with a concurrent load of s i x items, on the o t h e r h a n d , implicates the c e n t r a l executive of working memory in contextual mediation. Again, s i m i l a r r e s u l t s have been obtained by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and Hitch a n d Baddeley (1976) when i n v e s t i g a t i n g verbal reasoning and comprehension. The present r e s u l t suggests t h a t the underlying reason f o r these r e s u l t s may have been t h a t i n both cases heavy demands were placed upon the processing and storage of information of use in promoting top-down influences upon t e x t processing. F i n a l l y , a1 though individual differences were not studied i n the present work, the r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t a l s o with the recent finding by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) of a positive c o r r e l a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s ' working memory a n d reading a b i l i t i e s .
I t was expected t h a t the reading of r e l a t i v e l y low-frequency words might place g r e a t e r demands upon l i n g u i s t i c processing ( J u s t & Carpenter, 1980), b u t a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between word frequency and s i z e of memory
WORKING MEMORY AND CONTEXTUAL PROCESSING I N READING
249
l o a d was n o t i n f a c t observed. However, h i g h - f r e q u e n c y words were o v e r a l l r e a d f a s t e r t h a n l o w - f r e q u e n c y ones, i n a c c o r d w i t h p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s ( B e r r y , 1971 ; Fors t e r & Chambers, 1973). An a l t e r n a t i v e a c c o u n t o f these r e s u l t s may be o f f e r e d w i t h i n t h e terms o f t h e r e c e n t M a l t e s e c r o s s model o f Broadbent (1980, i n press-a, i n p r e s s - b ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s model, t h e c o g n i t i v e system i s c o n c e p t u a l i s e d as a Maltese c r o s s . The end o f each arm h o l d s a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f memory s t o r e : an i n p u t b u f f e r , an o u t p u t b u f f e r , a l o n g - t e r m a s s o c i a t i v e memory, and a work space. I n f o r m a t i o n f l o w i s b o t h c e n t r i p e t a l , f r o m t h e end o f each arm t o t h e c e n t r e of t h e c r o s s , and c e n t r i f u g a l , f r o m t h e c e n t r e t o t h e ends o f t h e arms. A t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e c r o s s i s a p r o c e s s o r whose f u n c t i o n i s s i m p l y t o d i r e c t t h e f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n between t h e s t o r e s . I t i s t h e workspace arm t h a t Broadbent proposes h o l d s t h e c o n t e x t o f a sentence w h i l e i t i s b e i n g r e a d . The absence o f a decrement i n r e a d i n g performance upon t h e a d d i t i o n o f a s m a l l memory l o a d of t h r e e d i g i t s suggests t h a t these a r e s t o r e d i n an arm o t h e r than t h a t o f t h e workspace. The c o n s i d e r a b l e d e c l i n e i n r e a d i n g performance t h a t occurs when t h r e e f u r t h e r d i g i t s a r e imposed i m p l i e s t h a t t h i s second arm has o n l y a s m a l l c a p a c i t y . Furthermore, c o n s i d e r a b l e f o r g e t t i n g o f t h e s t o r e d d i g i t s seems t o have o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e s h o r t f o r g e t t i n g i n t e r v a l between t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n and r e c a l l . From l i s t s o f b o t h s i x and t e n i t e m s o n l y a b o u t f o u r and a h a l f were r e c a l l e d on average, w e l l below t h e usual immediate d i g i t span o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y seven ( s e e Cavanagh, 1972; M a r t i n , 1978). Thus these d a t a suggest t h a t w h i l e c o n t e x t u a l p r o c e s s i n g i s mediated by t h e workspace arm o f t h e model, a c o n c u r r e n t l y processed d i g i t l i s t i s h e l d i n a s t o r e o f s m a l l c a p a c i t y and r a p i d f o r g e t t i n g . The o u t p u t b u f f e r s h o u l d be occupied by t h e process o f r e a d i n g aloud, and hence t h e l i k e l y c a n d i d a t e f o r t h i s d i g i t s t o r e would, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s model, appear t o be t h e i n p u t b u f f e r arm. AC KNOWLEOGEMENTS
The a u t h o r wishes t o thank Sara Dickson f o r t e s t i n g t h e s u b j e c t s , Donald Broadbent and D a v i d C l a r k f o r v a l u a b l e d i s c u s s i o n , and t h e Medical Research Council f o r t h e i r support. REFERENCES Baddeley, A.D. The psychology o f memory. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Working memory and r e a d i n g . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Baddeley, A.D. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on P r o c e s s i n g o f V i s i b l e Language, Geldrop, The N e t h e r l a n d s , September 1977. Baddeley, A.D. & H i t c h , G. Working memory. I n G.H. Bower ( E d . ) , The psycho l o g y o f l e a r n i n g and m o t i v a t i o n . New York: Academic Press, 1914. B e r r y , C . Advanced f r e a u e n c y i n f o r m a t i o n and v e r b a l resDonse t i m e s . P;ychonomic Science, '1971; 23, 151-152. C o g n i t i v e Psychology: An i n t r o d u c t i o n . I n W.K. Estes ( E d . ) , Bower, G.H. Handbook o f l e a r n i n g and c o g n i t i v e processes. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1915. Bower, G.H., B l a c k , J.B., & Turner, T.J. S c r i p t s i n memory f o r t e x t . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1979, 11, 177-220. Broadbent, D.E. The m i n i m i z a t i o n o f models. I n A.J. Chapman & D.M. Jones (Eds.), Models o f man. L e i c e s t e r : The B r i t i s h P s y c h o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , 1980.
250
MEMORY
Broadbent, D.E. From t h e p e r c e p t t o t h e c o c i n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e . I n A.D. Baddeley & J . Long'(Eds:), A t t e n t i o n and performance I X . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. i n Dress. l a ) Broadbent, D . t : P e k e p t u a i experiments and language t h e o r i e s . Proceedings o f t h e Royal S o c i e t y o f London, i n p r e s s . ( b ) Carpenter, P.A.. & Daneman, M. L e x i c a l r e t r i e v a l and e r r o r r e c o v e r y : A model based on eye f i x a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, 1981, 20, 137-160. Cavanagh, J.P. R e l x i o n between t h e immediate memory span and t h e memory search r a t e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1972, 79, 525-530. Conrad, C . C o n t e x t e f f e c t s i n sentence comprehension: A s t u d y o f t h e s u b j e c t i v e l e x i c o n . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1974, 2, 130-138. d i f f e r e n c e s i n w o r k i n g memory Daneman, M., & Carpenterand r e a d i n g . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 450-466. L e x i c a l access and naming t i m e . J o u r n a l F o r s t e r , K . I . , & Chambers, S.11. o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 627-635. Verbal r e a s o n i n g a 3 w o r k i n g memory. H i t c h , G.J., & Baddeley, A.D. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1976, 28, 603-621. Hogaboam, T.W., & P e r f e t t i , C.A. L e x i c a l a m b i g u i t y a n d s e n t e n c e compre14, hension. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal B e h a v i o r , 1975, 265- 274. Accessing ambiguous words d u r i n g sentence comprehension. Holmes, V.M. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 1979, 31, 569-589. J u s t , M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. A t h e o r y o f r e a d i n g : From eye f i x a t i o n s t o comprehension. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1980, 87, 329-354. Computational a n a l y s i s o f present-day American Kurera, H., & F r a n c i s , l.1.N. En l i s h Providence, R I : Brown U n i v e r s i t y Press, L a B h : , & Samuels, S.J. Toward a t h e o r y o f auot?:p r o c e s s i n g i n r e a d i n g . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1974, 6, 293-323. Marcel, T. Conscious and preconscious r e c o g n i t i o n o f polysemous words: Locating the s e l e c t i v e e f f e c t s o f p r i o r verbal context. I n R. S. N i c k e r s o n (Ed.), A t t e n t i o n and performance V I I I . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. F a r t i n , PI. Memory span as a measure o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory c a p a c i t y . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1978, 6, 194-198. M a r t i n , M., Jones, G.V., Nelson, D.L., &-Nelson, L. Heteronyms and polyphones: C a t e g o r i e s o f words w i t h mu1 t i p l e phonemic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r Research Methods & I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , 1981, 13, 299-307. S c h a n k , g o a p l a n s , s an-hunderstanding: An i n q u i r y i n t o human knowledqe s t r u c t u r e s . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. Simpson, G.B. Meaning dominance and semantic c o n t e x t i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g of l e x i c a l a m b i g u i t y . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1981, 20, 120-136. Evidence f o r m u l t i p l e TanenhausFM.K., Leiman, J.M., & Seidenberg, M.S. stages i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f ambiguous words i n s y n t a c t i c c o n t e x t s . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 427-440. Wagenaar, W.A. Note on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of diqram-balanced L a t i n squares. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1969, 72, 384-386. Warren, R.E., Warren, N.T., GreenTJ.P., & B r e s n i c k , J.H. M u l t i p l e semantic encoding o f homophones and homographs i n c o n t e x t s b i a s i n g dominant o r 6, 364-371. s u b o r d i n a t e meanings. Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1978, -
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Hammer and W . Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
AGE, READING ABILITY, AND SEMANTIC IVTEGPATInN: AN INFORMATInN PROCESSING MnOFL
John R . K i r b y U n i v e r s i t v o f Newcastle New South Wales, A u s t r a l i a , 2308
T h i s paper examines t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d i n s comprehension and semantic i n t e q r a t i o n ( a s measured bv i n f e r e n c i n q i n a r e c a l l t a s k ) i n v a r i o u s aqe aroups. R e s u l t s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n terms o f a model i n which i n f e r e n c i n q o c c u r s i n response t o two i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s : t h e a b i l i t y t o recode o r i n t e a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n ( w h i c h i n c r e a s e s w i t h developmental l e v e l ) , and t h e need t o recode o r i n t e g r a t e (which decreases w i t h developmental l e v e l ) . I t i s concluded t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d i n o a b i l i t v and semantic i n t e q r a t l o n w i l l depend upon t a s k demands and s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t a s k demands, i n a d d i t t o n t o developmental 1eve1
.
One o f t h e fundamental i s s u e s I n t e x t p r o c e s s i n q concerns how i n f o r m a t i o n i s t n t e q r a t e d i n t h e b r a i n . Because c o q n f t l o n i s l i m i t e d i n t h e number of chunks o f i n f o m a t t o n w h i c h c a n be m a i n t a i n e d , incominq i n f o r m a t i o n must be r a p i d l y and, h o p e f u l l v , e f f t c t e n t l y recoded i n t o l a r a e r chunks o f i n f o r m a t i o n . Thus a q r e a t amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n can be s t o r e d i n a r e l a t i v e l v small number o f chunks. The importance o f t h i s r e c o d i n q i s p a r t i c u l a r l v a p p a r e n t i n an a c t i v i t y such as r e a d i n q , i n which t h e f l o w o f new information i s quite fast. Three f a c t o r s can be seen t o i n f l u e n c e what r e c o d i n q i s performed. The f i r s t two o f t h e s e a r e p e r c e i v e d r e l a t i o n s amonq t h e u n i t s o f t h e i n p u t o r new i n f o r m a t i o n , and p e r c e i v e d r e l a t i o n s between i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n and already-known o r o l d i n f o r m a t i o n . These two f a c t o r s c l e a r : y i n t e r a c t , as r e l a t i o n s amonq new i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s w i l l a l m o s t alwavs be p e r c e i v e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o e x i s t i n q knowledqe schemes. I t can a l s o be seen t h a t t h i s r e l a t i n q o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o o t h e r new o r o l d i n f o r m a t i o n c a p t u r e s what i s usual 1 v meant by r e a d i n q comprehension. The t h i r d f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n q r e c o d i n q i s more s t r a t e q i c i n n a t u r e , and r e p r e s e n t s c h o i c e s ( c o n s c i o u s o r unconscious) made by t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e a d e r a b o u t how t o process t h e r e a d i n q m a t e r i a l . These c h o i c e s a r e made on t h e b a s i s of h a b i t u a l response p a t t e r n s , o r i n response t o p e r c e i v e d t a s k demands. C u r r e n t t h e o r i e s o f semantic i n t e q r a t i o n ( e . 4. B r a n s f o r d h Franks, 1971; Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979; K i n t s c h , 1974; see Walker It Mever, 1980, f o r a r e v i e w ) a q r e e t h a t i n f e r e n c e s , i n t h e f o r m o f r e l a t i o n s amona u n i t s of 251
252
MEMORY
new m a t e r i a l , a r e formed a t i n p u t . There i s disaqreement, however, concern i n q t h e nature o f the stored information (abstract-propositional vs. verb a l ) , whether o r n o t t h e o r i q i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s encoded as w e l l as t h e i n f e r e n c e , and what t a s k f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e t h e drawino of i n f e r e n c e s . One obvious area o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t h e t e a c h i n a o f r e a d i n g comprehension. When we t e a c h r e a d i n q , o t h e r t h a n a t a v e r v b a s i c wordr e c o q n i t i o n l e v e l , we a r e t r y i n 0 t o t e a c h t h e c h i l d t o e x t r a c t meaninq f r o m t h e t e x t , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o c o n s t r u c t meaninas which a r e n ' t e x p l i c i t l v p r e s e n t i n t h e t e x t . Most measures o f r e a d i n a comprehension a t t e m p t t o assess these s k i l l s by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f q u e s t i o n s o f b o t h " l i t e r a l " and " i n f e r e n t i a l " comprehension. I n f e r e n t i a l comprehension, i f n o t r e a d i n o comprehension i n q e n e r a l , s h o u l d be a f u n c t i o n o f semantic i n t e q r a t i o n . Blachowicz (1977-78) has bequn t h e s t u d y o f semantic i n t e q r a t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t o f c h i l d r e n ' s r e a d i n o . She p r e s e n t e d s u b j e c t s , who ranaed i n aae f r o m 7 vears t o a d u l t , w i t h 10 s h o r t 3-sentence paraqraphs l i k e t h e f o l lowinq: The b i r d s s a t on t h e branch. A hawk f l e w o v e r i t . The b i r d s were r o b i n s . S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o 'I understand and remember" t h e paraqraphs, and were g i v e n 5 m i n u t e s t o do so. Then, f o l l o w i n q a 3-minute f i l l e r t a s k , t h e y were q i v e n a s e t o f r e c o q n i t i o n sentences, and asked t o s e l e c t w h i c h sentences t h e y had seen p r e v i o u s l y i n e x a c t l y t h e same form. Four r e c o q n i t i o n sentences were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r each paraqraph: one sentence t h a t had appeared ( T r u e Statement), one sentence t h a t was an a c c e p t a b l e i n f e r e n c e f r o m two o r more o f t h e a c t u a l sentences ( T r u e I n f e r e n c e ) , one sentence t h a t c o n t r a d i c t e d one t h a t was q i v e n ( F a l s e S t a t e m e n t ) , and one which c o n t r a d i c t e d an a c c e p t a b l e i n f e r e n c e ( F a l s e I n f e r e n c e ) . The r e c o q n i t i o n sentences were p r e s e n t e d i n random o r d e r . B l a c h o w i c z ' r e s u l t s were q u i t e c l e a r : younaer s u b j e c t s r e c o q n i z e d ( c o r r e c t l y o r i n c o r r e c t l y ) more sentences t h a n o l d e r s u b j e c t s , and a l l s u b j e c t qroups showed a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n o f response, i n which True I n f e r e n c e s were s e l e c t e d f a r more o f t e n t h a n a l l o t h e r t y p e s o f sentences, i n c l u d i n q True Statements. W h i l e r e a d i n q comprehension a b i l i t y c o u l d be presumed t o i n c r e a s e a c r o s s aqe qroups, Blachowicz made no use o f comprehension scores w i t h i n aqe qroups. The purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was t o r e p l i c a t e B l a c h o w i c z ' e x p e r i m e n t f o r 7, 9, and 11 year o l d s , w i t h two m o d i f i c a t i o n s and t h e i n c l u s i o n o f r e a d i n q comprehension scores. One m o d i f i c a t i o n was t o s h o r t e n t h e s t u d y t t m e t o 3 mtnutes f r o m 5 as t h i s p r o v i d e d a l l s u b j e c t s ample t i m e t o r e a d a l l paragraphs s e v e r a l t i m e s . The second m o d i f i c a t i o n was more m a j o r , t h e e l b i n a t t o n o f t h e f i l l e r t a s k . T h i s was done so t h a t t h e t a s k more resemb l e d t h e normal r e a d t n g comprehension t a s k , i n w h i c h q u e s t i o n s i m m e d i a t e l y Pol l o w r e a d t n a . Readtnq comprehenston were used t o i n v e s t i q a t e whether r e a d e r s o f t h e same aqe b u t o f d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of r e a d i n a a b i l i t v would p e r f o r m d t f f e r e n t l y on t h e i n f e r e n c i n q t a s k . Four p r e d i c t i o n s were formed, on t h e b a s i s o f B l a c h o w i c z ' r e s u l t s and t h e suqgested r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d i n q and i n f e r e n c i n q . These p r e d i c t i o n s a l s o assume t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s and t h e d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i mental m a t e r i a l s would n o t have any e f f e c t . The p r e d i c t i o n s were: ( 1 ) vounq s u b j e c t s would s e l e c t more sentences t h a n o l d e r s u b j e c t s , ( 2 ) t h e response
SEMANTIC INTEGRATION
253
P a t t e r n would be s i m i l a r a c r o s s aqe qroups, ( 3 ) a l l qroups would show a p r e f e r e n c e f o r True I n f e r e n c e s , and ( 4 ) t h a t r e a d i n a comprehension scores would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o s e l e c t i o n o f True I n f e r e n c e s , thouah t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p m i q h t o n l y emerqe a f t e r a c e r t a i n aqe was a t t a i n e d . A s w i l l be seen below, t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e f o u r t h p r e d i c t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e d f u r t h e r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a more comprehensive t h e o r e t i c a l framework. These w i l l be d e s c r i b e d below. METHOD SUBJECTS The s u b j e c t s were 29 aqe 7, 29 aqe 9, and 30 aqe 11 c h i l d r e n . Each aqe group was f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o two on t h e b a s i s o f r e a d i n q comprehension scores, which were f r o m t h e A. C. E. R. S i l e n t Readinq T e s t f o r aqe 7 and f r o m t h e N . Z. C. E. R. P r o q r e s s i v e achievement T e s t f o r aaes 9 and 11. These a r e s t a n d a r d r e a d i n q comprehension measures, r e q u i r i n q s u b j e c t s t o answer mu1 t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s a f t e r r e a d i n q s h o r t passaqes. Comprehens i o n scores were i n s t a n i n e s , so f o r t h e p r e s e n t purposes s u b j e c t s i n each age qroup w i t h s t a n i n e scores o f 4 o r l e s s were p l a c e d i n t h e l o w comprehension qroup, and t h o s e w i t h 5 o r more i n t h e h i q h comprehension aroup. I n t h i s way, t h e r e were 20 c h i l d r e n i n t h e aae 7 h i q h comprehension qroup, 9 i n t h e low; 14 i n t h e aqe 9 h i g h comprehension qroup, 15 i n t h e low: and 11 i n t h e aqe 11 h i q h comprehension qroup, 1 9 i n t h e l o w . MATFRIALS AND PROCEDURES C h i l d r e n were t e s t e d i n c l a s s - s i z e d qroups. Each was q i v e n 3 m i n u t e s t o r e a d 1 0 s h o r t paraqraphs, each o f which concerned a s p a t i a l / l o c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n o f t h e t y p e used by Blachowicz (1977-78). A l l paraqraphs were composed o f words used i n qrade two r e a d i n q m a t e r i a l s , and s h o u l d have been u n d e r s t a n d a b l e by a l l s u b j e c t s . S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d s t u d y t h e paraqraphs c a r e f u l l y , i n o r d e r t o "understand and remember" them, as t h e y would l a t e r "be asked q u e s t i o n s a b o u t them." ( I n s t r u c t i o n s were d e l i b e r a t e l y made s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f Blachowicz.) A f t e r t h e 3-minute s t u d y p e r i o d , t h e paraqraphs were c o l l e c t e d and t h e answer sheets d i s t r i b u t e d . The answer sheet c o n t a i n e d 40 sentences, 4 f o r each paragraph. As i n B l a c h o w i c z ' s t u d y , one o f t h e s e 4 was a sentence t h a t had appeared i n t h e paraqraphs ( a T r u e Sentence), one was an i n f e r e n c e combining 2 sentences t h a t had been g i v e n ( T r u e I n f e r e n c e ) , one was a c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f a paraqraph sentence ( F a l s e Sentence), and one a F a l s e I n f e r e n c e . The 40 t e s t sentences appeared on t h e answer sheet i n random o r d e r , w i t h t h e c o n s t r a i n t t h a t no two sentences a b o u t t h e same paraoraph appeared c o n s e c u t i v e l y . S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o i n d i c a t e which o f t h e sentences had been seen, i n e x a c t l y t h e same way, i n t h e paraqraphs. F o r each s u b j e c t , t h e number o f T r u e Sentences, T r u e I n f e r e n c e s , F a l s e Sentences, and Fa1 se I n f e r e n c e s chosen were counted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The d a t a were analyzed by means o f a 3 (Aqe) x 2 (Comprehension 4 (Response t y p e : True Sentence o r I n f e r e n c e , F a l s e Sentence o r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on t h e l a s t f a c t o r . e f f e c t s a r e s i q n i f t c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l . The mast p o w e r f u l of t h e matn e f f e c t f o r Response, E(3,246) = 311.60, p <.0001. T h i s
qroup) x Inference) Only 4 these i s indicates
254
MEMORY
t h a t more T r u e Sentences and I n f e r e n c e s a r e s e l e c t e d i n a e n e r a l : t h i s i m p l i e s l i t t l e more t h a n t h a t s u b j e c t s do remember t h e paraaraphs. The Aqe x Comprehension e f f e c t , F(2,82) = 5.49, p C.01, i s araphed i n F i o u r e 1 , and demonstrates t h a t more t e s t sentences a r e s e l e c t e d bv 7 vear o l d h i q h comorehenders t h a n by 7 vear o l d l o w comprehenders, r e a a r d l e s s of correctness
51
4l
2 0
Comprehension
V
v)
-
3 I
I
7
9
1’1
Age Group Figure 1 Age x Comprehension e f f e c t ( s c o r e = number o f i t e m s s e l e c t e d )
SEMANTIC INTEGRATION
255
The Response x Aqe e f f e c t , f ( 6 , 2 4 6 ) = 17.32, p<.OOO1, i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i q u r e 2. I n a e n e r a l , t h e r e i s a t r e n d f o r True Sentences and Inferences t o be s e l e c t e d o f t e n , F a l s e Sentences and Inferences i n f r e q u e n t l v . n n l v t h e 7 vear o l d s d e v i a t e from t h i s p a t t e r n , s e l e c t i n a fewer T r u e I n f e r e n c e s , and more F a l s e Sentences and I n f e r e n c e s . The 7 vear old c h i l d r e n do n o t a m e a r t o Re anv l e s s a c c u r a t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o True Sentences, b u t make fewer True I n f e r e n c e s and s e l e c t more i n c o r r e c t sentences. P l t h o u a h t h e 9esoonse x Aae
True True False False Sentence Inference Sentence Inference Figure 2 Response x Age e f f e c t ( s c o r e = number o f i t e m s s e l e c t e d )
MEMORY
256
x Comprehension e f f e c t was n o t s i q n i f i c a n t , t h e r e was a t r e n d f o r t h e 7 v e a r o l d l o w comprehenders t o s e l e c t fewer True I n f e r e n c e s t h a n d i d t h e h i q h comprehenders. Both h i g h and l o w comprehenders a t aqe 7 s e l e c t e d a l a r a e number o f F a l s e Sentences and I n f e r e n c e s . = 2.72, p<.O5, i s shown i n F i q u r e 3, and i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h i q h comprehenders s e l e c t somewhat more
The Response x Comprehension e f f e c t , c(3,246)
9
8
7 6
55
3f
4
3 2 1
0 True True False False Sentence Inference Sentence Inference Figure 3 Response x Comprehension e f f e c t ( s c o r e = number o f i t e m s s e l e c t e d ; H i g h and Low r e f e r t o Comprehension groups)
SEMANTIC INTEGRATION
257
True Sentences and False Inferences than do low comprehenders. The True Sentence d i f f e r e n c e suqqests t h a t t h e most important d i f f e r e n c e across comprehension qroups i s one o f absolute accuracv and n o t one o f i n f e r e n c i n a The q r e a t e r number o f False Inferences i s more d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n , and may be due t o chance. What does t h i s experiment have t o sav about t h e P r e d i c t i o n s r a i s e d p r e v i ouslv? The f i r s t p r e d i c t i o n , i t w i l l be remembered, was t h a t t h e r e would be an o v e r a l l aqe e f f e c t , w i t h younqer subjects s e l e c t i n q more sentences i n aeneral. While t h i s d i d n o t occur, 7 year o l d h i a h comprehenders d i d s e l e c t more sentences than t h e i r low comprehendina counterparts (see the Aqe x Comprehension e f f e c t , i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fiqure 1 ) . Thus i t was o n l v t h e 7 year o l d comprehenders t h a t v a r i e d from Blachowicz' p a t t e r n . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t Blachowicz' 7 vear o l d s were o f a hiaher, and more u n i f o r m l e v e l o f readinq competence than those emploved i n the present study.
low
The second and t h i r d p r e d i c t i o n s were t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f sentence select t o n would be s i m t l a r across aae qroups, and t h a t a l l qroups would s e l e c t more True Inferences. These p r e d i c t i o n s a r e c l e a r l v disconfirmed: 7 vear o l d s showed a d - t s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f response, and no aae aroup showed a preference f o r True Inferences. A t a l l aae l e v e l s more True Sentences were selected than True Inferences: t h i s i s most l i k e l v t o be due t o t h e desiqn o f t h e present study, i n which subjects d i d n o t perform a f i l l e r t a s k between readinq t h e paraqraphs and recoanizinq t h e sentewes. I t i s l e s s l i k e l y t h a t t h e s h o r t e r readinq time c o u l d have t h i s e f f e c t . The f i n a l p r e d i c t i o n was t h a t readinq comprehension would be r e l a t e d , perhaps developmentally, t o inferencinq, as represented by s e l e c t i o n o f True Inferences. While 9 and 11 year o l d s d i d s e l e c t more True Inferences than d t d 7 year o l d s (Fiaure Z ) , h i q h comprehenders d i d n o t s e l e c t them more o f t e n than low comprehenders ( F i q u r e 3 ) . Althouqh t h e Pesponse x Aae x Comprehensfon e f f e c t was n o t s t a n i f i c a n t , t h e r e was a t r e n d f o r 7 vear 014 l o w comprehenders t o s e l e c t fewer True Inferences than a l l o t h e r subjects. Most o f these r e s u l t s a r e i n t u i t i v e l y q u i t e acceptable. I t i s n o t s u r p r i s k q , f o r instance, t h a t l e s s i n f e r e n c i n q i s done i n t h e absence o f a f f l l e r task. Thts would support t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e "raw data" a r e preserved f o l l o w i n q encodinq, a t l e a s t f o r a w h i l e (Haves-Roth & Thorndvke, 1979). What t s s u r p r l s t n a and d i s a p p o i n t i n s i s the l a c k o f r e l a t i o n between l n f e r e n c t n q and readinq comprehension. One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t t h e inferencinq-comprehension r e l a t i o n s h i p develops subsequent t o t h e aqes i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study. ( T h i s c o u l d a r i s e because t h e nature o f s k i l l e d readinq chanqes w i t h aae, o r because t h e nature of readina comprehension t e s t s chanqes w i t h aqe.) I n order t o examine t h i s p o s s t b l l l t y , two f u r t h e r s e t s of data were c o l l e c t e d , one from a aroup of 13 year olds, and one from a qroup of U n i v e r s i t y students (mean aae = 22 y e a r s ) . The former group was d i v i d e d i n t o h i q h and low comprehension aroups on tRe same basts as the younaer subjects had been, and t h e l a t t e r qroup was assumed t o c o n s i s t of o n l y h i a h comprehenders. The 13 year o l d s showed much t h e same p a t t e r n as t h e vounqer subjects, w i t h t h e exceptton t h a t t h e Rtqh comprehenders selected almost as few True I n ferences as d t d t h e 7 year o l d & comprehenders. Even a r e a t e r doubt i s c a s t upon the proposed r e l a t i o n s h i p between comprehension and i n f e r e n c i n a
258
MEMORY
by t h e U n i v e r s i t y r e s u l t s : t h e s e s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d even -True ences t h a n d i d t h e 7 y e a r o l d l o w comprehenders.
Infer-
The True I n f e r e n c e s r e s u l t s f o r a l l s u b j e c t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i a u r e 4, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h o s e f o r True Sentences. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e h o r i z o n t a l s c a l e i s a t b e s t an o r d i n a l one, as no a t t e m p t has been made t o e q u a l i z e t h e i n t e r v a l s between qroups. Here t h e p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s becomes more a p p a r e n t : w h i l e s e l e c t i o n o f True Sentences i n c r e a s e s o n l y s l i a h t l y w i t h i n t h e 7 y e a r o l d qroup and remains c o n s t a n t t h e r e a f t e r , s e l e c t i o n o f True I n f e r e n c e s tncreases t o aqe 9 and t h e n decreases s h a r p l y . These
0.
m
m
L H 7
1
1
L H 9
1
1
L H 11 Age
1
1
L H 13
1
UNIVERSITY
Figure 4 Developmental t r e n d s f o r True Sentences and I n f e r e n c e s ( s c o r e = number o f i t e m s s e l e c t e d ; H and L r e f e r t o h i g h and low r e a d i n g a b i l i t y )
SEMANTIC INTEGRATION
259
r e s u l t s suggest m o d i f i c a t i o n o f semantic i n t e q r a t i o n theorv, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h reqard t o task demands and readina competence.
A PROPOSED MODEL The minimum t h a t these r e s u l t s suqqest i s t h a t t h e t a s k demands of t h e present experiment, o r a t l e a s t the perceived task demands, d i f f e r e d import a n t l y from those o f Blachowicz' study. As has been s a i d above, t h e absence o f a f i l l e r t a s k probably allowed s u b j e c t s t o r e t a i n more d e t a i l e d encodtnqs o f the o r i q i n a l paraqraphs. I n a d d i t i o n , i t could a l s o be suspected t h a t t h e present subjects took t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n t o "remember" t h e paraqraphs more I t t e r a l l y than d i d Blachowicz' subjects. While both o f these f a c t o r s e x p l a i n t h e increase i n True Sentence scores, and c o u l d e x p l a i n an e q u i v a l e n t decrease i n True Inference scores, thev are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e x p l a i n t h e observed c u r v i l i n e a r p a t t e r n o f True Inference scores.
A model t h a t would p r e d i c t these r e s u l t s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i q u r e 5. I n t h t s model, semantic i n t e q r a t i o n o r i n f e r e n c i n q i s seen t o occur o r t o n o t occur t n response t o two types o f processina resources, both o f which are conceived o f t n terms o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s , and both o f which chanqe w i t h developmental l e v e l . The f i r s t o f these resources i s t h e a 6 t l f t y t o t n t e q r a t e o r t o recode i n f o r m a t i o n , on t h e basis o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s e t t h e r w t t h l n t h e c u r r e n t m a t e r i a l o r between the c u r r e n t m a t e r i a l and s t o r e d Information. Thts r e l a t i n q a b i l i t y i s t h e basis o f much mental a b i l i t y and c l e a r l y increases w i t h developmental l e v e l . I f o n l v t h i s f a c t o r were operatinq, True Inferences would increase monotonically w i t h aae, and l l ' t t l e c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d concerninq True Sentences. t o recode o r i n t e q r a t e incomina The second f a c t o r o p e r a t i n q i s t h e Informatton. Thts need i s i n v e r s e l v r e l a t e d t o t h e a v a i l a b i l i t v o f workina memory space and t h e e f f t c i e n c y of i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r from workinq memorv t o l o n q term memory. As Both of these increase, t h e processina svstem becomes more and more a b l e t o r e t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n i n i t s v e r i d i c a l form, i f t h a t t s t h e qoal o f t h e o p e r a t i n q i n f o r m a t i o n processinq plan. Thus i n t e q r a t i o n o r recodinq occurs t o a l l o w economical use of scarce workinq memorv space. The a b i l i t y t o r e t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n i n v e r i d i c a l form can a l s o be seen t o increase developmentallv, thus t h e need t o recode decreases w i t h developmental l e v e l . I f o n l y t h i s f a c t o r were operatinq, True Sentences would increase w i t h aqe w h i l e True Inferences would decrease, i f accuracy of r e c o q n i t i o n were seen as t h e qoal.
I f 60th f a c t o r s a r e operattnq, i n t h e presence o f a qoal o f accurate recoqn i t f o n , t h e a t t e r n seen t n Ftqure 5 would be p r e d i c t e d , which i s essentt a l l y t h a t w t t c h was observed f n the present study. Younaer o r l e s s a b l e c h i l d r e n do n o t t n t e q r a t e because they can n o t ; o l d e r c h i l d r e n ( a m 9 i n t h e present study) do i n t e q r a t e information, because they can and they have to, qtven t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d workinq memory; and s t i l l o l d e r s u b j e c t s do n o t i n t e g r a t e information, even thouqh they could, because they a r e n o t forced t o do so by l i m i t e d workinq memory. I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t t a s k demands and s u b j e c t s ' qoals w i l l a l t e r t h i s p a t t e r n r a d i c a l l y : f o r example, i n t e r p o l a t i o n o f a f i l l e r task between reading and r e c o q n l t t o n w i l l p l a c e more s t r a i n upon workina memorv resources and increase t h e l i k l i h o o d of semantic i n t e q r a t i o n ( a i v e n adequate r e l a t i n q a b t l i t y ) . Stmtlarly, l o n q e r o r more d i f f i c u l t t e x t s w i l l increase t h e need t o recode. Subjects' qoals can be manipulated bv v a r v i n a t h e
260
MEMORY
Need To
Ability To Recode/ Relate
Developmenta I level Fiqure 5 Proposed developmental model
perceived task: in the place of "understand and remember" a s i n t h e present study, the task of "drawinq a p i c t u r e t o represent each paraaraph" would increase recoding, while t h e task of "memorizinq each word" would decrease recodtnq. The present context allows space f o r only two f u r t h e r observations. The f i r s t o f these i s t h a t t h e two a b i l i t i e s r e f e r r e d t o above, r e l a t i n a a 6 t l f t y and workinq memory e f f i c i e n c y , f i a u r e prominently i n individual dtff'erences models of tnformation processing. Relatinq a b i f i t y r e c a l l s
SEMANTIC INTEGRATION
261
Jensen's (1970) Level I 1 a b i l i t v , and Das, K i r b v and Jarman's (1970) simultaneous p r o c e s s i n q . I t a l s o seems r e l e v a n t t o t h e concept o f "chunk s i z e " (Simon, 1974), i n t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y i t describes how l a r q e o r complex an i n f o r m a t i o n i n t e g r a t i o n u n i t w i l l be formed.
I f r e l a t i n q a b i l i t y determines chunk s i z e , workinq memory e f f i c i e n c y d e t e r mines how many chunks w i l l be stored. T h i s i s c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o Jensen's Level I a b f l i t y , and can be araued t o be Das e t a l . ' s successive processinq (see K i r b y (G Btqqs, 1981, f o r t h i s arqument). I n f a c t t h e two i n f o r m a t i o n processinq a b i l i t i e s suqqested i n t h e present paper c o u l d form t h e b a s i s f o r a rapprochement between t h e t h e o r i e s o f Jensen and Das e t a l . The second o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n f e r e n c i n q , represented by s e l e c t i o n of True Inferences i n paradiqms such as t h e present one, and r e a d i n g comprehension i s l i k e l y t o be complex. That r e l a t i o n s h t p w i l l c e r t a i n l y depend upon t h e t a s k requirements and t h e sub,jects' own q o a l s i n performing t h e task. From t h e p o i n t o f view o f semantic i n t e q r a t t o n theory, i t would seem useful t o e x p l o r e t h e v a r i e t v o f t a s k parameters and s u b j e c t a b i l i t i e s t h a t i n f l u e n c e whether and how much i n f e r e n c i n q w i l l occur. Once t h i s has been done, i t should become p o s s i b l e t o design readinq l n s t r u c t i o n t o encouraqe students t o inference o r n o t t o inference, o r more Tmportantly t o know when i n f e r e n c i n q i s a p p r o p r i a t e . I n t h i s way, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l qoal becomes one o f processinq f l e x i b i l i t y , r a t h e r than o f one tvpe o f processinq.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h i s research was supported by an Education Research and Development Coma l t t e e w a n t t o t h e author and P . J . Moore. The a u t h o r would l i k e t o acknowledqe t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f P. J. Woore t o t h e p r o j e c t , and t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f R. Cantwell, D. P o r t e r and K. Russell i n data c o l l e c t i o n . T h i s paper was w r i t t e n w h i l e t h e a u t h o r was on l e a v e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A1 b e r t a .
REFERENCES Blachowicz, C . L. Z. Semantic c o n s t r u c t i v i t y i n c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1977-78, 13,188-199. Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. The a b s t r a c t i o n o f l i n q u i s t i c ideas. C o q n i t i v e PSI c h o l o , 1971, 2, 331 -350. J. Jarman, R . F. Simultaneous and successive Das, J. P., Kirb;, t i v e rocesses. New York: Academic, 1979. Have-thorndvke. P. W . I n t e q r a t i o n o f knowledqe from t e x t . Journai of Verbal L e a r n l n and Verbal Behavior, 1879, ,&l 91-108. Jeiseri.-A. f ? T H m h & o % s of m e n t a l i t y . I n W. B. D o c k r e l l ( E d . ) , On I n t e l l t q e n c e . Toronto: Methuen, 1970. Ktntsch, W.'PRe r e p r e s e n t a t l o n of meaninq i n memory. H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Erl baum . m 4 . Ktrby, J . R . & Biqqs, J. B. Learninq s t y l e s , i n f o r m a t i o n processina t i e s , gi& academic erformance. F i n a l r e p o r t t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n Research K t s Committee. C h s t r a l i a , 1981. Slmon, H. A . How b i q - i s a chunk? Science,-l974, 183,482-488.
i)(R
m-
u-
262
MEMORY
Walker, C. H. & Meyer, B . J . F. Inteqratinq information from text: An evaluation o f c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s . Review o f Educational Research, 1980, 50, 421-437.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
THE MODALITY EFFECT ON TEXT PROCESSING AS A FUNCTION OF ORGANIZATION
Machi ko Sannomiya
1
F a c u l t y o f Human Sciences Osaka U n i v e r s i t y S u i t a , Osaka, Japan
The e f f e c t o f p r e s e n t a t i o n m o d a l i t y on t e x t memory was reexamined. I t was d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t on memory f o r s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s : (1) The e f f e c t was o b t a i n e d o n l y f o r m a t e r i a l d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend. ( 2 ) A u d i o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n was n o t s u p e r i o r t o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . ( 3 ) The e f f e c t was n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e recency p a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l . The f i n d i n g s can be accounted f o r by t h e assumption o f c a p a c i t y s h o r t a g e due t o a u t o m a t i c t r a n s l a t i o n o f v i s u a l l y p r e s e n t e d v e r b a l s t i m u l i i n t o an a u d i t o r y form. They would n o t be p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h e assumption o f separate precategorical stores w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e t e n t i o n times f o r a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l i n p u t .
INTRODUCTION The t e r m " m o d a l i t y e f f e c t " r e f e r s t o t h e e f f e c t o f p r e s e n t a t i o n m o d a l i t y on memory f o r v e r b a l m a t e r i a l s . F o r s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s , e.g., l e t t e r - , d i g i t - , nonsense s y l l a b l e - , o r w o r d - l i s t s , t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f a u d i t o r y and a u d i o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o v e r v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . The e f f e c t i s , however, r e s t r i c t e d t o recency items o f a l i s t (Penny, 1975). Two main e x p l a n a t i o n s have been advanced f o r t h i s e f f e c t : (1) The " p r e c a t e g o r i c a l s t o r e h y p o t h e s i s " i s based on t h e assumption o f s e p a r a t e p r e c a t e g o r i c a l s t o r e s , PAS and PVS, f o r a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . I t p o s t u l a t e s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i n PAS i s r e t a i n e d l o n g e r than i n PVS and t h e r e f o r e i s more l i k e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l f o r recency items (Crowder and Morton, 1969). ( 2 ) The " t r a n s l a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s " i s based on t h e assumption o f a t r a n s l a t i o n o f v i s u a l l y p r e s e n t e d v e r b a l s t i m u l i i n t o an a u d i t o r y form. I t p o s t u l a t e s t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l process o f t r a n s l a t i o n r e q u i r e s c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y , and t h e r e f o r e l e s s c a p a c i t y remains f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g i n t h e case o f v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n (Laughery and Pinkus, 1966). K i n t s c h e t a l . (1975) compared r e c a l l o f s i m p l e s t o r i e s a f t e r l i s t e n i n g and a f t e r unpaced r e a d i n g . They f a i l e a t o o b t a i n t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t . Sannomiya (1980) s t u d i e d t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on immediate f r e e r e c a l l o f two t e x t s which d i f f e r e d i n judged d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l b u t were almost equal i n j u d g e d i n t e r e s t l e v e l and l e n g t h (number o f words, noun concepts, and i d e a u n i t s ) . V i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n was unpaced, b u t s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o r e a d a t a c o n s t a n t pace and n o t t o r e t u r n t o e a r l i e r p a r t s o f t h e t e x t . The r e s u l t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y of a u d i t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n o v e r a u d i o v i s u a l as w e l l as 263
264
MEMORY
v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t b u t n o t f o r t h e easy t e x t . The d i f f e rence was n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e recency p a r t o f t h e t e x t . The above f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t on t h e memory f o r s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s : F i r s t , t h e modality d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l holds only f o r material d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend. Secondly, a u d i o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n i s i n f e r i o r t o a u d i t o r y and not superior t o visual presentation. T h i r d l y , auditory s u p e r i o r i t y i s not r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e recency p a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l . I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s e f f e c t more t h o r o u g h l y and t o s p e c i f y t h e d i f f i c u l t y - v a r i a b l e , a t l e a s t two k i n d s o f d i f f i c u l t y have t o be s e p a r a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d , (1) semantic d i f f i c u l t y o r d i f f i c u l t y o f c o n t e n t and ( 2 ) s y n t a c t i c d i f f i c u l t y o r d i f f i c u l t y o f s t r u c t u r e . The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e former d i f f i c u l t y has been examined w i t h mixed l i s t s o f c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t sentences (subj e c t + verb + o b j e c t ) and w o r d - p a i r s ( s u b j e c t + o b j e c t ) (Sannomiya, 1980). A m o d a l i t y e f f e c t was f o u n d f o r a b s t r a c t b u t n o t f o r c o n c r e t e w o r d - p a i r s , i. e . , v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n was i n f e r i o r t o a u d i t o r y and a u d i o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . The e f f e c t was n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o recency i t e m s . The r e s u l t s f r o m sentence l i s t s were s i m i l a r b u t l a c k e d s i g n i f i c a n c e . I n t h e p r e s e n t experiment, t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s y n t a c t i c d i f f i c u l t y on t h e modal i t y e f f e c t was examined by m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e x t s . I f
s y n t a c t i c d i f f i c u l t y has t h e same i n f l u e n c e on t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t as unspec i f i e d j u d g e d d i f f i c u l t y o r semantic d i f f i c u l t y , t h e e f f e c t i s t o be expected only f o r the d i f f i c u l t (disorganized) t e x t .
METHOD S u b j e c t s . S u b j e c t s were s i x t y undergraduate s t u d e n t s a t S h i t e n n o j i U n i v e r s i t y , Japan. Design. A 3 x 2 between-subject f a c t o r i a l design w i t h 10 s u b j e c t s p e r c e l l was used, t h e f a c t o r s b e i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n m o d a l i t y ( a u d i t o r y , v i s u a l , and a u d i o v i s u a l ) and o r g a n i z a t i o n l e v e l o f t e x t s ( o r g a n i z e d vs. d i s o r g a n i z e d ) . M a t e r i a l s . A p o r t i o n o f a Japanese essay e n t i t l e d " L i t e r a t u r e and Adolescence" was used as t h e o r g a n i z e d t e x t . The d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t was c o n s t r u c t e d by a l t e r i n g t h e sequence o f p r o p o s i t i o n s (see Appendix). I n o r d e r n o t t o make t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t meaningless, some c o n n e c t i v e phrases had t o be i n t r o duced. They d i d n o t c a r r y any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n b u t r e s u l t e d i n a somewhat l o n g e r l e n g t h o f t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t (526 vs. 489 Japanese l e t t e r s ) . F o r a u d i t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e t e x t s were r e c o r d e d on tape w i t h a female v o i c e a t a r a t e o f 6.5 l e t t e r s / s e c i n terms of Japanese Kana l e t t e r s . Care was taken n o t t o make s t r o n g i n t o n a t i o n s o r l o n g pauses which c o u l d become recall cues. F o r v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n each sentence was t y p e w r i t t e n on a 6.5 x 18.0 cm w h i t e c a r d and a l l cards were made up i n t o a b o o k l e t . Procedure. S u b j e c t s g o t accustomed t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d pace of p r e s e n t a t i o n d u r i n g a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n . Those o f t h e v i s u a l group l e a r n e d t o r e a d through a sentence e x a c t l y once i n t h e g i v e n t i m e . A f t e r t h e t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n , t h e t e x t was p r e s e n t e d t h r e e times i n succession. O v e r t v o c a l i z a t i o n was n o t p e r m i t t e d . V i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n was paced by t h e sound o f a w h i s t l e which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e page s h o u l d be t u r n e d . A l l s u b j e c t s were i n f o r m e d about t h e t i t l e o f t h e essay. Immediately a f t e r t h e t h i r d p r e s e n t a t i o n , s u b j e c t s were asked t o w r i t e down what t h e y remembered, i f p o s s i b l e i n i t s o r i g i n a l form. R e c a l l t i m e was u n l i m i t e d .
THE MODALITY EFFECT ON TEXT PROCESSING
265
RESULTS
30 p r o p o s i t i o n s , common t o b o t h t e x t s , were t o be r e c a l l e d . R e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were r a t e d b y two judges, who showed 95% agreement. The p r o p o s i t i o n s d i s agreed upon were r a t e d by a t h i r d r a t e r . A p r o p o s i t i o n was regarded as c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d i f i t s g i s t was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r o t o c o l . F i g . 1 shows mean c o r r e c t r e c a l l f o r the 6 conditions. A 3 x 2 (modality x organization l e v e l ) a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r m o d a l i t y ( F ( 2 , 5 4 ) = 4.67, p < .05) and o r g a n i z a t i o n l e v e l (F(1,54) = 2 1 . 7 , p < . O l ) , and a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n ( F ( 2 , 5 4 ) = 3.43, p < . 0 5 ) . No m o d a l i t y e f f e c t was observed f o r t h e o r g a n i z e d t e x t , whereas t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r r e c a l l e d a f t e r a u d i t o r y than a f t e r visual presentation ( t = 3 . 5 9 , p < . 0 1 ) . The a p p a r e n t s u p e r i o r i t y o f a u d i t o r y o v e r a u d i o v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n l a c k e d s i g n i f i c a n c e ( t = 1.90, .05 < p < . l o ) . Impairment o f performance due t o d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e v i s u a l ( t = 4.97, p < .01) and a u d i o v i s u a l ( t = 2.66, p < .05) c o n d i t i o n s .
%
50
-
-
+-+
40
-
30
-
Auditory
o----o V i s u a l Audiovisual
organized disorganized organization level
Figure 1 R e c a l l as a F u n c t i o n o f P r e s e n t a t i o n M o d a l i t y and O r g a n i z a t i o n Level o f t h e T e x t
NO i n d i c a t i o n of a m o d a l i t y x s e r i a l p o s i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n was found, i.e., t h e observed m o d a l i t y e f f e c t was n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e recency p a r t o f t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t (see F i g . 2 ) . I n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n t h e absence o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n more s t r i c t l y , t h e m o d a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e l a s t t h r e e prop o s i t i o n s o f t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t was examined: The average d i f f e r e n c e of
266
MEMORY
r e c a l l between t h e a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n was s l i g h t l y l a r g e r f o r t h e l a s t t h r e e than f o r a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s (1.66 vs. 1.50) o f t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t . However, a l s o i n t h e case o f t h e o r g a n i z e d t e x t , t h e average d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e same t h r e e p r o p o s i t i o n s , which occupied m i d d l e p o s i t i o n s here, exceeded t h a t f o r a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s (1.33 vs. 0 . 1 4 ) . T h e r e f o r e t h e s l i g h t l y l a r g e r m o d a l i t y e f f e c t a t t h e end o f t h e d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t must be due t o chance o r other f a c t o r s than s e r i a l p o s i t i o n .
-
%
60
40
-
30
-
20
-
10
-
50
Auditory
-
(t---o
Visual
+-+
Audiovisual
01-10 11-20 21-30 serial position
Figure 2 R e c a l l o f D i s o r g a n i z e d T e x t as a F u n c t i o n o f Present a t i o n M o d a l i t y and S e r i a l P o s i t i o n o f P r o p o s i t i o n s
DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t c o n f i r m t h e p o i n t s o f d i f f e r e n c e between t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory and on memory f o r s e m a n t i c a l l y unr e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s , which were f o u n d by Sannomiya ( 1 9 8 0 ) : ( 1 ) P r e s e n t a t i o n m o d a l i t y i n t e r a c t s w i t h d i f f i c u l t y o f comprehension. The modality e f f e c t i s obtained only f o r d i f f i c u l t t e x t s . ( 2 ) Audiovisual presentation i s n o t superior t o v i s u a l , hut i s probably i n f e r i o r t o auditory presentation. ( 3 ) The m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory i s n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e recency p a r t of t h e m a t e r i a l .
O b v i o u s l y t h e p r e c a t e g o r i c a l s t o r e h y p o t h e s i s cannot a c c o u n t f o r t h e m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory. I t s p r e d i c t i o n s a r e a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e l a s t two f i n d i n g s and i t cannot p r e d i c t t h e f i r s t . The o r g a n i z e d and d i s o r g a n i z e d t e x t s
THE MODALITY EFFECT ON TEXT PROCESSING
267
seem t o be a l i k e i n t h e i r demand on p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s i n g b u t d i f f e r i n demand on f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g . T h e r e f o r e we s h o u l d a t t e n d t o t h e process o f comprehension r a t h e r than t o t h a t o f p e r c e p t i o n when s e a r c h i n g f o r an e x p l a nation o f the modality x d i f f i c u l t y i n t e r a c t i o n . I n t h a t respect the transl a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s can be o f h e l p . I t suggests t h e f o l l o w i n g s p e c u l a t i o n : The p r o c e s s i n g o f a d i f f i c u l t t e x t needs more c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y than t h a t o f an easy t e x t . T h e r e f o r e t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a d i f f i c u l t t e x t i s more l i a b l e t o be i m p a i r e d by t h e s h o r t a g e o f c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y due t o t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of v i s u a l s t i m u l i i n t o an a u d i t o r y form. The m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory thus r e f l e c t s a m o d a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e i n t e x t comprehension. I f we assume t h e t r a n s l a t i o n process t o o c c u r a u t o m a t i c a l l y , as i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e S t r o o p e f f e c t , we can a l s o e x p l a i n t h e i n f e r i o r i t y o f a u d i o v i s u a l t o a u d i t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n : Because o f i t s a u t o m a t i c i t y , t h e t r a n s l a t i o n process cannot b e dispensed w i t h even i f i t i s unnecessary. REFERENCES Crowder, R.C., and Morton, J . P r e c a t e g o r i c a l a c o u s t i c s t o r a g e (PAS). 5, 365-373. P e r c e p t i o n and Psychophysics, 1969, K i n t s c h , W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W.J., McKoon, G., and Keenan, J.M. Comprehension and r e c a l l o f t e x t as a f u n c t i o n o f c o n t e n t v a r i a b l e s . 14, 196-214. J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1975, Laughery, K.R., and Pinkus, A.L. S h o r t - t e r m memory: E f f e c t s o f a c o u s t i c s i m i l a r i t y , p r e s e n t a t i o n r a t e , and p r e s e n t a t i o n mode. Psychonomic 6, 285-286. Science, 1966, Penny, C.G. M o d a l i t y e f f e c t s on s h o r t - t e r m v e r b a l memory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l 68-84. B u l l e t i n , 1975,
82,
Sannomiya, M. Bunsho-kioku n i okeru t e i j i - y o s h i k i no koka (The m o d a l i t y e f f e c t on t e x t memory). M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , F a c u l t y o f Human Sciences, Osaka U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. APPENDIX
1. Organized T e x t : I shdl d e s c r i b e l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s d u r i n g adolescence t h a t we f i r s t encounter l i t e r a t u r e . I n adolescence, one o f t h e m o t i v a t i o n s f o r s t u d i n g l i t e r a t u r e i s t o examine t h e fundamental q u e s t i o n s o f l i f e . Since l i t e r a t u r e i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o l i f e , I w i l l d e s c r i b e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g my ideas about t h e stages of l i f e . There seem t o be f o u r b i r t h d a y s d u r i n g l i f e . The f i r s t one i s t h e r e a l b i r t h d a y , when we emerge f r o m o u r m o t h e r ' s womb. The second b i r t h d a y i s adolescence, when we become aware o f o u r own s e l v e s and b e g i n t o f u n c t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t l y as a human b e i n g . The t h i r d b i r t h d a y i s t h e p r i m e o f l i f e , when we e x p e r i e n c e t h e p a i n o f l i f e . I t i s t h e s t a g e when we t r y t o l i v e once a g a i n w i t h a f r e s h o u t l o o k . T h i s m i g h t be c a l l e d a r e l i g i o u s b i r t h d a y when we aim a t s p i r i t u a l r e b i r t h . The f o u r t h b i r t h d a y i s t h e s t a g e o f death, when we a r e r e b o r n as God o r Buddha. Here I w i l l e s p e c i a l l y deal w i t h adolescence. Since adolescence i s t h e s t a g e when we b e g i n t o t h i n k i n d e p e n d e n t l y , we can g a i n a l o t f r o m good l i t e r a t u r e . T h i s can be e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s : I n o r d e r t o improve o u r minds i t i s necessary t o g r a p p l e w i t h t h e fundamental
268
MEMORY
questions of l i f e which cannot be e a s i l y answered. Good l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s such questions. For example, there a r e questions such as "What i s l i f e ? " , "What i s love?", a n d "Does God e x i s t ? " . These questions might n o t ever be answered during our 1ives.We should not overlook such questions. I n dealing with l i t e r a t u r e i t i s important not t o f o r g e t o u r original outlook througk out l i f e .
2 . Disorganized Text: I think there a r e some stages of l i f e which a r e l i k e birthdays.For example, there i s the prime of l i f e when we experience the pain of l i f e . During t h i s s t a g e we t r y t o l i v e once again with a fresh outlook and aim a t s p i r i t u a l reb i r t h . This can be c a l l e d a r e l i g i o u s birthday. Obviously there i s the real birthday when we emerge from o u r mother's womb. There i s a l s o the s t a g e when we become aware of o u r own selves and begin t o function independently as a human being. This i s a l s o one of the birthdays. I t i s during adolescence when we f i r s t encounter l i t e r a t u r e . During adolescence, one o f the motivations f o r studing l i t e r a t u r e i s t o examine the fundamental questions of l i f e . Finally we d i e and a r e reborn as God or Buddha, a n d we can a l s o c a l l t h i s s t a g e a birthday. Since l i t e r a t u r e i s closely r e l a t e d t o l i f e , I have described the stages of l i f e , t h e four birthdays of l i f e . In dealing with l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s necessary n o t t o f o r g e t o u r original outlook throughout l i f e . We should n o t overlook questions such as "What i s l i f e ? " , "What i s love?", and "Does God e x i s t ? " which good l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s . Such questions a r e fundamental ones which cannot be e a s i l y answered, and might not ever be answered during our 1ives.We can gain a l o t from good l i t e r a t u r e during adolescence. This can be explained as follows: During t h i s s t a g e we begin t o think independently, good l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s such fundamental questions as mentioned above, and in order t o improve our minds i t i s important t o grapple with such questions. FOOTNOTE I wish t o t h a n k Miss Yoshiko Harakawa f o r her cooperation in the collection of data.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flamrner and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU S A I D VERSUS REMEMBERING WHAT YOU WROTE: CHILDRENS' RECALL OF THEIR OWN ORAL AND WRITTEN NARRATIVES
Angela H i l d y a r d and Suzanne H i d i O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Education Toronto, O n t a r i o
The s t u d y d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper l o o k s a t t h e e f f e c t o f m o d a l i t y upon Grade 6 s t u d e n t s ' i n i t i a l p r o d u c t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e s and then upon t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e c a l l of t h e i r prod u c t i o n s . Contrary t o e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s , t h e w r i t t e n o r i g i n a l n a r r a t i v e s were found t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y s u p e r i o r t o t h e o r a l n a r r a t i v e s , l e a d i n g us t o suggest t h a t the a c t o f w r i t i n g p e r m i t s more c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s o f s t r u c t u r e and c o n t e n t . I n terms of r e c a l l , those s t u d e n t s who r e c a l l e d t h e i r o r i g i n a l w r i t t e n n a r r a t i v e s i n a w r i t t e n form were a b l e t o r e t a i n subs t a n t i a l l y more o f t h e s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s o f t h a t o r i g i n a l narrative. I t seems, then, t h a t w r i t i n g promotes d i f f e r e n t i a l encoding b o t h a t p r o d u c t i o n , and a t r e c a l l . An i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t o f d i s c o u r s e processing, and one which i s o f prime i m p o r t ance t o educators, i s t h e e x t e n t t o which w r i t t e n and o r a l d i s c o u r s e processes d i f f e r . Researchers across Europe and N o r t h America have l o o k e d a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r a l and w r i t t e n language i n terms o f s t r u c t u r e (Chafe, i n press; Olson and H i l d y a r d , 1981; Tannen, i n press; Vachek, 1979), r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n ( H i l d y a r d and Olson, i n press; Horowitz, 1968; Sachs, 1974), p r o d u c t i o n ( B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia, 1980; Shuy, 1981; H i d i and H i l d y a r d , 1980), and i n terms o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f l i t e r a t e competencies ( H i l d y a r d and Olson, i n press; E h r i , i n press; Wells, i n p r e s s ) . I n r e c e n t papers, Chafe (1981, i n press) has argued t h a t t h e r e a r e two b a s i c s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between w r i t t e n and o r a l language: w r i t t e n language has an i n t e g r a t e d q u a l i t y w h i l e spoken language has a fragmentary q u a l i t y ; and, w r i t t e n language i s detached w h i l e spoken language assumes a s o c i a l involvement. Tannen ( i n p r e s s ) expands these d i s t i n c t i o n s by adding t h a t , i n w r i t t e n language cohesion i s s i g n a l l e d through l e x i c a l i z a t i o n ( f o r example, c o n j u n c t i o n s ) , w h i l e i n o r a l language such t i e s a r e s i g n a l l e d t h r o u g h p a r a l i n g u i s t i c o r nonverbal means. With these and o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s i n mind, H i l d y a r d and Olson ( i n p r e s s ) and Sachs (1974) have l o o k e d a t t h e r e c a l l o f spoken and w r i t t e n language. H i l d y a r d and Olson, f o r example, had c h i l d r e n i n Grades 3 and 5 e i t h e r r e a d o r l i s t e n t o a s h o r t n a r r a t i v e and then answer a s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s . They found t h a t t h e reLders were more a c c u r a t e t h a n t h e l i s t e n e r s , f i r s t l y , i n t ? r m s o f t h e r e c a l l of non e s s e n t i a l s t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n , and secondly, i n terms o f t n e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f what was g i v e n i n t h e n a r r a t i v e from what was i n f e r r e d . These data l e d H i l d y a r d and Olson t o argue t h a t r e a d i n g p e r m i t s one t o c a p i t a l i z e upon one component o f w r i t t e n language, namely i t s permanence, such t h a t readers pay more a t t e n t i o n t o the s u r f a c e f o r m o f t h e sentences. K i n t s c h and Van D i j k (1978) have s i m i l a r l y argued t h a t r e a d i n g / l i s t e n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u r f a c e form, a l t h o u g h t h e y f u r t h e r argue t h a t m o d a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s do n o t o c c u r a t t h e s e i i a n t i o n level. These suggested d i f f e r e n c e s , i n terms o f r e c a l l and s t r u c t u r e , a r e somewhat a t
269
270
MEMORY
variance with the r e s u l t s of s t u d i e s aimed a t the comparison of written and oral production. Gould (1980), f o r example, reports no differences between a d u l t s ' written versus d i c t a t e d business l e t t e r s . B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia and Goelman ( i n press) r e p o r t s i m i l a r findings f o r c h i l d r e n , namely, t h a t few q u a l i t a t i v e differences e x i s t between c h i l d r e n ' s d i c t a t e d versus written productions. These findings were e s s e n t i a l l y corroborated by Hidi and Hildyard (1980) who, in a study of Grade 3 and Grade 5 c h i l d r e n ' s production of n a r r a t i v e s and arguments, reported t h a t although the oral protocols were s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer, both forms were equivalent in terms of semantic well-formedness. There was a tendency, however, f o r the written protocols t o be more cohesive. Why these discrepant findings? Why do differences emerge with respect t o the r e c a l l a n d s t r u c t u r e of spoken and written language, b u t n o t with respect t o production? The purpose o f the present study was t o i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the production and subsequent r e c a l l of n a r r a t i v e s by children. k basic assumption underlying t h i s study i s t h a t the processes involved in
the production of discourse a r e guided o r determined by discourse schemata ( c f . Kintsch, in press; S c h a l l e r t , in p r e s s ) . I t i s a l s o assumed t h a t the schemata a r e genre s p e c i f i c , t h a t i s , t h a t we have a production schema f o r informal conversations which i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the schema which guides the production of expository prose, ( c f . B e r e i t e r , e t a l , in press; Hidi and Hildyard, 1980). Hidi a n d Hildyard (1980) f o r example, found evidence of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the schema guiding the production of n a r r a t i v e s and t h a t guiding the production of arguments f o r children in Grades 3 and 5 . If i t i s the case, as suggested by Shuy (1980) t h a t the production of a discourse type i s not a f f e c t e d by modality, then we might assume t h a t the schemata which guide t h a t discourse production a r e modality qeneral. On tile other hand, since the r e c a l l of spoken language appears t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the recall of written language, then i t would appear t h a t the schema f o r the r e c a l l of spoken language i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t f o r written r e c a l l . We might question, therefore, what happens i f one i s required t o r e c a l l o n e ' s own production. Do modality differences in r e c a l l s t i l l emerge even though the r e t r i e v a l mechanisms a r e being applied t o productions guided by modality general schemata? To assess these questions, children in Grade 6 (12 years of age) were asked t o produce a n a r r a t i v e , e i t h e r in written or spoken form. Four days l a t e r the children were asked t o r e c a l l t h e i r n a r r a t i v e s , half of them in the same modality and half i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e modality. Being able t o compare the s t r u c t u r e of t h e discourse o r i g i n a l l y produced in one modality with the r e c a l l o f the discourse in the same o r a l t e r n a t i v e modalities, permits a c l o s e r examination of t h e e f f e c t of modality upon the i n s t a n t i a t i o n and subsequent r e c a l l of a schema. METHOD
Subjects: Thirty-six Grade 6 children were selected randomly from two Grade 6 classrooms. Materials: I n order t o provide some control over the content and s t r u c t u r e o f the individual protocols, f i v e narrative introductions were prepared
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU SAID, REMEMBERING WHAT YOU WROTE
271
and each c h i l d was given one of these. The introductions ( s e e Table 1 ) contained information which served t o introduce a main character and s e t up a n i n i t i a t i n g event. Table 1 The Story Introductions Once upon a time there was a king who was so greedy t h a t no one r e a l l y liked him. Very e a r l y one morning the king heard someone knocking a t his door. A long time ago there was a boy who was very s e l f i s h . One morning while he was o u t f o r a walk he saw something lying by the s i d e of the road.
Once upon a time there was a fox who was so bad-tempered t h a t he had no f r i e n d s . One sunny morning the fox heard something tapping on his window. There was once a boy who was so f r i e n d l y t h a t he always had l o t s of f r i e n d s coming t o v i s i t him. One day the boy opened his door and found someone there crying. Many years ago there lived a princess who was so shy t h a t she never spoke t o anyone. One day while o u t in the f o r e s t she heard someone making a strange sound. Procedure: The children were assigned t o e i t h e r the oral or the written production groups. Those children in the oral g r o u p were seen individua l l y . They were given a sheet on which was typed one of the f i v e introduct i o n s . The child was asked t o read the introduction and then t o carry on with the s t o r y . The c h i l d held the microphone and continued speaking u n t i l heishe had indicated t h a t t h e s t o r y was complete. The children in the written group were seen in g r o u p s of nine. Each c h i l d received a sheet with one of the f i v e introductions a n d was asked t o continue the s t o r y . The children wrote f o r as long as they wished. Four days l a t e r the children were seen again. Half of the written g r o u p were asked t o rewrite t h e i r s t o r i e s in exactly the same form as the o r i g i n a l s . They were given the appropriate introductions. The remaining half o f the written g r o u p were seen individually and asked t o r e c a l l , i n t o a tape recorder, t h e i r original production. Again each c h i l d was given the appropriate introduction. Those children who had o r i g i n a l l y produced t h e i r n a r r a t i v e s in an oral form were a l s o divided i n t o two groups. Half of them were asked t o recall t h e i r original productions o r a l l y and the other half were asked t o write the r e c a l l . Both s e t s of children were provided with the appropriate introduct i o n s . The oral protocols, f o r b o t h the original and the recall product i o n s , were c a r e f u l l y transcribed. Comparison of Original Protocols: The protocols from the original oral a n d written productions were subjected t o a s e r i e s of analyses. These analyses were d i r e c t e d towards both q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e dimensions, as follows: ( i ) Number of words:
T h e number of words i n each protocol were counted
272
MEMORY
excl udi ng exact r e p e t i t i o n s and con versa tional "floor- ho 1ders " , such as "urn" from the oral protocols. The average length of the 18 written origina l s was 149 words. The average length of the 18 oral o r i g i n a l s was 151 words. Clearly, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two s e t s of protocols. ( i i ) Number of idea u n i t s : The number of idea units i n each protocol were counted by two independent r a t e r s (86% agreement between r a t e r s ) . In general a n idea u n i t c o n s i s t s of a clause (verb, s u b j e c t , o b j e c t , e t c . ) which contains one main verb. The written protocols were found t o contain an average of 18 idea units and the oral protocols 19 u n i t s . Again, such differences a r e c l e a r l y not s i g n i f i c a n t . ( i i i ) Structure: I t has been argued by several researchers ( e . g . Kintsch, 1977; Propp, 1968) t h a t every s t o r y contains c e r t a i n key elements including a s e t t i n g with c h a r a c t e r s , a c o n f l i c t and a resolution of t h a t c o n f l i c t . The protocols were rated with respect t o the e x t e n t t o khich they contained these elements. Up t o two points were awarded f o r an elaborated s e t t i n g , u p t o two points f o r t h e introduction of the c o n f l i c t and u p t o two points f o r the s a t i s f a c t o r y resolution of t h a t c o n f l i c t . In addition, u p t o two f u r t h e r points were awarded t o those students whose n a r r a t i v e s served t o t i e together the s t r u c t u r a l components, f o r example, taking account of the f a c t t h a t the king was greedy, the princess was shy, e t c . The written protocols were awarded an average of 6.8 points ( o u t of a maximum of e i g h t p o i n t s ) . While the oral protocols were awarded an average of 5.1 points. This difference was found t o be highly s i g n i f i c a n t (p
A summary of these measures i s found i n Table 2 .
Table 2 Comparison of The Original Written and the Original Oral S t o r i e s
Average Number o f Words Produced Average Number of Idea Units S t r u c t u r e (Max. = 8 ) Semantic Well Formedness (Max. = 5 )
Written (N=18) 149
Oral (N=18) 151
18 6.8
19 5.1 **p(O.OOl
3.2
2.75**pd.001
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU SAID, REMEMBERING WHAT YOU WROTE
273
Contrary t o e a r l i e r findings (Hidi a n d Hildyard, 1980), the oral a n d the writteri protocols were found t o be equivalent in terms of the number of words and t h e number of idea u n i t s . This i s surprising in the l i g h t of Chafe's most recent paper ( i n p r e s s ) in which he argues t h a t idea units in written language a r e longer than those in spoken language with the r e s u l t t h a t we would expect longer written protocols. Of course, Chafe conducted h i s research with a d u l t s and i t may be t h a t these Grade 6 students have not y e t mastered the s t r a t e g i e s of nominalizations, a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e s and r e s t r i c t e d r e l a t i v e clauses, e t c . which Chafe suggests, a r e used t o increase t h e informational content of the written idea units. I n f a c t , the equivalence in length of the oral a n d written protocols might i n d i c a t e t h a t these children had a sense of the amount of information t o be included in a s t o r y and t h a t t h i s was independent of modality ( F r a n k Smith personal communication. ) With respect t o the q u a l i t a t i v e measures, these new d a t a a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those collected previously by Bereiter e t a l , Gould a n d Hidi and Hildyard. These new written protocols were n o t found t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r t o the oral protocals b u t , r a t h e r , t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y superior. Several explanations may account f o r these data. F i r s t l y , these children were older than those used in Hidi and Hildyard's previous study. Perhaps, a s children get older, writing becomes a more automated process thereby encouraging productions which a r e b o t h semantically and s t r u c t u r a l l y b e t t e r formed. That Gould found no q u a l i t a t i v e differences between oral and written business l e t t e r s may i n d i c a t e t h a t nodality i n t e r a c t s with only some genres: t h a t i s , the c o n s t r a i n t s o r parameters of some genres may override modality differences. Uf course, i t i s a l s o possible t h a t schemata a r e modality s p e c i f i c , thus we have both an oral n a r r a t i v e schema and a written n a r r a t i v e schema. We p r e f e r , however, t o argue t h a t the same discourse schema controls b o t h oral and written productions, b u t t h a t the process o f w r i t i n g , with i t s l e s s time-constrained and slower r a t e of production, allows more precise, conscious decisions and repeated scanning which thereby f a c i l i t a t e s the i n i t i a t i o n a n d e f f i c i e n t performance of the controlling schema. Comparison of the Originals with the Recall Protocols: Several analyses were conducted t o compare the original productions with the recall productions, which were e i t h e r in the same mode o r the a l t e r n a t i v e mode. The f i r s t analyses looked a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the idea u n i t s in the original and the idea units in the r e c a l l . Using the a n a l y s i s of the original protocals i n t o idea units as the b a s i s , two independent r a t e r s looked f o r the occurrence of these idea units in the r e c a l l . The nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p was categorized a s Verbatim ( t h e surface form of the idea unit was r e t a i n e d ) , P a r t i a l Verbatim (some minor, non-semantic, differences occurred between the original and the recall ) , Paraphrase ( t h e g i s t of the idea u n i t was retained b u t i t s surface form was a l t e r e d ) , Omission (an idea unit in t h e original was n o t retained in the r e c a l l ) , Intrusion (an idea u n i t in the r e c a l l did n o t occur in the o r i g i n a l ) . Table 3 shows the percentage of occurrence of each of these categories across the four conditions ( w r i t t e n o r i g i n a l , written r e c a l l ; written o r i g i n a l , oral r e c a l l ; oral o r i g i n a l , written r e c a l l ; oral o r i g i n a l , oral recall ) .
274
MEMORY
* Table 3 Percent of Idea Units Recalled in Verbatim Form, Paraphrase Form o r Omitted together with percent of Intrusions (*The percentages sum t o more than 100% due t o the Intrusions)
** Verbatim P a r t i a l Verbatim Paraphrase Omi ss i ons Intrusions
**
W.O. W.R.
W.O./O.R.
O.O./W.R.
O.O./O.R.
36'6
18%
21%
14%
28 16
28 20
20 22
28 20
21
32
42
39
5
19
W.O./W.R.
7N=9)(N=9)(N=91(N=9J
6
-
Written Original
- Written Recall
11
** 0.0. - Oral Orig nal O . R . - Oral Recall
These figures i n d i c a t e t h a t , f i r s t of a l l , the children did s u r p r i s i n g l y well in r e c a l l i n g the s t o r y content four days a f t e r the original product i o n s : over 60% of the idea units o r i g i n a l l y produced were recalled. This, of course, i s in marked contrast. t o c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l of school-type t e x t s (Hidi, Baird and Hildyard, t h i s volume). Table 3 f u r t h e r shows t h a t the children who both produced and recalled in a written form recalled s u b s t a n t i a l l y more than the other three groups. I t i s , moreover, e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the differences seem t o occur a t the verbatim and p a r t i a l l y verbatim l e v e l s , indicating t h a t the writing process n o t only enhances r e c a l l , b u t a l s o enables students t o pay c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n t o the surface form. Any idea u n i t n o t r e c a l l e d in some verbatim form was c l a s s i f i e d as a n omission. The data shows t h a t the number of idea u n i t s omitted depended upon the modality of t h e original production: those children whose o r i g i n a l productions were o r a l , omitted s i g n i f i c a n t l y more of the idea u n i t s than did those children whose o r i g i n a l productions were written. An a n a l y s i s of the nature of these omissions showed t h a t the majority were e l a b o r a t i v e omissions - t h a t i s , an idea u n i t which contained e l a b o r a t i v e d e t a i l would be omitted from the r e c a l l . To i l l u s t r a t e , one c h i l d ' s o r i g i n a l oral production contained the following: "The King got some gold things. He g o t a pin, a bowl, a dish, and some jewellery. Later he . . . . ' I . The r e c a l l was a s follows: "The king got some gold things. Later he In o t h e r words, the c h i l d l e f t out the l i s t of items, which, f o r t h i s s t o r y , simply provided non e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l . ...'I.
Approximately one t h i r d t o one q u a r t e r of the omissions were classed as central omissions, t h a t i s , the idea unit l e f t from the r e c a l l was considered t o be e s s e n t i a l t o the coherence of the s t o r y ( c f . Hildyard and Olson, 1978). As with the elaborative omissions, t h e r e were fewer central omissions from the written o r i g i n a l s than from the oral o r i g i n a l s . That the written original productions r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer e l a b o r a t i v e and central omissions supports the suggestion t h a t writing
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU SAID, REMEMBERING WHAT YOU WROTE
275
permits one t o focus more c a r e f u l l y upon the content and form of the n a r r a t i v e . Not only a r e t h e w r i t t e n o r i g i n a l s s t r u c t u r a l l y and semantic a l l y b e t t e r formed, b u t the children a r e b e t t e r able t o r e c a l l the idea units contained therein. I t would appear, then, t h a t the e f f e c t of modality upon i n i t i a l production and subsequent r e c a l l i s a d d i t i v e : n o t only a r e the written o r i g i n a l s superior, b u t recall in the same modality i s more accurate. A f i n a l a n a l y s i s of the original and r e c a l l protocols concerned those idea u n i t s which were included in the recall b u t not the o r i g i n a l s . Here we found the modality of r e c a l l t o be i m p o r t a n t r s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t r u s i o n s occur f o r the oral r e c a l l than f o r t h e written r e c a l l . T h u s , those children required t o r e c a l l i n a spoken form, tended t o include more new information within t h e i r s t o r i e s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g , however, t o note t h a t the number of i n t r u s i o n s was g r e a t e r when the o r i g i n a l had a l s o been i n the oral form, again suggesting t h a t the a c t of writing t h a t i n i t i a l n a r r a t i v e focussed s t u d e n t s ' a t t e n t i o n upon the s p e c i f i c content and not simply the g i s t of the s t o r y .
The protocols from two Grade 6 students - one in the written o r i g i n a l and written r e c a l l g r o u p , and one from the oral original and oral r e c a l l group - a r e included t o i l l u s t r a t e some of the i s s u e s presented above. Table 4 shows the written protocols. I t i s apparent t h a t very l i t t l e i s modified over the four day period. Table 4 An example of a written original and the c h i l d ' s written r e c a l l of t h a t n a r r a t i v e . Original Once upon a time there was a fox who was so bad-tempered t h a t he had no f r i e n d s . One sunny morning the fox heard something tapping on h i s window. He went t o see what i t was and no one was there. So he opened t h e door a n d saw t h a t t h e r e was some bushes r u s t l i n g . He went over t o the bushes parted them and pssst he was got, He stank. He parted the busbes again and saw a s k u n k with glasses and a briefcase. He s a i d " I am very s o r r y every time I bend down t h a t happens and I had dropped my pen in t h e bushes". "Okay". "Now by the way I am an a i r freshener salesman, would you l i k e t o buy some"? Sorry I already have some". "Well I think you should use i t because i t smells p r e t t y bad around here. Goodbye s i r " . Recall Once upon a time there was a fox who was so bad-tempered t h a t he had no f r i e n d s . One sunny morning the fox heard something tapping on h i s window. He looked out the window and d i d n ' t see anything so he opened the door and saw the bushes r u s t l i n g . He went and parted the bushes and p s s s t he was got. He ducked then came and parted the bushes again and saw a s k u n k with glasses and a briefcase and he s a i d , " I am very s o r r y t h a t always happens when I bend and I had dropped my e r a s e r in the bushes". Fox, " I t ' s a l l r i g h t " . "Oh by the way I am a salesman and I am s e l l i n g a i r freshener would you l i k e t o buy some"? "No I already have some". "That's good because you r e a l l y need i t " ! The oral protocols in Table 5, on the o t h e r hand, do show s u b s t a n t i a l nodi f ica t i ons .
27 6
MEMORY
Table 5 An example o f an o r a l o r i g i n a l and t h e c h i l d ' s oral recall o f that narrative Original Once upon a t i m e t h e r e was a f o x who was so bad-tempered t h a t he had no f r i e n d s . One sunny morning t h e f o x h e a r d some3hing t a p p i n g on h i s window. He jumped up from bed, a l l o f a sudden when he heard, t h i s f o x because he was v e r y hungry. He had had a r e s t l e s s n i g h t and was eager f o r something t o e a t . When he g o t t o t h e window he found t h a t i t was a hare. So he went t o t h e door and i n v i t e d t h e h a r e i n f o r some t e a . As soon as t h e h a r e reached t h e door he grabbed i t and h e l d i t w i t h a l l h i s m i g h t . He p u t i t i n t h e box and k e p t i t t h e r e and p u t some w a t e r on t o b o i l . He s k i n n e d t h e h a r e and t h e n p u t i t i n t h e p o t and c u t up some v e g e t a b l e s and p u t them i n w i t h t h e h a r e and s e t i t i n t o t h e oven. He l e t i t cook f o r a b o u t h a l f an hour, p u l l e d i t o u t , checked i t and i t s t i l l w a s n ' t done so he p u t i t i n agair;. F i n a l l y when he t h o u g h t i t was done he t o o k i t o u t and r e a l i z e d t h e n , (urn) t h a t i t was a f a k e , i t was a decoy. So by t h a t t i m e he was v e r y mad and r a n o u t o f t h e house and i n t o t h e woods q u i c k l y k i l l e d a nearby owl and gobbled i t up.
Recall Once upon a t i m e t h e r e was a f o x who was so bad-tempered t h a t he had no f r i e n d s . One sunny morning t h e f o x heard something t a p p i n g on h i s window. The f o x was hungry a f t e r a good n i g h t ' s s l e e p and he jumped up f r o m h i s bed t o see who was a t t h e door. He found a h a r e a t t h e door and t h i n k i n g v e r y smart he i n v i t e d t h e h a r e i n f o r some t e a . The h a r e g o t i n t h e house (pause) and was i n v i t e d t o s i t down, and i n s t e a d o f g e t t i n g t h e f o x some tea, he p r e p a r e d a p o t w i t h p o t a t o e s and veget a b l e s and t h e n when he went t o g i v e him t h e t e a , he grabbed a t t h e f o x - grabbed a t t h e hare, and p u t him i n t h e oven. And he l e t i t cook f o r about an hour and t o o k i t o u t and checked i t , and t h e n p u t i t back i n - i t w a s n ' t cooked. A f t e r two more hours, he t o o k i t o u t and found no hare. The f o x was v e r y angry by t h i s t i m e and he had been deceived. And i t was j u s t a decoy. And he r a n o u t s i d e and s e e i n g y e t a n o t h e r h a r e and q u i c k l y k i l l e d i t and a t e i t .
ote, f o r example, t h a t t h e c h i l d confuses t h e r o l e o f t h e c e n t r a l charact e r . I n t h e o r i g i n a l , t h e f o x i s always assumed t o be t h e c e n t r a l charact e r - t h e one d o i n g t h e c o o k i n g and e a t i n g . I n the r e c a l l the c h i l d f i r s t s t a r t s by h a v i n g t h e fox as t h e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r , t h e n changes t o t h e hare and h a l f w a y t h r o u g h t h e n a r r a t i v e r e a l i z e s t h a t i t was t h e f o x who cooked t h e hare and n o t v i c e versa. Summary The i n t e n t o f t h i s paper was t o l o o k a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o d u c t i o n and r e c a l l as t h e y r e l a t e t o m o d a l i t y , o r , more p r e c i s e l y , t o determine t h e e f f e c t o f m o d a l i t y upon r e c a l l schemata which o p e r a t e upon p r o d u c t i o n schemata. C o n t r a r y t o e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s , i t was found t h a t Grade 6 s t u d e n t s ' w r i t t e n
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU SAID,
REMEMBERING WHAT YOU WROTE
277
n a r r a t i v e productions were superior t o oral n a r r a t i v e productions, leading t o the suggestion t h a t i n writing one i s able t o c a p i t a l i z e upon the r e l a t i v e lack of time c o n s t r a i n t s by scanning and rereading, in order t o produce a s t r u c t u r a l l y more complete n a r r a t i v e . If l a t e r asked t o r e c a l l t h a t n a r r a t i v e , then more accurate r e c a l l r e s u l t s when the original p r o duction i s written a n d the r e c a l l i s w r i t t e n . This again suggests the notion t h a t the w r i t e r i s able t o pay c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n to both the s t r u c t u r e a n d the form of the production than i s the speaker, o r , in Olson's (1977) terms, writing permits c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n t o w h a t was e x p l i c i t l y men t i oned . These data, then do suggest t h a t w r i t i n g promotes d i f f e r e n t i a l encoding b o t h a t the production and a t the r e t r i e v a l stages. The extent t o which such findings a r e age or genre s p e c i f i c remains t o be seen.
References Bereiter, C . , Scardamalia, M., & Goelman, H . The r o l e of production f a c t o r s in writing. I n M. Nystrand ( E d . ) What Writers Know: The Language and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic Press, l i n press). B e r e i t e r , C . , & Scardamalia, M. From conversation t o composition: The r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n in a develoomental orocess. I n R. Glaser (Ed.) . . Advances in Instructional Psychology, (Vol. 2 ) H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erl baum Assoc., 1980. Chafe, W. Integration and involvement in speaking. I n D. Tannen ( E d . ) Cohesion in Spoken and Written Language, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, Tin p r e s s ) . Chafe, W. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking a n d writing. Paper presented a t the Conference on the Consequences of Literacy, S t r a t f o r d , Ontario, 1981. Ehr , L . The e f f e c t s of printed language acquisition on speech. D . R . Olson, N. Tarrance, & A. Hiidyard (Eds.) The Cognitive Consequences of Literacy, ( i n p r e s s ) .
In
Hid , S . , Baird, W . , & Hildyard, A. T h a t ' s important b u t i s i t i n t e r e s t i n g ? Two f a c t o r s in t e x t processing ( t h i s volume). Hidi, S . , & Hildyard, A . The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, 1980. Hildyard, A., & Olson, D . R . Forms of comprehension in t e x t s . In W . O t t o ( E d . ) Reading Expository Material. New York: Academic Press, ( i n press).
278
MEMORY
Hildyard, A . , & Olson, D . R . On the comprehension and memory of oral vs. written discourse. I n D . Tannen ( E d . ) Cohesion in Spoken and Written Language, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, ( i n p r e s s ) . Hildyard, A., & Olson, D . R . Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written discourse. Discourse Processes. 1978, 1,91-117. Gould, J.P. Experiments on composing l e t t e r s : Some f a c t s , some myths and some observations. I n L.W. Gregg & E . R . Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive Processes i n Writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Assoc., 1980. Organizational processes underlying differences between Howowitz, M.W. l i s t e n i n g and reading as a function of complexity of material. Journal of Communication, 1968, 18,37-46. Kintsch, W . Text representations. In W. O t t o ( E d . ) Reading Expository Material. New York: Academic Press, ( i n p r e s s ) . Kintsch, W . On comprehending s t o r i e s . In P . Carpenter & M . J u s t (Eds.) Cognitive Processes i n Comprehension, H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum Assoc., 1977. Kintsch, W . , & Van Dijk, T.A. Toward a model o f text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 1978, '5, 363-394. Olson, D . R . , & Hildyard, A . Literacy a n d the comprehension of l i t e r a l meaning. In F. Coulmas ( E d . ) Writing in Focus. Bielefeld: Universitat Dusseldorf, 1981. Propp. V . 1968.
Morphology of the Folktale.
Austin:
University of Texas Press,
Sachs, 3 . Memory in reading an d l i s t e n i n g t o discourse. Cognition, 1974, 2, 95-100.
Memory and
Schallert, D.L. Synthesis of research r e l a t e d t o schema theory. I n W. O t t o ( E d . ) Reading Expository Material, New York: Academic Press, (in press). Shuy, R . Relating research on oral language function to research i n written discourse. Paper presented a t the annual meeting of AERA, Los Angeles, 1981. Shuy, R . Question-asking s t r a t e g i e s : S t y l e s i n the classroom. presented a t the annual meeting of AERA, Boston, 1980.
Paper
Tannen, D. Spoken and written n a r r a t i v e i n English and Greek. D. Tannen ( E d . ) Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse. N.J.: Ablex, ( i n p r e s s ) .
In Norwood,
Vachek, J . Selected Writings in English a n d General Linguistics by Joseph Vachek. The Hague: Mouton, 1976. Wells, G . Preschool l i t e r a c y - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s a n d success in reading. In D . R . Olson, N . Torrance,& A. Hildyard ( E d s . ) The Cognitive Consequences of Literacy, ( i n p r e s s ) .
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammerand W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Hoiiand Publishing Company, I982
EFFECTS OF VERBAL AND PICTORIAL CONTEXT CUES ON FREE RECALL AND CLUSTERING OF TEXT THEMES Eugen H i n d e r Department o f Pedagogy University o f Fribourg Switzerland A t o t a l o f 163 seventh-grade s t u d e n t s r e a d 16 p r o s e passages about t y p e s o f s p o r t which c o u l d be grouped a c c o r d i n g t o two a l t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r y systems o f f o u r c a t e g o r i e s each. Passages were accompanied by e i t h e r v e r b a l o r p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s representing the c a t e g o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d instances. P i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s improved f r e e r e c a l l and f r e e r e c a l l c l u s t e r i n g . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t p i c t u r e a d j u n c t s a f f e c t e d n o t o n l y t h e amount o f r e t e n t i o n b u t a l s o i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t was suggested t h a t p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s p r o v i d e d a c o n t e x t w i t h i n which t h e prose passages c o u l d be more deeply processed.
I Id T R 0 U U C T I 0 N The p r e s e n t s t u d y d e a l s w i t h t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of q u a n t i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e a d j u n c t s . I t s main emphasis, however, i s on t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f q u a l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s o f p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t i s whether i l l u s t r a t i o n s a f f e c t n o t o n l y t h e amount o f r e t e n t i o n b u t a l s o i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n . D e a l i n g w i t h q u a l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s may h e l p i n c r e a s e o u r theoretical-psychological understanding o f the e f f i c a c y o f p i c t u r e adjuncts. A number o f s t u d i e s have demonstrated t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e v i s u a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f p r o s e - l e a r n i n g ; t h a t i s , p i c t u r e s as p r o s e - l e a r n i n g a d j u n c t s have a q u a n t i t a t i v e f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t ( f o r r e v i e w s , see e.g., L e v i n , 1976; L e v i n & Lesgold, 1977). A p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s eff e c t i s t h a t p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s p r o v i d e a c o n t e x t w i t h i n which t h e v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n can be more d e e p l y processed, thus augmenting b o t h comp r e h e n s i o n and r e t e n t i o n (e.g., B r a n s f o r d & Johnson, 1972; C r a i k & L o c k h a r t , 1972). Some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have shown t h a t p r o v i d i n g c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n such as d i f f e r e n t t i t l e s (e.g., S c h a l l e r t , 1976), l e a r n i n g g o a l s (e.g., Gagne, Bing, & Bing, 1977), o r p e r s p e c t i v e s (e.g., Anderson & P i c h e r t , 1978; P i c h e r t & Anderson, 1976) a f f e c t e d n o t o n l y t h e amount o f r e t e n t i o n b u t a l s o i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n : s t u d e n t s who were g i v e n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s t o t h e same c o n t e n t o r g a n i z e d t h e i r r e c a l l d i f f e r e n t l y , always a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i d e d c o n t e x t . The c r u c i a l r o l e o f semantic c o n t e x t and i t s u n d e r l y i n g processes have been d i s c u s s e d by many i n v e s t i g a t o r s (e.g., Ausubel, 1960; C r a i k & T u l v i n g , 1975; F r e d e r i k s e n , 1975; Kozminsky, 1977; P a r i s & L i n d a u e r , 1977; Van D i j k , 1977) f r o m v a r i o u s angles (advance o r g a n i z e r , schema, frame, macros t r u c t u r e , schema-evoking c o n t e x t , ...). Contexts a r e assumed t o a c t i v a t e t h e r e l e v a n t h i g h e r - l e v e l knowledge s t r u c t u r e and t o make t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t ween t h e c o n c r e t e t e x t elements more i n t e l l i g i b l e . Thus a c o n t e x t enables t h e l e a r n e r t o o r g a n i z e more e f f e c t i v e l y t h e passage i n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e 279
280
MEMORY
moment of encoding and/or t o reproduce the information i n an organized manner during reconstructive r e c a l l . Yet not only (contextual) information presented in addition t o the t e x t mat e r i a l ( p r i o r t o or accompanying the t e x t ) were used as organizational cues a t encoding a n d / o r r e c a l l , b u t a l s o s t r u c t u r a l properties of the material. Studies using conceptually organized m a t e r i a l , especially learning elements from "name x a t t r i b u t e ' ' word matrices, c o n s i s t e n t l y showed a r e c a l l advantage f o r b o t h name and a t t r i b u t e organization over the randomly organized passages; moreover, when measures of o u t p u t organization were c a l c u l a t e d , c l u s t e r i n g was higher f o r the conceptually organized passages than f o r the random condition ( f o r reviews, see e.g., Kulhavy, Schmid, & Walker, 1977; Yekovich & Kulhavy, 1976). These r e s u l t s niay be considered p a r t of the welldocumented e f f e c t which Bousfield (1953) called "categorical clust e r i n g " . Presenting category instances in blocks, i . e . , f i r s t presenting a l l members of one category, then a l l members of another, and so o n , augmented b o t h categorical c l u s t e r i n g and r e c a l l ( e . g . , Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966). Obviously the learner was able t o organize the information according t o the dimensions inherent in the passages; t h a t i s , the blocked presentation o f c a t e g o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d passages served as an organizational cue by providing f o r t h e learner the superordinate category which i n t u r n was used as organizer and thus f a c i l i t a t e d t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and the clust e r i n g of t h e passages.
From these two l i n e s of research one can conclude t h a t what people remember from a t e x t and hoh they r e c a l l ( g r o u p ) i t s elements i s influenced by both the s t r u c t u r e of the content ( t e x t organization) and the additional information (context organization). One purpose of the present study was t o show how l e a r n e r s can use such organizational cues t o a c t i v a t e processes t h a t promote the r e c a l l i n g and c l u s t e r i n g of prose material; furthermore t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether one of the two forms o f organizational cues ( t e x t organization o r context organization) i s more e f f e c t i v e than the other. Nevertheless the main purpose of t h i s study was t o a s c e r t a i n whether pictor i a l context cues do have g r e a t e r q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s than verbal supplements. METHOD
Subjects The subjects were 170 male and female seventh-grade students (13 t o 15 y e a r s ) of the d i s t r i c t schools of Duedingen and Wuennewil, S t a t e of Fribourg. Seven subjects were dropped from the analysis because they did not complete a l l p a r t s of the experimental task. The remaining 163 students (92 males a n d 71 females; 46 secondary school, 55 intermediate school, and 62 senior elementary school) were randomly assigned t o one of the e i g h t conditions. Materials
( a ) T e x t m a t e r i a1 s : The t e x t material consisted of 16 s h o r t passages (approximately 55 w o r d s ) , each describing a type of s p o r t . The name of each s p o r t was s e t as t i t l e . The 16 types of s p o r t could be grouped i n t o two a1 t e r n a t i v e category systems (Table 1 ) . The columns of the matrix represent the A-categories, the rows specify the 6-categories. Thus each type o f s p o r t could be exactly assigned t o two categories ( t o one A-category and t o one 8-category), and each category con-
281
EFFECTS OF VERBAL AND PICTORAL CONTEXT CUES
t a i n e d e x a c t l y f o u r types o f s p o r t ( c a t e g o r y i n s t a n c e s ) . Both c a t e g o r y names d e f i n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f s p o r t appeared i n t h e a c t u a l passage. Table 1 M a t r i x o f t h e t y p e s of s p o r t WATER
LAWN/SOFT FIELD
HARD GROUND
ICE/SNOW
TEAM
Water p o l o
Rugby
Vol l e y b a l l
I c e hockey
SHOOT
Gun/harpoon
Archery
R i f l e shooting
Biathlon
JUMP
High d i v i n g
Horse jump
High jump
S k i jump
MOTOR
Motorboat
Motocross
Car r a c i n g
Snow m o b i l i n g
The main d i f f i c u l t y i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e m a t r i x was t o f i n d e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s which were c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e one hand and n o t t o o small ( t o o s u b t l e ) on t h e o t h e r and w h i c h c o u l d o n l y c o n t a i n f o u r c a t e g o r y i n s t a n c e s . (The c h o i c e o f t h e c a t e g o r y "TEAM s p o r t s " f o r i n s t a n c e meant t h a t e x c e p t f o r t h e f o u r team s p o r t s a l l t h e o t h e r types of s p o r t had t o be s i n g l e s p o r t s . The same t h i n g a p p l i e d t o a l l t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . ) Therefore t h e chosen c a t e g o r i e s a r e r a t h e r heterogeneous. The homogeneity may be seen i n t h e sense t h a t a l l A - c a t e g o r i e s r e f e r t o l o c a t i o n s ( p l a c e , ground, t e r r a i n ) on o r i n w h i c h t h e types o f s p o r t a r e p r a c t i s e d , whereas t h e B - c a t e g o r i e s a r e r e l a t e d i n s t e a d t o an a c t i v i t y ( s h o o t , jump, d r i v e ) . The 16 passages r e s u l t i n g f r o m Table 1 were grouped i n two ways y i e l d i n g t h e T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n s A and B: The sequence o f t h e passages i n T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n A corresponded t o r e a d i n g down t h e f i r s t column of Table 1, then t h e second column, e t c . The sequence o f t h e passages i n T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n B corresponded t o r e a d i n g across t h e t o p row o f Table 1, then across t h e second row, e t c . ( b ) C o n t e x t c u e s : C o n t e x t u a l cues were e i t h e r p i c t u r e s o r words. The p i c t u r e s were 16 b l a c k - a n d - w h i t e l i n e - d r a w i n g s ( 6 x 8 cm), each i l l u s t r a t i n g a t y p e of s p o r t . A c c o r d i n g t o Table 1 four p i c t u r e s were always combined t o f o r m a c o n t e x t cue f o r t h a t c a t e g o r y . For i n s t a n c e , t h e p i c t u r e s " H i g h d i v i n g " , "Horse jump", "High jump", and " S k i jump" formed t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cue "JUMP s p o r t s " ( F i g u r e 7 ) ; t h e p i c t u r e s "Water p o l o " , "Gun/harpoon", "High d i v i n g " , and "Motorboat" d e f i n e d t h e c o n t e x t cue "WATER s p o r t s " . The 16 names o f t h e types o f s p o r t , w h i c h were w r i t t e n i n r e c t a n g l e s of t h e same f o r m a t o f a p i c t u r e , served as v e r b a l a d j u n c t s . Analogous t o t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues t h e names were combined t o f o r m v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues. Corresponding t o t h e two-by-four c a t e g o r i e s o f Table 1, e i g h t p i c t o r i a l and e i g h t v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues were c o n s t r u c t e d which were grouped i n t o two C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n s : C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n A c o n s i s t e d o f t h e c o n t e x t cues "WATER", "LAWN/SOFT FIELD", "HARD GROUND", and "ICE/SNOW"; C o n t e x t Organi zat i on B i n c l u d e d t h e c o n t e x t cues "TEAM", "SHOOT", "JUMP", and "MOTOR". ( c ) P r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e x t p a s s a g e s a n d c o n t e x t c u e s : Each t y p e of s p o r t was p r e s e n t e d on one page (DIN A4); t h e c o n t e x t cue was d i s p l a y e d i n t h e upper h a l f , t h e t e x t passage i n t h e l o w e r p a r t . T h i s i s how
za2
MEMORY
an e x p e r i m e n t a l book o f 16 pages was formed. White b l a n k sheets ( D I N A 5 ) were p u t between t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l pages t o c o v e r t h e passages. Thus a t f i r s t o n l y t h e c o n t e x t cue c o u l d b e seen (as advance o r g a n i z e r ) then, a f t e r t u r n i n g t h e i n t e r l e a v e d b l a n k sheet, b o t h c o n t e x t cue and t e x t passage were presented together. The t y p e o f s p o r t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e passage appeared i n t h e c o n t e x t cue a l ways i n t h e upper l e f t p o s i t i o n ; t h e o t h e r t h r e e t y p e s o f s p o r t were a r r a n ged c o u n t e r - c l o c k w i s e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r appearance i n t h e sequence o f t h e passages.
Figure 1 Example o f a p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cue, "JUMP s p o r t s " Design
A 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n was used t o g e t e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . F a c t o r 1 : C o n t e x t ( p i c t o r i a l v s . v e r b a l ) ; p i c t o r i a l o r v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues were used. F a c t o r 2: C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n ( A vs. B ) ; t h e c o n t e x t cues i l l u s t r a t e d t h e A- o r B-categories. F a c t o r 3: T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n ( A v s . B ) ; t h e sequence o f passages c o r r e s ponded t o r e a d i n g down t h e columns ( A ) o r across t h e rows ( B ) of Table 1 . The e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y F i g u r e 2 : Each r e c t a n g l e stands f o r one page o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l m a t e r i a l s .
Experimental c o n d i t i o n 1
p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t ) and 2 ( v e r b a l c o n t e x t ) :
Motocross
Snow mob.
I
Experimental c o n d i t i o n 3
m
p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t ) and 4 ( v e r b a l c o n t e x t ) :
z! m 0
v)
0
Biathlon text
PI
Snow mob. m
m 72 W
-
r P
Experimental c o n d i t i o n 5 ( D i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t ) and 6 ( v e r b a l c o n t e x t ) :
B
Water p.
z 0
Vol 1eyb.
I c e hock.
Gun/harp.
Archery
R i f l e sh.
Biathlon
...
m
P
r c,
0
z
Experimental c o n d i t i o n 7
p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t ) and 8 ( v e r b a l c o n t e x t ) :
-4
:,r".-I Motocross
m x
...
EX-+
v)
Snow mob.
I Figure 2 Experimental c o n d i t i o n s (The upper c a p i t a l l e t t e r on t h e l e f t r e s p r e s e n t s f a c t o r 2 ( C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n ) ; t h e lower c a p i t a l l e t t e r represents f a c t o r 3 (Text Organization)) N
w m
284
MEMORY
Looking a t the r e l a t i o n "Context Organization" and "Text Organization", we see t h a t on the one s i d e the experimental conditions 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 a r e t o be considered equivalent with each other as a r e on the other s i d e the condit i o n s 3, 4 , 7 , 8:
I n the f i r s t case, the i d e n t i c a l categorical organization i s provided twice: once by the Context Organization a n d secondly by the Text Organizat i o n . Since merely presenting c a t e g o r i c a l l y s i m i l a r passages in blocks has been shown t o r e s u l t in clustered r e c a l l , i t was expected t h a t the types of s p o r t would be processed and recalled according t o t h i s twofold organization; t h a t i s , grouping by A f o r conditions 1 and 2 , and grouping by €3 for conditions 5 and 6 . Therefore context cues should a t l e a s t contribute towards providing an organizational context. I n the second case (conditions 3, 4 , 7 , 8 ) , the Text Organization provided one category system, while the a l t e r n a t i v e category system was i l l u s t r a t e d by the Context Organization. Basically t h i s combination permits processing by Text Organization o r by Context Organization. Because of the prior presentation of t h e context cues, Context Crganization was assumed t o function as advance organizer, and therefore r e c a l l was expected t o be clustered predominantly according t o Context Organization. Hence, context cues were supposed t o play the leading r o l e in organizational processing in the sense t h a t they require the reorganization of the a1 t e r n a t i v e l y presented passages. P r o c e d u r e and I n s t r u c t i o n s The students p a r t i c i p a t e d in a s i n g l e session held i n a l a r g e regular classroom. The students were seated f a r a p a r t from each other. Questions concerning procedures t o be followed were answered. The experimental bookl e t s were d i s t r i b u t e d randomly, envelopes containing the interpolated task and sheets of'paper f o r f r e e r e c a l l were placed on the c h a i r next t o each s u b j e c t ' s c h a i r . I n addition t o the 16 experimental pages, the booklet of material included an introduction t e l l i n g the students t h a t they would be reading 16 passages about types of s p o r t . (Thus subjects were not t o l d t o expect a subsequent r e c a l l . ) Following the study i n t e r v a l , l e a r n e r s were required t o solve 20 arithmetic problems (complete numerical s e r i e s ) t o preclude r e c a l l from short-term memory. The interpolated task was followed by the f i r s t f r e e r e c a l l o f types of s p o r t . For the second f r e e r e c a l l , immediately afterwards, subjects were informed o f the probability of remembering more types of s p o r t by writing down r e l a t e d types of s p o r t in groups o r category c l u s t e r s . Neither of these tasks was subject t o time c o n s t r a i n t s . Finally students were asked about t h e i r age, sex, type of school, p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n t e r e s t in s p o r t s . Scoring The dependent variables were f r e e r e c a l l scores and f r e e r e c a l l c l u s t e r i n g . Free r e c a l l was considered t o be the most appropriate measure t o use in S t u dying organizational processes in memory. The f r e e r e c a l l scores ( T ) were simply the t o t a l number of types of s p o r t s r e c a l l e d . To measure categorical c l u s t e r i n g in the s u b j e c t s ' f r e e - r e c a l l protocols, the Frase (1969) c l u s t e r i n g index was used as follows: Index A measures the degree t o which types of s p o r t were remembered in t h e i r A-categories, i . e . , on how often types o f s p o r t r e f e r i n g t o the same A-category were recalled i n order. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , index B indicates the percentage to which the r e c a l l was clustered by t h e 8-categories. To COmpute index A , f i r s t o f a l l the recalled types of s p o r t were labelled with the A-categories they belonged t o corresponding t o Table 1 . Then t h e amount
EFFECTS OF VERBAL AND PICTORAL CONTEXT CUES
28 5
of c l u s t e r i n g by A was expressed by c o u n t i n g t h e number of times an A-category was r e p e a t e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y (RA) and d i v i d i n g by t h e t o t a l number of r e c a l l e d types o f s p o r t ( T ) minus t h e number o f A - c a t e g o r i e s used (KA). For example: Water p o l o WATER
- M o t o r b o a t - High WATER
diving
2 WATER
- Motocross - Rugby - Hockey - S k i LAWN
=LAWN
1 ICE
jump
2 ICE
T h i s example i n c l u d e s two r e p e t i t i o n s o f WATER, one r e p e t i t i o n of LAWN, and one r e p e t i t i o n of I C E . There a r e t h r e e A - c a t e g o r i e s , t h e r e f o r e i n d e x A = (RA/(T-KA)) x 100 = ( 4 / ( 7 - 3 ) ) x 100 = 100%. A s i m i l a r i n d e x can be computed f o r c l u s t e r i n g by B. F o r a l l p r o t o c o l s , i n d e x A and B were computed. The i n d i c e s a r e a l s o u s e f u l f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c l u s t e r i n g o f t h e presented m a t e r i a l . The percentages o f T e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n by A and by B were: 0% F o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 1, 2, 7, 8: i n d e x A = loo%, i n d e x B = F o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 3, 4, 5, 6: i n d e x A = 0%, I n d e x B = 100% KESULTS A N D D I S C U S S I O N F o r t h e s t a t i s t i c a l computations, o n l y t h e second f r e e - r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were used. S t a t i s t i c a l procedures were a t h r e e - f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i ance (BMOP 2V) and S c h e f f e ' s (1953) S method. Recall A three-factor (Context x Context Organization x Text Organization) analysis o f v a r i a n c e was performed on t o t a l t y p e s o f s p o r t r e c a l l e d . The a n a l y s i s was s i g n i f i c a n t o n l y f o r t h e C o n t e x t main e f f e c t , F(1, 155) = 29.58, p < .0001. The mean number o f t y p e s o f s p o r t r e c a l l e d was 10.95 f o r t h e v e r b a l c o n t e x t and 13.19 f o r t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t . Once a g a i n t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e ( f a c i l i t a t i v e ) e f f e c t o f p i c t u r e a d j u n c t s was c o n f i r m e d . T h i s r e s u l t i s unique on t h e one hand because t h e t e x t m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n e d ( p o s s i b l y f a m i l i a r ) f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n (most r e s e a r c h has used passages c o n s i s t i n g o f f i c t i o n a l n a r r a t i v e s , i . e . , u n f a m i l i a r i n f o r m a t i o n ) and on t h e o t h e r hand because r e t e n t i o n was measured by f r e e r e c a l l . Thus t h i s s t u d y tends t o s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s a l e f f i c a c y o f p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n , i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o L e v i n and L e s g o l d ' s (1977) s t a t e m e n t t h a t "Our own problems w i t h f r e e - r e c a l l measures, f o r example, have shown us t h a t t h e e f f i c a c y of a p i c t u r e a d j u n c t i s n o t u n i v e r s a l " . A d d i t i o n a l analyses ( T a b l e 2 ) showed t h a t p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s as compar e d w i t h v e r b a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s enhanced r e c a l l f o r b o t h females and males. The amount o f r e t e n t i o n was c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r f o r males t h a n females, by about two t y p e s o f s p o r t . N e i t h e r t y p e o f school n o r i n t e r e s t i n s p o r t s acc o u n t f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by t h e a c t u a l f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h s p o r t s (knowledge a b o u t s p o r t s ) o f t h e females vs. males, i n t h e sense t h a t females e s t i m a t e themselves t o be more i n t e r e s t e d i n s p o r t s than t h e y a c t u a l l y a r e i n comparison w i t h males. Furthermore secondary school s t u d e n t s , i n t e r m e d i a t e school s t u d e n t s as w e l l as s e n i o r s o f t h e elementary school p r o f i t t e d f r o m p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s ( T a b l e 2 ) . The t h r e e types o f school r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l s . The s t u d e n t s had been assigned t o t h e i r t y p e o f school a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r proven i n t e l l e c t u a l performance (marks i n t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r and f i n a l t e s t r e s u l t s i n German and Mathematics a t t h e end o f t h e same y e a r ) , and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r e s t i m a t e d i n t e l i e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l ( t e a c h e r ' s judgment, I Q - t e s t ) .
MEMORY
286
The b e s t s t u d e n t s had been assigned t o t h e secondary school ( 8 % ) , t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e t o t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e school (49.5%), and t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l l y poor s t u d e n t s t o t h e s e n i o r elementary school (42.5%). W i t h t h i s background, t h e s t u d y shows t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e e f f i c a c y o f p i c t u r e a d j u n c t s across sex and i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . I n t h e same way, s t u d e n t s w i t h no, moderate, and g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n s p o r t s (as measured by an a t t i t u d e s c a l e ) used t h e f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t o f p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s (Table 2). Table 2 Mean number o f t y p e s o f s p o r t r e c a l l e d f o r sex, t y p e o f school (ELEM = sen i o r elementary s c h o o l , INT = i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l , SEC = secondary s c h o o l ) , and i n t e r e s t i n s p o r t s as a f u n c t i o n o f C o n t e x t ( V = v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues, P = p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues) SEX girlsn x
boys n x
TYPE OF SCHOOL ELEM INT n x n x
9.84 42 11.95 33
SEC n
-
x
INTEREST I N SPORTS no moder2te g r e a t n x n x n x
-
V
38
P
33 11.69 50 14.18 29 13.03 29 13.13 25 13.44 2 15.50 38 12.84 43 13.39
F 10.98**
20.48**
9.87 26 11.03 21 12.52 6
24.17**
9.50**
l.5Ons
9.50 41 10.56 33 11.69
8.15**
15.54**
8.18*
I
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t e d r e s u l t s i s t h a t p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s p r o v i d e a more e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n , a more u s e f u l c o n t e x t w i t h i n which t h e t e x t m a t e r i a l c o u l d be more a p p r o p r i a t e l y s t r u c t u r e d t h a n v e r b a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s . The r e s u l t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n induced then, a c c o r d i n g t o C r a i k & L o c k h a r t (1972), a more deeper p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e m a t e r i a l . C1 u s t e r i n g
A
C o n t e x t x C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n x T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t o t a l c l u s t e r i n g ( i n d e x A p l u s i n d e x 6 ) a g a i n showed s i g n i f i c a n c e o n l y f o r t h e C o n t e x t v a r i a b l e , F (1, 155) = 6.94, p<.OO1. The means f o r t h e v e r b a l and p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues were 77.15% and 84.173, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
The e s s e n t i a l outcome o f t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues n o t o n l y have q u a n t i t a t i v e b u t a l s o q u a l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s : s t u d e n t s r e a d i n g c a t e g o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d passages w h i c h were accompanied by p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s c l u s t e r e d t h e i r r e c a l l more t h a n s t u d e n t s whose passages were i l l u s t r a t e d by v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues. The q u a l i t a t i v e e f f e c t o f p i c t u r e a d j u n c t s i s e x p l a i n e d as a c o n t e x t e f f e c t : p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s a f f o r d e d an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t which enabled t h e l e a r n e r t o process t h e t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n semant i c a l l y , i.e., t o o r g a n i z e e f f e c t i v e l y t h e t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n a t encoding and/or t o reproduce t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n an o r g a n i z e d manner a t r e c o n s t r u c tive recall. An i d e n t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f c l u s t e r i n g by A and c l u s t e r i n g by B y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n ( F ( 1 , 155) = 13.71, p < .0003 f o r i n d e x A, and F ( l , 155) = 23.03, p < .0001 f o r i n d e x B ) and f o r t h e C o n t e x t x C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n (F(1, 155) = 12.69, p < .0005 f o r i n d e x A, and F ( l , 155) = 17.52, p < .0001 f o r i n d e x 6 ) . The means were 34.84% and 45.90% f o r i n d e x A and B, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
EFFECTS OF VERBAL AND PICTORAL CONTEXT CUES
287
W i t h v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , w i t h a mean i n d e x A = 35.90% and a mean i n d e x B = 41.25%. F o r t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues c l u s t e r i n g by B was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r (50.97%) t h a n c l u s t e r i n g by A (33.32%), F ( 1 , 150) = 16.45, p < .01. Thus b o t h c a t e g o r y systems were used as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cues; t h e y can be d e s i g n a t e d a l t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r y systems. Indeed t h e c a t e g o r y systems were n o t e q u i v a l e n t . The s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e B - c a t e g o r i e s i s t e x t - s p e c i f i c (content-dependent) i n t h a t t h e y a r e more unequivocal, a p p a r e n t l y . A second s e r i e s of analyses was aimed a t d e t e r m i n i n g t h e degree t o which c o n t e x t cues a r e used ( a ) when C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n a r e i d e n t i c a l , ( b ) when C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n a r e a l t e r n a t i v e , and ( c ) when ( a ) and ( b ) a r e c o n t r a s t e d . ( a ) To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , those e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s were p u t t o g e t h e r i n which C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e same c a t e g o r y system: these a r e c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 i n which t h e A - c a t e g o r i e s were p r o v i d e d and c o n d i t i o n s 5 and 6 i n which t h e B - c a t e g o r i e s were p r o v i d e d . C l u s t e r i n g b y C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n i s compared w i t h c l u s t e r i n g by t h e a1 t e r n a t i v e ( n e i t h e r p r o v i d e d by C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n n o r by T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n ) c a t e g o r y system. The upper p a r t o f T a b l e 3 p r e s e n t s t h e means.
Mean v a l u e s ( c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c e s ) f o r t h e - C o n t e x t x C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n x Text Orqanization i n t e r a c t i o n c l u s t e r i n g by C o n t e x t Org.
‘Ontext
Context Organization and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n are i d e n t i c a l Context Organization and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n are alternative
pictorial
4,
verbal
39
60.58
42
44.67
verbal
41
1
59.32 34.48
-
--a
23.38
I
C pictorial
alternative clustering
35.49 25.31
-bI
40.12
When C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e i d e n t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s , t h e t y p e s o f s p o r t were more o f t e n r e c a l l e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s t h a n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s was t r u e f o r t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues: F (1, 66) = 36.16, p c . 0 1 . S u r p r i s i n g l y enough f o r t h e v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues t h e d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t : F (1, 62) = 2.09. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e s t u d e n t s who had been g i v e n v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues were n o t a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e and use t h e t w i c e p r o v i d e d c a t e g o r i e s as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cues. From t h i s one can c o n c l u d e t h a t these l e a r n e r s were i n a s i t u a t i o n comparable t o a random p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e passages w i t h o u t accompanying c o n t e x t cues. Hence t h e l e a r n e r s were f o r c e d t o search f o r a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r i e s . They t h e n used c a t e g o r i e s t h e y knew f r o m p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e o r t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s , i.e., c a t e g o r i e s f r o m b o t h systems. ( T h i s assumption may b e t e s t e d w i t h a randomized p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e passages.) From t h e s e r e s u l t s , i t was n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g between p i c t o r i a l and v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues was s i g n i f i c a n t t o o : F ( 1 , 64) = 6.44, p<.O5. ( b ) W i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 3. 4, 7, 8 t h e q u e s t i o n was i n v e s t i g a t e d whether t h e C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n i s a l s o used as O r g a n i z a t i o n a l cue
MEMORY
288
when i t p r o v i d e d t h e a1 t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r y system t o t h e T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n . The means a r e a l s o shown i n Table 3, l o w e r p a r t . As expected, c l u s t e r i n g by C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n was h i g h e r t h a n c l u s t e r i n g by T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n when p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues were presented: F(1, 68) = 30.95, p < .01. C o n t r a r y t o e x p e c t a t i o n , s t u d e n t s s u p p l i e d w i t h v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues grouped a l i t t l e more by T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n t h a n by Context O r g a n i z a t i o n : F ( 1 , 66) = .83. T h i s r e s u l t suggests t h a t p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues a p p a r e n t l y have a l e a d i n g f u n c t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g : passages c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n were n o t r e c a l l e d by t h i s c a t e g o r y system b u t were r e o r g a n i z e d and grouped a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues. The d i f f e r e n c e o f c l u s t e r i n g by Context O r g a n i z a t i o n between v e r b a l and p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t : F ( l , 6 7 ) = 16.31, p < .01. ( c ) The comparison o f c o n d i t i o n s 1, 2, 5, 6 and c o n d i t i o n s 3, 4, 7, 8 a l l o w s one t o determine whether t h e C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n i s e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e i d e n t i c a l o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s were p r o v i d e d by t h e T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n . The r e s u l t s ( T a b l e 3 ) i n d i c a t e t h a t w i t h p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s c l u s t e r i n g by C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n i s j u s t as h i g h r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n a f f o r d e d t h e i d e n t i c a l categor i e s (60.58%) o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s (59.32%), F ( 1 , 67) = .04. F o r t h e v e r b a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( F ( 1 , 6 4 ) = 2.64); t h e means were 44.67% and 34.48% when C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n and T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n were i d e n t i c a l and a1 t e r n a t i v e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Thus p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues a r e used as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cues r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e passages t h e y accompany. The T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n seems n o t t o i n f l u e n c e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f i c a c y o f p i c t o r i a l c o n t e x t cues. ( T h i s assumption may a l s o be t e s t e d w i t h a randomized p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e passages.) As a m a t t e r o f f a c t , when v e r b a l c o n t e x t cues were p r o v i d e d n e i t h e r C o n t e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n n o r T e x t O r g a n i z a t i o n were used as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cues. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t p r e s e n t i n g t h e c a t e g o r y names i n s t e a d o f p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e l a t e d c a t e g o r y i n s t a n c e s would produce b e t t e r r e s u l t s .
REFERENCES Anderson, R: C . , & P i c h e r t , J . W . R e c a l l o f p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c a l l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a s h i f t i n p e r s p e c t i v e . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and 1-12. Verbal Behavior, 1978,
17,
Ausubel, 0. P . The use o f advance o r a a n i z e r s i n t h e l e a r n i n q and r e t e n t i o n o f meaningful v e r b a l m a t e r i a l . J o i r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1960, 51, 267-272. B o u s f i e l d , W. A. The occurence o f c l u s t e r i n g i n t h e r e c a l l o f randomly a r ranged a s s o c i a t e s J o u r n a l o f General Psycho1 ogy , 1953, 2, 229-240.
.
Bransford, J . D., & Johnson, M. K. Contextual p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r understand i n g : Some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f comprehension and r e c a l l . J o u r n a l o f Verbal 11, 717-726. L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1972, Cofer, C. N., Bruce, D. R . , & Reicher, G. M. C l u s t e r i n g i n f r e e r e c a l l as a f u n c t i o n o f c e r t a i n m e t h o d o l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 71,858-866.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL AND PICTORAL CONTEXT CUES
289
C r a i k , F. I. M., & L o c k h a r t , R. S. L e v e l s o f processing: A framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 671 -684.
11,
C r a i k , F. I. M., & T u l v i n g , E. Depth o f p r o c e s s i n g and t h e r e t e n t i o n o f words i n e p i s o d i c memory. J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: General 1975, 104, 268-294.
,
Frase, L. T. Paragraph o r g a n i z a t i o n o f w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s : The i n f l u e n c e o f conceptual c l u s t e r i n g upon t h e l e v e l and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f r e c a l l . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psycho1ogy , 1969, 60, 394-401
.
F r e d e r i k s e n , C. H. E f f e c t s of c o n t e x t - i n d u c e d p r o c e s s i n g o p e r a t i o n s on sem a n t i c i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d f r o m d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1975, 7, 139-166. Gagne, E. D., Bing, S. B., & Bing, J. R. Combined e f f e c t o f goal o r g a n i z a t i o n and t e s t e x p e c t a t i o n s on o r g a n i z a t i o n i n f r e e r e c a l l f o l l o w i n g l e a r n i n g from t e x t . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1977 , 69, 428-431. Kozminsky, E. A l t e r i n g comprehension: The e f f e c t o f b i a s i n g t i t l e s on t e x t comprehension. Memory and Cogni t i on, 1977, 5, 482-490. Kulhavy, R. W., Schmid, R. F., & Walker, C. H. Temporal o r g a n i z a t i o n i n prose. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1977, 115-123.
14,
L e v i n . J. R. What have we l e a r n e d about maximizina what c h i l d r e n l e a r n ? I n J.>R. L e v i n & V. L. A l l e n (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g i n c h i l d r e n : Theor i e s and s t r a t e g i e s . New York: Academic Press, 1976. L e v i n , J. R., & Lesgold, A. M. On p i c t u r e s i n prose. T h e o r e t i c a l Paper No. 69. Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Research and Development Center o f Cognit i ve L e a r n i n g , 1977. P a r i s . S. G.. & Lindauer. B. K. C o n s t r u c t i v e asoects of c h i l d r e n ' s comorehension and memory. I n R. V . K a i l , Jr. & 3. W. Hagen (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e development o f memory and c o g n i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence E r l baum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. P i c h e r t , J. W., & Anderson, R . C. T a k i n g d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on a s t o r y . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1977, 309-315.
69,
S c h a l l e r t , 0. L. I m p r o v i n g memory f o r prose: The r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e p t h o f p r o c e s s i n g and c o n t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Verbal L e a r n i n g and Verbal Behavior, 621-632. 1976,
15,
Van D i j k , T. A. Semantic m a c r o - s t r u c t u r e s and knowledge frames i n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. I n M. A. J u s t & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e processes i n comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1917. Yekovich, F. R., & Kulhavy, R. W. S t r u c t u r a l and c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f prose. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1976, 68, 626635.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A. Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING R i c h a r d C . Anderson Center f o r t h e Study o f Reading University o f I l l i n o i s Urbana-Champaign, I l l i n o i s U.S.A.
T h i s paper examines t h e t h e o r y t h a t i m p o r t a n t t e x t information i s b e t t e r learned than l e s s important i n f o r m a t i o n because r e a d e r s d e v o t e more a t t e f i t i o n t o i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h showing t h a t more a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d t o i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n c o n c l u s i v e because t h e e x t r a a t t e n t i o n c o u l d be an epiphenomenon. New r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t e n t i o n i s on t h e causal p a t h between a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n s and l e a r n i n g , b u t i s n o t on t h e causal p a t h between t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f t h e m a t e r i a l and l e a r n i n g . Perhaps t h e most c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g o f r e s e a r c h on d i s c o u r s e i s t h a t any f a c t o r which would be s a i d t o make a t e x t element " i m p o r t a n t " l e a d s t o b e t t e r l e a r n i n g and r e c a l l o f t h a t element. An a t t r a c t i v e t h e o r y t o e x p l a i n t h i s f a c t i s t h a t r e a d e r s s e l e c t i v e l y a t t e n d t o i m p o r t a n t elements. The f o l l o w i n g i s a simple version o f t h i s theory. ( 1 ) T e x t elements a r e processed t o some m i n i m a l l e v e l and graded f o r importance. ( 2 ) E x t r a a t t e n t i o n i s devoted t o elements i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r importance. ( 3 ) Because of t h e e x t r a a t t e n t i o n , o r a process supported by t h e e x t r a a t t e n t i o n , i r , i p o r t a n t t e x t elements a r e l e a r n e d b e t t e r than o t h e r elements. F o r shorthand r e f e r e n c e , I w i l l c a l l t h i s Theory I . The e s s e n t i a l p o i n t o f Theory I i s chat t h e importance of a t e x t element i n f l u e n c e s l e a r n i n q b e c a u i e i t i n f l u e n c e s a t t e n t i o n . E v a l u a t i n g Theory I i s t h e m a j o r purpose o f t h i s paper. b e f o r e p r o c e d i n g I w i s h t o acknowledge t h a t my t h i n k i n g about a t t e n t i o n has l)een i n f l u e n c e d by t h e work o f many o t h e r s c i e n t i s t s , n o t a b l y D a n i e l Kahneman, Bruce B r i t t o n , E r n s t Rothkopf, and David Navon, who was a v i s i t o r i n my l a b o r a t o r y l a s t y e a r . I p a r t i c u l a r l y w i s h t o acknowledge t h e iinport a n t r o l e p l a y e d by my c o l l a b o r a t o r s , L a r r y S h i r e y , Paul Wilson, and-e s p e c i a l l y - - R a l p h Reynolds. RIVALS TO A THEORY
OF SELECTIVE ATTENTION
The f i r s t t h i n g t o r e c o g n i z e i s t h a t t h e importance oT a t e x t element may a f f e c t o t h e r processes i n s t e a d o f , o r i n a d d i t i o n t o , i n f l u e n c i n g a t t e n t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i m p o r t a n t t e x t elements may be more r e t r i e v a b l e than l e s s i m p o r t a n t t e x t elements. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s e s p e c i a l l y p l a u s i b l e when a segment o f t e x t i s " i m p o r t a n t " because o f i t s r o l e i n a s t o r y schema 2 92
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING
2 93
( Y e k o v i c h & Thorndyke, 1981), an a u t h o r ' s h i g h l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a t e x t ( B r i t t o n , Meyer, Simpson, Holdredge, & Curry, 1979), o r any o t h e r schema t h a t a r e a d e r has somehow been induced t o b r i n g t o bear on a t e x t (Anderson & P i c h e r t , 1978). There i s now c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t f o r a t h e o r y which says t h a t r e a d e r s use t h e i r schemas f o r top-down searches o f memory. I n t h i s t h e o r y , t h e t y p i c a l schema i s assumed t o be a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e . I m p o r t a n t t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d a t h i g h l e v e l nodes i n t h e s t r u c t u r e and i s , t h e r e f o r e , v e r y l i k e l y t o be r e t r i e v e d i n a top-down search. Less i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d a t l o w e r nodes, t h e search p a t h i s l o n g e r , and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s l e s s l i k e l y t o be t u r n e d up. Thus, one r i v a l t o Theory I i s t h a t t h e importance o f a t e x t element a f f e c t s r e t r i e v a l . I n a d d i t i o n , Theory I has a t l e a s t one p l a u s i b l e r i v a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o l e a r n i n g . I have p r e v i o u s l y c a l l e d t h i s r i v a l " i d e a t i o n a l s c a f f o l d i n g " t h e o r y i n d e f e r e n c e t o David P. Ausubel (1963, 1968), one o f t h e p i o n e e r s i n t h e o r i z i n g about c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . The e s s e n t i a l i d e a i n t h i s t h e o r y i s t h a t t h e schema t o which a t e x t i s b e i n g a s s i m u l a t e d c o n t a i n s s l o t s , o r n i c h e s , f o r c e r t a i n k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . What a r e a d e r t r i e s t o do i s f i n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e t e x t t h a t f i l l s t h e s l o t s o r f i t s i n t o t h e niches. O r d i n a r i l y , t h e t h e o r y f u r t h e r supposes, t o i d e n t i f y t h a t a t e x t element goes i n a s l o t i s tantamount t o l e a r n i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . I n o t h e r words, whereas Theory I supposes t h a t l e a r n i n g i s a c a p a c i t y - i n t e n s i v e p r o cess, t h e i d e a t i o n a l s c a f f o l d i n g i d e a , as I have e l a b o r a t e d i t , i s one r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t s a l i e n t o r d i s t i n c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n can come t o be s t o r e d i n l o n g - t e r m memory w i t h l i t t l e e x p e n d i t u r e o f c o g n i t i v e r e s o u r c e s . Consider an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f how i d e a t i o n a l s c a f f o l d i n g m i g h t work. To a s s i m i l a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g v i g n e t t e , i t may be supposed t h a t r e a d e r s would employ a Who Done I t schema. Detective Lieutenant B i l l Roberts bent over the corpse. I t was apparent the v i c t i m had been stabbed. Roberts searched the room looking for evidence. There, near t h e f o o t of t h e bed, p a r t l y covered by a newspaper, he d i s covered t h e butcher k n i f e .
The q u e s t i o n i s whether e x t r a c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y w i l l be devoted t o prucessi n g t h e i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n expressed by " t h e b u t c h e r k n i f e . " Presumably t h e Murder Weapon o c c u p i e s an i m p o r t a n t s l o t i n t h e Who Done I t schema. Furthermore, t h e second sentence o f t h e t e x t c o n s t r a i n s t h e murder weapon t o a sharp i n s t r u m e n t and a k n i f e i s a good example o f a sharp i n s t r u m e n t . The f a c t t h a t t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i n t h e phrase, " t h e b u t c h e r k n i f e , " s t r i k e s most r e a d e r s as a c c e p t a b l e usage i s an a d d i t i o n a l i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a k n i f e can be presupposed as g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n . Thus, t h e r e i s a s l o t e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e schema f o r which a k n i f e i s a l e a d i n g c a n d i d a t e by t h e t i m e t h e b u t c h e r k n i f e i s mentioned. As a consequence, i t does seem as though t h e I n accord w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e k n i f e o u g h t t o be r e a d i l y a s s i m i l a t e d . i d e a t i o n a l s c a f f o l d i n g t h e o r y , t h e r e does n o t appear t o be any good reason why t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o u g h t t o r e q u i r e , o r w i l l r e c e i v e , e x t r a a t t e n t i o n . Another a l t e r n a t i v e t o Theory I has been f o r m u l a t e d by K i n t s c h and van D i j k , (1978). They have t h e o r i z e d t h a t i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e m a i n t a i n e d i n w o r k i n g memory t h r o u g h o u t more p r o c e s s i n g " c y c l e s " t h a n l e s s i m p o r t a n t ones. T h i s i s a k i n d o f s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y , s i n c e K i n t s c h and van D i j k h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t i m p o r t a n t p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e more memorable because of t h e g r e a t e r amount o f p r o c e s s i n g t h e y r e c e i v e . However, t h e e x t r a a t t e n t i o n i s n o t g i v e n when t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s i n i t i a l l y encountered, b u t r a t h e r i s s a i d t o come l a t e r when s u b s i d i a r y p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e b e i n g processed.
2 94
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
RELATED R E S E A R C H
Attention during reading i s c u r r e n t l y a very a c t i v e area of inqu ry. I will not attempt an exhaustive review. Instead I will discuss only a few s t u d i e s , ones t h a t bear on Theory I and the more general i s s u e o whether b o t h encoding and r e t r i e v a l processes need t o be postulated t o explain t h e e f f e c t s of importance on r e c a l l . Rothkopf and Bill ington (1979) conducted t h r e e experiments t h a t c l e a r l y i n v i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in terms of a simple s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n theory such a s Theory I . They asked high school students t o memorize highly s p e c i f i c learning objectives before studying a 1,500 word passage on oceanography. Readers g o t e i t h e r f i v e or ten o b j e c t i v e s , each relevant t o a s i n g l e r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e sentence i n the passage. For instance, one of the learning Objectives was, What i s the name of the scale used by oceanographers when recording the color of water? The sentence in the t e x t t h a t s a t i s f i e d the objective Was, Oceanographers record the color of the ocean by comparison with a s e r i e s of b o t t l e s of colored water known a s the Forel scale. The aata confirmed t h a t students who read with objectives in mind spent more time on sentences relevant t o these objectives and l e s s time on ones not relevant t o t h e objectives than did students who read without o b j e c t i v e s . In t h e t h i r d experiment, patterns of eye movements were found t o be consist e n t with the reading time r e s u l t s . I n each study s u b j e c t s learned and remembered s u b s t a n t i a l l y more information relevant t o assigned o b j e c t i v e s . These experiments produced exactly the r e s u l t s t h a t would be expected on t h e basis of Theory I . C i r i l o and Foss (1980) tiave reported two experiments t h a t a r e a l s o consist e n t with a s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n theory. Time t o read sentences was assessed when t h e sentences were of high importance in one s t o r y and low importance in another. The sentence, He could no longer t a l k a t a l l , was highly import a n t in a s t o r y in which i t described the e f f e c t of a w i t c h ' s curse on a wise king. The same sentence was o f low importance in a s t o r y in which i t described t h e momentary reaction of a simple s o l d i e r upon hearing t h a t he would receive a l a r g e reward f o r finding a precious r i n g . I n both experiments C i r i l o and Foss found t h a t readers spent more time on a sentence when i t played an important r o l e i n a s t o r y , Other i n v e s t i g a t o r s have collected data which suggests t h a t readers select i v e l y invest cognitive capacity t o i n t e g r a t e t h e information in higher-order u n i t s of t e x t . Haberlandt, Berian, and Sandson (1980) found t h a t , a f t e r discounting v a r i a t i o n s i n wording and syntax, readers spend e x t r a time a t the beginning and the end of s t o r y episodes. These r e s u l t s imply t h a t readers have t a c i t knowledge of an episode schema, and t h a t they use the schema as a guide f o r a l l o c a t i n g a t t e n t i o n . I n a p a r a l l e l vein, J u s t and Carpenter (1980) studied t h e eye movements o f people reading expository t e x t s . Gaze durations were longer on sections marked a s important i n a simple t e x t grammar. For instance, the eyes rested longer on phrases expressing a Definition, Cause, o r Consequence than on phrases expressing Details. Again, the implication i s t h a t readers possess textual schemata t h a t a s s i s t them in determining where t o pay c l o s e a t t e n t i o n . One study t h a t has by B r i t t o n , Meyer, versions of a text (1975) a n a l y s i s , a
yielded r e s u l t s inconsistent with Theory I was completed Simpson, Holdredge, and Curry (1979). They used two on the energy c r i s i s . I n one, according t o Meyer's paragraph on t h e breeder r e a c t o r was high in t h e content
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING
295
s t r u c t u r e ; t h e passage s a i d t h e f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r i s t h e s o l u t i o n t o energy problems. I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e o t h e r passaqe, t h e paragraph was l o w i n t h e c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e ; t h e breeaer r e a c t o r i s o n l y one o f f i v e p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t o t h e e n e r g y c r i s i s . S u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d more i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e c r i t i c a l paragraph when i t was o f h i g h importance. However, t h e y t o o k t h e same amount o f t i m e t o r e a d t h e c r i t i c a l paragraph and t h e same amount o f t i m e t o r e a c t t o secondary t a s k probes r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e p a r a g r a p h ' s importance. Hence, t h e s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n h y p o t h e s i s was n o t supported. B r i t t o n and h i s c o l l a b o r a t o r s t h e o r i z e d t h a t t h e s u p e r i o r r e c a l l o f t h e c r i t i c a l paragraph when i t was o f h i g h e r importance was due t o a memory process. However, t h i s n e g a t i v e i n f e r e n c e i s sound o n l y i f i t i s assumed t h a t t h e process o f s e l e c t i v e l y encoding t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r i l y c a p a c i t y - i n t e n s i v e , and t h i s assumption must be r e j e c t e d i f p o s s i b i l i t i e s such as t h e i d e a t i o n a l s c a f f o l d i n g h y p o t h e s i s a r e e n t e r t a i n e d . I n summary, most o f t h e a v a i l a b l e evidence i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a s i m p l e sel e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y such as Theory I. DOES ATTENTION CAUSE LEARNING? Causal arguments have a n a s t y tendency t o crumble i n y o u r hands when you examine them c l o s e l y . Even t h e s t r o n g e s t evidence i n s u p p o r t o f Theory I , say t h e Rothkopf and B i l l i n g t o n (1979) d a t a on l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s , f a l l s s h o r t o f b e i n g d e c i s i v e . O b j e c t i v e s d i d i n f l u e n c e measures o f a t t e n t i o n and o b j e c t i v e s d i d i n f l u e n c e l e a r n i n g , b u t t h i s does n o t p r o v e t h a t a t t e n t i o n was on t h e causal p a t h between o b j e c t i v e s and l e a r n i n g . The causal t h e o r y can be diagramed as f o l l o w s : O b j e c t i ve-Attentior+--Learni
ng.
The problem i s , as Rothkopf and B i l l i n g t o n c a r e f u l l y noted, t h a t t h e evidence is a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f o b j e c t i v e s on t h e measures o f a t t e n t i o n i s an epiphenomenon. The r i v a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be diagramed i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: -At t e n t ion 0 bj ec t i v e qe \Learning
l l e i t h e r t h e Rothkopf and B i l l i n g t o n s t u d i e s , n o r any o f t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , p e r r n i t s a d a t a - d r i v e n c h o i c e between t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e t y p e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e two diagrams. There i s widespread slackness i n e v a l u a t i n g causal arguments i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . The g e n e r a l case i s t h e c l a i m t h a t an independent variable, causes changes i n dependent v a r i a b l e , y, because o f an i n f l u e n c e on a m e d i a t i n g v a r i a b l e , m_. There a r e a t l e a s t f o u r e n t a i l m e n t s o f a causal argument o f t h i s form. Other t h i n g s b e i n g equal t h e causal argument i m p l i e s : (1) x i s related t o y (2) x i s r e l a t e d t o m (3) m i s related t o y ( 4 ) when t h e r e l a t i o n s o f x t o m and m t o y a r e d i s c o u n t e d , x i s no l o n g e r r e l a t e d t o y. C u s t o m a r i l y o n l y e n t a i l m e n t s ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) a r e e v a l u a t e d . Then a c o n c l u s i o n As reached, a l m o s t always i n f a v o r o f t h e causal argument, based on t h e w e i g h t of t h e eyidence" and t h e f a i l u r e t o t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n of 5 t o m_ c o u l d be an epiphenomenon. I n t h e r e s e a r c h
x,
296
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
summarized i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n s o f t h i s paper my c o l l a b o r a t o r s and I a t t e m p t e d t o e v a l u a t e Theory I i n terms o f a l l f o u r o f t h e e n t a i l m e n t s on a causal t h e o r y l i s t e d above. THE CONCEPT OF A VOLUME OF ATTENTION Kahneman (1973, p. 25) has remarked t h a t I' ... much o f o u r mental l i f e appears t o be c a r r i e d o u t a t t h e pace o f a sedate walk." One advantage o f a " s e d a t e walk" i s t h a t i t r e q u i r e s l e s s e f f o r t a t any moment i n t i m e t h a n a b r i s k e r pace. One disadvantage i s t h a t i t t a k e s l o n g e r t o r e a c h a d e s t i n a t i o n i f you w a l k t h a n ifyou j o g o r s p r i n t . E x t e n d i n g t h i s analogy, no doubt people sometimes a r e w i l l i n g t o r a c e t h e i r minds i n o r d e r t o save t i m e o r complete mental work w i t h i n a v a i l a b l e t i m e . Indeed, f o r j u s t t h i s reason i t i s comnionplace i n r e s e a r c h on a t t e n t i o n t o p l a c e s u b j e c t s under t i m e p r e s s u r e . Reading, however, i s n a t u r a l l y a s e l f - p a c e d a c t i v i t y and p l a c i n g r e a d e r s under t i m e p r e s s u r e may f u n d a m e n t a l l y a l t e r t h e phenomenon. A b e t t e r p o l i c y i s t o d i r e c t l y face t h e f a c t t h a t a r e a d e r may be a b l e t o m a i n t a i n t h e volume o f a t t e n t i o n needed t o comprehend a t e x t by v a r y i n g e i t h e r amount o f c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f processing. One purpose of t h e r e s e a r c h summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s was t o examine t h e u t i l i t y o f t h e concept o f a "volume" o f a t t e n t i o n . The c r u x o f t h i s i d e a i s t h a t t h e t o t a l amount o f a t t e n t i o n a r e a d e r b r i n g s t o bear i s a j o i n t f u n c t i o n o f d u r a t i o n , r e f l e c t e d i n r e a d i n g t i m e , and l e v e l o f cogn i t i v e e f f o r t , r e f l e c t e d i n t i m e t o p e r f o r m a secondary t a s k . A minimum f i r s t requirement, i f t h e approach i s t o have any v a l u e , i s f o r t h e two measures t o be a t l e a s t somewhat independent. I t i s n o t obvious t h a t t h e y w i l l be s i n c e b o t h a r e measures o f t i m e . An i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e volume concept i s t h a t t h e r e can be t r a d e - o f f s between d u r a t i o n and e f f o r t p a r a l l e l i n g t h o s e between speed and accuracy. A r e a d e r who extends t h e d u r a t i o n of p r o c e s s i n g can keep t h e l e v e l o f c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t low. Conversely, a r e a d e r who i n v e s t s a g r e a t deal o f e f f o r t can reduce duration.
OVERVIEW OF METHOD Three l i n e s o f r e s e a r c h w i l l be summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . Each i n v e s t i g a t e d whether t h e e f f e c t s o f a f a c t o r which made c e r t a i n t e x t elements i m p o r t a n t c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n . The t h r e e f a c t o r s f o r i n d u c i n g i m p o r t a n c e were a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n s , t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f t h e r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l , and t h e assignment o f p e r s p e c t i v e s p r i o r t o r e a d i n g . The d e f i n i t i o n of importance was d e l i b e r a t e l y broad i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a q u i c k r o u t e f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g , o r r e j e c t i n g , a parsimonious g e n e r a l t h e o r y .
I t i s a safe b e t t h a t many l e v e l s o f l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s make demands on cogn i t i v e c a p a c i t y (Graesser, Hoffman, & C l a r k , 1980; J u s t & Carpenter, 1980). Thus, i n a program o f r e s e a r c h such as t h e p r e s e n t one, i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o c o n t r o l f o r such f a c t o r s as l e x i c a l d i f f i c u l t y , s y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y , and t e x t cohesion. I n t h e a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n and p e r s p e c t i v e s s t u d i e s , t h i s was done by c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g ; what was an i m p o r t a n t t e x t element under one c o n d i t i o n was u n i m p o r t a n t under a n o t h e r . C o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g was n o t p o s s i b l e i n t h e i n t e r e s t study; i n t h i s case, v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g language d i f f i c u l t y were f a c t o r e d o u t u s i n g r e g r e s s i o n techniques. I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d i e s , s u b j e c t s r e a d . f r o m t h e screen o f a computer t e r m i n a l . The f i r s t measure was r e a d i n g time, which i s assumed t o r e f l e c t d u r a t i o n
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING
297
o f a t t e n t i o n o t h e r t h i n g s b e i n g equal. The computer made p o s s i b l e a c c u r a t e r,ieasurement o f t i m e t o r e a d t e x t segments. The second measure was t i m e t o p e r f o r m a secondary t a s k . S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t comprehending t h e t e x t was t h e i r p r i m a r y t a s k . They were a l s o t o l d t o depress a key as q u i c k l y as t h e y c o u l d whenever a tone sounded t h r o u g h earphones t h e y were wearing. We made t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l assumption t h a t v a r i a t i o n s i n t i m e t o respond t o t h e secondary t a s k probes r e f l e c t e d t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e m i n d was occupied w i t h t h e p r i m a r y t a s k . I n o t h e r words, probe t i m e was t a k e n t o be a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y b e i n g devoted t o r e a d i n g . Secondary t a s k probes appeared d u r i n g t h e r e a d i n g o f about 50% o f t h e t e x t segments. Placement o f t h e probes was a problem s i n c e s u b j e c t s r e a d a t t h e i r own r a t e ( e x c e p t i n two c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n s e x p e r i m e n t ) I t i s well-known t h a t t h e r e a r e l a r g e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a d i n g r a t e as w e l l as s y s t e m a t i c and n o t so s y s t e m a t i c changes i n r a t e t h r o u g h o u t a t e x t . G e t t i n g a secondary t a s k probe t o o c c u r i n a c e r t a i n p l a c e d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a c e r t a i n t e x t segment can be l i k e n e d t o t h r o w i n g a d a r t a t a moving t a r g e t . Our s o l u t i o n was t o program t h e computer t o p r e s e n t t h e probes on t h e b a s i s o f a c o n t i n u o u s l y updated c a l c u l a t i o n o f each s u b j e c t ' s r e a d i n g r a t e . T h i s works f a i r l y w e l l i f t h e c r i t e r i o n i s s i m p l y t o g e t a probe t o o c c u r w i t h i n t h e boundaries o f a r e a d e r ' s p r o c e s s i n g o f a g i v e n t e x t segment. ADJUNCT QUESTIONS AND ATTENTION I t i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t o c c a s i o n a l l y a s k i n g people q u e s t i o n s w h i l e t h e y a r e r e a d i n g has b o t h a s t r o n g " d i r e c t " e f f e c t and a small b u t r e l i a b l e " i n d i r e c t " e f f e c t on t h e l e a r n i n g o f t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n . The d i r e c t e f f e c t i s s i m p l y t h e improvement i n performance observed when t h e q u e s t i o n s a r e r e p e a t e d on t h e p o s t t e s t . The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t i s so c a l l e d because r e a d e r s do b e t t e r on new p o s t t e s t i t e m s even when t h e answers cannot be deduced f r o m t h e a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n s . F o r i n s t a n c e , knowing t h a t a b a t h e s c a p e i s a s p e c i a l t y p e o f submarine used i n oceanographic r e s e a r c h cannot d i r e c t l y h e l p i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a t h e m i s t e r c h a i n i s an i n s t r u m e n t which r e c o r d s w a t e r temperature a t a l l depths w h i l e b e i n g towed b e h i n d a v e s s e l . Nonethel e s s , Rothkopf and B i s b i c o s (1967), and a number o f subsequent i n v e s t i g a t o r s , have shown t h a t when q u e s t i o n s o f a r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e t y p e a r e asked d u r i n g r e a d i n g , performance improves on t e s t i t e m s t h a t a r e o f t h e same t y p e b u t which do n o t o v e r l a p i n s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t .
The l e a d i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t o f q u e s t i o n s i s t h a t r e a d e r s pay more a t t e n t i o n t o segments o f t h e t e x t t h a t c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e t y p e addressed by t h e q u e s t i o n s . The b e s t a v a i l a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t s o f q u e s t i o n s i s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s p e r m i t m e n t a l r e v i e w and f u r t h e r r e h e a r s a l . Presumably some o f t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t i s a l s o a t t r i b u t a b l e t o increased a t t e n t i o n t o sections o f the t e x t containing question-relevant in f orma t ion. There i s e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t s o f a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n s . Reynolds, S t a n d i f o r d , and Anderson (1979) showed t h a t s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n s of a c e r t a i n t y p e spent more t i m e on p a r t s o f t h e t e x t c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h i s t y p e t h a n s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n s o f o t h e r t y p e s o r s u b j e c t s who r e a d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n s . B r i t t o n , Piha, Davis, and Wehauson (1978) found t h a t p e o p l e who r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n s t o o k l o n g e r t o respond t o secondary t a s k probes as w e l l as t a k i n g l o n g e r t o read.
2 98
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
While the r e s u l t s of two s t u d i e s j u s t reviewed a r e c o n s i s t e n t with Theory I , n e i t h e r provides d e c i s i v e evidence. Reynolds and Anderson ( i n p r e s s ) sought t o provide a stronger t e s t , one t h a t could d i s t i n g u i s h between the theory t h a t a t t e n t i o n i s on the causal path between questions and learning and the possib i l i t y t h a t deflection in measures of a t t e n t i o n i s an epiphenomenon. Seventyseven college students were asked e i t h e r questions t h a t could be answered with a technical item, questions t h a t could be answered with proper names, or no questions a f t e r every four pages of a 48 page oceanography t e x t . Students who received questions did s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r when t h e same quest i o n s were repeated on the p o s t t e s t , and a l s o did s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on new p o s t t e s t items t h a t t e s t e d information from t h e same category a s the adjunct questions b u t which were otherwise unrelated. Thus, the study rep l i c a t e d t h e d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of questions observed i n many previous s t u d i e s . Furthermore, subjects who received questions had s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer reading times and s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer probe reaction times on a secondary task when processing segments of t h e t e x t containing ques-tion-re1 evant informati on. Most important, Anderson and Reynolds squeezed t h e i r data t o provide an answer t o the question of whether s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t o question-relevant t e x t segments caused d i f f e r e n t i a l learning of question-relevant information. Two variables which exhausted t h e information i n t h e probe time measure were included in analyses of p o s t t e s t performance.1 These were t o t a l probe time and the difference in probe time between questionr e l e v a n t and question-irrelevant t e x t segments. The d i f f e r e n t i a l probe time variable had a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t , as Theory I p r e d i c t s . I t accounted f o r 7.7% of t h e variance of new p o s t t e s t scores and 23.8% of the variance of repeated p o s t t e s t scores, both s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . These analyses s a t i s f y the t h i r d entailment of a causal theory s e t f o r t h e a r l i e r . Examined next, in order t o evaluate the fourth entailment of a causal theory, was what happened t o the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of questions on learning when t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l probe time v a r i a b l e was entered i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s . In the case of t h e new p o s t t e s t items, the variance explained by the question f a c t o r dropped from a s i g n i f i c a n t 8.3% t o a nonsignificant 2.4%. I n t h e case of the repeated p o s t t e s t items, when the d i f f e r e n t i a l probe time measured was entered f i r s t , t h e amount of variance a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e e f f e c t of questions f e l l from 63.6% t o a s t i l l l a r g e and s i g n i f i c a n t 39.9%. These analyses r u l e out t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e change in a t t e n t i o n was an epiphenomenon. The conclusion i s t h a t a model t h a t puts s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n on the causal path between questions and learning can account f o r a l l , or most, of the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of questions and some, b u t not a l l , o f the d i r e c t e f f e c t . With respect t o t h e volume-of-attention concept, a major worry i s t h a t reading time and probe time might t a p e s s e n t i a l l y the same underlying f a c t o r . That i s , i t could be t h a t summing the increments i n time on the many small i n t e r v a l s sampled occasionally by the secondary task would y i e l d t o t a l reading time over a broad i n t e r v a l . However, t h e data from the Reynolds and Anderson study suggest t h a t probe time and reading time a r e independent. The average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e two measures within four-page sect i o n s o f t e x t was only .04, whereas t h e average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the same measure recorded from adjacent four-page sections were .46 and .64 f o r probe time and reading time, respectively. Moreover, t h e r e were striking differences i n t h e behavior of t h e two measures from t h e beginning t o the end of the t e x t . The best f i t t i n g functions a r e plotted in Figure 1 .
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION D U R I N G READING
299
19.00-
-350 \
\
-345
\
\
17.00
-340 15.00
-335
13.00
\
-330 .-3 \
I-
\
-325
\
\
11.00
\
\
\
\
-320 tf \
\
9.00
- Probe 1
8
0 4
8
1
8
1
1
-315
\
\
7.00
\
\
Time 1
1
1
0)
n
. -310 I
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36'40 44
1
L
3
me Figure 1 Reading Time ( i n Sec per four l i n e segment) and Probe Time (Msec) as a Function of Page in t h e Text There was no change in t h e proportion of t e x t information learned over the course of the t e x t , a f a c t t h a t i s r e a d i l y understandable in terms of a twof a c e t theory of a t t e n t i o n : The increase in probe time over t h e course of the t e x t , r e f l e c t i n g an increase in cognitive e f f o r t , compensated f o r the drop in reading time. Therefore, the t o t a l volume of a t t e n t i o n devoted t o the t e x t can be construed t o have remained approximately constant, and no change in the probability of learning t e x t information was t o be expected. The s t r o n g e s t and most i n t e r e s t i n g form o f t h e volume-of-attention concept requires cognitive e f f o r t and duration t o have j o i n t e f f e c t s on learning a s well a s s e p a r a t e e f f e c t s . Evidence corroborating t h i s strong prediction was found i n an a n a l y s i s of the repeated p o s t t e s t scores. When entered i n t o a regression a n a l y s i s successively, d i f f e r e n t i a l probe time, d i f f e r e n t i a l reading time, and the product of these two measures a l l accounted f o r s i g n i f i c a n t variance in learning. However, a comparable a n a l y s i s of new p o s t t e s t scores was inconclusive, perhaps because the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of questions on learning a r e not very strong.
I n order t o t e s t t h e idea t h a t there can be trade-offs between level of cogn i t i v e e f f o r t and duration, Reynolds and Anderson placed two groups of subj e c t s under time pressure, allowing them e i t h e r about 70% o r about 40% of the time t h a t an average subject would take t o read a typical t e x t segment. The expectation was t h a t readers under time pressure would increase cognitive e f f o r t i n order t o maintain comprehension, and t h a t t h i s would be r e f l e c t e d i n an increase in probe reaction time. This expectation was not f u l f i l l e d ; t h e r e were absolutely no differences in probe time among t h e self-paced group
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
300
and the two e x t e r n a l l y paced groups. Maybe level of cognitive e f f o r t during reading i s not e a s i l y brought under executive c o n t r o l , o r perhaps there was not an adequate incentive f o r working hard in t h i s experiment. The hypothesis t h a t a t t e n t i o n comes in volumes i s not mortally embarrassed by t h i s outcome, since t h e r e were decreases in learning corresponding t o the decreases in time t o read; s t i l l , i t i s not t h e outcome t h a t an advocate of the hypothesis would l i k e t o see. INTEREST AND ATTENTION If you were t o ask school teachers why they prefer t o use reading material t h a t children find i n t e r e s t i n g , they would t e l l you "because the children will pay more a t t e n t i o n and learn more." Thus, t h i s i s a case in which the common sense view i s identical with Theory I . While the r e s u l t s may not s u r p r i s e a school teacher, Larry Shirey, Jana Mason, and I were surprised t o discover in two s t u d i e s involving 350 t h i r d graders the very strong e f f e c t t h a t interestingness has on c h i l d r e n ' s learning. I t accounted f o r over four times as much variance as several measures of d i f f i c u l t y included i n "reada b i l i t y " formulas used f o r grading c h i l d r e n ' s t e x t s and s t o r i e s . B r i e f l y summarized here i s an additional experiment t h a t s o u g h t t o determine whether a t t e n t i o n i s on the causal path between i n t e r e s t and learning. The subjects were 30 f o u r t h graders who read 36 sentences. Reading times and probe times were c o l l e c t e d . The measure of learning was the percentage of content words in t h e sentences t h a t could be recalled t o a g i s t c r i t e r i o n immediately a f t e r reading, given t h e subject noun phrases a s cues. I n t e r e s t value was operationalized as t h e mean r a t i n g of i n t e r e s t assigned by a group of t h i r d graders. The mean r a t i n g on an a r b i t r a r y s i x point s c a l e was 3.7 and the standard deviation was .9. Two and one half u n i t s on t h i s s c a l e encompassed t h e observed range of r a t i n g s . Below a r e two examples of sentences t h a t children find very i n t e r e s t i n g followed by two they f i n d uninteresting: The The The The
hungry c h i l d r e n were h u g e g o r i l l a smashed o l d c h a i r s a t An the fat waitress stirred
in the kitchen h e l p i n g Mother m a k e d o n u t s . the b u s w i t h i t s f i s t . corner n e a r the w a l l . the c o f f e e w i t h a s p o o n .
While I d o not know f o r s u r e , because I have not done the research, I am w i l l i n g t o take bets r i g h t now t h a t these sentences vary primarily in t h e i r capacity t o arouse i n t e r e s t in a nine- o r ten-year-old c h i l d , and not with r e s p e c t t o some o t h e r property, say, image-evoking value. Even t h o u g h the children were reading from a computer terminal, wearing earphones, under t h e supervision of a strange a d u l t we frequently heard oohs, ahs, giggles, and c h o r t l e s a s the children read sentences they found funny, scary, o r impressive. I n t e r e s t value had s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o percentage r e c a l l , reading time, and probe time. For each u n i t increase in i n t e r e s t value, r e c a l l increased 5.3%, reading time increased 12 msec per s y l l a b l e ( o r 180 msec per sentence), and probe time increased 44 msec. These r e s u l t s s a t i s f y t h e f i r s t two entailments of a causal theory. The t h i r d entailment proved impossible t o s a t i s f y i n the case of t h e probe time measure. I t accounted f o r n i l variance in r e c a l l and, in f a c t , the sign of the regression c o e f f i c i e n t was negative. However, reading time did have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n t o r e c a l l . Each 100 msec per s y l l a b l e
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING
301
i n c r e a s e i n r e a d i n g t i m e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a 4.3% i n c r e a s e i n r e c a l l ( w h i c h needs t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of r e a d i n g t i m e was 118 msec p e r s y l l a b l e , a f t e r an a d j u s t m e n t t o remove betweensubjects variance). F i n a l l y , we asked whether t h e e f f e c t o f i n t e r e s t v a l u e on r e c a l l would v a n i s h when r e a d i n g t i m e was e n t e r e d i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s . I t d i d n o t . Reading t i m e c a p t u r e d o n l y a s m a l l , n o n s i g n i f i c a n t amount of t h e v a r i a n c e o t h e r w i s e exp l a i n e d by i n t e r e s t v a l u e and t h e e f f e c t o f i n t e r e s t v a l u e was s t i l l h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Each u n i t i n c r e m e n t on t h e i n t e r e s t s c a l e i s w o r t h 4.8% i n r e c a l l when r e a d i n g t i m e i s i n t h e e q u a t i o n as compared t o 5.3% when i t i s n o t i n t h e e q u a t i o n . The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t a t t e n t i o n p l a y s a n e g l i g i b l e causal r o l e i n t h e e f f e c t s o f i n t e r e s t on l e a r n i n g . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o emphasize t h a t t h e analyses t h a t have j u s t been r e p o r t e d were completed w i t h t h e e n t i r e m a t r i x o f 30 s u b j e c t s x 36 sentences minus I f t h e d a t a had been aggregated by 19 m i s s i n g cases = 1061 o b s e r v a t i o n s . sentence as, f o r i n s t a n c e , J u s t and C a r p e n t e r (1980) have done, i t would have been i m p o s s i b l e t o r e j e c t Theory I. What t h e r e s u l t s show i s t h a t , w h i l e c h i l d r e n pay more a t t e n t i o n t o i n t e r e s t i n g sentences and a l s o l e a r n more i n t e r e s t i n g sentences, f o r most c h i l d r e n t h e s e t o f i n t e r e s t i n g sentences t o w h i c h a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d and t h e s e t o f i n t e r e s t i n g sentences w h i c h a r e l e a r n e d do n o t o v e r l a p v e r y much. Thus, t h e pause t o savor an i n t e r e s t i n g sentence i s n o t t h e pause t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e process t h a t g i v e s b i r t h t o learning.
W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e concept o f a volume o f a t t e n t i o n , i t was a g a i n found t h a t r e a d i n g t i m e and probe t i m e a r e independent. The c o r r e l a t i o n between r e a d i n g t i m e and probe t i m e computed f r o m t h e sentences i n t h e odd and t h e even s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s averaged .32 w h i l e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s of t h e measures w i t h themselves were .87 f o r r e a d i n g t i m e and .62 f o r probe t i m e . I t was a l s o found a g a i n t h a t t h e r e were sharp d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e h a v i o r o f t h e two measures o v e r t h e course o f t h e t a s k . The b e s t f i t t i n g f u n c t i o n s a r e p l o t t e d i n F i g u r e 2. I n t h i s study, u n l i k e t h e a d j u n c t q u e s t i o n study, r e c a l l was an i n c r e a s i n g l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f s e r i a l p o s i t i o n . Each advance i n p o s i t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a .5% i n c r e a s e i n r e c a l l . There a r e s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e changes i n r e a d i n g t i m e and probe t i m e f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g t o t h e end o f t h e t a s k t h a t have now been observed i n b o t h t h e q u e s t i o n s t u d y and t h e i n t e r e s t s t u d y . A p l a u s i b l e one i s t h a t s u b j e c t s changed t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s f r o m an i n i t i a l emphasis on t h e secondary t a s k t o a l a t e r emphasis on r e a d i n g .
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
302
720
300 i
690 660 al
E 630 .F al
a
600
. .--__, 570 \
0
/
'O0y
0
-- Reading Time - Probe Time I
5
Ib
13
540
h 25
I
30
I
3
Sente nee Figure 2 Reading Time (Msec p e r s y l l a b l e ) and Probe Time (Msec) as a F u n c t i o n o f S e r i a l P o s i t i o n o f t h e Sentence PERSPECTIVE AIID ATTENTION
A number o f s t u d i e s i n my l a b o r a t o r y have examined t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e r e a d e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on comprehension, l e a r n i n g , and r e c a l l ( P i c h e r t & Anderson, 1977; Anderson & P i c h e r t , 1978; Anderson, P i c h e r t , & S h i r e y , 1979). A s t o r y t h a t has f i g u r e d p r o m i n e n t l y i n our r e s e a r c h i s about two boys a t home. B e f o r e r e a d i n g t h e s t o r y , s u b j e c t s a r e d i r e c t e d t o t a k e e i t h e r t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a b u r g l a r o r someone i n t e r e s t e d i n b u y i n g a home. Our r e search has c o n s i s t e n t l y shown t h a t s u b j e c t s r e c a l l more o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e . Furthermore, we have found t h a t when s u b j e c t s s h i f t p e r s p e c t i v e s and r e c a l l t h e s t o r y a second t i m e , t h e y r e c a l l new p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c a l l e d i n f o r m a t i o n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e new p e r s p e c t i v e b u t u n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o p e r a t i v e when t h e passage was read. For i n s t a n c e , s u b j e c t s who s h i f t t o a b u r g l a r p e r s p e c t i v e become more l i k e l y t o r e c a l l i n f o r m a t i o n such as t h a t t h e s i d e door was always unlocked, whereas s u b j e c t s who s h i f t t o t h e homebuyer p e r s p e c t i v e a r e l i k e l y a t t h a t p o i n t t o remember t h a t t h e r o o f l e a k e d o r t h a t t h e p l a c e had a t t r a c t i v e grounds. I n s e v e r a l experiments employing t h i s paradigm, from 65% t o more t h a n 80% of t h e s u b j e c t s have r e c a l l e d a t l e a s t one a d d i t i o n a l p i e c e of i n f o r m a t i o n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e i r new p e r s p e c t i v e . These r e s u l t s s t r o n g l y i m p l i c a t e a r e t r i e v a l process; however, o u r r e s u l t s t o d a t e a r e e q u i v o c a l a b o u t whether t h e schema o p e r a t i v e when a passage i s r e a d a l s o i n f l u e n c e s encoding. The purpose o f t h e f i r s t experiment I s h a l l d e s c r i b e here was t o d e t e r m i n e whether a r e a d e r ' s schema has b o t h encoding
A L L O C A T I O N OF A T T E N T I O N D U R I N G R E A D I N G
3 03
and r e t r i e v a l e f f e c t s . Two hundred and f i f t e e n high school students were i n s t r u c t e d t o take one of two perspectives before reading a passage. After reading, half of t h e subjects s h i f t e d t o the other perspective and then a l l subjects recalled the passage. Table 1 presents mean proportion recalled as a function of t h e importance of the information t o t h e two perspectives. A s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t was obtained f o r the importance of information t o f i r s t perspective, operative when the passage was read, which suggests an encoding b e n e f i t . Also s i g n i f i c a n t was the importance of information t o the second perspective, operative during r e c a l l , which indicates a r e t r i e v a l benefit.
Table 1 Mean Proportions of Text Elements Recalled
I ni po r t a n c e t o Recall Perspective
Importance t o Reading Perspective Low
High
High
.41
.51
Low
.32
.43
The conclusion t h a t a schema induced a f t e r reading a f f e c t s r e t r i e v a l i s i r r e s i s t a b l e . However, the explanation f o r the e f f e c t of a perspective assigned p r i o r t o reading may appear t o be l e s s c e r t a i n . One would suppose t h a t o r d i n a r i l y people maintain the same schema when r e c a l l i n g a passage as when reading i t . T h u s , t h e influence of a schema induced beforehand might a l s o be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a r e t r i e v a l process instead of an encoding process. A c l o s e look a t t h e d a t a , however, suggests t h a t t h e reading perspective does a f f e c t encoding. Presumably a perspective s h i f t d i s a b l e s the schema operative during reading, thereby preventing t h i s schema from influencing r e t r i e v a l . Consistent with t h i s assumption i s the f a c t t h a t t h e r e was a sharp d r o p i n r e c a l l of information t h a t had been important t o the reading schema b u t became unimportant when the perspective s h i f t e d . On the other hand, r e c a l l of t h i s information was s t i l l superior t o t h e r e c a l l of i n f o r mation unimportant t o both the reading and the r e c a l l perspectives, a super i o r i t y which can be most plausibly accounted f o r in terms o f an encoding process. I n three f u r t h e r experiments, we have sought t o determine whether the possible encoding b e n e f i t s of a perspective could be explained in terms of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t G perspective-relevant information. I n a l l t h r e e experjments there was a trend toward longer reading times when subjects were processing t e x t elements t h a t contained information important t o t h e i r perspective, a trend t h a t was s i g n i f i c a n t in two of the t h r e e cases. I t should be noted in passing, though, t h a t Grabe (1981) has f a i l e d t o f i n d longer reading times on perspective-relevant material. We assessed probe time in two of the experiments. I n one, t h e r e was a marginally s i g n i f i c a n t trend f o r longer probe times when Subjects were processing perspective-relevant t e x t elements; in the o t h e r , t h e data were completely f l a t . This research has been plagued by procedural problems. We a r e n o t y e t confident of o u r r e s u l t s so we have not attempted a deep a n a l y s i s of the possible causal r o l e of a t t e n t i o n .
304
ATTENTION AND CONTROL SUMMARY
The purpose of t h e research described in t h i s paper was t o evaluate the simple theory t h a t important information i s b e t t e r learned than l e s s important information because readers pay more a t t e n t i o n t o important information. This theory was confirmed in an experiment on adjunct questions. There i s now very good reason t o believe t h a t ( a ) questions cause readers t o s e l e c t i v e l y attend t o question-relevant information, and t h a t ( b ) a process supported by t h e e x t r a a t t e n t i o n causes more of the question-relevant information t o be learned. However, d e s p i t e s u p e r f i c i a l appearances, i t does n o t appear t h a t a t t e n t i o n l i e s on t h e causal path between the i n t e r e s t value of a sentence and the learning of t h i s sentence. Children do pay more a t t e n t i o n t o i n t e r e s t i n g sentences and they do learn more i n t e r e s t i n g sentences. However, a deep a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t the extra a t t e n t i o n i s a n epiphenomenon. So f a r research on whether a t t e n t i o n plays a p a r t in the learning of i n f o r mation important in t h e l i g h t of a r e a d e r ' s perspective has been inconclusive. The f i n a l conclusion i s t h a t Theory I f a i l s a s a general explanation of t h e e f f e c t s of importance on learning. Reading time and probe time proved t o be independent measures in t h i s research, which s a t i s f i e s a f i r s t requirement of the concept of a volume of a t t e n t i o n . Otherwise, except in the adjunct question study, the concept d i d n ' t prove very valuable. However, t h e problem may n o t be so much with the concept a s with the method of assessing level of cognitive e f f o r t using d i s c r e t e secondary task probes.
FOOTNOTE lKeadiiig time measures were included in subsidiary a n a l y s i s only, because reading was self-paced f o r only a t h i r d of t h e subjects in t h i s experiment. REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C . , & P i c h e r t , J . W. Recall of previously unrecallable i n f o r mation following a s h i f t in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 1-12.
E,
Anderson, R. C . , P i c h e r t , J . W . , & Shirey, L. L . Effects of the r e a d e r ' s schema a t d i f f e r e n t points in time (Tech. Rep. No. 119). Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s , Center f o r the Study of Reading, April 1979.
Ausube7, D. P. The psychology o f meaningful verbal behavior. Grune & S t r a t t o n , 1963. Ausubel, D. P. Educational psychology: Rinehart, & Winston, 1968.
A cognitive view.
New York:
New York:
Holt,
B r i t t o n , B . , Meyer, B . , Simpson, R., Holdredge, T . , & Curry, C . Effects of t h e orqanization of t e x t on memorv: Tests of two implications o f a s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n hypothesis. journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5 , 496-506.
ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION DURING READING
305
b r i t t o n , B. K . , Piha, A . , Davis, J . , & Wehausen, E . Reading and cognitive capacity usage: Adjunct question e f f e c t s . Memory and Cognition, 1978, 6, 266-273. C i r i l o , R. K., & Foss, D. 3. Text s t r u c t u r e and reading time f o r sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 96-109. Grabe, M . Variable inspection time a s an i n d i c a t o r of cognitive reading behavior. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1981, 6 ( 4 ) , 334-343. Graesser, A. C . , Hoffman, N . L . , & Clark, L . F. Structural components of reading time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 1 9 , 135-151. Haberlandt, K., Berian, C . , & Sandson, J . The eDisode schema in s t o r v processing. Journal of-Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1 9 8 0 , " E , 635- 650. J u s t , M. A . , & Carpenter, P . A . A theory of reading: From eye f i x a t i o n s t o comprehension. Psychological Review, 1980, 8 7 ( 4 ) , 329-354. Kahneman, D . 1973.
Attention and e f f o r t .
Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:
Prentice-Hall,
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394. Meyer, B. The organization of prose and i t s e f f e c t on r e c a l l . North-Holland, 1975.
Amsterdam:
P i c h e r t , J . W., & Anderson, R . C . Taking d i f f e r e n t perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 309-315. Reynolds, R. E., & Anderson, R . C . Influence of questions on the a l l o c a t i o n of a t t e n t i o n during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, in press. Reynolds, R . E . , Standiford, S . N . , & Anderson, R . C. Distribution of reading time when questions a r e asked about a r e s t r i c t e d category of t e x t information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71,183-190. Rothkopf, E. Z . , & Billington, M. J . Goal guided learning from t e x t : Inferring a d e s c r i p t i v e processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 7 1 ( 3 ) , 310-327. Rothkopf, E . Z . , & Bisbicos, E . E . S e l e c t i v e f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of i n t e r spersed questions on learning from written materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 56-61. Yekovich, F. R., & Thorndyke, P. W . An evaluation of a l t e r n a t i v e functional models of n a r r a t i v e schemata. Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1981, 0, 454-469.
DISCOURSE PROCESSfNG A . Fiammerand W. Kintsch (eds.] @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
INTENTIONAL LEARNING IN TEXT PROCESSING
Gery d'Ydewalle, Eddy M . Degryse, a n d An Swerts Department of Psychology University of Leuven B-3000 Leuven Be1 gi urn Intentional learning of prose materials i s investigated in two d i f f e r e n t ways, looking e i t h e r a t t h e performance of groups with and without intentional learning i n s t r u c t i o n s , or looking a t t h e performance of two groups expecting a d i f f e r e n t type of t e s t ( e i t h e r a reproduction t e s t o r a multiple-choice t e s t ) . Idea u n i t s which a r e important f o r understanding t h e s t o r y a r e well remembered by a l l subjects. The intentional learning groups outperform t h e incidental learning group on the reproduction of d e t a i l s from the f i r s t p a r t of t h e s t o r y . As the g i s t of the s t o r y has an i n t r i n s i c s a l i e n c y , t h e e x t r a e f f o r t of the i n t e n t i o n a l l e a r n e r s i s r e f l e c t e d in remembering the unimportant events. Expecting e i t h e r a reproduction t e s t or a multiple-choice t e s t does not produce any s i g n i f i c a n t performance difference. INTRODUCTION Two decades ago, a considerable number of s t u d i e s appeared on incidental versus intentional learning of e i t h e r unrelated items o r p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s . The topic l o s t i t s research i n t e r e s t in contemporary s t u d i e s on learning and memory f o r a number of reasons, one being t h e increasing use of more complex learning materials. Several attempts were made t o develop s t r u c t u r e s representing the i n t e r r e l a t e d idea u n i t s and sentences from paragraphs, s t o r i e s and other t e x t materials. I n the experiments, the subject was assumed t o be trying e i t h e r t o understand or t o learn t h e content of t h e passages, and no a t t e n t i o n was given t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s own a c t i v i t i e s in mastering t h e learning task. Although i t was sometimes acknowledged t h a t t h e subject has a t his/her disposal various learning s t r a t e g i e s (McConkie, 1 9 7 7 ) , one did not look s e r i o u s l y a t his/her a c t i v i t i e s of deploying these s t r a t e g i e s i n an i n t e l l i g e n t fashion by checking and monitoring t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y and efficacy f o r t h e task a t hand. One straightforward design used in text-processing experiments c o n s i s t s of comparing two groups of s u b j e c t s , one with intentional learning i n s t r u c t i o n s and the o t h e r w i t h incidental learning, w i t h an appropriate o r i e n t i n g task. However, we believe t h a t a d i f f e r e n t approach t o t h e study of learning i n t e n t i o n s i s a l s o possible. Learning intention has been considered a s a s i n g l e intervening process, implying t h a t , regardless of what t h e learner does, t h e f a c t remains t h a t he/she has the intention t o learn. A comparison between d i f f e r e n t learning i n t e n t i o n s could, perhaps, throw l i g h t on t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of intervening processes involved in i n t e n t i o n a l l y encoding and r e t a i n i n g knowledge. By "learning i n t e n t i o n " we do not mean only t h e 306
INTENTIONAL LEARNING IN TEXT PROCESSING
3 07
general i n t e n t i o n t o learn presented information b u t a l s o t h e d i f f e r e n t possible s t r a t e g i e s involved i n encoding t h i s information as a function of various i n t e n t i o n s . Learning i n t e n t i o n s a r e assumed t o be a f f e c t e d mainly by the expectations of the persons undertaking the t a s k . We could thus have two groups, both i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i r e c t e d t o encode and r e t a i n information as a function of an a n t i c i p a t e d test. Differential learning i n t e n t i o n s a r e developed by both groups as a function of d i f f e r e n t expected memory t e s t s . Thus, although both groups have an intention t o l e a r n , t h e y d i f f e r i n the type of i n t e n t i o n s . In the experiment reported here, therewere t h r e e groups of s u b j e c t s , one with incidental learning and two with intentional learning expecting e i t h e r t o reproduce t h e whole s t o r y o r t o answer a multiple-choice t e s t on f a c t s from the s t o r y . For our purpose, i t i s important t o know what aspects of the s t o r y s t r u c t u r e a r e encoded by the subjects with d i f f e r e n t learning i n t e n t i o n s . When looking a t the representation of a s t o r y s t r u c t u r e , d i f f e r e n t authors propose d i f f e r e n t solutions ( s e e , f o r example, Anderson and Bower, 1973; Kintsch and Van Dijk, 1978; Meyer, 1975; Rumelhart, Lindsay and Norman, 1 9 7 2 ) . Therefore, we propose a r a t h e r empirical approach f o r distinguishing important and unimportant p a r t s of t h e s t o r y . Two q u i t e general b u t contrasting hypotheses can be formulated. The f i r s t hypothesis leads us t o p r e d i c t a l a r g e difference i n memory performance on p a r t s t h a t a r e important f o r mastering the whole s t o r y . A n e f f e c t i v e l e a r n e r would not d i r e c t much a t t e n t i o n t o t r i v i a l u n i t s . Concentrating t h e focus of h i s / h e r e f f o r t s on the important elements of the s t o r y , the e f f i c i e n t student would enhance h i s / h e r r e c a l l of e s s e n t i a l m a t e r i a l , e s p e c i a l l y when the study time i s r e s t r i c t e d . The d i f f e r e n c e should be apparent between t h e incidental group and the two groups with intentional learning. Even among the two groups w i t h intentional learning, some r e c a l l difference with respect to the s t r u c t u r a l l y important elements may occur. Rickards and Friedman (1978), f o r example, found t h a t subjects expecting an essay t e s t chose, f o r note taking, sentences of g r e a t e r importance t o the overall meaning of the passage than those expecting a multiple-choice t e s t . The essay t e s t expectancy a l s o yielded a higher r e c a l l level of t h e s t r u c t u r a l l y important notes, while the t o t a l number of r e c a l l e d notes was not d i f f e r e n t i n the two groups. In d'Ydewalle, Swerts, and De Corte (1980), subjects expecting open questions used more study time and performed b e t t e r on various memory t e s t s than subjects expecting a multiple-choice t e s t . This again leads us t o p r e d i c t a r e c a l l difference between the two intentional groups.
O n the o t h e r hand, one could a l s o p r e d i c t an absence of r e c a l l difference with respect t o the s t r u c t u r a l l y important elements o f the t e s t . The g i s t of the s t o r y may have some i n t r i n s i c saliency and i s , perhaps, well remembered independently of s u b j e c t ' s i n t e n t i o n t o learn. The e x t r a e f f o r t supposedly performed by intentional l e a r n e r s t o master the learning task would then be r e f l e c t e d i n trying t o remember d e t a i l s and unimportant events. Britton (1978) reported t h a t the level of r e c a l l in incidental prose learning was superior o r equivalent t o the r e c a l l level of intentional learning, b u t he d i d not make any d i s t i n c t i o n between s t r u c t u r a l l y important and unimportant elements in the text. While the recall level correlated q u i t e r e l i a b l y with the importance level in Brown and Smiley (1978), these authors did not find any difference a t each level of s t r u c t u r a l importance between incidental and intentional learning on an immediate t e s t (on a delayed t e s t , intentional learning was superior a t a l l l e v e l s of importance).
308
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
In order t o enhance the chances of being able t o unravel the learning a c t i v i t i e s more p r e c i s e l y , we divided the s t o r i e s i n t o p a r t s . Primacy e f f e c t s , i . e . , the s u p e r i o r i t y i n r e c a l l i n g t h e f i r s t few sentences, have been reported b u t not always observed ( f o r a review, see Meyer, 1975). Meyer and McConkie (1973) c a r e f u l l y scrutinized t h e data of t h e i r experiment and concluded t h a t a primacy e f f e c t may be observed when the important ideas a r e located i n the f i r s t paragraph. Kintsch e t a l . (1975) a l s o showed t h a t information a t the beginning of a t e x t improves r e c a l l only i f i t i s important f o r the t e x t as a whole. Following our f i r s t hypothesis, the l a r g e s t difference between incidental and intentional learning should emerge from the important information elements a t the beginning of the text. Accordingly, our experiment was s e t u p with t h r e e basic conditions ( a n incidental learning group, and two intentional learning groups), and we organized the s t o r i e s so a s t o have about an equal number of important and l e s s important pieces of information in the d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of t h e s t o r i e s . One additional f e a t u r e of the experiment has t o be emphasized. From d'Ydewalle, Swerts, and De Corte (1980), we know t h a t the learning differences between several intentional learning conditions only occur when the subjects a r e thoroughly acquainted with t h e processing requirements of t h e learning m a t e r i a l . Accordingly, a l l the s u b j e c t s received two successive t e x t s . Those expecting t o reproduce the t e x t had t o reproduce the f i r s t t e x t , and those expecting a multiple-choice t e s t received a multiple-choice t e s t a f t e r the f i r s t t e x t . All t h e analyses, however, were made on t h e r e c a l l performance from t h e second t e x t . MATERIAL, PROCEDURE, AND SUBJECTS Kintsch (Kintsch and Kozminsky, 1977; Kintsch and Greene, 1978) used s t o r i e s from Boccaccio's Decarneron, and, because these t e x t s meet t h e requirements of the present experiment, we a l s o chose four t e x t s from t h i s book. The Dutch t r a n s l a t i o n s of the s t o r i e s were adapted s l i g h t l y t o obtain more readable t e x t s . To draw u p questions f o r the multiple-choice t e s t , we divided the t e x t s i n t o s i x equal p a r t s and f i v e questions were formulated f o r each p a r t . Accordingly, t h e r e were t h i r t y questions f o r each t e x t . Two preliminary experiments were c a r r i e d out. The i n c o r r e c t responses on t h e open questions i n the f i r s t experiment provided the material f o r choosing three d i s t r a c t o r responses in t h e multiple-choice questions of t h e second preliminary experiment. After data analyses of t h e second experiment, two t e x t s o u t of t h e four were chosen: "Story 4-Sixth Day" and "Story 1-Tenth Day". The r e s u l t s on the multiple-choice t e s t indicated t h a t b o t h t e x t s were approximately of the same d i f f i c u l t y and t h a t the d i s t r a c t o r s and t h e imposed study time of e i g h t minutes were appropriate. Some l e s s s u i t a b l e questions were omitted so t h a t twenty-six questions remained f o r each t e x t . The lengths of these s t o r i e s were approximately 870 and 780 words, respectively.
TO draw the a t t e n t i o n of t h e subjects i n the incidental learning condition t o the t e x t without evoking an intentional learning a t t i t u d e , an orienting task was necessary. I n both t e x t s , t h i r t e e n verbs were p u t in t h e wrong tense. The task consisted in correcting these tenses t o obtain a coherent and grammatically c o r r e c t t e x t . The same t e x t s with the modification of the thirteen verbs were used f o r t h e other conditions so t h a t no condition would benefit from a more coherent t e x t . Therefore, t h e verbs f o r which the tenses were a l t e r e d were chosen so t h a t they were inconspicuous, and no changes were made i n t h e f i r s t paragraph of the t e x t . The e r r o r s were
INTENTIONAL LEARNING IN TEXT PROCESSING
309
n e i t h e r too disturbing nor too obvious. The two t e x t s were used i n counterbalanced order in a l l conditions. The design consisted of three condition by two t e x t orders. Accordingly, s i x d i f f e r e n t booklets were made up. The f i r s t page of each booklet contained e i t h e r a presentation of the t e s t type t o be expected (multiple-choice t e s t o r reproduction) o r i n s t r u c t i o n s about t h e o r i e n t i n g t a s k . Then followed one of t h e two t e x t s . The subjects worked on the t e x t f o r e i g h t minutes before proceeding t o the following page. Time s i g n a l s were given by the experimenter. On the following page, the expected multiple-choice t e s t o r reproduction task was given. To keep the subjects of t h e incidental learning condition busy, a questionnaire on principles of verb tenses was given. The questionnaire was followed by some additional exercises on verb tenses. After t h i s came an i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a l l conditions emphasizing t h a t the same kind of task ( t e s t ) as on Text 1 would follow a f t e r Text 2 . Again eight minutes were available f o r Text 2 , which was followed by a reproduction t e s t f o r a l l conditions. Response time was unlimited f o r t h e reproduction t e s t . The experiment took place in a large classroom during a regular c l a s s period f o r f i r s t - y e a r students in psychology a t the University of Leuven, Belgium. The group consisted of 79 male and 57 female students. They a l l could be considered naive with regard t o the s u b j e c t matter of learning and memory in psychology. Paper of d i f f e r e n t colors was used f o r t h e pages on i n s t r u c t i o n s , t e x t s , and answers t o the t e s t s , which allowed t h r e e research collaborators t o check whether a l l subjects were on the appropriate pages a t a given time. To prevent cheating, the booklets were mixed so t h a t neighboring students never had the same t e x t and t e s t . RESULTS The two t e x t s were reduced t o a number of very s h o r t sentences each describing one idea u n i t . The t e x t s contained 97 and 89 idea u n i t s , respectively. Three judges were asked t o r a t e on a five-points s c a l e each idea u n i t on i t s importance f o r the s t r u c t u r a l development o f the s t o r y . The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e t h r e e r a t e r s on "Story 4-Sixth Day" were t . 6 0 , t . 6 5 and + . 7 2 , while on "Story 1-Tenth Day" the following values were obtained: +.55, t . 6 9 and t . 7 4 . For every idea u n i t , the score of the t h r e e judges was added together. These sums ranged from zero ( t h e t h r e e judges scoring zero) t o twelve ( t h e three judges scoring 4 ) . Those idea u n i t s which every judge scored high, were considered as e s s e n t i a l t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of the s t o r y . A frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n was d r a f t e d , and t h e idea u n i t s were divided i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s : low, medium, and high importance. The division was based on two c r i t e r i a : The number o f idea u n i t s were t o be as equal as possible f o r t h e t h r e e groups and the number of idea u n i t s in each g r o u p should be equally d i s t r i b u t e d over the whole t e x t . Therefore, the two s t o r i e s were divided i n t o three p a r t s , and we obtained on each part about an equal number of idea u n i t s with low, medium, and high importance.
The reproduction of Text 2 was scored separately f o r each subject. The three judges were instructed t o assess (again on a five-points s c a l e ) the extent t o which each idea u n i t was present in the reproductions. I t was emphasized t h a t content was important, not a l i t e r a l reproduction. For each judge, the r a t i n g s on t h e t h r e e groups of idea u n i t s (low, medium, and
31 0
ATTENTION
A N D CONTROL
FI6URE I IDEA UNITS
IDEA UNITS
IDEA UNITS
LOW IMPORTANCE .1EDIUM IMPORTANCE HIGH IMPORTANCE
2.75
2.51
2.25
2.00
1.75 b
2
1.51
1.25
'\\ L
1.OG
0.7:
-: e -o
i n t e nt i o n al : i n t e nt i o n al
-
1 2 3 1 2 TEXT PARTS l ear n i n g - reproduction t e s t expected l ear n i n g - multiple-choice t e s t expected
+-a : i n c i den t al learning
3
INTENTIONAL LEARNING IN TEXT PROCESSING
31 1
high ivportance) i n each p a r t were added together, and two kinds of analysis were performed. F i r s t , we carried o u t a m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance with sex of s u b j e c t s , t e x t o r d e r , and learning conditions as between-subjects v a r i a b l e s . The combined scores of the three r a t e r s (appropriately weighted f o r the number of rated idea u n i t s ) were used a s t h e t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s . The second analysis of variance ( u n i v a r i a t e ) was performed with the same independent variables b u t considered the scores of the three r a t e r s as another within-subjects variable (any i n t e r a c t i o n of this variable with another would c a s t some doubts on the v a l i d i t y of our scoring system). As both analyses provided basically the same p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s , we present here only the s i g n i f i c a n t main values of t h e second analysis. Three main e f f e c t s emerged t h a t were a l l involved in several higher-order i n t e r a c t i o n s . T h e learning conditions were s i g n i f i c a n t , ~ ( 2 ,112) = 7.37, b!Se = 500.631, p < .001, with subjects expecting a t e s t ( e i t h e r a multiplechoice t e s t o r a reproduction t a s k ) performing b e t t e r than subjects without any learning i n s t r u c t i o n s . The parts were s i g n i f i c a n t , Part 1 being the best and Part 3 being t h e l e a s t well reproduced, F ( 2 , 224) = 65.80, MSe = 119.352, < .001 ( t h e l i n e a r trend component accounts f o r 97 L' of t h e variance). There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of the importanceof the idea u n i t s , with t h e most important idea u n i t s best reproduced, ~ ( 2 2,2 4 ) = 429.29, MSe = 86.179, p < .001 (here again the l i n e a r trend component accounts f o r 87 % o f t h e variance). Learning conditions were involved in an i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e importance of the idea u n i t s , P ( 4 , 224) = 2.46, MSe = 86.179, p < .001,and with p a r t s , F(4.224) = 6.21, MSe = 119.352, p < .001,producing f i n a l l y an i n t e r a c t i o n between learning conditions, t h e importance of the idea u n i t s , and p a r t s , F(8, 448) = 3.00, MSe = 63.269, p < .003. This second-order i n t e r a c t i o n i s conveniently arranged i n three graphs i n Figure 1. I t i s immediately apparent t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n was due t o a l a r g e difference between the incidental learning group and the two intentional learning groups on Part 1 of t h e t e x t s . This difference occurred e s p e c i a l l y with idea u n i t s of low o r medium importance. A p o s t e r i o r i Tukey t e s t s confirmed the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e above described differences. With idea u n i t s of low importance, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in reproduction on Part 1 of the t e x t between the incidental learning condition and the multiple-choice condition, < .01, and between the incidental learning condition t ( 3 , 448) = 8.643, a n d the reproduction c o n d i t i o n , t ( 3 , 448) = 7.037, p < .01. NO s i g n i f i c a n t differences occurred on Parts 2 and 3. W i t h idea units o f medium importance, there was again a s i g n i f i c a n t reproduction difference on P a r t 1 between t h e incidental learning condition a n d t h e multiple-choice condition, t ( 3 , 448) = 5.243, p < .01, and between the incidental learning condition and the reproduction condition, t ( 3 , 448) = 5.939, p < .01; no other differences were s i g n i f i c a n t . No s i g r i f i c a n t differences were obtained when comparing the three learning conditions on t h e reproduction of highly important idea u n i t s . DISCUSS ION From the d a t a , i t i s c l e a r t h a t idea u n i t s a r e b e t t e r r e c a l l e d when they a r e important f o r comprehending t h e s t o r y . Also, a l l idea u n i t s ( e i t h e r d e t a i l s o r important e l e m e n u ) a r e b e t t e r remembered i f they occur a t the beginning of the t e x t . These two f a c t s a r e obtained independently
312
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
from the presence of intentional learning. This may i n d i c a t e t h a t even with incidental learning, t h e subjects attempt t o understand t h e course of t h e s t o r y , and t h i s cognitive e f f o r t produces a b e t t e r ( i n c i d e n t a l ) r e c a l l of t h e important idea u n i t s . The decreasing r e c a l l level from Part 1 t o Part 3 ( e s p e c i a l l y with idea u n i t s of low importance) i s probably due t o higher demands on the working memory t o understand the t e x t as more information i s being processed. The major difference between the learning groups i s on t h e l e s s important idea u n i t s from Part 1 of the story. The b e t t e r r e c a l l of l e s s important idea u n i t s by t h e two intentional learning groups agrees with the prediction of our second hypothesis. The s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n i s focused on t h e important idea u n i t s , regardless of the task i n s t r u c t i o n s . Remembering l e s s important idea u n i t s requires a d e l i b e r a t e e f f o r t from the subject t o process the d e t a i l s . The incidental learning group does not pay a t t e n t i o n t o the d e t a i l s . The r e c a l l difference f o r l e s s important idea u n i t s emerges mainly on Part 1 of the t e x t . This i s in agreement with many f r e e r e c a l l s t u d i e s of unrelated items ( f o r a review, see d'Ydewalle, 1981): Subjects who a r e given intentional learning i n s t r u c t i o n s show g r e a t e r primacy e f f e c t s t h a n incidental l e a r n e r s , and t h i s has been i n t e r p r e t e d as suggesting a difference in s u b j e c t s ' e f f e c t i v e attempts t o s t o r e the information in the long-term s t o r e . As processing load increases from P a r t 1 t o P a r t 3 , t h e difference between intentional and incidental learning disappears on P a r t s 2 a n d 3. There i s no r e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e reproduction performance of the two intentional learning groups although subjects expecting t h e reproduction t e s t perform somewhat b e t t e r . I n d'Ydewalle and Rosselle (1978), subjects a l s o received r e s t r i c t e d study time on an one-page history t e x t . Expecting open questions produced a b e t t e r performance on the open questions than expecting a multiple-choice t e s t . When study time was self-paced, subjects expecting open questions used more study time and recalled more than subjects a n t i c i p a t i n g a multiple-choice t e s t (d'Ydewalle, Swerts, and De Corte, 1980). We favored the idea t h a t t h e expectation of a t e s t requiring more than simple recognition of c o r r e c t answers ( e . g . , a reproduction t e s t ) enhances s u b j e c t s ' a c t i v e involvement in mastering t h e learning material. In t h e present experiment, the performance difference between the two intentional learning groups i s in the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n although q u i t e small and not s i g n i f i c a n t . The present study was a l s o p a r t of a n i n i t i a l attempt t o r e l a t e research on cognitive s t y l e t o study-technique e f f e c t i v e n e s s with prose materials. The Group Embedded Figures Test (Oltman, Raskin, and Witkin, 1971) was administered t o a l l students t o assess t h e i r cognitive s t y l e . We carried out a number of analyses, from simple c o r r e l a t i o n s t o stepwise regression analyses with t h e scores on t h e Group Embedded Figures Test and t h e experimental manipulations a s predictors. Subjects with high scores on t h e Group Embedded Figures Test could be expected t o d i s t i n g u i s h more e f f i c i e n t l y the high important idea u n i t s from the l e s s important ones. However, nothing p a r t i c u l a r l y revealing emerged. Another experiment using t h e same learning material and a s i m i l a r design ( b u t without an incidental learning group) provided strong c o r r e l a t i o n s with some aspects of the reproduction performance (d'ydewalle, Van Houtven, Degryse, and Swerts, in preparation). The difference between t h e r e s u l t s from the two s t u d i e s appears t o be due t o the higher reproduction performance and the s e l e c t i v e nature of the university subjects in t h e present study as compared with the much younger
INTENTIONAL LEARNING IN TEXT PROCESSING
313
subjects in d'Ydewalle, Van Houtven, Degryse, and Swerts ( i n preparation). REFERENCES
Anderson, J . R . , & Bower, G. H . Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. Washington, D . C . : V . H . Winston, 1973. B r i t t o n , B . K . Incidental prose learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1978, 10, 299-303. Brown, A . L . , & Smiley, S. S . The development of s t r a t e g i e s f o r studying 49, 1076-1088. t e x t s . Child Development, 1978, d'Ydewalle, G . Test expectancy e f f e c t s in f r e e r e c a l l and recognition. _ Journal ___ of_General _ _ _Psychology, 1981, 105, 173-195. d'Ydewalle, G . , & Rosselle, H . Test expectations in t e x t learning. I n M. M. Gruneberg, P . E . Morris, & R . N . Sykes ( E d s . ) , P r a c t i c a l aspects of_memory. New York: Academic Press, 1978. __ d'Ydewalle, G . , Swerts, A . , & De Corte, E . Study time and t e s t performance University of as a function of t e s t expectations (Report No. Leuven, P s y c h o - k g m Reports, September 1980. d'Ydewalle, G . , Van Houtven, A. M . , Degryse, M., & Swerts, A . Cognitive s t y l e a n d t e s t expectation in t e x t processing. Manuscript i n preparation. --__ Kintsch, W . , & Greene, E . The r o l e of c u l t u r e - s p e c i f i c schemata i n t h e 1, 1-13. comprehension and r e c a l l of s t o r i e s . Discourse Processes, 1978, Kintsch, W . , & Kozminsky, E. Summarizing s t o r i e s a f t e r reading and 69, 491-499. l i s t e n i n g . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, Kintsch, W . , Kozminsky, E . , Streby, W. J . , McKoon, G . , & Keenan, J . M. Comprehension and r e c a l l of t e x t a s a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14, 196-214. Kintsch, W . , & Van Dijk, T . A . Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and 85, 363-394. production. Psychological Review, 1978, McConkie, G . W. Learning from text. In Review of research 2 education (Vol. 5 ) . I t a s c a , I l l . : Peacock, 1 9 7 7 7 Meyer, B. J . F. The organization of prose and i t s e f f e c t s on memory. Amsterdam: Nor-Hol land, 1975. Meyer, B. J . F . , & McConkie, G . W . What i s r e c a l l e d a f t e r hearing a Journal _ _ -of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 109-117. passage? _ Oltman, P . K . , Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. Group embedded-figures test. Palo Alto, C a l i f . : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971. itickards, J . P . , & Friedman, F . The encoding versus the external Storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1978, 3 , 136-143. Rumelhart, D. E . , Lindsay, P . , & Norman, 0. A . A process model f o r longterm memory. I n E . Tulving & W. Donaldson ( E d s . ) , Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W . Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC PROCESSING
Gregory
V. Jones a n d . M a r t i n S. Payne
Department o f Psychology University of Bristol Bristol England
It i s w e l l established t h a t those p a r t s o f a t e x t t h a t a r e of s u b j e c t i v e l y g r e a t e r importance t h a n o t h e r p a r t s a r e r e t a i n e d b e t t e r i n memory. T h i s t y p e o f phenomenon may be i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h t h e aim o f e s t a b l i s h i n g e i t h e r appropriate structural l i n g u i s t i c descriptions or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , general p r o c e s s i n g c o n s t r a i n t s . The l a t t e r course i s adopted h e r e i n an e x p e r i m e n t i n which p e o p l e ' s a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d towards d i f f e r i n g components o f l i n g u i s t i c m a t e r i a l . The r e s u l t s a r e analysed i n terms o f t h e f r a g m e n t a t i o n model o f r e c a l l , and shown t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by f i n i t e r e s e r v e s o f n o n s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g resources. INTRODUCTION
The purpose o f t h i s paper i s t o e n q u i r e i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o c e s s i n g constraints involved i n the r e t e n t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c information. This i s a t o p i c t h a t few s t u d i e s o f l i n g u i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g have addressed d i r e c t l y . Rather, emphasis has been p l a c e d upon l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a b l e s such as t h e p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n some f o r m o f h y p o t h e s i s e d symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t e x t .
A u s e f u l i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e complementariness o f t h e two p e r s p e c t i v e s i s p r o v i d e d by t h e f i n d i n g t h a t those p a r t s o f a n a r r a t i v e r a t e d as b e i n g o f h i g h importance a r e b e t t e r r e c a l l e d t h a n those r a t e d o f l o w e r importance (Johnson, 1970). Two p o s s i b l e approaches t o t h e f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s phenomenon may be adopted. F i r s t , people may be asked t o d e l i b e r a t e l y r e - a l l o c a t e t h e s u b j e c t i v e importances o f t h e d i f f e r e n t segments o f t e x t : I n e f f e c t , t o change t h e i r p a t t e r n o f a t t e n t i o n t o t h e passage. An i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n which a r i s e s t h e n i s whether o r n o t such an a l t e r a t i o n i n t h e p a t t e r n of a t t e n t i o n i s i n j u r i o u s t o t h e p e r s o n ' s r e t e n t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by t h e passage. Here two p o s i t i o n s may be d i s t i n g u i s h ed. An e c o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n would h o l d t h a t t h e normal p a t t e r n o f a t t e n t i o n i s o p t i m a l l y adapted t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r passage s t r u c t u r e , A n o n s p e c i f i c c a p a c i t y p o s i t i o n , on t h e o t h e r hand, would h o l d t h a t a t t e n t i o n can be f r e e l y r e d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h o u t consequent d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s upon t h e retention o f l i n g u i s t i c material. The second, more e x p l o r e d , l i n e o f r e s e a r c h has been t o seek l i n g u i s t i c c o r r e l a t e s o f t h e d i f f e r i n g importances a t t a c h e d t o d i f f e r e n t t e x t segments, as has been performed by Mandler and Johnson (1977) and Thorndyke (1977) 314
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC PROCESSING
31 5
I t was shown by u s i n g s t o r y grammars s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Rumelhart (1975). Thorndyke (1977), f o r example, t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n s a t t h e t o p o f t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l framework t h a t s y m b o l i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d one passage were r e c a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w i c e as w e l l as those a t t h e bottom. It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o p u r s u i n g these two approaches s e p a r a t e l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e a l s o t o a t t e m p t t h e d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f combining them. Perhaps t h e b e s t such a t t e m p t has been t h a t o f K i n t s c h and van D i j k (1978) and t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s . T h e i r model has i n c o r p o r a t e d p r o c e s s i n g f a c t o r s which a r e d i r e c t e d by t h e p r o d u c t s o f t h e model's l i n g u i s t i c analysis. F o r example, M i l l e r and K i n t s c h (1980) a p p l i e d t h e model t o p e o p l e ' s r e c a l l o f a s e t o f paragraphs. The model p o s i t s a s h o r t - t e r m b u f f e r i n which a t any t i m e i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t o n e . o r two o f t h e (models p e c i f i c ) p r o p o s i t i o n s o f a paragraph may be h e l d . E n t r y o f a processed p r o p o s i t i o n i n t o t h e b u f f e r i s h y p o t h e s i s e d t o p r o v i d e i t w i t h a second, independent chance o f b e i n g subsequently r e c a l l e d from l o n g - t e r m memory, t h e magnitude o f which i s equal t o t h a t p r o v i d e d by i t s i n i t i a l p r o c e s s i n g . S e l e c t i o n o f a p r o p o s i t i o n i n t o t h e b u f f e r i s f a v o u r e d by s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g i t s e x i s t e n c e as t h e argument o f a n o t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n a l r e a d y i n t h e b u f f e r , i t s recency, and i t s p r o x i m i t y ( i n terms o f argument o v e r l a p ) t o t h e i n t u i t i v e l y s e l e c t e d s u p e r o r d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n . M i l l e r and K i n t s c h found t h a t t h e model was m o d e r a t e l y s u c c e s s f u l , i n t h a t f o r 15 o u t o f 20 t e x t s i t p r e d i c t e d r e c a l l b e t t e r than d i d the n u l l hypothesis t h a t a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y w e l l remembered. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n s p i t e o f t h i s v a l u a b l e work i t s t i l l seems w o r t h w h i l e t o a t t e m p t a l s o t o i n v e s t i g a t e d i r e c t l y t h e e f f e c t s o f language p r o c e s s i n g c o n s t r a i n t s upon subsequent r e c a l l , independently o f hypothesised l i n g u i s t i c structure.
A p r o m i s i n g area i n which t o i n v e s t i g a t e d i r e c t l y t h e e f f e c t s o f p r o c e s s i n g c o n s t r a i n t s on language m a t e r i a l s i s t h a t o f t h e cued r e c a l l o f i n d i v i d u a l sentences. T h i s i s because t h e r e e x i s t s a model of such performance whose v a l i d i t y i s n o t dependent upon t h e making o f s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c assumptions. Rather, t h e f r a g m e n t a t i o n model (Jones, 1978b) a c t s more p a s s i v e l y l i k e a p r i s m through which a s e t o f r e c a l l d a t a a r e r e f r a c t e d so as t o d i s p l a y an o r d e r l y spectrum o f those d i f f e r e n t fragments o f t h e o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l whose r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s have been m e n t a l l y r e t a i n e d . A l t h o u g h t h e model i s t h u s l i m i t e d i n some r e s p e c t s (see a l s o t h e Discussi o n ) , i t has t h e advantage f o r t h e p r e s e n t purpose t h a t i t s f a i l u r e t o c a r r y any s t r u c t u r a l 1 i n g u i s t i c supercargo reduces p o t e n t i a l ambigui t y i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f observed e f f e c t s o f p r o c e s s i n g m a n i p u l a t i o n s . A p r e v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has f a i l e d t o f i n d r e l i a b l e evidence t h a t an a t t e n d e d element a c t s as a b e t t e r cue f o r t h e r e c a l l o f an unattended element t h a n t h e r e v e r s e (Jones & M a r t i n , 1980). Thus t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s concerned i n s t e a d w i t h t h e e f f e c t t h a t m a n i p u l a t i o n o f p r o c e s s i n g p r i o r i t y has upon t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f encoded fragments o f an u t t e r a n c e . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e s s u r p r i s i n g l y few guide1 i n e s as t o what t h e c o n s t r a i n t s upon any d i s t r i b u t i o n a l changes m i g h t be. Two general q u e s t i o n s were pursued i n t h e experiment t o be r e p o r t e d next. F i r s t , a r e o v e r a l l l e v e l s of r e c a l l dependent upon a t t e n t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s ? Second, can a p a t t e r n of r e c a l l i n one a t t e n t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n be p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h a t i n a n o t h e r ? If a t t e n t i o n i s focussed on e i t h e r one o r o t h e r o f two n o n o v e r l a p p i n g p a r t s O f an u t t e r a n c e , how do t h e r e s u l t i n g e f f e c t s compare w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f f o c u s s i n g on b o t h p a r t s ?
37 6
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
METHOD
The subjects of t h i s experiment were 40 students of Bristol University who volunteered t h e i r services. Each subject was presented with a s e t of 24 d i f f e r e n t sentences t o remember. Each sentence was of the form Location-Subject-Verb-Object (L-S-V-0), with independently selected components. Examples a r e " I n the park the monkey found the cabbage" a n d " I n the car the w r i t e r touched the rabbit". Equal numbers of subjects were assigned t o four d i f f e r e n t a t t e n t i o n a l conditions. Subjects were instructed t o concentrate t h e i r a t t e n t i o n e i t h e r equally upon a l l four content words (Control c o n d i t i o n ) , on the f i r s t two content words ( F i r s t - h a l f c o n d i t i o n ) , on the l a s t two content words (Second-half c o n d i t i o n ) , o r on the combinations of the f i r s t two words together and of the l a s t two words together (Both-halves c o n d i t i o n ) , and were each given a relevant example. Presentation of the sentences was followed by a delay, a f t e r which the subject was provided with three incremental cues f o r each sentence. These took the form of sentence frames from which three words, two words, and f i n a l l y one word were missing and had t o be supplied by the s u b j e c t , f o r example " I n the ---- the monkey ---- the - - - - ' I , " I n the ---- the monkey ---- the cabbage", a n d " I n the park the monkey ---- the cabbage". Four types of f i r s t cue may each be followed by three types of second cue and two types of t h i r d cue. Each of these 24 possible sequences of cue was used once f o r each s e t of sentences. Subjects were presented with the sentences t o be remembered a t a r a t e of 10 sec per sentence. Presentation was followed by a mental arithmetic task of duration 45 sec, a f t e r which recall commenced. Subjects were allowed 30 s e c , 20 s e c , and 10 sec f o r r e c a l l cued by one word, two words, and three words, respectively. RESULTS
The data were tabulated i n a manner which assumes t h a t each sentence gives r i s e t o a representation i n memory of some or a l l of i t s components, and t h a t upon.re-presentation each of these components i s equally e f f e c t i v e as a cue in inducing r e c a l l of the other components stored within t h a t memory t r a c e or fragment. Evidence t h a t supports the making of t h i s assumption in the present experiment i s described in t h i s s e c t i o n , together with the r e s u l t s of i t s application. I n the present experiment, 15 d i f f e r e n t types of memory fragment may be distinguished. All four of the Location, Subject, Verb, and Object components may be encoded (an LSVO fragment), o r just three (LSV; LSO; LVO; SVO) or two (LS; L V ; LO; SV; SO; V O ) of them, or a l l four as two independent p a i r s (LS,VO; LV,SO; L O , S V ) , o r j u s t one o r none of the components (Nu1 1 fragment). The reason why single-component fragments cannot be separately distinguished here i s t h a t the experiment requires the existence of a two-component fragment f o r r e c a l l t o be p o s s i b l e (one component corresponding t o the cue and the other t o what i s r e c a l l e d ) .
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC PROCESSING
31 7
F o r each of t h e p o s s i b l e sequences o f cues f o r an i n d i v i d u a l sentence, 15 p o s s i b l e p a t t e r n s o f r e c a l l c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e 15 p o s s i b l e fragment t y p e s can occur. To p r o v i d e some examples, c o n s i d e r t h e use as cues o f f i r s t S, then S p l u s 0, and f i n a l l y S and 0 p l u s L. The r e c a l l i n response t o t h e f i r s t cue o f a l l t h r e e components L, V , and 0 i n d i c a t e s t h e occurrence o f an LSVO fragment; i n i t i a l r e c a l l o f n o t h i n g , f o l l o w e d by r e c a l l o f L alone t o t h e second cue, and by no f u r t h e r r e c a l l t o t h e t h i r d cue, i n d i c a t e s an LO fragment; r e c a l l t o t h e f i r s t cue o f 0 alone, f o l l o w e d b y no r e c a l l t o t h e second cue, and by r e c a l l t o t h e t h i r d cue o f V, i n d i c a t e s an LV,SO fragment; and t h e r e c a l l o f n o t h i n g t o any o f t h e t h r e e cues i n d i c a t e s a N u l l fragment. Each p a t t e r n o f d a t a f o r each sequence o f c u i n g was t a b u l a t e d i n accordance w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g scheme as c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f fragment. I f t h e assumptions u n d e r l y i n g t h i s procedure were c o r r e c t , t h e n f o r each s u b j e c t t h e i n f e r r e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e 15 d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f fragment over t h e 24 d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f cue sequence s h o u l d be t h e same. T h i s would n o t be t r u e , on t h e o t h e r hand, i f f o r example t h e d i f f e r e n t cues d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r e f f i c a c i e s : I f L were a b e t t e r cue than S, say, t h e n more examples o f complete r e c a l l t o t h e f i r s t cue (i.e., i n f e r r e d LSVO fragments) s h o u l d be apparent f o r cue sequences commencing w i t h L than w i t h S, f o r example. I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n adequate c e l l s i z e s f o r a s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t of i t s assumptions, t h e t a b u l a t i o n was c o l l a p s e d w i t h i n t h e f i v e m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s o f memory fragment and t h e f o u r t y p e s o f f i r s t cue, and a l s o o v e r t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a c o n d i t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g t a b l e f o r each o f t h e f o u r a t t e n t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s i s shown i n Table 1. I f t h e assumptions u n d e r l y i n g t h e t a b l e a r e a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h i n each c e l l o f a row s h o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal. E m p i r i c a l l y , f o r each o f t h e f o u r conditions a chi-square t e s t d i d n o t i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t d e v i a t i o n from t h e p r e d i c t e d e q u a l i t i e s : ~ ' ( 1 2 ) was 19.09, 18.24, 7.33, and 20.56 f o r t h e C o n t r o l , F i r s t - h a l f , Second-half, and Both-halves c o n d i t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . F o l l o w i n g t h i s p o s i t i v e r e s u l t , e s t i m a t e s o f t h e occurrence o f each o f t h e 15 t y p e s o f fragment, summed o v e r a l l cue sequences, were o b t a i n e d f o r each a t t e n t i o n a l condition. F i g u r e 1 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f memory fragment i n t h e C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . I t can be seen t h a t t h e most f r e q u e n t t y p e o f memory i s t h e f u l l LSVO fragment, and t h a t t h e LSV, LSO, LS, and N u l l fragments a r e n e x t most f r e q u e n t ( o c c u r r i n g r o u g h l y h a l f as o f t e n as t h e LSVO fragment), i n d i c a t i n g p r e f e r e n t i a l r e t e n t i o n o f t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e sentence under normal c o n d i t i o n s . I n t e r e s t i n t h i s experiment c e n t r e s on t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t upon r e c a l l p a t t e r n s o f a t t e n t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , F i g u r e s 2, 3, and 4 show t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e shape o f t h e fragment d i s t r i b u t i o n s ( r e l a t i v e t o t h a t of the Control c o n d i t i o n ) t h a t r e s u l t from i n s t r u c t i o n s focussing a t t e n t i o n upon L o c a t i o n and S u b j e c t , Verb and O b j e c t , and t h e two p a i r s L o c a t i o n S u b j e c t and Verb-Object, r e s p e c t i v e l y . An i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t was t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f each cue sequence p r o d u c i n g some c o r r e c t r e c a l l was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by a t t e n t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n . T h i s i s shown by t h e l a c k o f v a r i a t i o n i n t h e complementary measure, t h e observed frequency o f t h e N u l l fragment, F(3,36) = 0.15. Nevertheless, the p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f t h e observed r e c a l l d i f f e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y among t h e f o u r conditions.
31 8
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
Table 1 R e c a l l P a t t e r n s f o r D i f f e r e n t Cues, i n Four C o n d i t i o n s
Note:
F i r s t cue Fragment c a t e g o r y L S V O Control c o n d i t i o n Quadruple component 17 22 7 15 T r i p l e component 20 20 31 17 Double component 15 15 12 18 Two double components 2 0 2 3 Nu11 6 3 8 7 First-ha1 f condition Q u a d r u p l e component 5 ' 12 10 17 T r i p l e component 17 19 21 16 Double Component 32 20 18 15 5 Two double components 2 3 3 7 Nu1 1 4 6 8 Second-half c o n d i t i o n Quadruple component 8 12 7 11 T r i p l e component 15 17 17 18 Double component 25 19 19 23 3 Two double components 6 7 9 5 Nu1 1 6 5 8 Both-halves c o n d i t i o n Q u a d r u p l e component 16 1 3 10 17 T r i p l e component 20 15 19 12 Double component 13 16 26 19 6 Two double components 4 12 3 6 Nu1 1 7 4 2 L = l o c a t i o n , S = s u b j e c t , V = verb, 0 = o b j e c t
The observed frequency o f t h e LSVO fragment was s u b s t a n t i a l l y s m a l l e r i n each o f t h e focussed a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t h a n i n t h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , w h i l e t h a t o f t h e LS,VO t w i n fragment was s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r i n each. P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , i t may be n o t e d t h a t t h e SO fragment was a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y s m a l l e r and t h e LV fragment c o n s i s t e n t l y l a r g e r i n t h e focussed c o n d i t i o n s ; t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s m a l l , however, and do n o t appear o f importance ( f o r m a l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s rendered d i f f i c u l t by t h e c o v a r i a t i o n o f t h e 15 fragment f r e q u e n c i e s ) . The i n c r e a s e i n frequency o f t h e LS,VO fragment was indeed almost as g r e a t when a t t e n t i o n was focussed o n l y on t h e second h a l f o f t h e sentence as when i t was focussed on t h e two s e p a r a t e halves. T h i s i s perhaps because t h e C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n d a t a d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r showed t h a t t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e sentence i s r e t a i n e d w e l l i n any case. I n a l l t h r e e focussed a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , r e c a l l o f those p a r t s o f t n e sentence i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s was i n c r e a s e d . However, t h e f o c u s s i n g o f a t t e n t i o n on t h e two h a l v e s of a sentence s e p a r a t e l y produced an i n c r e a s e i n t h e frequency o f t h e LS,VO fragment t h a t was o n l y approxi m a t e l y h a l f t h a t o f t h e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e LS and V O fragments t h a t were produced by i n s t r u c t i o n s t o f o c u s on e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r t h e second h a l v e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . S i n c e an LS,VO fragment conveys as much i n f o r m a t i o n as an LS and a V O fragment t o g e t h e r , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e d e s i g n a t e d p a t t e r n s of r e c a l l t h a t were consequent upon t h r e e d i f f e r e n t forms o f l i n g u i s t i c f o c u s s i n g were i n i n f o r m a t i o n a l terms a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal.
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC PROCESSING
0
5
10
Percent a p
I5
20
25
Occurrence
Figure 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Memory Fragments i n Control C o n d i t i o n
31 9
320
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
LSVOI LSVl
c
LS,VO
LV,SO L 0,sv Null I
1
-10
I
-5
I
I
0
5
I
I
10
15
Size of Increase (in Yo) Figure 2 Change i n D i s t r i b u t i o n of Memory Fragments in F i r s t - h a l f Condition
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGU!ST!C
321
PROCESSING
L
0
LV, so Lo, sv Null
I
-10
-5
I
1
0
5
I
1
10
Size of Increase (in
15
O/O)
Figure 3 Change i n D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Memory Fragments i n Second-half C o n d i t i o n
322
ATTENTION A N D CONTROL
Size o f Increase (in YO) Figure 4 Change i n D i s t r i b u t i o n of Memory F r a g m e n t s i n B o t h - h a l v e s C o n d i t i o n
RECALL AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC PROCESSING
323
DISCUSSION
The r e s u l t s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t r e p o r t e d h e r e a r e o f i n t e r e s t f r o m two p r i n c i p a l p o i n t s o f view. P r i m a r i l y , t h e y p r o v i d e evidence c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t s upon r e t e n t i o n of m a n i p u l a t i n g p r o c e s s i n g p r i o r i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t components o f language m a t e r i a l . They a l s o , s e c o n d a r i l y , r e l a t e t o accounts o f r e c a l l i n g e n e r a l . A model t o account f u l l y f o r t h e d e t a i l e d changes i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f c l u s t e r s o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e t a i n e d i n memory as a consequence o f changes i n a t t e n t i o n a l s t r a t e g y has n o t been f o r m u l a t e d here, though such a model i s a s u i t a b l e t a r g e t f o r f u t u r e research. I n s t e a d , two q u a l i t a t i v e phenomena were observed. F i r s t , t h e o v e r a l l l e v e l o f performance, as assessed b y t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence o f p a r t i a l o r complete r e c a l l , d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y as a f u n c t i o n o f p r o c e s s i n g c o n d i t i o n ; t h e r e was n o evidence t h a t t h e normal a t t e n t i o n a l p a t t e r n o f t h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n was an e c o l o g i c a l l y o p t i m a l one. Second, i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t f o c u s s e d - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t h e improvements i n r e t e n t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t e n d e d components o f t h e u t t e r a n c e were i n each case a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u i v a l e n t . These r e s u l t s a r e accounted f o r most s i m p l y by p o s i t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e , w i t h i n t h e domain o f language p r o c e s s i n g s t u d i e d here, o f f i n i t e r e s e r v e s o f n o n s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g r e s o u r c e s which may be a l l o c a t e d f r e e l y so as b e s t t o a l l o w t a s k demands t o be s a t i s f i e d ( c f . M a r t i n , 1977; S h i f f r i n , 1975). The e x p e r i m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e r e c a l l process i t s e l f . The c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n here was s i m i l a r i n n a t u r e t o an experiment r e p o r t e d by Anderson and Bower (1973), whose r e s u l t s were a l s o shown t o be w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d b y a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f memory fragments by Jones (1978b). Comparison o f t h e two s e t s o f r e s u l t s shows t h a t t h e o v e r a l l l e v e l o f r e c a l l was c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r i n t h e p r e s e n t experiment, perhaps because each person was shown o n l y one s e t o f m a t e r i a l t o remember, i n s t e a d o f t h r e e as p r e v i o u s l y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , f o u r o u t o f t h e f i v e most f r e q u e n t types o f memory fragment were t h e same i n t h e two experiments: t h e LSVO fragment ( p r o d u c i n g complete r e c a l l ) , t h e N u l l fragment ( p r o d u c i n g no r e c a l l a t a l l ) , and t h e LS and LSO fragments ( p r o d u c i n g p r e f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l o f t h e f i r s t h a l f o f a sentence). I n s p i t e o f t h e success o f t h e fragment t h e o r y i n these experiments, however, t h e e x i s t e n c e o f l i m i t a t i o n s upon i t s g e n e r a l i t y o f a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d be noted. F o r example, i t r e q u i r e s augmentation by o t h e r , g e n e r a t i v e mechanisms i f t h e d i f f e r e n t components o f m a t e r i a l t o be remembered a c t i v a t e p r e - e x i s t i n g s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s t h a t they bear t o each a n o t h e r (Jones, 1978a, 1980; see a l s o Ross and Bower, 1981, Expts. 1 & 2). F u r t h e r , i n common w i t h o t h e r comparable models ( i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e HAM model o f Anderson and Bower, and t h e multicomponent model o f Wenderand G l o w a l l a , 1979) i t does n o t p r o v i d e a d i r e c t account o f t h e phenomenon ( n o t e d by Anderson and Bower, 1980, pp. 237-238) t h a t , perhaps f o r m o t i v a t i o n a l reasons, people a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o r e c a l l a P a r t i c u l a r p a r t o f a sentence i f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e cue has been preceded by the an u n s u c c e s s f u l cue t h a n i f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e cue occurs f i r s t ; magnitude o f t h e e f f e c t , however, i s n o t l a r g e . REFERENCES Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. Winston, 1973.
Washington, DC:
324
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
Anderson, J. R . , & Bower, G. H. Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory: A b r i e f e d i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. Johnso-. Recall of prose a s a f u n c t i o n of the s t r u c t u r a l importance of t h e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s . J o u r n a l of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9 , 12-20. J o n e s , G. V. Recognition f a i l u r e and dual mechanisms i n r e c a l l . Psychological Review, 1978, 8 5 , 464-469. ( a ) J o n e s . G. V . Tests of a s t r u c t u r a r t h e o r v of t h e memory t r a c e . B r i t i s h - J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1978, 69, 351-367. (b) J o n e s , G. V . I n t e r a c t i o n of i n t r i n s c and e x t r i n s i c knowledge i n s e n t e n c e r e c a l l . I n R. S. Nickerson ( E d . ) , A t t e n t i o n and Performance V I I I . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. J o n e s , G. V., & M a r t i n , M. Recall cued by s e l e c t i v e l y a t t e n d e d and unattended a t t r i b u t e s . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1980, S, 94-98. K i n t s c h , W., & van D i j k , T. A. Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394. Mandler, J . M., & Johnson, N . S. Remembrance of t h i n g s p a r s e d : S t o r y s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l . C o g n i t i v e Fsychology, 1977, 9 , 111-151. M a r t i n , M. Reading w h i l e l i s t e n i n g : A 1 i n e a r model of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 1 6 , 453-463. M i l l e r , J . R . , & K i n t s c h , W. R e a d a b i l i t y and r e c a l l of s h o r r p r o s e p a s s a g e s : A t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s. J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1980, 6 , 335-354. Ross, B. H . , & Bower, G. H. Comparison o f models o f - a s s o c i a t i v e r e c a l l . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1981, 2, 1-16. Rumelhart, D. t . Notes on a schema f o r s t o r i e s . In D. G. Bobrow & A. C o l l i n s ( E d s . ) , R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g : S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1975. S h i f f r i n , R. M. The l o c u s and r o l e of a t t e n t i o n i n memory systems. I n PM :. A. R a b b i t t & 5, Dornic ( E d s . ) , A t t e n t i o n and performance V . New York: Academic Press. 1975. Thorndyke, W. C o q n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n comprehension and memory of . P. n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1977, 9 , 77-110, Wender, K. F., & G l o w a l l a , U. Models f o r w i t h i n - p r o p o s i t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 7 , 401-409. t e s t e d by cued r e c a l l . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 1979, -
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) 0North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
A C T I V A T I O N AND RESTRUCTURING OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE AND THEIR EFFECTS ON TEXT PROCESSING
Henk G. Schmidt C a p a c i t y Group o f E d u c a t i o n a l Development and Research R i j k s u n i v e r s i t e i t Limburg Maastricht The N e t h e r l a n d s I n two experiments e f f e c t s o f a group p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g procedure were assessed. I n Experiment 1 s m a l l groups o f s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a problem t h e y had t o d i s c u s s . Compared w i t h a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s showed s u p e r i o r r e p r o d u c t i o n and t r a n s f e r o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem. These e f f e c t s were a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e a c t i v a t i n g and r e s t r u c t u r i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g procedure. I n Experiment 2 e f f e c t s o f a c t i v a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p r i o r knowledge on subsequent t e x t p r o c e s s i n g were examined. A g e n e r a l f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t was found. T h i s r e s u l t cannot be e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n induced by p r i o r problem a n a l y s i s . INTRODUCTION L e a r n i n g by d i s c o v e r y has been c o n s i d e r e d a u s e f u l a d d i t i o n and perhaps
even an a l t e r n a t i v e t o e x i s t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l procedures f o r some t i m e . Jerome Bruner f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e f i r s t who a p p l i e d t h i s method on a somewhat b r o a d e r s c a l e , was o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g more t h a n c o n v e n t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e s s t u d e n t s ' i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t i e s . The method was s a i d t o promote t h e l e a r n i n g o f meaningful i n f o r m a t i o n , which i n t u r n would have p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on l o n g - t e r m r e t e n t i o n and t r a n s f e r . I t was a l s o t h o u g h t t o s t i m u l a t e a s t u d e n t ' s i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n (Bruner, 1961). B r u n e r ' s i d e a s have g i v e n impetus t o a l o t o f e m p i r i c a l research, b u t t h e y i e l d has n o t been v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t (Shulman and K e i s l a r , 1966). L e a r n i n g by d i s c o v e r y does n o t seem capable o f p r o d u c i n g t h e p r e d i c t e d Extra l e a r n i n g r e s u l t s . One may wonder why t h i s s h o u l d be so. A f t e r a l l , t h e l e a r n e r s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by Bruner a r e c o g n i t i v e l y a c t i v e t o a h i g h degree and t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as f a v o r i n g t h e l e a r n i n g process. According t o Mayer (1975) t h e d i s a p p o i n t i n g outcome i s p r o b a b l y accounted f o r by t h e f a c t t h a t d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g o n l y l e a d s t o a c t i v a t i o n o f e s i s t i n g knowledge. I f no c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h new knowledge t a k e s p l a c e , l e a r n i n g does n o t o c c u r (Mayer, 1975, p. 539). Mayer d e r i v e s t h i s h y p o t h e s i s f r o m h i s own a s s i m i l a t i o n t h e o r y , which s t a t e s t h a t new i n f o r m a t i o n i s absorbed o n l y i f t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s a r e f u l f i l l e d : 1 . a c e r t a i n amount o f p r i o r knowledge about t h e s u b j e c t t o be s t u d i e d s h o u l d be p r e s e n t . T h i s i s r e f e r r e d t o by Mayer as t h e assirnizative set: t h e body o f knowledge i n t o which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n newly t o be a c q u i r e d 325
326
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
s h o u l d be a s s i m i 1 a t e d ; 2. t h e a s s i m i l a t i v e s e t s h o u l d be a c t u a l l y activated by t h e e d u c a t i o n ; 3 . d u r i n g t h e l e a r n i n g process, knowledge s h o u l d i n t e r a c t w i t h new informati o n t o a l l o w development of new knowledge s t r u c t u r e s (Mayer, 1975; 1979a; 1979b). As a r u l e , t h e t h i r d c o n d i t i o n i s n o t s a t i s f i e d by d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g . While w o r k i n g on a problem, t h e s t u d e n t i s expected t o produce t h e r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n himseZf. I t does n o t seem r e a s o n a b l e however t o assume t h a t he i s a b l e t o do s o w i t h o u t e x t e r n a l a s s i s t a n c e , But what would happen i f we l e t s t u d e n t s work on a problem f i r s t (as i s usual f o r d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g ) and subsequent29 c o n f r o n t them w i t h new i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem? By m o d i f y i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g approach i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n a l l t h r e e c o n d i t i o p s f o r l e a r n i n g s e t by Mayer would be f u l f i l l e d i n p r i n c i p l e . I n f a c t , e x p e r i e n c e w i t h such a modif i c a t i o n i s b e i n g o b t a i n e d f o r a few y e a r s , n o t a b l y i n medical e d u c a t i o n ( N e u f e l d and Barrows, 1974; Schmidt and B o u h u i j s , 1980; Neame, 1981). A small group o f s t u d e n t s under t h e guidance o f a t u t o r i s o f f e r e d a problem d e s c r i p t i o n . The problem u s u a l l y i n c l u d e s a number o f phenomena o r e v e n t s which can be observed i n r e a l i t y . Students a r e asked t o eq2Zain t h e s e phenomena i n terms o f u n d e r l y i n g processes, p r i n c i p l e s o r mechanisms (Schmidt, 1979). They do so by u t i l i z i n g p r i o r knowledge t o f o r m u l a t e hypotheses r e g a r d i n g t h e process o r p r i n c i p l e t h a t m i g h t u n d e r l i e t h e phenomena o u t l i n e d . They a r e t r y i n g , as i t were, t o g i v e a t e n t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s process. Subsequently, t h e y c o l l e c t o r r e c e i v e new i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem, by which any a m b i g u i t i e s uncovered d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e problem can be c l a r i f i e d . T h i s v a r i a n t t o l e a r n i n g by d i s c o v e r y i s c a l l e d problem-based l e a r n i n g (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980). To be a b l e t o make p r e d i c t i o n s about p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f problem a n a l y s i s on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , we r e f e r t o schema t h e o r y , a much used d e s c r i p t i o n o f human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g ( B a r t l e t t , 1932; Ausubel, 1968; Minsky, 1975; Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). T h i s t h e o r y s t a t e s t h a t i n t h e encoding o f new i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t i n g knowledge schemata a r e a c t i v a t e d t h a t r e g u l a t e t h e process o f comprehension ( D o o l i n g and Lachman, 1971; B r a n s f o r d and Johnson, 1972; Anderson and P i c h e r t , 1978). A d e c i s i v e r o l e i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o b a b l y p l a y e d by inferences generated by an a c t i v a t e d schema (Schank and Abelson, 1977). Inferences may be regarded as hypotheses about i n f o r m a t i o n s t i l l t o be s t o r e d t h a t a r e t e s t e d a g a i n s t such i n f o r m a t i o n . The outcome o f t h e s e t e s t s decides on a p o s s i b l e change o f e x i s t i n g schemata, which a r e t h e n s a i d t o accomodate t o t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n (Anderson, 1977). From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e l e a r n i n g can be c o n s i d e r e d a process o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and reconstruction o f e x i s t i n g cognitive structures. Now, i f we t r y w i t h t h e a i d o f t h e s e n o t i o n s t o d e s c r i b e t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o cesses t a k i n g p l a c e i n s t u d e n t s engaged i n problem a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g s u p p o s i t i o n s m i g h t be made. T h i n k i n g about t h e p r e s e n t e d problem and d i s c u s s i n g i t w i t h o t h e r s a c t i v a t e s e x i s t i n g schemata more o r l e s s r e l e v a n t t o t h a t problem. These schemata may d e r i v e f r o m f a c t u a l knowledge o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e o r process, f r o m knowledge o f analogous processes, o r f r o m general w o r l d knowledge. The schemata w i l l produce i n f e r e n c e s w i t h t h e a i d o f which s t u d e n t s w i l l t r y t o develop t h e i r own c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e processes t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e phenomena c o n t a i n e d i n t h e problem d e s c r i p t i o n . I f t h e problem cannot be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y s o l v e d w i t h t h e h e l p o f knowledge t h a t s t u d e n t s a l r e a d y
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE
327
have a v a i l a b l e p r i o r t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n , t h e c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e processes u n d e r l y i n g t h e problem w i l l t a k e t h e f o r m o f a m u , more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r i o r knowledge o f each c o n t r i b u t i n g i n d i v i d u a l . The t u t o r s t i m u l a t e s t h i s process of a c t i v a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p r i o r knowledge by i n d u c i n g s t u d e n t s t o e x p l i c a t e t h e i r i n f e r e n c e s . He w i l l do so by means o f S o c r a t i c q u e s t i o n i n g ( C o l l i n s , 1977). I n summary we may say t h a t a n a l y s i s o f a problem l e a d s t o a c t i v a t i o n and ' r e c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n ' o f p r i o r knowledge (Anderson, 1977) and, as a r e s u l t o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f i n f e r e n c e s , t o i t s r e s t r u c t u r i n g . The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d schemata r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e problem a n a l y s i s s h o u l d i n t u r n f a c i l i t a t e t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f new i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem. I n two experiments we have i n v e s t i g a t e d a number o f t h e hypotheses expressed h e r e . The f i r s t was conducted t o f i n d o u t t o what e x t e n t problem a n a l y s i s l e a d s t o a c t i v a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p e o p l e ' s p r i o r knowledge w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e problem and i t s u n d e r l y i n g process. I n t h e second experiment we examined t h e e f f e c t o f problem a n a l y s i s on t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f new i n f o r m a t i o n . I n each experiment we i n v e s t i g a t e d e f f e c t s on two dimensions customary i n t h i s k i n d o f research, t h e degree t o which s u b j e c t s a r e capable o f reproducing p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t knowledge and t h e degree t o which t h e y a r e a b l e t o use t h i s knowledge i n new s i t u a t i o n s : t h e degree o f transfer o f knowledge. EXPERIMENT 1 I n Experiment 1 t h e e f f e c t o f problem a n a l y s i s on e x i s t i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s was i n v e s t i g a t e d . The q u e s t i o n t o be answered was whether a n a l y s i s o f a problem a c c o r d i n g t o t h e method d e s c r i b e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n l e a d s t o a c t i v a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f schemata.
Method
Subjects. 39 s t u d e n t s (8 males, 3 1 females) o f an i n s t i t u t e f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e experiment. A l l s u b j e c t s had p r e v i o u s l y a t t e n d e d t h e same t y p e o f secondary e d u c a t i o n ( i n Dutch: HAVO), w i t h t h e i r f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n i n c l u d i n g b i o l o g y . They were p a i d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
MateriaZs. The m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d a problem d e s c r i p t i o n , two m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t s , and a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The probZem was d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : A r e d blood c e l l (a r e d blood corpuscle) i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o pure water under a microscope. The b l o o d c e l l s w e l l s r a p i d l y and e v e n t u a l l y b u r s t s . A n o t h e r r e d b l o o d c e l l i s added t o an aqueous s a l t s o l u t i o n and i s observed t o s h r i n k . HOW can t h e s e phenomena be e x p l a i n e d ? S u b j e c t s were t o account f o r t h e d e s c r i b e d phenomena i n terms o f an underl y i n g process, mechanism, or p r i n c i p l e . The problem r e f e r s t o osmosis. T h i s had been s e l e c t e d because i n s p e c t i o n o f f o u r b i o l o g y t e x t books much i n use a t HAVO s c h o o l s had shown t h a t t h i s s u b j e c t was t r e a t e d i n a more o r l e s s i d e n t i c a l f a s h i o n . Homogeneity o f t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r i o r knowledge o f b i o l o g y o f c o u r s e reduces chance v a r i a t i o n i n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e experiment, Dependent v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t e d o f two t e s t s : a r e p r o d u c t i o n and a t r a n s f e r t e s t . I n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t e s t i t e m s use was made o f a t e x t about osmosis and r e l a t e d s u b j e c t s such as d i f f u s i o n , t u r g o r , and p l a s m o l y s i s .
328
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
T h i s t e x t was s p e c i f i c a l l y w r i t t e n f o r Experiment 2. ( F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s g i v e n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f Experiment 2 ) . The reproduction t e s t was made up o f 33 i t e m s f o r a m a j o r p a r t w r i t t e n i n agreement w i t h recommendations made by Anderson (1972) and Bormuth (1970). T h i s means t h a t t h e i t e m s r e s u l t e d from paraphrase and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f v a r i o u s passages o f t h e t e x t about osmosi.s. Except f o r two, a l l i t e m s were of t h e t r u e / f a l s e t y p e , t h e two e x c e p t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g t h r e e o p t i o n s f o r answering. The transfer t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f 37 i t e m s t h a t were supposed t o measure t h e e x t e n t t o which s u b j e c t s were a b l e t o a p p l y knowledge about osmosis. Most i t e m s had t h e f o r m o f s m a l l e x e r c i s e s which c o u l d be c a r r i e d o u t w i t h t h e a i d o f i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by t h e t e x t . However, i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e t e x t , i . e . , assumptions n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e t e x t b u t ensuing t h e r e f r o m , a l s o formed p a r t o f t h e t r a n s f e r t e s t . The t r a n s f e r t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f 16 t r u e / f a l s e i t e m s and 2 1 i t e m s w i t h t h r e e answering a l t e r n a t i v e s . To a l l t e s t i t e m s a q u e s t i o n mark c a t e g o r y was added, so t h a t s u b j e c t s c o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y d i d n o t know t h e c o r r e c t answer. The questionnaire concerned such b i o g r a p h i c d a t a as age, sex, and f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n mark f o r b i o l o g y .
Procedure, S u b j e c t s were randomly assigned t o one of two c o n d i t i o n s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l group c o n s i s t e d o f 20 s u b j e c t s , t h e c o n t r o l group o f 19. F o l l o w i n g t h i s randomizing procedure we examined t o what degree t h e groups were comparable i n p r i o r knowledge o f b i o l o g y (expressed by t h e f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n g r a d e ) . The mean f o r b i o l o g y was equal t o 6.30 i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .73) and equal t o 6.47 i n t h e c o n t r o l group ( s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .69). These s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s d i d n o t n e c e s s i t a t e subsequent matching. The e x p e r i m e n t a l group was t h e n randomly d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s m a l l e r groups ( N = 7, 7 and 6 ) . The a n a l y s i s o f t h e b l o o d c e l l problem t o o k p l a c e i n t h e s e groups. A female t u t o r e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e use o f t h e method and c o n v e r s a n t w i t h t h e osmosis process was assigned t o each o f these groups. T u t o r and s u b j e c t s had n e v e r met b e f o r e . The t u t o r proceeded as f o l l o w s : she e x p l a i n e d t h e v a r i o u s s t e p s o f problem a n a l y s i s by means of an example and had w r i t t e n t h e f o l l o w i n g t e x t on a b l a c k b o r d : Problem a n a l y s i s : 1. R e f l e c t i o n . 2. Problem d e f i n i t i o n . 3. P r o d u c t i o n o f e x p l a n a t i o n s . 4. E l a b o r a t i o n . S u b j e c t s engaged a c t i v e l y w i t h t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e method. B e f o r e t h e b l o o d c e l l problem was presented, t h e t u t o r mentioned t h a t p r o blem a n a l y s i s was n o t t o t a k e more t h a n 15 minutes. The problem d e s c r i p t i o n was i s s u e d and t h e group g i v e n 1 m i n u t e f o r r e a d i n g and r e f l e c t i o n . Next, t h e d i s c u s s i o n was s t a r t e d , w i t h t h e t u t o r a c t i n g as d i s c u s s i o n l e a d e r . She had been e x p l i c i t l y i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o r e v e a l any i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e p r o blem and t o t a k e c a r e t h a t h e r summaries a l s o d i d n o t i m p l i c i t l y c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m which s u b j e c t s m i g h t d e r i v e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e problem a t hand. The d i s c u s s i o n was r e c o r d e d on t a p e f o r subsequent v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t u t o r ' s and h e r g r o u p ' s compliance w i t h t h e approach agreed upon. I t appeared t h a t a l l t u t o r s had a c c u r a t e l y f o l l o w e d t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s . The groups needed l e s s t h a n 10 m i n u t e s f o r a n a l y s i s . On c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e problem a n a l y s i s b o t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group and t h e c o n t r o l group (which had n o t been p r e s e n t e d w i t h a problem) f i l l e d o u t t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and answered t h e m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t s . Each group was t o l d t h a t t h e t e s t s were n o t examinations and t h a t n o t h i n g was t o be g a i n e d by good o r poor r e s u l t s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were urged n o t t o guess a t t h e c o r r e c t answer b u t i n case o f doubt t o i n d i c a t e t h e q u e s t i o n mark. The answering of t h e items was anonymous. Reproduction and t r a n s f e r scores were c a l c u l a t e d by c o u n t i n g t h e number o f c o r r e c t answers.
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE
329
Results and discussion Items t h a t proved t o be t o o easy were removed f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s . As a c r i t e r i o n a p - v a l u e 3.90 was used. I t proved necessary t o remove 10 i t e m s f r o m t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t and 5 f r o m t h e t r a n s f e r t e s t . The a l p h a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e r e s u l t i n g 2 3 - i t e m r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t was equal t o .73 and f o r t h e 3 2 - i t e m t r a n s f e r t e s t t o - 6 9 . These r e l i a b i l i t i e s compare w i t h t h o s e g e n e r a l l y o b t a i n e d i n examinations (Wijnen, 1971). The two i n s t r u m e n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d d i f f e r e n t on a p r i o r i grounds. They were each supposed t o measure a d i f f e r e n t aspect o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' knowledge. T h e i r product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n was equal t o .41. Consequently t h e y have about 16% o f v a r i a n c e i n common. T h i s means t h a t t h e y each measure t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o a small degree and a d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o a l a r g e r degree. The r e s u l t s o f t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t a r e summarized i n Table 1 and t h o s e f o r t h e t r a n s f e r t e s t a r e summarized i n Table 2. The r e s u l t s on b o t h t e s t s were s u b j e c t ed t o a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . Table 2 : Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f r e p r o d u c t i o n scores f o r Experiment 1
Experimental group
M
SD
N
10.90
4.17
20
C o n t r o l qroup
8.63
3.00
19
Total
9.79
3.65
39
TabZe 2:
Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t r a n s f e r scores f o r Experiment 1 M
SD
N
Experimental group
16.55
5.08
20
C o n t r o l qroup
13.26
4.40
19
Total
14.95
4.84
39
The analyses o f v a r i a n c e show t h a t t h e a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e found between t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 10% l e v e l . T h i s a p p l i e s t o b o t h r e p r o d u c t i o n , F(1,37)=3.77, pc.06, and t r a n s f e r , F(1,37)=4.96, p<.04. These r e s u l t s s u p p o r t t h e t h e o r y advanced i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of problem a n a l y s i s . I t seems t h a t w r i t t e n problems indeed a c t i v a t e e x i s t i n g schemata and t h a t t h e problem-connected i n f e r e n c e s based on t h e s e schemata l e a d t o t h e i r r e s t r u c t u r i n g . A p p a r e n t l y , t h e r e s t r u c t u r e d schemata e n a b l e s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n t o g i v e b e t t e r answers t o t h e i t e m s of t h e t e s t s , as compared w i t h t h e c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . The chosen e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n does n o t a l l o w us t o s e p a r a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f a c t i v a t i o n f r o m those o f r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f schemata. F o r i n t h e c o n t r o l group a c t i v a t i o n o f p r i o r knowledge a l s o t a k e s p l a c e , n o t a b l y a t t h e moment s u b j e c t s i n t h a t c o n d i t i o n answer t h e t e s t s . O f course, r e a d i n g t h e t e s t i t e m s a c t i v a t e s p r i o r knowledge as w e l l . Whether t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f p r o blem and t e s t i t e m s a c t i v a t e s p r i o r knowledge t o t h e same degree as answer-
330
ATTENT!ON
AND CONTROL
ing the t e s t items only - and whether the established e f f e c t s should s o l e l y be ascribed t o r e s t r u c t u r i n g - remains unclear f o r the time being. EXPERIMENT 2
What happens i f you ask students who have j u s t tackled t h e blood-cell problem t o study a t e x t about osmosis? What will be the e f f e c t of recontextualized and restructured p r i o r knowledge on t h e processing of t e x t relevant t o t h e problem? According t o t h e position defended here, problem analysis functions as a bridge between p r i o r knowledge and knowledge s t i l l t o be acquired. Elaboration of p r i o r knowledge by means o f discussion of a problem causes e x i s t i n g cognitive s t r u c t u r e s t o change in t h e d i r e c t i o n of f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g . Compared with the s i t u a t i o n t h a t e x i s t s before problem analysis t h e s u b j e c t s ' schemata will contain concepts t h a t a r e c l e a r e r and have more and c l o s e r mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n t h i s way i t provides a b e t t e r ideational scaffolding f o r new information contained i n a problem-relevant text (Anderson, e t a l . , 1978). Information from t h e t e x t will be processed more e a s i l y and, consequently, f a s t e r . I n terms of t h e second experiment t h i s means t h a t given a standard amount of study time, persons who have f i r s t worked on a problem will process a problem-relevant t e x t deeper than o t h e r s who have only processed the t e x t (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). I f t h i s i s t h e s o l e e f f e c t t o be expected from problem a n a l y s i s , one might just simply extend study time f o r s u b j e c t s ' t e x t processing (Peeck, 1970) instead of presenting them with a problem-plus-text. However, subjects who have analyzed a problem beforehand will not only process new information f a s t e r b u t a l s o in a different way. As a r e s u l t of t h e s t r u c t u r a l changes t o which e x i s t i n g schemata have been subjected new information will be comprehended in another, more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d manner. This s u b t l e r i n t e r p r e t a t ion of the subject-matter will lead t o a deeper understanding and consequently t o improved application o f knowledge i n t r a n s f e r t a s k s , I n o t h e r words: schema theory p r e d i c t s b e t t e r retention a s well as g r e a t e r t r a n s f e r . Mayer (1974, 1975) s l i g h t l y modifies t h i s prediction. He s t a t e s t h a t d i f f e r e n t educational procedures often do not lead t o an increase ( o r decrease) in learning, b u t t o learning r e s u l t s t h a t a r e structuraZZy different. For instance, education may emphasize the internal s t r u c t u r e of information t o be acquired, o r i t may s t r e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r , already a v a i l a b l e , knowledge. I n t h e former case, according t o Mayer, a cognitive s t r u c t u r e develops whose c o n s t i t u e n t concepts a r e strongly linked with each o t h e r b u t have few r e l a t i o n s h i p s with knowledge elements beyond t h e domain studied. Mayer r e f e r s t o t h i s as the ' i n t e r n a l connectedness' of t h a t cognitive s t r u c t u r e . I n t h e l a t t e r case a cognitive s t r u c t u r e develops which has strong connections w i t h knowledge elements outside t h e s p e c i f i c domain ( ' e x t e r n a l connectedness'). He p r e d i c t s t h a t educational procedures s t r e s s i n g the internal connections between new concepts lead t o improved reproduction of such concepts, and t h a t educational procedures emphasizing relationships between new concepts and o t h e r already a v a i l a b l e knowledge lead t o b e t t e r t r a n s f e r b u t poorer reproduction. Research conducted by Mayer and Greeno (1972) demonstrated t h a t these 'treatment p o s t - t e s t ' i n t e r a c t i o n s do occur. They gave i n s t r u c t i o n t o subjects on binomial probability by means of two procedures. I n one o f t h e s e the r e l a t i o n s between the variables of t h e binomial formula were emphasized and subjects learned t o c a l c u l a t e by using the formula. I n t h e o t h e r procedure they t r i e d t o e s t a b l i s h connections between t h e variables of t h e formula on t h e one hand, and the p r i o r knowledge and experience of subjects with chance,
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE
331
t r i a l , and outcome on t h e o t h e r . The r e s u l t s d i d n o t y i e l d an o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between procedures on a p o s t t e s t , b u t d i d show q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e answering o f t h e i t e m s . As p r e d i c t e d , t h e ' i n t e r n a l connectedness' group p r o v e d s u p e r i o r i n answering i t e m s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s o f t h e f o r m u l a , which means t h a t t h e y were b e t t e r i n r e p r o d u c t i o n t a s k s . The ' e x t e r n a l connectedness' group proved more a p t i n r e c o g n i z i n g u n s o l v a b l e problems and i n s o l v i n g problems whose v a r i a b i e s were concealed i n a s t o r y . T h i s group, t h e r e f o r e , e x c e l l e d i n i t e m s i n v o l v i n g t r a n s f e r . I t l o o k s as i f emphasis on e x t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f concepts t o be l e a r n e d ( t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between concepts and l e a r n e r s ' p r i o r knowledge) i s a t t h e expense o f t h e i n t e r n a l connectedness o f conc e p t s t o be l e a r n e d ( t h e mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c o n c e p t s ) . Assumi n g t h a t t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t a p p l i e d i n t h e p r e s e n t experiment aims exc l u s i v e l y a t concepts f r o m t h e t e x t p r o p e r and a t t h e i r mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s , one would have t o p r e d i c t on t h e b a s i s o f M a y e r ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e c o n t r o l group ( t e x t - o n l y ) w i l l p e r f o r m b e t t e r on t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t , whereas t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group ( p r o b l e m - p l u s - t e x t : emphasizing r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h p r i o r knowledge) w i l l demonstrate a b e t t e r performance on t h e t r a n s f e r t e s t . The p r e d i c t i o n s expressed above have a l l been d e r i v e d f r o m schemat h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o how a t e x t i s processed. However, t h e r e i s a l s o a n o t h e r t h e o r y about t e x t p r o c e s s i n g t h a t may be r e l e v a n t w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h i s r e s e a r c h . T h i s t h e o r y i s seZectiue a t t e n t i o n t h e o m (Rothkopf, 1970; Duchastel, 1979; Glynn and D i Vesta, 1979; Reynolds e t a l , , 1979). T h i s t h e o r y s i m p l y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t whatever p e o p l e l e a r n f r o m a t e x t i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e amount o f a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o v a r i o u s t e s t passages. The amount o f a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o v a r i o u s passages i s i n t u r n a f u n c t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e persons p r o c e s s i n g t h e t e x t . T y p i c a l f o r t h i s approach i s t h e f o l l o w i n g experiment: Two groups o f s u b j e c t s s t u d y t h e same t e x t . One group has been p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n a l i s t o f l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s o r q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e t e x t . Measurement o f what has been processed t h e n shows t h a t s u b j e c t s who have s t u d i e d t h e t e x t g u i d e d by l e a r n i n g objectives r e c a l l goal-relevant information b e t t e r than t h e c o n t r o l group. T h i s i s achieved however a t the e q e n s e o f t h e s t o r a g e o f information not d i r e c t l y related t o the learning objectives. I n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o eye-movements d u r i n g r e a d i n g , Rothkopf and B i l l i n g t o n (1979) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t s u b j e c t s f i x a t e d t w i c e as much on sentences r e l e v a n t t o a l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e t h a n on sentences which a r e n o t . From t h i s t h e y drew t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t what people l e a r n i s determined by t h e amount o f s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n - expressed i n amount o f i n s p e c t i o n t i m e - p a i d t o t h e t e x t passages t o be l e a r n e d . The m a t e r i a l s used i n o u r experiment were c o n s t r u c t e d i n such a manner t h a t a s e l e c t i v e - a t t e n t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s c o u l d a l s o be t e s t e d . We s t a r t e d f r o m t h e assumption t h a t t h e b l o o d c e l l problem ( w h i c h was worked on by t h e s u b j e c t s o f o u r experiment) m i g h t p l a y t h e same r o l e as t h e l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s i n t h e s e l e c t i v e - a t t e n t i o n experiments. T h i s means t h a t w o r k i n g on problems would i n d u c e s u b j e c t s t o pay more a t t e n t i o n t o p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t passages o f t h e t e x t a t t h e expense o f t h o s e passages t h a t a r e l e s s meaningful i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e problem. The t e x t about osmosis was e d i t e d t o i n c l u d e i n f o r m a t i o n o f l e s s e r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e b l o o d - c e l l problem. The s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y p r e d i c t s t h a t s u b j e c t s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group ( p r o b l e m - p l u s - t e x t ) w i l l pay g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t t e x t passages compared w i t h t h e c o n t r o l group ( t e x t o n l y ) , b u t a l s o t h a t such a t t e n t i o n w i l l reduce t h e a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o less
332
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
relevant p a r t s of t h e t e x t . Given an equal amount of study time f o r b o t h
g r o u p s , the experimental group will perform b e t t e r on items concerned with topics relevant t o the problem, whereas the control group will do b e t t e r
with non-relevant items. Hence, no overall d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two groups i s going t o be observed in e i t h e r t e s t . The d i f f e r e n t i a l predictions discussed above are summarized in Table.3. The plus-sign means t h e problem analysis group will perform b e t t e r on t h i s t e s t ( o r p a r t of the t e s t ) than t h e control group. A minus-sign means t h a t the control group performance will be b e t t e r . Table 3 : Differential predictions about t h e influence of problem analysis
on t e x t processing
Schema theory (Rumel h a r t and Ortony, 1977)
reproduction
transfer
+
+ +
Mayer and Greeno's (1972) s p e c i f i c a t i m Selective attention theory (Rothkopf and Billington, 1979)
items concerned with t e x t relevant t o problem
+
t
items concerned with t e x t
n o t relevant t o problem
L
Methods Subjects. 48 students (42 females, 6 males) of an i n s t i t u t e f o r higher education p a r t i c i p a t e d in the experiment. All s u b j e c t s had attended the same type of secondary education ( i n Dutch: H A V O ) , with t h e i r f i n a l examinations including biology. They were paid f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g . Materials. The materials used in Experiment 2 were i d e n t i c a l t o those of Experiment 1. I n addition, however, a w r i t t e n t e x t was used. The 2,220-word t e x t was e n t i t l e d 'Osmosis and D i f f u s i o n ' . I t had been designed t o adapt as well as possible t o s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r knowledge. The description of t h e osmosis process was more d e t a i l e d and precise than i s customary f o r HAVO schools. The t e x t d e a l t with t h e following topics: d i f f u s i o n , diffusion r a t e , (semi-)permeability of c e l l membrane, osmosis, osmotic pressure, osmotic value, plant c e l l s t r u c t u r e , t u r g o r , and plasmolysis. Not a l l o f these were d i r e c t l y relevant t o t h e problem. I n order t o be able t o t e s t s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n theory the two multiplechoice t e s t s were subdivided by two independent judges, including t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r , i n t o items of immediate importance t o t h e problem and those of l e s s e r relevance, Agreement between judges was 76%. The items about which consensus had not been reached were c l a s s i f i e d i n one of t h e two categories by mutual agreement. (Removal from t h e a n a l y s i s would have l e f t too few items.)
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
333
Procedure. The procedure was largely identical t o t h a t of Experiment 1. I n t h e experimental condition 23 subjects were t e s t e d and in t h e control condition 25. Following randomization i t was established t o what extent the two groups were comparable in p r i o r knowledge of biology (expressed by the f i n a l examination g r a d e ) . The average grade f o r biology in the control group was 6.36 (standard deviation .81) and 6.39 in t h e experimental group (standard deviation - 9 4 ) . The experimental group was subdivided i n t o t h r e e smaller groups (N=8, 8 and 7 ) . Each of them was randomly assigned an experienced female t u t o r . The t u t o r and her group proceeded i n t h e way described f o r t h e f i r s t experiment. All groups needed l e s s than 10 minutes f o r analysis. After t h a t t h e experimental group answered t h e questionnaire. I t was next given t h e t e x t and i n s t r u c t e d t o study t h i s . The control group answered the questionnaire and studied t h e t e x t . Each group was allowed 15 minutes f o r study. F i n a l l y , subjects took t h e reproduction and the t r a n s f e r t e s t s . R e s u l t s and discussion
Items having a p-value equal t o o r l a r g e r than .90 were removed from the analyses as being too easy. The r e s u l t s f o r reproduction a r e g ven in Table 4 and those f o r t r a n s f e r in Table 5. Table 4 : Means and standard deviat ons of reproduction scores f o r Ex pe r i men t 2
M
SD
Control group
16.17 14.48
2.46 2.63
23 25
Total
15.29
2.55
48
Experimental group
N
Table 5 : Means and standard deviations of t r a n s f e r scores f o r Experiment 2 N
M
SD
Ex pe r i men t a 1 CJr oup Control arouD
20.04 17.56
3.01 3.45
25
Total
18.75
3.25
48
23
One-way analyses of variance on these r e s u l t s y i e l d t h e following p i c t u r e . Reproduction: F(1,46)=5.26, pi.03. Transfer: F(1,46)=7.01, pc.02. These r e s u l t s support t h e a s s e r t i o n expressed before t h a t a n a l y s i s o f a problem in t h e way t h i s i s prescribed in problem-based learning causes new information t o be b e t t e r understood and remembered. Recontextual i z a t i o n of t h e a s s i m i l a t i v e s e t by means of problem analysis promotes i n t e r a c t i o n between P r i o r knowledge and new information, which in t u r n i s responsible f o r the observed gains i n the reproduction of such information and i t s application.
334
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
The r e s u l t s do n o t however s u p p o r t t h e view o f Mayer and Greeno (1972) t h a t i n t e n s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r knowledge and new i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d l e a d t o p o o r e r performance on a t e s t measuring knowledge o f t h e 'autonomous' t e x t (Anderson, 1977), whereas t r a n s f e r s h o u l d be promoted. The e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s were a l s o b e t t e r i n r e p r o d u c i n g t h e t e x t . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n t e s t used i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t does n o t r e a l l y measure Mayer and Greeno's ' i n t e r n a l connectedness' o f t h e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t i n g f r o m t e x t p r o c e s s i n g . Mayer and Greeno do n o t i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y what e x a c t l y t h e y have i n mind when u s i n g t h i s term, s o t h a t o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e concept - t h a t i n t e r n a l connectedness can be measured by t e x t r e p r o d u c t i o n - was perhaps n o t q u i t e c o r r e c t . However t h i s may be, schema t h e o r y appears t o a l l o w c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i n f l u e n c e a c t i v a t i o n and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f e x i s t i n g schemata have on t h e p r o c e s s i n g of new i n f o r m a t i o n . What about t h e s u p p o r t f o r s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y ? The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n has n o t been made s u p e r f l u o u s by t h e p r e v i o u s a r g u m e n t a t i o n because, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t problem a n a l y s i s has a schemar e s t r u c t u r i n g as w e 2 2 as a g u i d i n g f u n c t i o n . I n o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s h y p o t h e s i s we d i v i d e d as mentioned t h e i t e m s o f t h e t e s t s i n t o a s e t d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e osmotic process and a s e t o f i n d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e . Items r e l a t i n g t o d i f f u s i o n r a t e , osmotic v a l u e , p l a n t c e l l s t r u c t u r e , t u r g o r , and p l a s m o l y s i s were regarded as i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem. Each o f t h e f o u r s u b t e s t s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n has been s u b j e c t e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , I n a d d i t i o n a22 i t e m s o f d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e f r o m t h e t e s t s have been combined i n t o a new t e s t and s u b j e c t e d t o an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . The same was done w i t h a22 i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t i t e m s . The r e s u l t s a r e g i v e n i n Tables 6 and 7. These o n l y show mean v a l u e s and chance p r o b a b i l i t i e s r e s u l t i n g from the analyses.
Table 6 : Means and chance p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f s u b t e s t s c o n s i s t i n g o f items d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem reproduction
transfer
total
Experimental group
7.43
11.13
18.57
C o n t r o l group
6.80
10.16
16.96
Chance p r o b a b i 1 it y
<. 14
<, 13
1.08
Table 7: Means and chance p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f s u b t e s t s c o n s i s t i n g o f i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t items reproduction
transfer
total
Experimental group
8.74
8.91
17.65
C o n t r o l group
7.68
7.40
15.08
Chance probabi 1 it y
<.04
<.02
<.01
I n t h e l i g h t o f s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y t h e s e r e s u l t s can h a r d l y be interpreted. Selective a t t e n t i o n theory predicted e f f e c t s favoring the
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF P R I O R KNOWLEDGE
335
t r e a t m e n t group w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u b t e s t s c o n s i s t i n g o f i t e m s d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e problem, whereas t h e c o n t r o l group would demonstrate b e t t e r performance on i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t i t e m s . T h i s was n o t t h e case. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t found i n t h e case o f p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t i t e m s , whereas t h e d i f f e r e n c e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t items d i d f a v o r i n g t h e t r e a t m e n t group. I f we s h o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s want t o m a i n t a i n ( a c o m b i n a t i o n o f schema t h e o r y and) s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n t h e o r y i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s , o n l y t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e o f t h o u g h t seems p l a u s i b l e : t h e way i n which t h e problem a n a l y s i s group prepares f o r t e x t s t u d y induces t h i s group t o pay l e s s a t t e n t i o n t o p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n t h e c o n t r o l group. Which means t h a t t h i s group has more t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r s t u d y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n which i s r e l a t i v e l y new i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e problem. As a r e s u l t e x p e r i mental s u b j e c t s do b e t t e r on i n d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t i t e m s and, w h i l e s t u d y t i m e and t y p e o f p r e p a r a t i o n c o u n t e r b a l a n c e each o t h e r on d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e y do n o t show p o o r e r performance on d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t i t e m s . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n s h o u l d be c a l l e d a boredom-hypothesis, because i t suggests t h a t s u b j e c t s i n t h e t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n become bored e a r l i e r w i t h t h e osmosis t o p i c t h a n t h e c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s .
GENERAL DISCUSSION The two experiments d i s c u s s e d h e r e show t h a t a n a l y s i s o f a problem i n t h e way d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n and elsewhere (Schmidt, 1979; Schmidt and B o u h u i j s , 1980) causes e x i s t i n g knowledge schemata t o be a c t i v a t e d and r e s t r u c t u r e d , and t h a t t h i s e f f e c t f a c i l i t a t e s subsequent p r o c e s s i n g o f a t e x t r e l e v a n t t o t h a t problem. W i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n we may say t h a t Mayer's (1975) d i a g n o s i s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f d i s c o v e r y l e a r n i n g appears t o be c o r r e c t . L e a r n i n g by d i s c o v e r y indeed l e a d s t o a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e a s s i m i l a t i v e s e t and, as we have demonstrated, t o i t s r e s t r u c t u r i n g . T h i s e f f e c t , however, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o produce t h e e x t r a l e a r n i n g e f f e c t s p r e d i c t e d by Bruner, f o r t h a t c a l l s f o r a c t u a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h new i n f o r m a t i o n . O f course, t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t experiments s h o u l d t o a c e r t a i n
degree be regarded as i s o l a t e d phenomena. N a t u r a l l y , i t i s t o o e a r l y t o conclude t h a t e l a b o r a t i o n o f p r i o r knowledge by means o f problem a n a l y s i s has, i n g e n e r a l , a f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t on t e x t p r o c e s s i n g . We have shown, however, t h a t c o n d i t i o n s can be c r e a t e d under w h i c h problem a n a l y s i s e f f e c t s a r e demonstrable. F i n d i n g o u t how r e p r e s e n t a t i v e these c n n d i t i o n s a r e and how general t h e e f f e c t s c e r t a i n l y r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . Moreover t h e r e a r e some o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e r e s u l t s found, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d n o t be r u l e d o u t by t h e chosen e x p e r i m e n t a l design. The f i r s t i s t h a t t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r e s u l t s c o u l d be generated by a ,:&thome effect. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s e x p e r i e n c e d problem a n a l y s i s as b e i n g so new and i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t i t i n c r e a s e d t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n m i g h t w e l l h o l d t r u e f o r Experiment 1. Not so f o r t h e second however. The s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e l a t t e r had, some t i m e beforehand, g a i n e d an e x t e n s i v e three-months e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h i s t y p e of e d u c a t i o n , S O t h e method was n o t r e a l l y new t o them. A second a l t e r n a t i v e d e r i v e s f r o m m o t i v a t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e l e a r n i n g process (Faw and W a l l e r , 1976; Mayer, 1980). I t i s n o t i m p o s s i b l e t h a t w o r k i n g on an i n t e r e s t i n g problem has such a motivating effect on s u b j e c t s t h a t t h o s e who have c a r r i e d o u t a problem a n a l y s i s a r e more i n t e r e s t e d i n a t e x t r e l e v a n t
336
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
t o t h a t problem t h a n p e o p l e who have n o t . There a r e i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t p r o blem a n a l y s i s i n d e e d induces a s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r m o t i v a t i o n . The l a t t e r would i n t u r n i n c r e a s e a s u b j e c t ' s e f f o r t s , so t h a t he/she l e a r n s more i n l e s s t i m e . However, r e s e a r c h on m o t i v a t i o n has o n l y r a r e l y e s t a b l i s h e d such d i r e c t e f f e c t s on l e a r n i n g . I t has been found, though, t h a t m o t i v a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s t h e amount of time s t u d e n t s a r e p r e p a r e d t o spend on m a t e r i a l t o be s t u d i e d . We d i d keep s t u d y t i m e c o n s t a n t i n o u r research, s o t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s n o t a v e r y l i k e l y one. F o r t h a t m a t t e r , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o examine t h e i n f l u e n c e problem a n a l y s i s has on s t u d y t i m e . Would s u b j e c t s be i n c l i n e d t o spend more t i m e on s t u d y i n g m a t e r i a l r e l e v a n t t o a c e r t a i n problem? Another q u e s t i o n concerns t h e i n f l u e n c e o f problem a n a l y s i s on subsequent r e t r i e v a l o f knowl e d g e s t o r e d i n l o n g - t e r m memory. One c o u l d imagine t h a t s t o r a g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , a l o n g w i t h t h e cues p r o v i d e d by p r o b l e m a n a l y s i s , f a c i l i t a t e s subsequent r e t r i e v a l ( T u l v i n g and Thompson, 1973). F i n a l l y , i n t e r a c t i o n s between s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r knowledge and t h e s t r u c t u r e and d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e t e x t (Mayer, 1980; K i n t s c h and Van D i j k , 1978), as w e l l as v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e problems p r e s e n t e d s h o u l d be s t u d i e d . REFERENCES Anderson, R.C. How t o c o n s t r u c t achievement t e s t s t o assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 49, 145-170. Anderson, R.C. The n o t i o n o f schemata an-hthe e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e : g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e conference. I n R.C. Anderson, R.J. S p i r o and W.E. Montague ( E d s . ) . Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. H i l l s d a l e : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. Anderson, R.C. and P i c h e r t , J.W. R e c a l l o f p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c a l l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a s h i f t i n p e r s p e c t i v e . Journal of Ve/erbaZLearning and VerbaZ Behazdor, 1978, 17, 1-12. Anderson, R.C., S p i r o , R . T and Anderson, M.C. Schemata as s c a f f o l d i n g f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n connected d i s c o u r s e . American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 433-440. Ausubel, D.P. EducationaZ Psychology, a cognitive view. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1968. Barrows, H.S. and Tamblyn, R.M. ProbZem-based Zearniny. New York: S p r i n g e r , 1980. B a r t l e t t , F.C. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1932. Bormuth, J.R. Om the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1970. B r a n s f o r d , J.D. and Johnson, M.K. C o n t e x t u a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g : some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f comprehension and r e c a l l . Journal of Verbal Learning we.-? T7mbal Pehc;:'ior, 1972, 11, 717-726. Bruner, J . S . The a c t o f d i s c o v e r y . H a r G d Educational Reuiew, 1961, 31, 21-32. C o l l i n s , A. Processes i n a c q u i r i n g knowledge. I n R.C. Anderson, R.J. S p i r o and W.E. Montague ( E d s . ) . Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. H i l l s d a l e : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. C r a i k , F . I . and L o c k h a r t , R.S. L e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g : a framework f o r memory 671r e s e a r c h . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 684. D o o l i n g , D.J. and Lachman, R. E f f e c t s o f comprehension on r e t e n t i o n o f 88, 216-222. prose. Journal of Experimental PsychoZogy, 1971, -
15,
11,
ACTIVATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
337
Duchastel, P . Learning objectives and the organization of prose. Journal of EducationaZ Psychology, 1971, 71, 100-106. Faw, H . W . and Waller, T . G . Mathemagenic behaviors and e f f i c i e n c y in learning from prose. Review of EducationaZ Research, 1976, 4 6 , 691-722. Glynn, S.M. and Oi Vesta, F.J. Control of prose processing via i n s t r u c t i o n a l 71, 595and typographical cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 603. Kintsch, W . and Van Dijk, T.A. Toward a model of t e x t comprehension and production. Psychological Revieu, 1978, 8 5 , 363-394. Mayer, R . E . Acquisition processes and r e s i F e n c e under varying t e s t i n g conditions of s t r u c t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t problem solving procedures. JournaZ of Educational PsychoZogy, 1974, 6 6 , 644-656. Mayer, R . E . Information processing v a r i a b l e s in learning t o solve problems. Review of EducationaZ Research, 1975, 45, 525-541. Mayer, R . E . Can advance organizers i nf 1 uence meaningful 1 earning? Review of EducationaZ Research, 1979a, 49, 371-383. Mayer, R . E . Twenty years of r e s e a r 3 on advance organizers: assimilation theory i s s t i l l t h e best predictor o f r e s u l t s . I n s t r u c t i o n a l Science, 1979b, 8, 133-167. Mayer, R.E. Elaboration techniques t h a t increase the meaningfulness of technical t e x t : an experimental t e s t of the learning s t r a t e g y hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 7 2 , 770-784. Mayer, R . E . and Greeno, J.G. Structural d i f E r e n c e s between learning o u t comes produced by d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. JournaZ o f Ediicational Psychology, 1972, 6 3 , 165-173. Minsky, M . A fratnewox f o r representing knowledge. I n P.H. Winston ( E d . ) . The psychoZogy of computer u i s i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Neame, R . L . B . How t o construct a problem-based course. Medical Teacher, 1981, 3 , 94-99. Neufeld,-V.R. and Barrows, H.S. The McMaster Philosophy: an approach t o medical education. J o m a l of Medical Education, 1974, 4 9 , 1040-1050. Peeck, J . Effects of prequestions on delayed retention o f T r o s e material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 6 1 , 241-246. Reynolds, R . E . , Standiford, S.N. and Anderson, R . C . Distribution o f reading time when questions a r e asked about a r e s t r i c t e d category of t e x t informa t i o n . JournaZ of Educational PsychoZogy, 1979, 71, 183-190. Rothkopf, E.Z. The concept o f mathemagenic a c t i v i t z s . Revieo of EducationaZ Research, 1970, 40, 325-336. Rothkopf, E . Z . a n d T i l l i n g t o n , M.J. Goal-guided learning from t e x t : i n f e r r i n g a d e s c r i p t i v e processing model from inspection times and eye movements. d o w n a l of Educational Psychology, 1979, 7 1 , . 3 1 0 - 3 2 7 . Rumelhart, D . E . and Ortony, E . The representation of knowledge i n memory. 1n:R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro and W . E . Montague ( E d s . ) . Schooling and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. Schank, R . C . and Abelson, R . P . ,scripts, plans, gor/Zs and understanding. H i l l s d a l e : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. Schmidt, H . G . Leren met problemen, een inleiding in probleemgestuurd onderwijs. I n A.G. Vroon ( E d , ) , Handboek voor de o n d e r w i j s p r a k t i j k . Deventer: Van Loghum S l a t e r u s , 1979. Schmidt, H . G . and Bouhuijs, P.A.J. m d e r u i j s i n taakgerichte groepen. Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1980. Shulman, L.S. and Keislar, E . R . ( E d s . ) . Learning by discouery, a c r i t i c a l appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Tulving, E . and Thomson, D.M. Encoding s p e c i f i c i t y and r e t r i e v a l processes 8 0 , 352-373. in episodic memory. PsychoZogicaZ Review, 1973, -
338
Wijnen, W.H.F.W. 1971.
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
Under of boven de maat. Amsterdam: Swetz en Zeitlinger,
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Hammer and W . Kintsch (eds.) 0 North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
PETACOGMITIVE REGIILATION OF TEXT PROCESSING: ASPECTS AND PROBLEVS CONCERNING THE RELATION BETVFFN SELF-STATEVENTS AND ACTUAL PEPFORPANCE P e t e r M. F i s c h e r and H e i n z Mandl Deutsches I n s t i t u t f i r F e r n s t u d i e n an d e r I l n i v e r s i t a t T u b i n g e n TU b i n gen F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany
C u r r e n t models o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e o r e x e c u t i v e a c t i o n r e g u l a t i o n a r e based upon t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f some c e n t r a l p r o c e s s i n g u n i t c o n t r o l l i n g c o g n i t i v e ' r o u t i n e s ' . The c u r r e n t a p p r o a c h q u e s t i o n s t h e homog e n e i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h i s n o t i o n b y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t two concepts o f e x e c u t i v e r e g u l a t i o n , a competence and a p e r f o r m a n c e c e n t e r e d p a r a d i g m , w h i c h l a r g e l y d i f f e r w i t h regard t o t h e predictions they allow. The t h e o r e t i c a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a r e f u r t h e r emphasized i n l i g h t o f empirical data. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Two models o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e r e g u l a t i o n . The l a b e l " m e t a c o g n i t i v e " r e f e r s t o a l l t h o s e r e f l e c t i v e p r o c e s s e s , and t h e r e s u l t s o f such p r o c e s s e s , as t h e y s e r v e an i n d i v i d u a l ' s own t h i n k i n g o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p r o c e s s e s , t h e way t h e y o p e r a t e and t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . From t h e b e g i n n i n g o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e t h e o r i z i n g , a t t e m p t s have been made t o s u b d i v i d e m e t a c o g n i t i o n s i n t o s m a l l e r , more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c a t e g o r i e s . The f i r s t taxonomy o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s was p r o p o s e d b y FLAVELL and WELLMAY ( 1 9 7 7 ) . FLAVELL and WELLMAN d i s t i n g u i s h four categories o f metacognitive s k i l l s : - s e n s i t i v i t y t o t a s k s and t a s k demands as w e l l t o p o s s i b l e s t e p s t o s o l v i n g it; - p e r s o n a l - k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e a p p a r a t u s and i t s f u n c t i o n i n g ; - t a s k v a r i a b l e / t a s k c a t e g o r y knowledge c o n c e r n i n g p o s s i b l e t y p e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o b l e m s ; and - s t r a t e g y v a r i a b l e l s t r a t e g y c a t e g o r y knowledge w i t h r e g a r d t o a l e a r n e r ' s s t r a t e g i c r e p e r t o i r e for coping w i t h tasks. These f o u r t y p e s o f knowledge t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t r e o r e s e n t t h e d a t a base on w h i c h t h e m e t a c o g n i t i v e r e g u l a t i o n p r o c e s s e s o p e r a t e . What r e m a i n s l a r g e l y u n d e t e r m i n e d , however, i s t h e way " m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge" and " g e n e r a l knowledge a b o u t t h e w o r l d " i n t e r a c t , a s w e l l as some d i s p a r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e d a t a base o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge: S h o u l d what has been subsumed u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g " s t r a t e g y v a r i a b l e " be c o n s i d e r e d knowledge o r d a t a , o r a r e we r e a l l y concerned w i t h processes, r o u t i n e s f o r problem s o l v i n g ? I s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between w o r l d knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge n e c e s s a r y a t a l l , and w h a t a r e t h e c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e s f o r such a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ? Are b o t h k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r e d i n t h e same f o r m a t and what does t h i s i m p l y f o r t h e u n d e r l y i n g network assumptions?
339
340
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
klhile e a r l i e r s t u d i e s ( e . g . KREIITZER, L E O N A R D and FLAVELL, 1975; FLAVELL, 1970; F L A V E L L , F9IEDRICHS and H O Y T , 1970; F L A V E L L , 1976 a , b ) were concerned with proving t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y (and impact) o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowl e d g e p r i m a r i l y by i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e developmental d i f f e r e n c e s o f memory f u n c t i o n s a t v a r i o u s a g e s . They assumed t h e l e v e l o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge t o be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with t h e performance l e v e l of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . The c r i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s and a c t u a l performance which has come i n t o focus r e c e n t l y (NISQFTT and IA~ILSOFI,1977) has f o r c e d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e n o t i o n o f metac o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s . Hence, FLAVELL (1978) added t h r e e new dimensions t o t h e knowledge component t o his p r o c e s s model o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g : - cognitive goals - m e t a c o g n i t i v e awareness - c o q n i t i v e a c t i o n s , and - metacogni t i v e know1 edge which a r e assumed t o be i n t e r r e l a t e d through complex i n t e r a c t i o n s . Thus ext e n d e d , t h e model now p r o v i d e s f o r f u n c t i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n s i n t o p r o c e s s - r e l a t e d e x e c u t i v e components ( m o n i t o r i n g o f o n e ' s a c t u a l s t a t e a s metacognit i v e awareness and knowledge about o n e ' s c o g n i t i v e endowment) and l e s s process-1 i k e components (knowledge-based d a t a o r s e t p o i n t s in t h e s e r v i c e o f a c t i o n r e g u l a t i o n ) . I t should be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h i s does not so much r e p r e s e n t a p r o c e s s model, a s a h e u r i s t i c d e v i c e a l l o w i n g f o r t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f s i n g l e o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t o some general i n t e r p r e t a t i v e framework. A model o f a l e s s s t a t i c n a t u r e and l e s s c e n t e r e d on knowledge o r d a t a has been proposed by BROIJN (1975, 1977, 1 9 7 8 ) . Her model o f e x e c u t i v e r e g u l a t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e paradigm o f t h e " c e n t r a l p r o c e s s i n g u n i t " w i t h i n t h e a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e a p p r o a c h , whose " e x e c u t i v e " p l a n s a sequence of s o l u t i o n s t e p s , s c h e d u l e s the i n d i v i d u a l program-steps and m o n i t o r s their exec u t i o n and s u c c e s s , checks on t h e outcomes and e v a l u a t e s them, c o n t r o l s f o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e g u l a t o r y a c t i o n , and t h u s e x e r t s f u l l c o n t r o l on t h e subr o u t i n e s u n t i l t h e j o b i s done. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e human problem-solver i s seen t o make use o f two kinds of e x e c u t i v e f u n c t i o n s , d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and p r o c e s s r e g u l a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o o r g a n i z e h i s own c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g in a most economical and e f f i c i e n t way. B R O W N ' S model, t o o , i s based on developmental d i f f e r e n c e s between younger and o l d e r c h i l d r e n and between r e t a r d e d and normal c h i l d r e n . The q u e s t i o n o f t h e psychological r e a l i t y o f t h e model and i t s components, on t h e o t h e r hand, has been r e p l a c e d by t h e i s s u e of whether t r a i n i n g may h e l p t o d e v e l o p e x e c u t i v e procedures a b l e t o compensate f o r shortcomings i n t h e s k i l l s o f p l a n n i n g , m o n i t o r i n g , c h e c k i n g , e v a l u a t i o n , and r e g u l a t i o n a s shown in t h e performance o f t h e younger, r e t a r d e d o r novice a s compared with t h e performance of t h e o l d e r , normal, o r expert s u b j e c t . According t o BROWN, i f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o b r i n g up t o t h e performance d e f i c i t s o f t h e novice u p t o t h e l e v e l o f t h e e x p e r t , we then have i m p l i c i t proof t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s d i f f e r e n c e s in performance were due t o d i f f e r e n c e s in m e t a c o g n i t i v e o r e x e c u t i v e s k i l l s . This p r o o f . on t h e o t h e r hand, i s i m p l i c i t l y assumed t o g u a r a n t e e t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of t h e e x e c u t i v e by means o f an e m p i r i c a l t e s t . For RRObIN t h e r e i s no need t o s p e c u l a t e about t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d a t a base o r some m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge, which i s needed t o serve as markers f o r p r o s p e c t i v e ( p l a n n i n g ) o r on-1 i n e (monitoring,testing,checking) o r o f f - 1 i n e ( e v a l u a t i o n ) c o n t r o l . All t h a t i s needed i s some r u l e equipment, t h e r u l e s being s t r a t e g i c i n n a t u r e . A n d , s i n c e t h e r u l e s a r e a c q u i r e d through s t r a t e g i c t r a i n i n g , a l l one has t o do t o g e t t h e a d e q u a t e r u l e s f o r ( m e t a j c o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l o f i n t e l l e c t u a l t a s k s i s t o engage in e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g in a v a r i e t y o f c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . BROWN makes no f u r t h e r mention o f t h e a c c e s s o f s t r a t e g i c s k i l l s o r execut i v e a c t i o n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s . So one can o n l y s p e c u l a t e about t h e format
METACOGNITIVE REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESSING
341
o f t h e s t r a t e g i c r u l e s o r s k i l l s . However, t h e r e i s some mention o f normal, a u t o - n i l o t - r e g u l a t i o n of t h i n k i n g which i s c o n t r a s t e d with c o n s c i o u s cont r o l o f t h i n k i n g i n t h e " d e b u g g i n g - s t a t e ' ' ( B R O W N , 1 9 8 0 ) . In normal r e a d i n g , continuous regulation of information intake takes place without notice. Only when normal flow o f p r o c e s s i n g i s i n t e r r u p t e d o r d i s t o r t e d by some b a r r i e r of b o t t l e n e c k , does a more c o n s c i o u s t y p e o f r e g u l a t i o n come i n t o a c t i o n ; t h e r e a d e r enters a debugging s t a t e of c o n s c i o u s n e s s . Then, i n f o r mation p r o c e s s i n g i s slowed down on t h e whole and becomes d e - a u t o m a t i z e d . "We e n t e r a r e f l e c t i v e , p l a n f u l and s t r a t e g i c s t a t e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f which a r e m e t a c o q n i t i v e s k i l l s (which r e f e r t o ) any r e f l e c t e d , p l a n f u l c o n t r o l o f a c t i v i t i e s leading t o understanding". (BROWN, 1980). I t remains u n s p e c i f i e d however, whether m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s merely r e p r e s e n t t h e i n s t r u m e n t s f o r debugging - a r d what d i s t i n g u i s h e s them from a u t o p i l o t - s t a t e - a c t i v i t i e s - o r , whether t h e dependence o f t h e debugging s t a t e r e s u l t s from a s p e c i f i c s t a t e o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s means t h a t m e t a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s should o n l y r e f e r t o a ( v e r y s m a l l ) s u b c a t e g o r y o f r e g u l a t o r y , t r o u b l e - s h o o t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . F i n a l l y , t h e way i n which "a r e f l e c t i v e , planf u l and s t r a t e g i c s t a t e " l e a d s t o t h e use o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s r e mains u n c l e a r . P a r t i c u l a r l y , t h e more r e c e n t work o f BROWN and her coworkers (e.g.,BROWN and OAY, 1481) s t r e s s e s t h a t e x p e r t s do n o t know what makes them e x p e r t , n o r do t h e y know w h a t t h e y a r e doing when t h e i r e x e c u t i v e becomes a c t i v e . From t h e methodological p o i n t o f view, SROWN's i n f e r e n c e s from a c t u a l a c a demic performance t o t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s involved a t i t s o r i g i n a r e r e t r o d i c t i o n s o f t h e form: " I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i t was p t h a t l e d t o q " . Or: " S i n c e a f t e r some t r a i n i n g I have observed q , i t must have been p which I have t r a i n e d . So some d e f i c i t in p e a r l i e r h a s caused a s m a l l e r grade o f q " . I n o t h e r words, RROVN e x p l a i n s d i f f e r e n c e s in performance between h i g h a n d low p e r f o r m e r s by assuming a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l o f e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r execut i v e s k i l l s . BROWN i s n o t concerned with t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s a l s o correspond t o d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e amount of t h e knowledge o f s t r a t e g i c r u l e s , o r m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledg e , f o r she a v o i d s drawing c o n c l u s i o n s from a c t u a l c o g n i t i v e performance t o some kind o f competence. The speechlessness o f t h e e x p e r t s who a r e i n c a p a b l e o f t e l l i n g what t h e y do and how ( c f . BRO!dN and D A Y , 1981) s u g g e s t s t h a t RROWN i s n o t p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d in f i n d i n g a psychological o r conscious c o u n t e r p a r t f o r m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . So B R O W N ' S c o n c e p t i o n i s seemingly n o t f r e e o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n s : while some o f t h e assumptions about t h e debugging s t a t e a l m o s t n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t m e t a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s a r e t o be cons i d e r e d a s a s p e c i a l s u b c a t e g o r y o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s in t h e s e r v i c e o f t r o u b l e s h o o t i n g when one i s faced w i t h a problem, t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e o f m e t a c o g n i t i ve a c t i v i t y seems t o be t h a t of an unconscious a u t o m a t i c p i l o t s t a t e . B u t then what c a l l s t h e e x e c u t i v e i n t o s e r v i c e ? TO summarize, FLAVELL's concept o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge i s e x p l i c i t l y based on t h e assumption o f awareness, i f n o t t o s a y t h a t m e t a c o g n i t i v e proc e s s e s a r e due t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s i f t h e y a r e t o work a t a l l . The more e l a b o r a t e and d i f f e r a n t i a t e d t h e m e t a c o g n i t i v e map o f o n e ' s c o g n i t i v e endowment, t h e more l i k e l y i t would seem t h a t t h i s e l a b o r a t e grade o f r e f l e c t i o n ( a b o u t r e f l e c t i o n s ) would a l s o have a c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o u n t e r p a r t a t t h e l e v e l o f c o g n i t i v e performance. T h u s , FLAVFLL p r e d i c t s performance on t h e b a s i s o f competence which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e s u b j e c t . In B R O ' d N ' s e a r l i e r work ( u n t i l about 1 9 7 8 ) e x e c u t i v e components o f s k i l l e d beh a v i o r a r e i s o l a t e d , and d i f f e r e n c e s in e x e c u t i v e s k i l l s a r e i n f e r r e d from d i f f e r e n c e s in a c t u a l performance. T r a i n i n g o f e x e c u t i v e s k i l l s l e a d s t o improved competence, f o r example f l e x i b l e use o f ( s t r a t e g i c ) r u l e s o r spont a n e o u s t r a n s f e r o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f a r u l e t o new k i n d s o f t a s k s , b u t what c o n s t i t u t e s competence i s n o t mentioned a t a l l . B R O I d N ' s l a t e r workj
342
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e " t e t r a h e d r a l model" i n B R O W R , CAMPIONE and DAY (1961), does t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t d i f f e r e n c e s in competence between good and bad l e a r n e r s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c p r i o r knowledge, knowledge c o n c e r n i n g the s t a t e of o n e ' s own c o q n i t i v e a p p a r a t u s , a s well a s knowledge about o n e ' s own s t r a t e g y r e p e r t o i r e i s given a r o l e f o r t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance, a1 though, n a t u r a l l y , no competence d a t a a r e being c o l l e c t e d . Metacognitive r e g u l a t i o n o f t e x t p r o c e s s i n g . Text p r o c e s s i n g i n v o l v e s gener a l knowledge about t h e world a s well a s d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c knowledge which d e s c r i b e s some s p e c i a l d e t a i l o f world knowledge in a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d way. In d e t e r m i n i n g t h e g o a l s o f a l e a r n i n g t a s k (metacomprehension), in e v a l u a t i n g t h e outcome o f o n e ' s l e a r n i n g i n t h e l i g h t o f t a s k - s p e c i f i c g o a l s o r goal c r i t e r i a , o r in checking t h e p l a u q i b i l i t y o f o n e ' s comprehens i o n a g a i n s t common s e n s e c r i t e r i a , both kinds o f knowledge a r e n e c e s s a r y . In a d d i t i o n , l e a r n i n g from t e x t s r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r knowledge: t o be a b l e t o plan o n e ' s s t u d y i n g a d e q u a t e l y , one must a l s o know how much time one has t o spend on t h e t a s k o f r e a d i n g , how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o r e a c h some g o a l , and how much e f f o r t one has t o i n v e s t t o reach i t , a l l o f which c a l l f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f the text o r o n e ' s i n d i v i d u a l s t r e n g t h s o r weaknesses in r e a d i n g s k i l l o r d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c p r i o r knowledge. T h u s , t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , FLAVELL's m e t a c o g n i t i v e (competence) knowledge might f i t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e markers implied by BROWN'S model o f metac o g n i t i v e r e g u l a t i o n . Vith r e s p e c t t o "competence knowledge",as we term t h e m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge o f o n e ' s own c o g n i t i v e p e c u l i a r i t i e s , KLUWE has t r i e d (most r e c e n t l y i n 1981) t o d i s p e n s e with t h e u n n e c e s s a r y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between knowledge and m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge (which has n o t y e t been p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d by F L A V E L L ) . To do t h i s , he subsumes world and domains p e c i f i c knowledge a s well a s ( m e t a c o g n i t i v e ) knowledge about o n e ' s own c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g under t h e one heading " d e c l a r a t i v e knowledge". Problemsolving processes o r routines f o r problemsolving, a r e considered p a r t o f t h e d a t a base which c o n s i s t s o f s t o r e d problemsolving r o u t i n e s or s o l u t i o n p a t h s ("knowledge o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s " ) , whereas t h e a c t u a l m e t a c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t i s r e s e r v e d f o r e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and c o n t r o l . While e x e c u t i v e r e g u l a t i o n r e f e r s t o both t h e t a s k o f p l a n n i n g and s c h e d u l i n g t h e j o b o f r e a d i n g , and t h e c o n t r o l and c o r r e c t i o n o f comprehension, e x e c u t i v e monitor i n g r e f e r s t o t h e o n - l i n e sampling o f ongoing p r o c e s s i n g . D e c l a r a t i v e c o g n i t i v e knowledge i n s t a l l s t h e markers o r s t a n d a r d s f o r p l a n n i n g and s c h e d u l i n g . t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n t o s p e c i a l par18 o f t h e t e x t , and some o v e r a l l c a l c u l a t i o n o f e f f o r t . I t a l s o s e r v e s a s a c r i t e r i o n f o r t h e ongoing matching p r o c e s s e s , when m o n i t o r i n g d a t a a r e checked and t e s t e d a g a i n s t t a s k s p e c i f i c o r l e a r n i n g g o a l s . One m i g h t s p e c u l a t e about t h e d e g r e e o f automat i o n (and u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) o f t h e s e p r o c e s s e s i n t h e mature r e a d e r , s i n c e i t i s by no means n e c c e s s a r y t o r e s e r v e d e l i b e r a t e c o n t r o l j u s t f o r t h e d e bugging s t a t e , a s BROldN d o e s . S p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s dprivpd from t h e models proposed by FLAVELL and BROWN. Following FLAVELL, d i f f e r e n c e s between good and poor r e a d e r s should a p p e a r p r e c i s e l y in t h e f a c t t h a t poor r e a d e r s show l e s s , o r l e s s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , knowledge in e v e r y r e l e v a n t r e s p e c t in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e r e a d i n g t a s k . Def i c i t s i n m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge o r c o g n i t i v e competence should l e a d t o d e f i c i t s i n 'knowing how t o know' and d e f i c i t s i n the realm o f s e t - p o i n t s o r s t a n d a r d s . According t o BROMN d i f f e r e n c e s between good and poor r e a d e r s should be r e f l e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a s m a l l e r d e g r e e o f e x e c u t i v e r e g u l a t i o n in t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e poor r e a d e r s and i n a b l i n d a p p l i c a t i o n of r u l e s w i t h o u t checkinq on t h e i r adequacy, a s i n f e r r e d from t h e i r a c t u a l academic performance in a s p e c i f i c t a s k . D e f i c i t s i n d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c knowledge should
METACOGN!T!VE
REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESS!NG
343
l e a d t o some i n a b i l i t y t o i d e n t i f y and l o c a t e important ( o r d i f f i c u l t ) a s p e c t s o f t h e t e x t , t h u s making t h e poorer r e a d e r ' s e n t e r p r i s e r a t h e r d i f f u s e and l e s s e f f i c i e n t . To t e s t FLAVELL's approach e m p i r i c a l l y , one would have t o c o l l e c t s e l f - s t a tements from t h e l e a r n e r s , t o c l a s s i f y them a c c o r d i n y t o FLAVELL and WELLPAN'S (1977) taxonomy a n d , i f p o s s i b l e , t o r e l a t e t h e s e d a t a t o performance d a t a . To t e s t RROMN's model e m p i r i c a l l y , one would have t o f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s between good and poor r e a d e r s a t t h e performance l e v e l , t o look a t t h e prod u c t o f t h e i r r e a d i n g and t o e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e l e v e l o f l e a r n i n g outcomes by d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s of e x p e r t i s e . BROWN'S e x p e r t i s e n o t i o n i s l a r q e l y based upon r e t r o d i c t i v e s t a t e m e n t s about some hypothesized e x p e r t knowledge on how t o proceed with text p r o c e s s i n g and on t h e experts' hypot h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t m o n i t o r i n g and c o n t r o l p r o c e s s e s involved in t h e g e n e s i s o f t h e observed outcome. Relevant d a t a in BROWN's s e n s e t h e n , a r e t h e d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g outcomes, whose q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e t r a c e d back t o u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s e s i n t h e m o n i t o r i n g and e x e c u t i v e p r o c e s s e s o f t h e good v s . t h e bad r e a d e r . Ihlhile FLAVELL's "Competence" assumption s a y s n o t h i n g about t h e psychologic a l impact o f competence on p r o c e s s r e g u l a t i o n , BROWN's "expertise" assumpt i o n does n o t s a y a word about t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f e x p e r t i s e i n terms o f d i f f e r e n t competence endowments among e x p e r t s . BROWN i s n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n d e s c r i b i n g p r e c i s e l y o r mapping t h e kind o f comp e t e n c e l e a d i n g t o e x p e r t i s e , e s p e c i a l l y n o t in t h e s e n s e o f i d e n t i f y i n g knowledge e l e m e n t s of t h e e x p e r t ' s s u p e r i o r i t y . On t h e c o n t r a r y , BROWN's i n t e r e s t i s f o c u s s e d n e a r l y e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e t r a i n a b i l i t y o f e x p e r t i s e in a v a r i e t y o f s c h o o l - r e l e v a n t t a s k s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough she does n o t eveP s p e c i f y e x a c t l y t h e n a t u r e o f what i s t o be t r a i n e d . B u t what a c t u a l l y happens i f a s u b j e c t i s f i r s t exposed t o a summarizarion t a s k t h a t r e q u i r e s him t o f o c u s h i s a t t e n t i o n on t h e most i m p o r t a n t p a r t s of a message and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , t o n e g l e c t o r d e l e t e l e s s important i n f o r m a t i o n , a f t e r which he i s given t h e t a s k of r e h e a r s i n g and s e l e c t i v e l y memorizing t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n ? The l a t t e r t a s k c l e a r l y c a l l s f o r the o p p o s i t e : Depending upon t h e outcome o f e a r l i e r r e c a l l a t t e m p t s t h e s u b j e c t now has t o f o c u s on t h e l e s s well r e c a l l e d t e x t u n i t s , and c o n s e q u e n t l y , t o memorize s e l e c t i v e l y o n l y t h e l e s s i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . Does t h e s u b j e c t know a n y t h i n q about t h e d i f f e r e n t t a s k demands? And how does he use t h a t knowl e d g e ? Or does he i m p l i c i t l y e s t a b l i s h a r u l e f o r h a n d l i n g t h e t a s k t h e way he performs i t ? Vhat makes t h e s u b j e c t b u i l d u p r u l e s , a n d what i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e r u l e s ? What musr t h e s u b j e c t know about t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f some s p e c i a l r u l e ? I s t h i s kind o f knowledge t r a i n e d t o o ? And what kind and d e g r e e of c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s r e q u i r e d t o s o l v e t h e t a s k o f i n t e l l i g e n t use o f s t r a t e g i e s ? F i n a l l y , what makes t h e poor r e a d e r debug his p r o c e s s i n g i n t h e t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n ? I s c o n s c i o u s n e s s an o b l i g a t o r y p r e r e q u i s i t e o f i n t e l l i g e n t use o f s t r a t e g i e s ? And i f so: why n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y t r a i n the o n s e t o f d e l i b e r a t e c o n t r o l o f o n e ' s a c t i v i t i e s in p r o c e s s i n g t e x t ? There a r e many q u e s t i o n s which remain unanswered: Are t h e r e v a l i d d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e kind of knowledge e x p e r t s r e l y on and knowledge used by novices o r poor r e a d e r s ? How do e x p e r t s make use o f t h e i r knowledge i n t h e c o u r s e of p r o c e s s i n g ? What does in f a c t guide t h e i r d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s i n g ? TO answer a t l e a s t some of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , two e x p e r i m e n t s were c o n d u c t e d , t h e f i r s t aimed a t a d u l t l e a r n e r s ' knowledge o f how t o proceed when proc e s s i n g a t e x t f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and r e c a l l , t h e second aimed a t t h e n a t u r e o f e x i s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between good and poor r e a d e r s ' p r o c e s s i n g .
344
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
TWO EXPERIMENTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY OF LEARNING COMPETENCE AND LEARNING CONTROL
EXPERIPENT 1: LEARNING COPPETENCE O F ADULT READERS - A TEST OF FLAVELL'S ' KNOWLEDGE' ASSllMPTION I f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a s i s of e f f i c i e n t l e a r n i n g and c o n t r o l o f l e a r n i n g c o n s i s t s in t h e knowledge base of t h e mature r e a d e r , which i n turn makes u p h i s competence, an e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e knowledge components t h a t guide t h e r e a d e r ' s a c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s should h e l p t o d e p i c t t h e c o g n i t i v e map r e a d e r s p o s s e s s about t h e i r r e a d i n g endeavour. This f i r s t p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y was t h e r e f o r e aimed a t t h e f u l l spectrum o f r e a d e r s ' s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g during a reading t a s k . Sampl ing s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e d a t a on p s y c h o l o g i c a l components o f ongoing t h o u g h t has s e v e r a l methodological r e s t r i c t i o n s . Normal r e a d i n g , i n so f a r a s t h e r e a d e r i s n o t faced with s p e c i f i c problems t h e t e x t o r with h i s / h e r own comprehension of t h e t e x t , i s a smooth, c o n t i n u a l p r o c e s s . S e l f - r e p o r t s on own c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s a r e a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h i n k i n g ( " p e r i a c t i o n a l " ) , before t h e onset of the thinking process ("pre-actional) of f o l l o w i n g i t ( " p o s t a c t i o n a l " ) . S i n c e t h e l a t t e r two a r e s u b j e c t t o a temporal l a g between t h e r e a l o b j e c t o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y may y i e l d j u s t a rough copy of what t h e r e a d e r had planned t o d o , o r , i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e outcome, t h i n k s he must have done. P e r i a c t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t s may i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e t a s k of r e a d i n g o r break t h e p r o c e s s down i n t o u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , meaningless f r a g m e n t s . S i n c e o u r f i r s t p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y was aimed a t t h e whole spectrum o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e r e f l e c t i o n about t h e s u b j e c t ' s knowledge about r e a d i n g , a t an o v e r a l l r a t h e r than a t a f i n e - g r a i n e d l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s , we decided t o r e s t r i c t o u r s e l v e s t o p o s t a c t i o n a l d a t a about s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e components o f t h e reading process as the reader d e p i c t s i t . Procedure. Two o r t h r e e days b e f o r e t h e experiment s t a r t e d , t h e s u b j e c t s were i n v i t e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w in which t h e y were t o l d t o choose one t e x t from t h e i r r e g u l a r s t u d y m a t e r i a l and t o work i t t h r o u g h . Three days l a t e r t h e i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d , s t a r t i n g w i t h the s u b j e c t ' s r e p o r t on h i s a c t u a l t e x t p r o c e s s i n g . Care was taken not t o i n f l u e n c e t h e s t a t e ments of t h e s u b j e c t i n any way. All i n t e r v i e w s were t a p e d , t r a n s c r i b e d , and s u b j e c t e d t o a c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s based on a taxonomy scheme a l o n g t h e l i n e s o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l concepts developed by FLAVELL and BROWN. The t a x o nomy c o n s i s t e d o f two main p a r t s . P a r t A r e f e r r e d t o o p e r a t i o n a l a s p e c t s , such a s l e a r n i n g t a c t i c s a n d l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s a s well a s t o s t a t e - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s o f t h e l e a r n e r . P a r t B s p e c i f i c a l l y focussed on s t a t e m e n t s conc e r n i n g m e t a - o p e r a t i o n a l components o f l e a r n i n g r e g u l a t i o n . The a b s o l u t e f r e q u e n c i e s of u t t e r a n c e s per c a t e g o r y were transformed i n t o r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s ( p e r c e n t o f t o t a l u t t e r a n c e s o f an i n t e r v i e w e e ) ; t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d in Table 1 a r e t h e a r i t h m e t i c means of t h e s e p e r c e n t a g e s on t h e b a s i s o f a l l i n t e r v i e w s ( n = 1 2 ) . In s p i t e of t h e f o c u s on a r a t h e r narrow a r e a o f t h e a c t u a l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s , a s u r p r i s i n g l y l a r g e number o f s t a t e m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o e v a l u a t i v e a n d / o r a f f e c t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g a s a whole ( a s i n d i c a t e d i n c a t e g o r y B 6 ) . To reduce t h e s t r o n g impact o f t h i s c a t e g o r y on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t a t e m e n t s i n the r e s t o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s , a second a n a l y s i s was done s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s o f c a t e g o r i e s A 1 t o B 5 (numbers i n p a r e n t h e s e s ) .
METACOGNITIVE REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESSING
345
Table 1 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s about o p e r a t i o n a l ( A ) and metao p e r a t i o n a l f R ) a s p e c t s of l e a r n i n g Ca t e q o r y
mean p e r c e n t a g e of statements -
A
O p e r a t i o n a l L e v e l / C o g n i t i v e Knowledge (Competence)
35.43
(46.72)
A 1
i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n e x t r a c t i o n
23.19
(24.90)
5.36
( 7.07)
8.78
(11.58)
9.05
(11.93)
6.93
( 9.14)
5.31
( 7.00)
64.57
(53.28)
A 1.1 p r e r e a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s
o r i e n t a t i o n , categorization of t a s k , t e x t , topic and l o c a l i z a t i o n o f d i f f i c u l t i e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n of learning goals o r c r i t e r i a c a l c u l a t i o n o f e f f o r t ; p l a n n i n g and s c h e d u l i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s s p e c i f i c o r more general comp e t e n c e and p r e v i o u s knowledge; t h e l e a r n e r ' s time b u d g e t , c o n c r e t e l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s and personal learning habits or style A 1.2 s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e t e c h n i q u e s / s t r a t e g i e s
under1 i n i n g , h i g h l i g h t i n g , o r d e r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n ( o u t 1 i n i n g ) , n o t e - t a k i n g , summarizing o r q u e s t i o n i n g A 1 . 3 comprehension of t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t
knowledge about t h e d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g , reconstructive, interpretative, inferential, elaborative, imaginative, o r reductive processes
A 2
memorizing and r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g i e s knowledge about d i f f e r e n t modes o f memory, encoding s p e c i f i c i t y , t h e l e a r n e r ' s impl i c i t memory t h e o r y , mnemonics o r memorizing s t r a t e g i e s , knowledge about primacy of recency e f f e c t s , knowledge about e f f e c t s and e f f o r t i n memorizing
A 3
c r i t e r i o n a l l e a r n i n g , impl i c i t performance c r i t e r i a knowledge about s e l f - t e s t i n g s t r a t e g i e s o r means, s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s and knowledge about how t o d i a g n o s e performance
B
Meta-operational L e v e l / E x e c u t i v e Functions
B 1
o n - l i n e m o n i t o r i n g o f ongoing a c t i v i t i e s
9.20
(12.13)
B 2
self-testing/checking of learning s t a t e s , o f l e a r n i n g outcome and e f f e c t i v e n e s s
2.13
( 2.81)
B 3
evaluation of the r e s u l t s of s e l f - t e s t i n g
5.84
( 7.70)
R 4
a t t r i b u t i v e behavior
12.35
(16.28)
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
346 (Table 1 c o n t . ) B 5 R 6
execution of regulatory o r adaptive s t e p s t o bridge goal-state discrepancies
10.89
(14.36)
l i f e g o a l s , m o t i v a t i o n a l and a f f e c t i v e impact of v a l u e s on l e a r n i n g
24.16
(
-
)
R e s u l t s . The c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w - d a t a ( c f . Table 1 ) shows t h a t t h e r e a r e a c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f s t a t e m e n t s r e f e r r i n g t o knowledge based assumptions o f t h e r e a d e r s , e s p e c i a l l y r e l a t e d t o knowledge about t h e r e a d i n g t a s k , s t e p s t o t r a n s f o r m g o a l s i n t o a c t i o n and measures about how t o e v a l u a t e r e a d i n g outcomes. 23.19 % ( 2 4 . 9 0 X ) o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s a r e focussed on t h e t a s k of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and e x t r a c t i o n o f meaning from t e x t . While t h e r e p o r t e d m o n i t o r i n g and s t a t e d i a g n o s i n g a c t i v i t i e s a r e s u b s t a n t i a l ( 9 . 2 0 o r 12.13 % r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , t h e s t a t e m e n t s must aim a t some r u d i m e n t a r y , rough o r a r b i t r a r y d i a g n o s i s o f t h e s t a t e o f l e a r n i n g , s i n c e o n l y 2.13 % (2.81 % ) o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s r e f e r t o o b j e c t i v e t e s t i n g o r checking o f r e s u l t s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e s a p p l y t o t h e emotional a f f e c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e r e s u l t s o f l e a r n i n g s t a t e d i a g n o s i s : 42.35 % (23.98 % ) o f the s t a t e m e n t s a r e concerned with a f f e c t i v e r e g u l a t i o n o f l e a r n i n g s t a t e s . E v i d e n t l y , t h e r e i s some d i s c r e p a n c y between o n - l i n e d a t a sampling o f o n e ' s l e a r n i n g s t a t e and i t s a f f e c t i v e r e s u l t s on t h e one hand, and o b j e c t i v e l e a r n i n g d a t a , which a r e o b v i o u s l y l a c k i n g , on t h e o t h e r hand. B u t how i s one a b l e t o r e g u l a t e o n e ' s l e a r n i n g e f f i c i e n t l y i f t h e d a t a needed t o guide l e a r n i n g r e g u l a t i o n a r e l a c k i n g ? I s i t t h e low s e l f - e s t e e m on t h e p a r t o f a t l e a s t some o f o u r s u b j e c t s which r e s u l t s i n t h e predominanc e o f a f f e c t i v e d a t a ? S i n c e we d i d n o t c o l l e c t d a t a about t h e a c t u a l l e a r n i n g e f f i c i e n c y o f our s u b j e c t s in t h i s s t u d y , we c a n n o t r u l e o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e d a t a a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t the s u b j e c t ' s f a i l u r e / s u c c e s s orientation in general. Conclusions. Mature r e a d e r s a c t u a l l y possess s u b s t a n t i a l knowledge about c o n c r e t e l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s in t h e domain o f r e a d i n g , on t h e one hand, a s i s implied by t h e competence n o t i o n o f FLAVELL, a s well a s about m o n i t o r i n g and r e g u l a t o r y s t e p s i n t h e s e n s e o f B R O W N , on t h e o t h e r hand. Following FLAVELL, d i f f e r e n c e s between e f f i c i e n t and l e s s e f f i c i e n t r e a d e r s should mainly c o n s i s t o f d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e knowledge base o f r e a d i n g competence: f o l l o w i n g BROWN, these d i f f e r e n c e s should mainly c o n s i s t of d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and r e g u l a t i o n . To t e s t t h e s e a t l e a s t p a r t l y a l t e r n a t i v e n o t i o n s e m p i r i c a l l y , a second s t u d y was designed t o r e l a t e l e a r n i n g outcome and e f f i c i e n c y more narro\uly t o concomitant t h i n k i n g about l e a r n i n g . EXPERIMENT 2 : THE QUESTION O F A POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN (METACOGNITIVE) SELF-STATEEENTS AN0 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE O F GOOD AND POOR READERS Aims o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Our n e x t o b j e c t i v e was t o check whether t h e l e a r n i n g outcome could p r o v i d e d i f f e r e n t i a l cues c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between competence and performance on the one hand, and l e a r n i n g s k i l l l e v e l o f t h e s u b j e c t on t h e o t h e r hand. 24 s t u d e n t s from t h e department o f b i o l o g y were given an i n t r o d u c t o r y text o f about 2,600 words on e t h i c a l development in e a r l y c h i l d h o o d . They had t o p r o c e s s t h e t e x t in such a way a s t o understand i t s c o n t e n t and t o be c a p a b l e of u s i n g i t l a t e r on ( f o r i n s t a n c e i n a group d i s c u s s i o n ) . P r e p a r a t i o n time was u n l i m i t e d . A f t e r r e a d i n g , t h e s u b j e c t s e i t h e r immediately had t o r e c a l l the main i d e a s o f t h e t e x t , t h e n t o answer
METACOGNITIVE REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESSING
347
m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s and t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w , o r had t h e i n t e r v i e w f i r s t and then a d e l a y e d r e c a l l and comprehension t e s t afterwards. Scoring procedure. The f r e e - r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were parsed i n t o macroproposit i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o a modified procedure o f a n a l y s i s in t h e KINTSCH and VAN DIJK o r MEYEP approach. Each t o p i c u n i t was s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g t o i t s p o s i t i o n in t h e t e x t h i e r a r c h y . Additional marks were given f o r p r e c i s i o n o f r e c a l l . The t o t a l s c o r e o f f r e e r e c a l l ( h i e r a r c h y and p r e c i s i o n p o i n t s ) and comprehension ( c o r r e c t answers t o t h e m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s ) were combined and t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o p e r c e n t i l e r a n k s . P r o c e s s i n g time ( i . e . , d u r a t i o n o f t h e t e x t p r e p a r a t i o n ) was a l s o t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s a measure o f economy. Hence, each s u b j e c t r e c e i v e d two p e r c e n t i l e r a n k s , one r e f e r r i n g t o p e r f o r mance l e v e l r e g a r d l e s s of p r o c e s s i n g t i m e , t h e o t h e r r e f e r r i n g t o p r o c e s s i n g achievement per u n i t o f p r o c e s s i n g t i m e . On t h e b a s i s o f o v e r a l l performance l e v e l , t h e s u b j e c t s were s u b d i v i d e d i n t o two groups: "good" vs. "poor r e a d e r s " . A c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s was performed on t h e i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l s in which a modified v e r s i o n o f t h e taxonomy o f t h e former s t u d y was u s e d . R e s u l t s . Table 2 shows t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f u t t e r a n c e s f o r the main c a t e g o r i e s o f t h e c o n t e n t a n a l i z e d i n t e r v i e w d a t a , s e p a r a t e l y f o r t h e two groups o f good ( G R ) , and poor ( P R ) r e a d e r s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e g r o u p s , r e p l i c a t e s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f i r s t s t u d y : The d e p i c t e d s p e c trum o f s t a t e m e n t s r e f e r s t o o p e r a t i o n a l a s well a s m e t a - o p e r a t i o n a l and s t r a t e g i c a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e r e a d e r s a s the u n i v e r s e o f t h e i r r e a d i n g compet e n c e . C o n t r a r y t o FLAVELLIAN e x p e c t a t i o n s , a comparison between t h e groups does n o t y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s with r e g a r d t o t h e r a n g e , p r e c i s i o n or i n t e n s i t y of s t a t e m e n t s about t h e i r l e a r n i n g competence. Good r e a d e r s do n o t show a p a r t i c u l a r l y s u p e r i o r d e g r e e o f knowledge o r r e f l e c t i o n a s compared w i t h average o r poor r e a d e r s . T h u s , d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g e f f i c i e n c y cannot be reduced t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e knowledge b a s e . There i s no such t h i n g a s " h i g h - m e t a c o g n i t i o n e r s " (and good p e r f o r m e r s ) in c o n t r a s t t o " l o w - m e t a c o q n i t i o n e r s " (and ooor p e r f o r m e r s ) . Poor performers do n o t perform badly because t h e y l a c k t h e m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge o r awareness needed t o r e g u l a t e l e a r n i n g . B u t c o n t r a r y t o BROWN'S a s s u m p t i o n s , t h e r e a l s o i s no evidence f o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and c o n t r o l , a t l e a s t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e amount and i n t e n s i t y of e x e c u t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . R u t there a r e obvious d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e f o c u s and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y o f s e l f r e f l e c t i o n d u r i n g r e a d i n g : While t h e good r e a d e r s s c o r e below t h e poor r e a d e r s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h o s e v a r i a b l e s which r e f e r t o t h e r e a d e r ' s t i m e - i n v a r i a n t t r a i t s ( c f . t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f u t t e r a n c e s between t h e two groups for A 2 . 1 - 2 . 1 5 , i . e . , r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e l e a r n e r ' s s e l f - r o n c e p t a s a l e a r n e r and f o r c a t e g o r i e s A 7 . 4 - 2.45 r e f e r r i n g t o t h e t a s k - l e a r n e r i n t e r a c t i o n , a s well a s f o r c a t e g o r i e s A 1 . 2 2 - 1.2232, t h e l e a r n e r ' s s p e c i f i c o r i e n t a t i o n towards t h e c o n t e n t a r e a ) , t h e y s c o r e h i g h e r i n thosedomains which r e l a t e t o a c t u a l , o n - l i n e p r o c e s s i n g demands ( c f . p r o p o r t i o n s o f u t t e r a n c e s t o c a t e g o r i e s A 2.6 - 2.67, B 2 . 2 - 2 . 5 5 , B 2.41 - 2.416, B 2.42 - 2.4292, and B 2.45 - 2.45252). The poor r e a d e r s a p p a r e n t l y behave l i k e a r a b b i t f a c i n g a s n a k e : They a r e so h e a v i l y c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h e i r own i n v a r i a b i e s r a t e and t h e pending t a s k , t h a t t h e i r r e g u l a t o r y c a p a c i t y i s a l m o s t complet e l y a b s o r b e d . The good r e a d e r s , on t h e c o n t r a r y , a r e n o t concerned a s much w i t h t h e i r s t a t u s a s a l e a r n e r , and, hence, a r e a b l e t o focus on p r o c e s s i n g r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n e c o n o m i c a l l y . To e x p l a i n l e a r n e r d i f f e r e n c e s with r e s p e c t t o e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and r e g u l a t i o n in t h e B R O W N ' S s e n s e , i t i s t h e r e f o r e n o t enough t o t r a i n f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f s e l f r e f l e c t i o n d u r i n g l e a r n i n g , but r a t h e r s u b j e c t s should be t a u g h t where t o C o n c e n t r a t e t h e i r a t t e n t i o n . T h u s , poor r e a d e r s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d mainly by
348
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
T a b l e 2. S e l f - s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s i n d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s o f t h e r e a d i n g p r o c e s s ( P R = p o o r r e a d e r s ; GR = good r e a d e r s ) Mean p e r c e n t a g e o f statements PR GR
Category
Pre-reading A c t i v j t i e s :
A A 1.1
-
1.1433
general o r i e n t a t i o n towards t h e task; d e f i n i t i o n o f task s p e c i f i c goals
4.02
5.00
A 1.21
-
1.2116
s p e c i f i c o r i e n t a t i o n : formal aspects o f the t e x t
2.92
2.55
A 1.22
-
1.2232
s p e c i f i c o r i e n t a t i o n : c o n t e n t and domain s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s
3.43
1.46
learner characteristics: interindividual metacognit i v e v a r i a b l es
8.11
5.60
A 2.1
- 2.15
A 2.2
- 2.222
d e f i n i t i o n o f l e a r n e r i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l goals
2.21
2.92
A 2.3
-
references t o s i t u a t i o n a l variables and l e a r n i n g c o n t e x t
1.25
1.19
references t o i n t e r a c t i o n s o f l e a r n e r and t e x t v a r i a b l e s
3.13
2.84
consequences f o r p l a n n i n g / s c h e d u l i n g / programming
4.20
5.10
.06
.18
A 2.4
2.33
- 2.45
A 2.5
-
A 2.6
- 2.62
7.55
B
consequences f o r e x e c u t i v e r e g u l a t i o n : m o n i t o r i n g and c o n t r o l agenda D u r i n g Reading A c t i v i t i e s :
B 1.1
-
1.144
o p e r a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and s t r a t e g i e s o f t e x t processing
10.67
11.20
B 1.2
-
1.243
p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s o f comprehension
7.57
7.87
B 2.1
- 2.14
m o n i t o r i n g o f comprehension s t a t e
7.30
6.59
B 2.2
- 2.55
t e s t i n g / c h e c k i n g o f comprehension
7.72
8.49
B 2.31
2.33
e v a l u a t i o n o f t e s t i n g outcomes
9.54
9.25
2.416
r e g u l a t o r y consequences
8.19
9.71
2.4292
single variables relevant f o r regulation
10.31
13.54
B 2.43
-
2.4325
t a s k i m p o r t a n c e and number o f p r o c e s s i n g cycles
5.12
3.62
B 2.44
-
2.443
goal achievement, c e r t a i n t y about goal achievement, s t o p d e c i s i o n s
1.09
.43
1.21
1.60
B 2.41 B 2.42
B 2.45 - 2.45252 c h e c k i n g o f c r i t e r i a f u l l f i l l m e n t and c r i t e r i o n l e v e l 1 ing/sharpening
B 2.46 B 2.47
-
2.463
f l e x i b i l i t y o f learning style
.51
.51
2.475
learning efficiency
.30
.37
349
METACOGNITVE REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESSING
(Table 2 cont.)
C
PR
GR
o p e r a t i o n a l consequences o f f a i l u r e / success f o r f u t u r e l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s
Post-reading A c t i v i t i e s :
C 1.1
-
.63
.63
C 2.1
- 2.12
i m p a c t o f f a i l u r e / s u c c e s s on l e a r n e r ' s sel f-concept
.18
.08
C 2.2
-
i m p a c t o f f a i l u r e / s u c c e s s on m o t i v a t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e
.86
.44
1.3
2.242
t h e i r o b v i o u s t e n d e n c y , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e p r e - r e a d i n g and p o s t - r e a d i n g phase, t o f o c u s on p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and t o p r o c e s s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n m a i n l y a f f e c t i v e l y and a t t r i b u t i v e l y . I f one compares t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e s t o t h e c a t e q o r i e s C 2 . 1 - 2.12, and C 2.2 - 2.247 w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e i m p a c t o f l e a r n i n g outcome upon t h e l e a r n e r ' s s e l f - e f f i c a c y , p o o r r e a d e r s seem t o be much more c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i r s t a t u s t h a n w i t h r e g u l a t o r y consequences, t h a n t h e good r e a d e r s a r e . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The c o m p a r i s o n o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e s t a t e m e n t s on l e a r n i n g between h i g h and l o w p e r f o r m e r s y i e l d s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e l a t t e r do n o t p e r f o r m worse because t h e y a r e engaged i n l e s s e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g t h a n t h e f o r m e r . T h e y a c t u a l l y do more b u t a t t h e wrong p l a c e . S i n c e t h e i r s t a t u s o r i e n t a t i o n may impede o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c t u a l a c t i o n - o r i e n t a t i o n , w h i c h i s n e c c e s s a r y f o r e f f i c i e n t d a t a - g a t h e r i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o u r s e and e f f i c i e n c y o f o n e ' s l e a r n i n g p r o g r e s s , t r a i n i n g measures s h o u l d be aimed a t b r e a k i n g u p t h e v i c i o u s c i r c l e o f t h e p o o r l e a r n e r ' s f o c u s s i n g on h i s own s t a t e . KUHL (1980, 1981) r e c e n t l y has r e f o r m u l a t e d SELIGMAN's t h e o r y o f l e a r n e d helplessness (1975) i n terms o f a d i s p o s i t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards s t a t e - v s . a c t i o n - o r i e n t a t i o n i n t h e h e l p l e s s as compared w i t h t h e c o p i n g s u b j e c t . I f t h i s a n a l o g y h o l d s we have t o t r a i n o u r f a i l u r e - o r i e n t e d subj e c t s t o change t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d s t a s k - r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s . B u t t o do t h i s we need some f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e d a t a d i r e c t l y stemming from o r f o l l o w i n g l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . What u s e does t h e m a t u r e r e a d e r make o f t h o s e d a t a ? What a b o u t r u l e - f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s e s w i t h i n and hetween t a s k s ? Yow can we c o n c e i v e o f t h e t r a d e - o f f between knowl e d g e and t h e u s e o f knowledge i n t h e c o u r s e o f l e a r n i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o t a s k - r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s as w e l l as t o p e r s o n a l o r l e a r n e r v a r i a b l e s ? L e a r n i n g from p r o s e f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g as w e l l as f o r r e c a l l imposes complex c o n s t r a i n t s upon t h e r e a d e r ' s ( m e t a ) c o g n i t i v e knowledge as w e l l as upon t h e r e a d e r ' s s k i l l i n m a k i n g use o f h i s / h e r own l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n b u i l d i n g u p t a s k r e l a t e d D r o c e s s i n g r u l e s ! As y e t , d i f f e r e n c e s between good and p o o r r e a d e r s a r e n o t c o n c e p t u a l l y u n d e r s t o o d p r e c i s e l y enough t o l e a d t o v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s . The same h o l d s t r u e f o r t h e n o t i o n o f t h e e x e c u t i v e : I t i s b y n o means c l e a r as y e t what t h e t e r m d e n o t e s . I s t h e e x e c u t i v e an a g e n t b e s i d e s t h e t h i n k i n g p e r s o n , some homunculus w i t h i n h i s / h e r head, o r does t h e t e r m a c t u a l l y r e f e r t o some way o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h i n k i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e d e b u g g i n g s t a t e ? B u t i f s o , why n o t abandon i t ? A c c o r d i n g t o HERRMANN ( 1 9 8 0 ) SUrplUs m e a n i n g i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s i s n o t a p t t o make them more e a s i l y t e s t a b l e o r t o make p o s s i b l e t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f c l e a r l y t e s t a b l e h y p o theses.
350
ATTENTION A N D CONTROL
G E N E R A L DI SCI ISS I O N
n i f f e r e n c e s in t h e s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and r e g u l a t i o n o f t e x t l e a r n i n g between high and low performers a r e mainly d i f f e r e n c e s in terms o f d i r e c t i o n a l i t y and f o c u s o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i v i t y . In t h e l i g h t o f o u r d a t a , one cannot r u l e out any o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e n o t i o n s proposed by FLAVELL o r BROWN. B u t s o f a r , n e i t h e r FLAVELL's competence model n o r BROWN'S e x e c u t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and r e g u l a t i o n model has been s t a t e d c l e a r l y enough t o a l l o w f o r a c l e a r c u t d e c i s i o n . Our d a t a a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s o l e l y competence-based l e a r n e r d i f f e r e n c e s , as i s implied by F L A V E L L , a s well a s w i t h m o n i t o r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s a s implied by BROWN. While FLAVELL's e x e c u t i v e does know a l o t but does n o t do much, BROWN'S e x e c u t i v e does not know much - a t l e a s t with r e g a r d t o t h e l e a r n e r d i f f e r e n c e s , a s r e v e a l e d by B R O W N ' S emp.irica1 work - but i t does a lot. Weaknesses and t h e o r e t i c a l gaps i n c u r r e n t t h e o r i z a t i o n a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y rel a t e d t o knowledge f o r m a t i o n and r e s u l t i n g knowledge use i n t h e c o u r s e o f l e a r n i n g . (No kind o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g t h e o r y i s y e t c a p a b l e of a c c o u n t i n g f o r complex l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s ) . This i s n o t t o deny t h a t t h e r e e x i s t some promising fragments o f such a t h e o r y , r e l a t e d t o s p e c i a l l e a r n i n g problems, such a s t h e summarization o f t e x t c o n t e n t , cumulative r e h e a r s a l o r importance r a t i n g s f o r t e x t segments, e t c . B u t t h e y i e l d o f t h e s e s t u d i e s has n o t been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o one c o n s i s t e n t t h e o r e t i c a l framework. C u r r e n t h e u r i s t i c s a l l o w , i n d e e d , f o r some promising t r a i n i n g work e s p e c i a l l y with r e t a r d e d l e a r n e r s . The s t a t e o f t h e a r t in m e t a c o g n i t i v e r e s e a r c h can be d e s c r i b e d a s one o f s u c c e s s f u l implementation of h e u r i s t i c s i n t o p r a c t i c e without consistent t h e o r i z a t i o n . B u t t h e search f o r task-related processing r u l e s and ways t o t r a i n them does n o t t e l l t h e whole s t o r y : Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t how t h e mature r e a d e r a c t u a l l y i n t e g r a t e s h i s / h e r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n t o some s e l f - e f f i c a c y concept which f o r h i s / h e r p a r t d o e s e x e r t some i n f l u e n c e on h i s / h e r f u t u r e l e a r n i n g , o r q u e s t i o n s about t h e impact o f a t t r i b u t i o n s on l e a r n i n g c o u r s e and e f f i c i e n c y , and their p r o c e s s i n g by the s u b j e c t in t h e s e r v i c e o f subsequent l e a r n i n g r e g u l a t i o n , and t h e l i k e , a r e s t i l l u n answered.
REFERENCES Browr, A. L.' The development of memory: Knowing,knowing a b o u t knowing, and knowing how t o know. In H . W. Reese ( E d . ) , Advances i n c h i l d development and b e h a v i o r ( V o l . l O ) , New York: Academic Press, 1975. Brown, A. L. Development, s c h o o l i n g and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge a b o u t knowledge. In R. C . Anderson, R . J . S p i r o & W . E . Montague ( E d s . ) , l i n g and the a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.3.: Erlbaum, 1977.
m-
Brown. A. L . Knowina when. where. and how t o remember: A oroblem of metac o g n i t i o n . In R . { l a s e r ' ( Ed.) ,-Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a i psychology (Val. 1 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1978. Brown, A. L. M e t a c o g n i t i v e development and r e a d i n g . I n R. J . S p i r o , 6 . Bruce & W . F . Brewer ( E d s . ) , T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i n r e a d i n g comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1980.
METACOGNITIVE REGULATION OF TEXT PROCESSING
35 1
Brown, A . L . , Campione, J . C . & Day, J. D. L e a r n i n g t o l e a r n : On t r a i n i n g s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n from t e x t s . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher, 1981, l 0 ,14-21. F l a v e l l , J . H. Developmental s t u d i e s o f mediated memory. I n H. W . Reese & L. P. L i p s i t t (Eds.), Advances i n c h i l d development and b e h a v i o r ( V o l . 5 ) . New York: Academic Press, 1970. F l a v e l l , J . H. M e t a c o g n i t i v e aspects o f problem s o l v i n g . I n L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The n a t u r e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Erlbaum, 1976. ( a ) F l a v e l l , J . H . The development o f metacommunication. Paper g i v e n a t t h e 2 1 s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress o f Psychology, P a r i s , 1976. ( b ) F l a v e l l , J. H. M e t a c o g n i t i o n . I n E. Langer (Ed.), C u r r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on awareness and c o g n i t i v e processes. Paper presented a t t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Toronto, Canada, August 1978. F l a v e l l , J. H., F r i e d r i c h s , A . G. & Hoyt, J. D. Developmental changes i n m e m o r i z a t i o n processes. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1970, 324-340.
1,
F l a v e l l , J.H. & Wellman, H. M. Metamemory. I n R. V. K a i l & J . W. Hagen (Eds. ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e development o f memory and c o q n i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : E r l baum, 1977. Herrmann.
T.
Uber b e a r i f f l i c h e Schwachen k o a n i t i v i s t i s c h e r K o a n i t i o n s t h e o -
Kluwe, R. M e t a c o g n i t i o n : To be t h e agent o f o n e ' s own t h i n k i n q . I n v i t e d Pap e r f o r t h e Dahlem-Conference on ' Human mind - animal m i n d ' , B e r l i n , l 9 8 1 . K r e u t z e r , M. A., Leonard, C . & F l a v e l l , J . H. An i n t e r v i e w s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. Monoqraphs o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 1975, 3 ,Ser. No. 159, 1-60. M i l l e r , G. A., G a l a n t e r , E. & Pribram, K. havi o r . London : Hol t, 1960.
H. Plans and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f be-
N i s b e t t , R . E . & Wilson, T. D. T e l l i n g more than we know: Verbal r e p o r t s on mental processes. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1977, 231-259.
84,
Norman, D. A. & S h a l l i c e , T. A t t e n t i o n t o a c t i o n : W i l l e d and a u t o m a t i c cont r o l o f b e h a v i o r . Center f o r Human I n f o r m a t i o n Processing, Chip NO. 99, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a San Diego,La Jolla,Ca., December 1980. Pylyshyn, Z. W. C o m p l e x i t i y and t h e s t u d y o f a r t i f i c i a l and human i n t e l l i gence. I n M. R i n g l e (Ed.), P h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects i n a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i gence. New York: The Humanities Press, 1979. Reitman, W. Problem s o l v i n g , comprehension and memory. I n G. J . D a l e n o o r t (Ed.), Process models f o r psychology. Rotterdam: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973.
DISCOURSE PROCESSING A . Flammer and W. Kintsch (eds.) @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
M E T A C O G N I T I V E V A R I A B L E S I N T H E LEARNING OF WRITTEN
TEXT^
Fredi P . Buchel U n i v e r s i t y o f Basel Basel, Switzerland A preliminary version of a metacognitive model of self-directed learning is presented with the main components: metaknowledge, program and response generator, overt and covert strategies and world knowledge. Metacognition is defined as control of activity in human information processing. The model has been empirically evaluated with the help of thinking-aloud protocols. For the analysis of these protocols a category system has been developed. The categories are presented together with a set of rules for the definition of the units of analysis. Data from different learning tasks and different students are discussed. THE CONCEPT OF METACOGNITION The subject of metacognitive research is "the control of activity in information processing systems" (Kluwe (1980a)). The theory starts out from the idea that the human information processing system contains not only a world knowledge base and processes, but also, on a higher level, knowledge about the knowledge base and the processing system. The theory of metacognition included from the beginning the following two aspects of processing control: first the metaknowledge, that is, knowledge about the person as a learner, about the processing aspects of the task, and about possible strategies (Flavell and Wellman, 1977), and secondly executive control, that is, directing and evaluating the information processing. The understanding of executive control in the context of metacognitive theory was mainly advanced through research conducted by A.L. Brown and J. Campione, and by J. Belmont and E. Butterfield. Brown (1977) argues that "the particular forms of metamemory selected for study have encouraged an underestimation of the complexity of the operations involved". What she misses most is some kind of "central processor, interpreter, or executive, introduced as the overseer in many current models o f memory" (p.7). Such an executive system would have to include "the ability to (a) predict the system's capacity limitations, (b) be aware of its repertoire of heuristic routines and their appropriate domain of utility, (c) identify and characterize the problem at hand, (d) plan and schedule appropriate problem solving strategies, (e) monitor and supervise the effectiveness of those routines it calls into service, and (f) dynamically evaluate operations." The above mentioned bipolarity between metaknowledge and executive control may be one reason why, after ten years of extensive research, a commonly accepted definition of rnetacognition exists less than ever. Kluwe (1980a, 1980b, 1980c) suggests a functional model showing how these two groups of metacognitive variables could be interrelated and what kind o f variables 352
METACOGNITIVE VARIABLES IN THE LEARNING OF WRITTEN TEXT
353
should be contained in each of these groups (Figure 1). Our own research focusses the understanding of self-directed learning in complex learning tasks. This i s conceptualized as metacognitive activity in a learning setting. The three main questions that should be the object of such research are planning, supervising, and learning strategies. As for the first question, Flavell proposes variables of planning knowledge, whereas Brown suggests the variables for the second question. But no activity i s sufficiently described by planning and supervising variables, the plans have to be executed, too. For that aspect of the learning activity Kluwe's model proposes solution processes. In our model (Figure 2) solution processes are replaced by learning strategies. The model contains as its main components: Metaknowledge about tasks, about the learner and about strategies, a program and response generator to compile and supervise the plans, as well as strategies to execute the learning tasks, thus illustrating the process o f selfdirected learning. The model has been constructed in order to guide a series of training studies to be conducted over the next two years. The components of the model have already been discussed under different aspects in the current cognitive literature. But for some parts, e.g. metaknowledge, the empirical evidence is modest, and we do not have any experimental support for the assumption that all parts are necessary to understand self-directed learning. In this situation we are interested in finding out if a learner in a complex learning task uses all the instances proposed by the model. We presented subjects with instructional texts and invited them to read aloud, and in addition to speak out everything that went through their heads during reading and learning. All sessions were tape-recorded and we are trying to identify within these protocols verbal indicators of the theoretically postulated activities.
linformation processing1
DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE (data) 1. Domain knowledge 2. Cognitive knowledge 2.1. General cognitive know ledge - about persons - about strategies - about tasks 2.2. Diagnostic cognitive knowledge - about oneself - about other persons
uses and transforms
PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE (processes) 1. Solution processes 2. Executive processes 2.1. Control processes - for identificatioi - for checking - for evaluation - for predicting 2.2. Regulative processe - for capacity - for intensity - for speed of informati on processing
Figure 1 Types of knowledge involved in information processing (from: Kluwe ( 1 9 8 0 b ) )
354
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
Figure 2 A model of self-directed learning A CATEGORY SYSTEM OF METACOGNITION In order to test our model with the help of thinking-aloud protocols every part has been defined by one or more categories to which verbal statements can be assigned. The following groups o f categories will be discussed below. I. Metacognitive knowledge consists o f 4 categories containing subjects' statements which indicate awareness of the knowledge involved in selfregulated learning. 11. The program generator describes 5 categories of self-instruction which help the subject to define a learning goal, to regulate the information processing and to monitor it. 111. The response generator contains one category which indicates that a subject would evaluate his learning progress before communicating a solution or terminating a learning session. IV. Covert strategies imply the use of cognitive operations with the help of which a learning task i s performed. V . Overt strategies contain operations which can be observed. VI. Method-specific categories contain 3 categories o f statements which are not metacognitive, but interactional and provoked by the test situation. VII. World knowledge. This category, since it i s not a metacognitive one, has been included for reasons of completeness in coding. The definition o f a unit o f analysis proved to be a difficult problem, because in these protocols we seldom have grammatically complete sentences. We tried to use propositions (Kintsch, 1974), but t h i s method turned out to be too costly for our purposes. To find a middle course between full sentences
METACOGNITIVE VARIABLES IN THE LEARNING OF WRITTEN TEXT
355
and propositions, we created the following rules: 1. Every grammatically complete sentence is a unit. 2. Subordinate clauses are treated as complete sentences. 3. If a complete sentence i s linked with another sentence by a conjunction, it is treated as an independent unit. 4. Incomplete sentences are treated as a unit if they are isolated from the context by at least a pause (The transcription system contains special pause symbols). 5. Chains of the same word are treated as one unit. 6. Chains of different words, isolated or embedded in a sentence, are treated as different units. The next three points are not unit rules, but general coding rules: 7. If the content of the main clause i s a mental activity and the content of the subordinate clause i s semantically related to the mental activity, then the subordinate clause is assigned to the same category as the main clause. For example, "I ask myself if I should it read once again" would be coded as (2 x checking), because "ask myself" i s a checking routine. 8. The first reading of the learning text i s not coded. If the text i s read a second or a further time, this i s coded as "re-reading". 9. Every statement can be assigned to only one category. After a protocol i s divided into units, every unit i s assigned to one of the following categories: I. M e t a c o g n i t i v e k n o w l e d g e 1.1. Knowledge about test situations and methods. This i s knowledge of possible ways of reproducing the learned content. 1.2. Knowledge about the learner's relation to subject matter. Flavell and Wellman (1977)h ave proposed the two variables knowledge about task features and knowledge about retrieval demands. But these two variables are overlapping categories. A learning task as presented in a learning experiment can be conceived as the intersection of two dimensions, subject matter and test (see Figure 2). 1.4. Knowledge about interindividual differences in learning ability. In addition to interindividual differences tlavell and Wellman (1977) propose a variable "intraindividual differences", but since intraindividual differences in ability are always related to different subject matters or test situations they are included in 1.1. and 1.2. 1.5. Knowledge about strategies. This is the feeling that a given strategy would be appropriate to a given task. 11. P r o g r a m g e n e r a t o r 2.1. Checking. Continual control of one's own understanding. 2.2. Instruction identification. 2.3. Transfer. Detection of similarities and their application to examples. 2.4. Intensity regulation. Accuracy and investment are tuned. 2.5. Time regulation.
356
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
111. R e s p o n s e g e n e r a t o r 3.1. Evaluation. Last checking of the whole task before final formulation IV. C o v e r t s t r a t e g 1 e s 4.1. Paraphrasing. 4.2. Information supplement. In order to make the facts less arbitrary (Bransford et al., 1980), additional world knowledge is evoked. 4.3. Hypothesis generation. 4.4. Hypothesis evaluation. 4.5. Comments. Dissatisfaction or doubt or explicit confirmation of the given information. 4.6. Re-reading. v. 0 v e r t s t r a t e g i e s 5.1. Underlining. 5.2. Summarizing. Can also be realized as covert strategy, but i s always coded as 5.2. 5.3. Literal extract. 5.4. Schema drawing. VI.Method-specific c a t e g o r i e s 6.2. Giving reasons about planning and strategies. 6.3. Emotional comments on the experimental situation. 6.4. Confirmation of a given instruction or explication. VII. W o r 1 d k n o w 1 e d g e 7.1. World knowledge. Knowledge of facts and the relations between facts.
FINDINGS The category system is the result of repeated empirical testing and revision. A first version was evaluated with 10 protocols from 5 adult subjects of a technical high school. They read two rather difficult texts. The first dealt with cybernetics and the second with human information processing. The subjects were instructed to read the text aloud and learn it afterwards. If something was not understood and subjects would have consulted a dictionary at home they could ask the experimenter for a short explanation. Additionally subjects were told to speak out everything that went through their heads. For each text the learning session lasted 10 minutes. All sessions were tape-recorded. A second evaluation was made with 4 protocols from two commercial school students. The subjects were presented with a French text, with applied mathematics problems, with a list of words in French and German, and with a list of nonsense-syllables paired w i t h meaningful words. A revised version of the system was tested with a different sample as represented in Table 1. We analyzed the protocols of 13 different tasks from 6 different students from different schools. It was possible to code all verbal statements without problems. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the Categories.
METACOGNITIVE VARIABLES IN THE LEARNING OF WRITTEN TEXT Title o f the learning task Subject I S2 S3 48 53 Dog story (Mandler and Johnson, 1977) 54 53 Stone soup (Brown et al., 1978) A micro-computer (schema) 156 132 Human information processing 73 94 Cybernetics 172 117 80 Evolution theory Anxiety 74 Complete avec le present du verbe Accorder des verbes Avoir ou &re? Un peu de tout (phrases 2 completer) Vocabu 1 aire French-German-translation Total o f statements (units) analyzed
54
357
S5
S6
39 19 29 15
34 42 70
27
96 57
Total 101 107 288 167 172 197 101 73 61 99 15 96 57 1534
Table 1 Analyzed texts in the last evaluation. 100%
90 80 70 60 50
No. : Category-number %cum : Cumulative percentage
40
30 20 10%
Figure 3 Distribution of 1534 verbal statements (Cumulative frequencies).
In order to obtain information about the objectivity of the coding, three different protocol samples were coded by-two raters separately. The raters separated the protocols into units o f analysis and then assigned the statements to the categories. A s a rule, the chosen categories could only be identical i f the two raters had created the same units. We calculated point-bypoint correspondence (Mees, 1977) and obtained the following precentages (f(agreement)/(f(disagreement + agreement)):
ATTENTION AND CONTROL
358
Raters Analyzed units Correspondence ( % )
A-B
A-B A-C 34 17 79 62 77 Table 2 Point-by-point correspondences with two 19
A-C 13 92
A-C 20
70
raters.
DISCUSSION A model of self-directed learning was tested with the help of thinking-aloud learning protocols. It could be shown that all instances of the model were used by the subjects as predicted. However not all categories were used in every task, and not all categories were used by every subject. This is not surprising since previous data have also shown a strong task and subject dependency. One result in Figure 3 is particularly noteworthy: 54.8% o f all analyzed units are part of the three categories re-reading, paraphrasing and information-completion, all of them are covert strategies. The categories from the group of metacognitive knowledge (1.1; 1.2; 1.4; 1.5) account for only 8.8%. These percentages are in contrast to the metacognitive literature in which most attention is given to categories of metacognitive knowledge. The presumption that the importance of metaknowledge in human information processing might be overestimated is supported by these data. FOOTNOTE 1 The reported research is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. 4.323.0.79.10).- The author acknowledge the valuable editorial support by Germaine Springinsfeld, University of Basel, Pasqualina PerrigChiello, and Margret Rihs-Middel, both University of Fribourg, and Klaus Bischof, University of Stirling, GB. Comments on an earlier version by Thomas Wehrmuller, University of Basel, and a last editing by Eileen Kintsch are acknowledged. REFERENCES Bransford, J.D., Stein, B.S., Shelton, T.S., and Owings, R.A. Cognition and adaptation: The importance of learning to learn. In 3 . Harvey (Ed.). Cognition, social behavior and the environment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980. Brown, A.L. Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. Technical report No 47, Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign, 1977. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Harris, G. Artificial intelligence and learning strategies. In H.F. O'Neil (Ed.). Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Flavell, J.H. and Wellman, kl.M. Metamemory. In R. Kail and J . Hagen (Eds.). Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 197/. Kintsch, W. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1974. Kluwe, R.H. The development of metacognitive processes and performance. University of Munich, unpublished paper, 1980a. Kluwe, R.H. Metakognition. Paper presented at the 32. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie. Zurich, 1980b. Klilwe, R.H. Metakognition: Komponenten einer Theorie zur Kontrolle und Steuerung eigenen Denkens. Munchen, 1980C.
METACOGNITIVE VARIABLES IN THE LEARNING OF WRITTEN TEXT
359
Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 2, 111-151. Mees, U. Methodologische Probleme der Verhaltensbeobachtung in der natiirlichen h q e b u n q : I. Zuverlassiqkeit und Generalisierbarkeit von Beobachtungsdaten. in U. Mees and HI Selg (Eds.). Verhaltensbeobachtung und Verhaltensmodifikation. Stuttgart: Klett, 1971.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
GOAL PERSPECTIVES
DISCOUXSb,' PK'KOC'IXWNG' A . Hammer and W. Kintsch (eds.J @ North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982
THE ROLE OF PROBLEM ORIENTATIONS AND GOALS I N TEXT COMPREHENSION AND RECALL
Norbert A. S t r e i t z I n s t i t u t f u r Psychologie RWTH Aachen Aachen Federal R e p u b l i c o f Germany Based on a d i s c u s s i o n o f d e f i c i e n c i e s o f t e x t - b a s e d models, an e x t e n s i o n i s proposed which p o s t u l a t e s an encoding and a r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . An experiment i s r e p o r t e d which p r o v i d e s evidence f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e two s t r a t e g i e s by i n d u c i n g d i f f e r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n s and g o a l s i n subj e c t s f o r t h e same t e x t . A s t o r y was c o n s t r u c t e d c o n s i s t i n g o f elements t o w h i c h d i f f e r e n t amounts o f r e l e v a n c y can be assigned a c c o r d i n g t o c u r r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s . An o n - l i n e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g encoding was used. The r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e extended model.
I NTRODUCTI 0 N U s u a l l y people do n o t r e a d a t e x t (or l i s t e n t o d i s c o u r s e ) i n o r d e r t o r e c a l l i t e i t h e r immediately, o r a f t e r a b o r i n g and d i s t r a c t i v e i n t e r v e n i n g a c t i v i t y t o someone t h e y a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y have a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n when r e a d i n g a t e x t ( w h i c h most o f t h e t i m e has been chosen by t h e m s e l v e s ! ) . They m i g h t be i n t e r e s t e d i n s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on a s u b j e c t t h e y b e l i e v e t o be covered by t h e t e x t and i n t e n d t o use t h e e x t r a c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n some subsequent b e h a v i o r . O r t h e y may j u s t be i n t e r e s t e d i n i m p r o v i n g t h e i r knowledge i n a g i v e n domain i n a g e n e r a l f a s h i o n i n o r d e r t o be LIP t o date. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t someone m i g h t b e engaged i n a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h o u t making any p r o g r e s s . I n o r d e r t o s o l v e t h e problem i t m i g h t prove u s e f u l t o t u r n t o a book o r some o t h e r source o f i n f o r m a t i o n and l o o k up a d d i t i o n a l a d v i c e . The newly acq u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e n used i n t h e problem s o l v i n g process. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above mentioned f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i t i s necessary t o p o i n t o u t t h a t people have c o n t r o l o v e r t h e f o r m a t and c o n t e n t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y reproduce, i.e., t h e y d e c i d e what t h e y r e c a l l and what t h e y do n o t r e c a l l . O f course, t h i s d e c i s i o n depends on s i t u a t i o n a l and personal f a c t o r s . We s h a l l deal w i t h these a s p e c t s o f t e x t comprehension and r e c a l l i n more d e t a i l as we go a l o n g . The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d h e r e i s p a r t o f an a t t e m p t t o develop a general framework f o r s t u d y i n g comprehension and problem s o l v i n g i n s e m a n t i c a l l y r i c h domains. Since t h e emphasis o f t h i s symposium i s on t e x t p r o c e s s i n g we w i l l m a i n l y deal w i t h t h e t e x t comprehension a s p e c t o f o u r r e s e a r c h . Neverthel e s s , i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a n a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s p e c t i v e we w i l l o u t l i n e t h e general framework and m o t i v a t i o n w h i c h guided us i n c a r r y i n g o u t o u r r e 36 2
TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
363
search. 1. TEXT COMPREHENSION
Over the l a s t 10 years t h e r e has been considerable increase in research o n t e x t processing. This shows a growing i n t e r e s t in using more complex mater i a l s in verbal learning experiments. The focus i s now more on encoding, r e t e n t i o n , and r e t r i e v a l of meaningful t e x t , such a s s t o r i e s , f a i r y t a l e s , coherent discourse, w r i t t e n 1 e t t e r s , paragraphs from textbooks, and o t h e r expository t e x t s . However, although one uses d i f f e r e n t material today t h e methods of investigation a r e s t i l l t h e same. Two points, in p a r t i c u l a r , need t o be reconsidered. F i r s t , most of the models proposed a r e mainly text-based and do n o t give enough a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a c t i v e r o l e of the reade r in his/her i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e t e x t . This can be seen not only in the models themselves b u t a l s o in the paradigms used to evaluate these models. Second, i n the real world learning from t e x t i s not an i s o l a t e d s i t u a t i o n ; processing o f t e x t by the reader always depends on context which includes preceding and subsequent behavior. S t r u c t u r e inherent in the t e x t vs. s t r u c t u r e imposed on t h e t e x t A g r e a t number of variables have been investigated i n order t o e s t a b l i s h empirical evidence f o r t h e i r influence o n the processing o f such m a t e r i a l s .
The majority of these experiments, however, emphasized only those variables which r e f l e c t the s t r u c t u r a l and/or semantic properties of the t e x t i t s e l f . A case i n point i s the widely accepted procedure t o capture the meaning of a text by means of a s t r u c t u r e d l i s t of propositions. This text base a s used by Kintsch (1974) serves a s a reference l i s t when scoring recall protocols f o r t h e i r match with t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . This decomposition makes i t possible t o account f o r people's memory even f o r p a r t s of a sentence, or paraphrases of utterances, or f o r t h e i r idea of the g i s t of t h e t e x t . The propositional a n a l y s i s implemented by L N R (Norman and Rumelhart, 1975) c l o s e l y resembles t h a t used by Kintsch. Other models following a s i m i l a r approach t o text a n a l y s i s were proposed by Meyer (1975) and Frederiksen (1975 a ) .
Whereas models of t h i s kind emphasize bottom-up, or data-driven processing, others favor a more top-down, o r conceptually-driven approach. Looking f o r commonal i t i e s among t e x t s led t o models of comprehension f o r a c e r t a i n t e x t c l a s s , s t o r y , and t o t h e development of s t o r y grammars (Rumelhart, 1975; Mand7er and Johnson, 1977; Thorndyke, 1977). Of course, t h e r e a r e no pure representatives of e i t h e r approach: Kintsch and van D i j k ' s model (1978), for example, s t r e s s e s the importance of macropropositions and makes use of a c o n t r o l l i n g schema, although t h e i r model i s mainly based o n the propos i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the t e x t .
The common claim of these models i s t h a t i t i s possible t o make valid pred i c t i o n s about the amount and type o f information r e c a l l e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r position in the t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived hierarchical s t r u c t u r e . Accordingly, the predominant f a c t o r i s t h e underlying hierarchy, e i t h e r i n terms of t h e coherence - dependency of t h e propositions (Kintsch, 1976; Meyer, 1975), o r a s a r e s u l t of t h e recursive application of rewrite r u l e s i n the s t o r y grammars. Basically, t h i s l i n e of thought a s s e r t s t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e
364
GOAL PERSPECTIVES
s t r u c t u r e of a t e x t i s t h p d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r . In addition, one has t o bear in mind t h a t t h i s s t r u c t u r e r e s u l t s from a s e t of conventions agreed o n by a l i n g u i s t i c community.
B u t how about a subjective s t r u c t u r e imposed on t h e t e x t by a reader? Does t h i s subjective s t r u c t u r e necessarily coincide with t h e objective s t r u c t u r e and t h i s again with t h e a u t h o r ' s s t r u c t u r e ? There a r e reasons t o doubt that. There i s a substantial body of research on f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g encoding, ret e n t i o n , recognition of word l i s t s , and o t h e r materials of limited comp l e x i t y ( f o r example, Melton and Martin, 1972). This research has demons t r a t e d t h a t t h e information presented to subjects does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y coincide w i t h the information perceived and encoded by the s u b j e c t . I n order t o account f o r t h i s , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between nominal ( o b j e c t i v e ) and functional ( s u b j e c t i v e ) stimul i has been proposed. Consequently, d i f f e r e n t encodings of information will r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t memory t r a c e s f o r t h e same information, which, in turn, serve a s the basis f o r subsequent recall o r recognition tasks. I t seems reasonable t o r e l a t e t h e idea of a subject i v e s t r u c t u r e of t e x t t o differences in perception and encoding as has been demonstrated f o r word l i s t s and s i m i l a r m a t e r i a l . This leads t o t h e conclusion t h a t each reader encodes t h e same t e x t i n a d i f f e r e n t way according t o h i s / h e r present problem o r i e n t a t i o n o r goal s t r u c t u r e .
B u t how do these differences in problem o r i e n t a t i o n lead to d i f f e r e n t encodings and thus t o d i f f e r e n t internal representations? To answer t h i s question, we r e f e r t o schema theory ( f o r example, Rumelhart and Ortony, 1977). The notion of a "schema" has been proposed i n various disguises: a s "frames" (Minsky, 1975), " s c r i p t s " (Schank and Abelson, 1977), and "macros t r u c t u r e s " (van Dijk, 1977). Most of t h e time, t h e use of schemata was res t r i c t e d t o s t r u c t u r e s which a r e present i n t h e t e x t which evoke a homomorphic s t r u c t u r e i n the reader c o n t r o l l i n g the way t h i s t e x t i s processed. Well known examples a r e s t o r y grammars. Their proponents claim t h a t t h e inherent s t r u c t u r e which i s common t o most s t o r i e s or c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of s t o r i e s guides t h e processing and t h e r e c a l l of a p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y in a systematic way. What i s often ignored i s t h a t there a r e a l s o well-defined schemata o n t h e p a r t of t h e reader which r e s u l t from a s p e c i f i c purpose o r goal, problem o r i e n t a t i o n , or i n s t r u c t i o n . Especially t h e context of preceding and subsequent behavior will determine the focus of these schemata. Consequently, the emphasis of t h i s paper i s on the i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e inherent in t h e t e x t and t h e subjective s t r u c t u r e imposed by the reade r . This i n t e r a c t i o n does not cause any problems in cases where t h e two s t r u c t u r e s coincide, i . e . , when t h e reader has t h e same i n t e n t i o n in reading t h e t e x t as t h e t e x t suggests by i t s o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e . Problems may, however, a r i s e i f the two s t r u c t u r e s a r e d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r . This can r e s u l t in a c o n f l i c t i n the reader in case he/she does not adopt one reading o r i e n t a t i o n or i n t e g r a t e both. A completely d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s when the r e a d e r ' s goals or problem o r i e n t a t i o n s a r e so dominant t h a t he/she does not even d e t e c t t h e inherent s t r u c t u r e . I n t h i s case, one would predict t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e overrides t h e objective s t r u c t u r e . Previous research provides support for t h i s point of view. I n a well-known study, Pichert and Anderson (1977) emphasized the influence of d i f f e r e n t perspectives o f t h e reader on s i g n i f i c a n c e r a t i n g s and on the r e c a l l performance o f ideas presented i n a s t o r y . Effects of context were s t u d i e d ,
TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
365
f o r example, by F r e d e r i k s e n (1975 b ) . U s i n g a n a t u r a l r e a d i n g s i t u a t i o n Graesser, Higgenbotham, Robertson and Smith (1978) s t u d i e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between s e l f - i n d u c e d and t a s k - i n d u c e d r e a d i n g comprehension. Flammer, S c h l a f l i and K e l l e r (1978) demonstrated t h e i n f l u e n c e o f d i f f e r e n t personal i n t e r e s t s on r e c a l l performance f o r a g i v e n t e x t . S t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s vs. generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s J u s t as t h e r e i s a need t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e s e t o f v a r i a b l e s presumably a f f e c t i n g a p e r s o n ' s p e r c e p t i o n and encoding o f t e x t , t h e r e i s a l s o a need t o t a k e a c l o s e r l o o k a t t h e processes c o n t r o l l i n g r e t r i e v a l and subsequent o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e r e c a l l . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t because t h e dependent v a r i a b l e (comprehension) i s based on t h e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s .
I t i s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e models p r e s e n t e d above do n o t o n l y p r o v i d e a s t r u c t u r a l and/or semantic a n a l y s i s o f t e x t b u t , a t t h e same t i m e , a r e a t h e o r y o f p e o p l e ' s memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t e x t ( s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) . B u t t h e r e i s good reason t o assume t h a t t h e r e c a l l e d i n f o r m a t i o n ( g e n e r a t e d representation) i s n o t isomorphic w i t h the stored representation. A t the t i m e o f r e t r i e v a l and e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n , t h e p r o d u c t o f r e c a l l i s s u b j e c t t o processes c o n t r o l l i n g what and how much i s r e c a l l e d and how i t i s o r g a n i z e d and ( r e ) p r e s e n t e d . F a c t o r s which m i g h t have an e f f e c t on t h e c o n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e o f t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n a r e m a n i f o l d . Among them a r e , f o r example, t y p e o f r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n , i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e s u b j e c t , t y p e and c o n t e n t o f q u e s t i o n s asked i n p r o b i n g experiments, s e l f - i m p o s e d r e s t r i c t i o n s induced b y t h e s i t u a t i o n o r f u t u r e c o n t e x t ("What k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t f o r t h e c u r r e n t t a s k and what do I need l a t e r o n ? " ) . I n a d d i t i o n , one has t o account f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o b i n g process n o t o n l y a f f e c t s t h e generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t a t t h e same t i m e changes t h e s t o r e d r e presentation i t s e l f . We can conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e method u t i l i z e d t o probe t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n determines t o a s u b s t a n t i a l e x t e n t whether t h e m o d e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n s a r e c o n f i r m e d o r d i s c o n f i r m e d . The reason why models may become s e n s i t i v e t o t h e c h o i c e o f methods i s m a i n l y due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y do n o t i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c assumptions a b o u t t h e r e t r i e v a l phase and p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g i t . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r t h o s e models t h a t a r e s o l e l y based on t h e s t r u c t u r a l and semantic a n a l y s i s o f t e x t . A t t h e same t i m e , t h i s r e f l e c t s t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t i n r e s e a r c h on t e x t comprehension: so f a r , t h e r e e x i s t s no comprehensive and g e n e r a l l y accepted o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f comprehension o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 2 . PROBLEM SOLVING I n problem s o l v i n g , t h e concept o f knowledge r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c e n t r a l . I n S t r e i t z (1981), we have argued t h a t d i f f e r e n t problem s o l v e r s w i l l c o n s t r u c t d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e same c o n t e n t domain p r e s e n t e d t o them. T h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e way t h e problem i s t a c k l e d . I n complex problem s o l v i n g , f o r example, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l v e r s a l r e a d y i n t h e f i r s t t h i r d o f t h e problem s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n , as t h e y show s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problem r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r b e h a v i o r ( P u t z - O s t e r l o h , 1981; P u t z - O s t e r l o h and LUer, 1981).
366
GOAL PERSPECTTVES
One p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l problem s o l v e r s b u i l d up an adequate problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r i g h t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g . I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h d i r e c t evidence f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i t i s necessary t o i n d u c e d i f f e r e n t problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s f o r t h e same domain. These r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s h o u l d be graded i n terms o f adequacy f o r t h e problem i n q u e s t i o n . I n d o i n g so, one i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f assessi n g t h e induced problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , i . e . , o f c h e c k i n g whether t h e des i g n used f o r i n d u c t i o n l e a d s t o d i f f e r e n t i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I n cases where t h e i n f o r m a t i o n re1 e v a n t f o r s o l v i ng a problem i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y means o f a t e x t , r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t e x t comprehension r e s e a r c h seemed t o p r o v i d e a u s e f u l a i d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , we d i s c o v e r e d t h a t most o f t h e mod e l s proposed c o u l d n o t s o l v e o u r problem. I n g e n e r a l , t h e y do n o t deal w i t h t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ' dependency on t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n a s u b j e c t m i g h t have d u r i n g p r o c e s s i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e models were d e f i c i e n t i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e t r i e v a l phase f o r s i t u a t i o n s when t h e s t o r e d knowledge i s used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . We d e f i n e t h e t e r m "problem s o l v i n g i n t e x t comprehension" as b e h a v i o r which makes r e l e v a n t use o f t h e knowledge a c q u i r e d , updated, o r l e a r n e d d u r i n g a p r e c e d i n g t e x t comprehension process. I t i s p o s s i b l e , t h a t t h e r e i s problem s o l v i n g i n t h e b e g i n n i n g which r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e p e r s o n ' s mind. I n o r d e r t o f i n d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n he o r she m i g h t t u r n t o a t e x t and look f o r t h e m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Then, t h e i n t e g r a t e d knowledge c o n s i s t i n g o f o l d and new i n f o r m a t i o n i s a p p l i e d i n t h e a t t e m p t t o s o l v e t h e problem. Thus, we use t h e t e r m problem s o l v i n g i n t e x t comprehension d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n i n , f o r example, comprehension o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t o r i e s ( f o r example, Thorndyke, 1977; Mandler and Johnson, 1977; Rumel h a r t , 1977); s t o r y unders t a n d i n g as problem s o l v i n g ( B l a c k and Bower, 1980); r e a d i n g and l i s t e n i n g as problem s o l v i n g ( f o r example, Bock, 1978). A l t h o u g h i t m i g h t be u s e f u l t o i n t e g r a t e t h e s e n o t i o n s w i t h i n a comprehensive framework, we w i l l n o t f o l l o w up t h i s l i n e o f t h o u g h t a t t h i s p o i n t . 3. AN EXTENDED MODEL OF TEXT COMPREHENSION
I n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , we p o i n t e d o u t some d e f i c i e n c i e s o f c u r r e n t t e x t comprehension models, e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e which a r e m a i n l y t e x t - b a s e d . We argue f o r a r e v i s i o n o f t h e s e models by e x t e n d i n g them i n such a way t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t n o t o n l y t h e c o n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t b u t a t t h e same t i m e i n c o r p o r a t e f a c t o r s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e r e a d e r . The main f e a t u r e s which p l a y a p a r t i n such a model a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1 w h i c h shows t h e f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e way i t i s processed a t d i f f e r e n t stages a c r o s s t i m e . We s t a r t o u t by assuming t h a t t h e r e a d e r i s s e t t o s o l v e a c e r t a i n t e x t - r e l a t e d problem. T h i s a f f e c t s h i m / h e r i n s e v e r a l ways. On t h e one hand, a c o r r e s p o n d i n g problem o r i e n t a t i o n or p e r s p e c t i v e i s i n d u c e d which c o n t r o l s t h e subsequent p r o c e s s i n g . On t h e o t h e r hand, p r i o r knowledge a s s o c i a t e d w i t h or r e l e v a n t t o t h e i n d i c a t e d c o n t e n t domain i s a c t i v a t e d . T h i s p r i o r knowledge c o n s i s t s o f f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n and o f schemata s t r u c t u r i n g t h e domain i n d i c a t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e problem s i t u a t i o n induces a goal s t r u c t u r e w h i c h determines when and how t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d i s used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . Then, t h e m a t e r i a l i s presented. One has t o b e a r i n mind t h a t the presented t e x t i s a l s o only a representation (Ro) o f t h e underlyi n g s t r u c t u r e and c o n t e n t , i . e . , t h e meaning i s expressed i n a c e r t a i n
m
,controls.
ORIENTATION _ _-----
L m i I d m17 I II SELECTION
knowled re a c t ival-es
RO 'ERIAL
PROBLEM
/
ENCODING STRATEGY
I
J
how and when to use
1 I
RS
STORED
1
I
GENERATED
RETRIEVAL STRATEGY
/ PROBLEM SOLVING
P 0
informat io
cont'ro 1s
I
recall
Fig. 1 . Main features of an extended model of text comprehension
w
m
v
368
GOAL PERSPECTIVES
format r e f l e c t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e i n some way. O f course, t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s R o o f t h e i d e a an a u t h o r / s p e a k e r i n t e n d s t o p u t across. D u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t e x t , problem o r i e n t a t i o n and p r i o r knowl e d g e c o n t r o l t h e p e r c e p t i o n and encoding o f t h e m a t e r i a l . T h i s encoding strategy SE c o n s i s t s o f two components. The f i r s t component scans t h e mat e r i a l , e v a l u a t e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n terms o f t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n by a s s i g n i n g values o f r e l e v a n c e t o t h e problem, and s e l e c t s t h e r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r subsequent s t o r i n g . The second component s u p e r v i s e s t h e s t o r age o f t h e s e l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . S t o r i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e m a t e r i a l , comparing t h i s s t r u c t u r e w i t h e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s o f p r i o r knowledge, r e s t r u c t u r i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n accordance w i t h t h e g i v e n problem o r i e n t a t i o n , and f i n a l l y c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RS which serves as t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e t r i e v a l phase. A f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and s t o r a g e o f t h e t e x t , t h e r e w i l l be a t i m e when t h e s u b j e c t wants t o access t h i s s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s i s e i t h e r a consequence o f t h e goal o r i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t was p a r t o f t h e i n i t i a l p r o blem s i t u a t i o n ; i n a second c o n d i t i o n , an a d d i t i o n a l r e c a l l i n s t r u c t i o n i s g i v e n t o t h e s u b j e c t a f t e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The p r e c e d i n g goal and t h e subsequent i n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r o l t h e r e t r i e v a l o f t h e s t o r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y SR c o n s i s t s a l s o o f two components. The f i r s t component searches t h e s t o r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RS i n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n asked f o r under t h e p r e s e n t circumstances o f r e t r i e v a l . I t s e l e c t s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n marked b y a t a g s t a t i n g i t s r e l e v a n c e t o a c e r t a i n purpose. The i n f o r m a t i o n t h u s s e l e c t e d i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o a f o r m a t which seems t o be h i g h l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e goal t h a t determines how t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s t o b e used i n subsequent b e h a v i o r . F i n a l l y , a n e x t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n RG i s g e n e r a t ed. I t can c o n s i s t o f a w r i t t e n r e p r o d u c t i o n , an o r a l r e c a l l , o r t h e answer t o a question. There i s a l s o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e generated r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s immediat e l y used as new i n p u t f o r t h e same p r o c e s s o r ( r e a d e r , l i s t e n e r ) i n subseq u e n t problem s o l v i n g b e h a v i o r . The focus o f t h e encoding and t h e r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y may n o t be t h e same depending on t h e c o n t r o l l i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s and g o a l s . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o keep t h i s i n mind when e v a l u a t i n g methods used t o t e s t models o f t e x t comprehension. Whereas t e x t - b a s e d models p r e d i c t t h a t a p r o p o s i t i o n h i g h i n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e r i v e d h i e r a r c h y w i l l be r e c a l l e d w i t h h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i ty, o u r model p r e d i c t s t h a t t h i s depends much more on t h e problem o r i e n t a t i o n d u r i n g encoding and o n t h e goal d u r i n g r e t r i e v a l . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e i s s t i l l assumed t o be r e l e v a n t , t h e o r i g i n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t e d t e x t has been s u b j e c t e d t o two t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s (SR, SE) by t h e t i m e t h e f i n a l r e c a l l i s generated. Obviously, s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e model, i .e., how t h e s e two t r a n s f o r mations a f f e c t a g i v e n t e x t , depend on t h e a c t u a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l and i n s t r u c t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l deal w i t h them i n d e t a i l a f t e r t h e cond i t i o n s o f o u r experiment have been s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n .
4 . EXPERIMENT I n o r d e r t o t e s t t h e model, we designed an e x p e r i m e n t t h a t s h o u l d b e a b l e t o demonstrate t h e e f f e c t o f t h e two proposed s t r a t e g i e s d u r i n g encoding and r e t r i e v a l . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s necessary t o m o n i t o r b o t h t h e p e r c e p t i o n
TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
369
and t h e r e c a l l phase i n d e p e n d e n t l y . T h i s was achieved by u s i n g a method o f on-1 i n e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t by t h e s u b j e c t a t t h e t i m e o f p e r c e p t i o n . By p l a c i n g s u b j e c t s i n t o d i f f e r e n t problem s i t u a t i o n s b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e same t e x t we t r i e d t o i n d u c e d i f f e r e n t encoding s t r a t e g i e s and, thereby, d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s t o r e d by t h e subject . A t t h e same time, t h e experiment a t t e m p t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e how d i f f e r e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e same problem domain a f f e c t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g processes and success. T h i s way, i t would be p o s s i b l e t o assess t h e m o d e l ' s p o t e n t i a o f becoming a component o f a comprehensive model d e s c r i b i n g comprehension and problem s o l v i n g i n an i n t e g r a t e d framework. T h e r e f o r e , two "who-donei t " t y p e d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g problems were embedded i n t h e t e x t which had t o be s o l v e d by t h e s u b j e c t s . METHOD S u b j e c t s . 96 s t u d e n t s o f t h e T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y Aachen s e r v e d as s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t . Students m a j o r i n g i n psychology were n o t a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e . A l l s u b j e c t s were p a i d f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s . M a t e r i a l . A 883-word s t o r y was w r i t t e n , c o n s i s t i n g e n t i r e l y o f d e c l a r a t i v e sentences. A t a p e r e c o r d i n g was made o f t h e passage f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t s . The passage was r e a d a t moderate r a t e by an experienced male r e a d e r . Reading t i m e was f i v e m i n u t e s . The s t o r y i s e n t i t l e d "A c o n c e r t by r e q u e s t i n t h e h o s p i t a l " . I t d e s c r i b e s a sequence o f events and episodes t a k i n g p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l b e f o r e , d u r i n g , and a f t e r a c o n c e r t g i v e n by a group o f m u s i c i a n s i n o r d e r t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p a t i e n t s . F o r more d e t a i l s on t h e t e x t r e f e r t o Appendix A. The s t o r y ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s based on t h e s c r i p t (Schank and Abelson, 1977) o f a c o n c e r t b u t t a k e s p l a c e i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g . T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e t o i n t r o d u c e i n a n a t u r a l way two groups o f c h a r a c t e r s ( p a t i e n t s and music i a n s ) which a r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e c a r r i e r s o f r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r two problems P i and P2. They c o n s t i t u t e t h e premises f o r t h e independent b u t c o m p l e t e l y isomorphic d e d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g problems embedded i n t h e s t o r y . Each problem i n v o l v e s f o u r dimensions w i t h f i v e values on each dimension, i . e . , names, diseases, room numbers, c l o t h e s f o r t h e f i v e p a t i e n t s and names, i n s t r u m e n t s , p o s i t i o n s on t h e stage, c l o t h e s f o r t h e f i v e m u s i c i a n s . ( T h i s problem r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n can be o r g a n i z e d i n t o two 4 x 5 m a t r i c e s . ) Three t y p e s o f r e l a t i o n s connect these i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s w i t h t h e t e x t : a f f i r m a t i v e , n e g a t i v e , and " i n between" r e l a t i o n s , t h u s c o n s t i t u t i n g a network which r e p r e s e n t s t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e problem. There i s a t o t a l o f 2 . 20 = 40 problem r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s and 2 . 13 = 26 r e l a t i o n s c o n n e c t i n g them. The problems were c o n s t r u c t e d i n a s p e c i a l way. I n "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t o r d e r t o s o l v e , f o r example, problem PI: who has t h e c o n c u s s i o n ? " , i t i s necessary t o i n t e g r a t e a l l 20 elements v i a a t l e a s t 13 r e l a t i o n s i n a s y s t e m a t i c way. (Of course, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between t h e elements by i n f e r e n c e d u r i n g l i s t e n i n g o r i n t h e problem s o l v i n g p a r t o f t h e experiment.) A l t h o u g h t h e s e elements a r e necessary t o s o l v e t h e problems, t h e y do n o t a i d i n grasping t h e g i s t o f the s t o r y ' s p l o t . Therefore, they a r e n o t r e l e v a n t f o r a general comprehension o f what t h e s t o r y i s a l l a b o u t . S i n c e t h e y s t a t e m i n o r d e t a i l s a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r s t h e y would be c l a s s i f i e d as b e i n g a t y p i c a l o r i r r e l e v a n t f o r t h e u n d e r l y i n g s c r i p t and s e t t i n g . On t h e o t h e r hand, s t o r y elements s t a t i n g o n l y t h e h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g and r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of t h e c o n c e r t s c r i p t a r e i r r e l e v a n t f o r s o l v i n g t h e problems. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e 4 1 s t o r y elements and t h e 40 problem
370
GOAL PERSPECTIVES
r e l e v a n t elements i n c l u d i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s i n t h e s t o r y was o r g a n i z e d i n such a way t h a t t h e r e would be no p o s i t i o n e f f e c t . Desiqn and Procedure. S u b j e c t s were randomly assigned t o t h r e e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and r u n i n i n d i v i d u a l sessions. B e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e s t o r y t h e y were g i v e n a w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n which, i n a d d i t i o n , was r e a d t o them by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . Common t o a l l s u b j e c t s was t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n C o n d i t i o n C ( 0 ) . It s t a t e d t h a t t h e y would hear a s t o r y f r o m a t a p e t w i c e . The f i r s t t i m e would s e r v e t h e purpose o f p r o v i d i n g an o v e r v i e w . D u r i n g t h e second time, t h e y would b e a l l o w e d t o t a k e w r i t t e n notes ( p a p e r and p e n c i l were p r o v i d e d ) w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y l i s t e n i n g t o t h e tape. A f t e r t h e second t i m e o f l i s t e n i n g t h e y would be expected t o r e c a l l t h e s t o r y o r a l l y . While r e c a l l i n g t h e y would b e a l l o w e d t o use t h e i r w r i t t e n n o t e s . In C o n d i t i o n C( l ) , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n c o n t a i n e d an a d d i t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y w o u l d have t o s o l v e a problem a f t e r h a v i n g r e c a l l e d t h e s t o r y . The problem wouid be based on t h e p r e s e n t e d s t o r y and would c o n s i s t i n answe r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n : "What i s t h e name o f t h e p a t i e n t who has a c o n c u s s i o n ? " . In C o n d i t i o n C(2), s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s as i n C ( l ) exc e p t t h a t t h e y would have t o s o l v e two problems, i . e . , t h e problem ( P i ) we mentioned b e f o r e and an a d d i t i o n a l problem (P2): "What i s t h e name o f t h e m u s i c i a n who p l a y s t h e g u i t a r ? " The i n s t r u c t i o n s s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h can be found i n Appendix B. I t should be n o t e d t h a t C(0) - s u b j e c t s d i d n o t know a b o u t any problem b e f o r e l i s t e n i n g t o t h e s t o r y . Thus, t h e i n dependent v a r i a b l e was t h e number o f problems s p e c i f i e d b e f o r e 1 i s t e n i n g w h i c h had t h r e e v a l u e s : 0, 1, and 2. There were 48 s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0) and 24 each i n C o n d i t i o n s C ( l ) and C ( 2 ) . A f t e r having read t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , subjects l i s t e n e d t o t h e tape twice, t o o k notes d u r i n g t h e second time, and gave an o r a l r e c a l l o f t h e s t o r y . T h i s r e c a l l was r e c o r d e d on t a p e . Since t h e experiment was designed n o t o n l y t o s t u d y t e x t comprehension b u t a t t h e same t i m e t o i n v e s t i g a t e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g b e h a v i o r ( a l l s u b j e c t s had t o s o l v e t h e problems a f t e r w a r d s ) , t h e subsequent problem s o l v i n g was monit o r e d . Since we w i l l n o t r e p o r t d a t a on t h a t p a r t o f t h e experiment i n t h i s paper, we s h a l l n o t d e s c r i b e t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e f u r t h e r procedure a t t h i s p o i n t . They can be found i n S t r e i t z (1981). I n a f i n a l i n t e r v i e w , we checked whether some o f t h e s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0) had any s p e c u l a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e problems d u r i n g l i s t e n i n g . Twelve s u b j e c t s o u t o f f o r t y - e i g h t r e p o r t e d t h e y suspected t h a t t h e y would have t o s o l v e a problem based on t h e s t o r y a f t e r h a v i n g l i s t e n e d t o t h e s t o r y f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . The reason was t h a t t h e y were reminded b y t h e s t o r y o f s i m i l a r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p u z z l e s t h e y had e x p e r i e n c e d i n newspapers o r magazines. S i n c e t h e s e s u b j e c t s n e i t h e r met t h e C ( 0 ) - C o n d i t i o n n o r one o f t h e o t h e r two c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e f u l l sense t h e y were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e f i n a l d a t a a n a l y s i s . I n a d d i t i o n , one C ( 2 ) - s u b j e c t d i d n o t meet t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r o t h e r reasons. T h i s l e f t 36 C ( 0 ) - s u b j e c t s , 24 C( 1 ) - s u b j e c t s , and 23 C ( 2 ) - s u b j e c t s . S c o r i n q procedure. W r i t t e n notes and o r a l r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were scored f o r t h e i r match w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . S t o r y elements were d e f i n e d by i d e a u n i t s r e p r e s e n t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s e t t i n g ( l o c a t i o n , t i m e , g e n e r a l a s p e c t s o f c h a r a c t e r s ) , a c t i o n s , e v e n t s , and episodes d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s t o r y . P r o t o c o l s were scored f o r t h e g i s t o f t h e s e i d e a u n i t s ( i d e n t i c a l , reduced, o r new) and f o r presence o f t h e p r o b l e m - r e l e v a n t elements. The m o d e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n s . A p p l y i n g t h e model t o t h i s experiment, d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e d i c t i o n s can be made f o r t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s in terms of t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d b e f o r e . F i r s t , we w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e e f f e c t s of t h e proposed encodinq strateqy, D u r i n g encoding, s u b j e c t s i n C o n d i t i o n C(0)
TEXT COMPREHENSION AND PROBLEM SOLVING
371
will be guided by the o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e as suggested by t h e hospital s e t t i n g and t h e concert s c r i p t . In c o n t r a s t , C ( 1 ) - and C(2)-subjects will predominantly focus on t h e problem-relevant elements in t h e t e x t . The l a t t e r two conditions s h o u l d only show a d i f f e r e n c e in encoded P2-relevant problem elements. This should be t h e case because C(1)-subjects do not know about P 2 a n d t h e r e f o r e a r e n o t expected t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o i t , whereas, t h e r e should be no difference with regard t o Pi-relevant elements. In a d d i t i o n , one has t o take i n t o consideration t h a t c e r t a i n capacity l i m i t a t i o n s a r e very l i k e l y . This should r e s u l t in a trade-off between t h e d i f f e r e n t categories. I n the case of s t o r y elements, f o r example, t h e increase in t h e number of problems known before ( t h e independent v a r i a b l e ) should r e s u l t i n a corresponding decrease in encoded s t o r y elements. Following t h i s l i n e of reasoning, we present a summary o f t h e predictions i n Table 1. Table 1.
Predicted rank order of the three conditions according t o t h e number of d i f f e r e n t t e x t elements encoded during l i s t e n i n g .
i Type of t e x t elements
rank order of conditions
s t o r y elements
C(0) > C ( 1 ) > C ( 2 )
P 1-re1 eva n t el ements
C ( 1 ) = C ( 2 ) > C(0)
P2-re1 evant el ements
C ( 2 ) > C(0) > C ( 1 )
Second, we will consider the e f f e c t s of t h e proposed r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . In t h e r e t r i e v a l phase the induced goal of how and when t o use information will b e d e c i s i v e . Of course, the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y can only operate on what i s a v a i l a b l e , i . e . , t h e stored representation. Subjects i n Condition C(0) should only have t h e goal of r e c a l l i n g t h e s t o r y because they think t h a t t h i s will be t h e end of the experiment. Therefore, there should not be a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e stored representation a n d the generated recall except f o r some elaborations or omissions due t o inaccuracy. I n c o n t r a s t , C ( 1 ) - and C(2)-subjects know t h a t the actual problem-solving p a r t will s t a r t subsequently t o the recall t a s k . They i n t e r p r e t the request to recall t h e s t o r y as n o t being r e l a t e d t o problem solving which i s t h e i r ultimate goal. Therefore, they a r e 1 ikely t o suppress t h e respective problem-releva n t information although i t i s present i n the stored representation. Consequently, one would predict d i f f e r e n c e s between s t o r e d and generated representations f o r Pi-relevant elements in b o t h conditions. A s u b s t a n t i a l decrease i n Pp-relevant information s h o u l d only be expected i n Condition C ( 2 ) . 5 . RESULTS AND D I S C U S S I O N
The experiment provides two s e t s of d a t a . The f i r s t s e t r e s u l t s from the w r i t t e n notes the subjects took while simultaneously l i s t e n i n g t o the tape. We consider t h i s note-taking as an on-1 ine r e g i s t r a t i o n of t h a t information rated relevant by the subjects a t the time of encoding i n accordance with t h e i r c u r r e n t problem o r i e n t a t i o n . I t can be assumed t h a t subjects p a r t i c i pating i n t h e experiment a r e very f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s kind of s i t u a t i o n because they a r e used t o taking notes while attending l e c t u r e s and seminars. Although t h e w r i t t e n notes a r e , of course, n o t t h e stored representation i t s e l f they do r e f l e c t e s p e c i a l l y those f e a t u r e s t h a t will be a f f e c t e d
372
GOAL PERSPECTIVES
during encoding. The second s e t c o n s i s t s of data obtained from t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the oral recall protocols and i s considered t o r e f l e c t t h e impact of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y . The findings of g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t a r e shown in Figures 2 , 3, and 4 which present the data on both encoding and r e t r i e v a l a t t h e same time. The d i f ferences between t h e dashed and the s o l i d l i n e s demonstrate the e f f e c t of the r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g y operating on the s t o r e d representation Rs. Figure 2 presents the data f o r t h e s t o r y elements.
O----+
ORAL RECALL
O---O
WRITTEN NOTES
\ \
\
‘s a W L L r o
...
-0
F i g . 2 . Number o f s t o r y elements encoded and recalled.
Considering f i r s t the mean proportion of s t o r y elements in t h e w r i t t e n notes, one finds a highly s i g n i f i c a n t decrease as the number of problems increases; F(2,80) = 23.6, Fcrit.(2,80) = 4.85 f o r p < 0.01. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t subjects were very s e n s i t i v e to the induced problem o r i e n t a t i o n . The same finding s t i l l holds f o r the oral r e c a l l , F(2,80) = 20.2, b u t t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g increase r e l a t i v e t o t h e information present i n t h e w r i t t e n notes. Subjects in a l l conditions recall o r a l l y more than t h e i r w r i t t e n notes on the s t o r y elements show. This i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g because the s e t t ing and s c r i p t information provided by t h e t e x t can be e a s i l y reconstructed from j u s t a few notes by means of inferences. Furthermore, one has t o bear i n mind t h a t subjects have additional information i n t h e i r memory and thus generate a more comprehensive p i c t u r e of the s t o r y by f i l l i n g in s c r i p t based information. I n summary, i t should be noted t h a t the more subjects were oriented to a s p e c i f i c problemlsolving t a s k , the fewer s t o r y elements
TEXT COMPREHENSION A N D PROBLEM SOLVING
373
were r e c a l l e d . These s t o r y elements, however, would be high i n a t e x t base hierarchy a s proposed by t h e conventional text-based models reviewed in Section 1. Therefore, they should b e encoded and re c a lle d t o a high degree which i s n o t t h e case here. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e i r re c a ll depends o n the problem o r i e n t a t i o n 