Model Of Discourse Comprehension Research Articles

Schema Theory and Knowledge‐Based Processes in Second Language Reading Comprehension: A Need for Alternative Perspectives

How is knowledge represented and organized in the mind? What role does it play in discourse comprehension and interpretation? What are the exact mechanisms whereby knowledge‐based processes are utilised in comprehension? These are questions that have puzzled psycholinguists and cognitive psychologists for years. Despite major developments in the field of second language (L2) reading over the last two decades, many attempts at explaining the role of knowledge in L2 comprehension have been made almost exclusively in the context of schema theory, a perspective that provides an expectation‐driven conception of the role of knowledge and considers that preexisting knowledge provides the main guiding context through which information is processed and interpreted. In this article, I first review and critically analyze the major assumptions underlying schema theory and the processes that it postulates underlie knowledge representation and comprehension. Then I consider an alternative perspective, a construction‐integration model of discourse comprehension, and discuss how this perspective, when applied to L2 reading comprehension, offers a fundamentally different and more detailed account of the role of knowledge and knowledge‐based processes that L2 researchers had previously tried to explain within schema‐theoretic principles.

Mathematical aspects of Kintsch's model of discourse comprehension.

Kintsch (1988) presented a model of discourse comprehension that draws substantially on connectionist ideas. The model gives rise to some mathematical questions that are not explicitly stated in Kintsch's article. In this note, some of these questions are investigated, thus giving theoretical support to the model

Mathematical aspects of Kintsch's model of discourse comprehension.

Mathematical aspects of Kintsch's model of discourse comprehension.

Reading and summarizing challenging texts in first and second languages

The thinking processes of 14 adult Anglophone students of French performing challenging reading and summarizing tasks were compared in their first and second languages. Individuals proved to use equivalent proportions of higher-order problem solving strategies while writing and reading in both languages. These varied with people's levels of literate expertise in their mother tongue, correlating with the qualities of written summaries they produced in both languages. Uses of these problem solving strategies appeared unrelated to participants' levels (beginning and intermediate) of second language proficiency. Analyses of the verbal reports reveal thinking processes which are common to reading and summary writing in first and second languages but which appear to vary with people's literate expertise and relevant knowledge. Findings are interpreted in relation to Cummins' (1984) theories of the cross-linguistic interdependence of cognitive-academic skills and Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) model of discourse comprehension. Implications are drawn for theories of bilingual cognition, further research, and instruction in second language reading and writing.

Discourse studies and education

AbstractThe aim of this paper is a discussion of some applications of results from discourse studies in the field of education. The major structures of discourse are discussed, in particular the semantic, pragmatic, schematic and conversational structures. These structures are then taken as the abstract basis for a cognitive model of discourse comprehension. A brief sketch is given of the main results of current experimental work on discourse processing. Discourse comprehension appears not only to be determined by knowledge and other factors of the cognitive set of language users (beliefs, opinions, attitudes, etc.), but also changes this set, e.g. in processes of learning.Applications in the study of education are discussed in the framework of the following issues, representing the ‘textual’ dimensions of education: (i) classroom dialogue and interaction, (ii) reading and comprehension, (iii) textbooks, (iv) teaching discourse and communication, and (v) discourse analysis. It is argued that learning in these various dimensions of education should respect the basic results obtained about comprehension. Language learning is urged to take place within a broad integrated framework for the acquisition of discourse and communication skill.