Hector Limón-Fernández,
Luis M. Sánchez-Loyo
Luis A. Mayoral-Gutiérrez
Universidad de Guadalajara, México
Abstract
Recent studies prove a strong association between reading and eye movements. Few investigations report the role of connectors and prior knowledge during reading in Spanish, as well as their association with eye movements. The present study aims to evaluate the effects of the presenceabsence of connectors in two argumentative texts on cognitive effort and reading comprehension. Forty-one psychology undergraduate students participated in a reading comprehension task, while their eye movements were recorded. The condition with connectors was related to prior knowledge, the slide time fixation, the slide number fixations, and the slide return fixations. The condition without connectors was related to the return fixations, the time fixation, and the number of fixations. Prior knowledge was correlated with the total time fixation, the total return fixations, and comprehension. This suggests that during reading without connectors more cognitive effort is required, observed in the return fixations; moreover, prior knowledge has an important role in the visual strategies required to process and obtain a representation of text. But participant performance was still good as observed in the scores of the reading comprehension task
Keywords: Reading Comprehension, Connectors, Eye Movements, Eye-Tracking
References
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eyetracking study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9142-5
Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1997). Introducción a la lingüística del texto. Ariel.
Bernárdez, E. (1995). Teoría y epistemología del texto. Cátedra.
Calsamiglia, H., & Tusón, A. (1999). La textura discursiva. Ariel.
Cevasco, J., Muller, F., & Bermejo, F. (2020). Comprehension of topic shifts by Argentine college students: Role of discourse marker presence, causal connectivity, and prior knowledge. Current Psychology, 39(3), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9828-4
Cook, A. (2014). Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0415-0
Cook, A. E., & Wei, W. (2019). What Can Eye Movements Tell Us about Higher Level Comprehension? Vision, 3(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3030045
Crossley, S., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D. (2014). What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language,26(1), 92–113.
Cuetos, F., González, J., & de Vega, M. (2015). Psicología del Lenguaje. Editorial Médica Panamericana.
de Vega, M. (2005). El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva, 17(1), 85–108.
Demberg, V., Kiagia, E., & Sayeed, A. (2013). The Index of Cognitive Activity as a Measure of Linguistic Processing. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. www.coli.unisaarland.de/~vera/LanguageICA.pdf
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158
Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The Problem of Comprehension in Psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591885
Garrido, M. del C. (2006). Gramaticalización y marcadores del discurso: Los contraargumentativos. Estudios Humanísticos. Filología, 28, 9-26. https://doi.org/10.18002/ehf.v0i28.2804
Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30(1), 5–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
Goedecke, P., Dong, D., Shi, G., Feng, S., Risko, E., Olney, A., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2015). Breaking Off Engagement: Readers’ Disengagement as a Function of Reader and Text Characteristics. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 448–451. http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2015/proceedings/short448-451.pdf
Gómez, P., & Ramos, C. (2016). Las funciones intraoracional (estructural) e interoracional (cohesiva) de los conectores en narraciones preescolares. Lingüística Mexicana, 3(2), 8–32. http://www.amla.org.mx/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Ramos_05.pdf.
Instituto Cervantes. (2022). Texto argumentativo. Centro Virtual Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/txtargumentativo.htm
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A Cognitive View of Reading Comprehension: Implications for Reading Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
King, A. J., Bol, N., Cummins, R. G., & John, K. K. (2019). Improving Visual Behavior Research in Communication Science: An Overview, Review, and Reporting Recommendations for Using Eye-Tracking Methods. Communication Methods and Measures, 13(3), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1558194
Kintsch, W. (1988). The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
Knoeferle, P. (2014). Conjunction meaning can modulate parallelism facilitation: Eye-tracking evidence from German clausal coordination. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.002
Loureda, Ó., Nadal, L., & Recio, I. (2016a). Partículas discursivas y cognición: “por tanto” y la conexión argumentativa. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 67(1), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/roja-2016-0016
Loureda, Ó., Nadal, L., & Recio, I. (2016b). Partículas discursivas y cognición: “Sin embargo” y la conexión contraargumentativa. In E. Sainz, I. Solís, F. del Barrio, & I. Arroyo (Eds.), Geométrica explosión Estudios de lengua y literatura en homenaje a René Lenarduzzi (pp. 175–186). Edizioni Ca’Foscari.
Lyu, S., Tu, J.-Y., & Lin, C.-J. C. (2020). Processing Plausibility in Concessive and Causal Relations: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Eye-Tracking. Discourse Processes, 57(4), 320–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1680089
McNamara, D. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501446
Metzner, P., von der Malsburg, T., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. (2016). The importance of Reading Naturally: Evidence From Combined Recordings of Eye Movements and Electrical Brain Potentials. Cognitive Science, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12384
Montolío, E. (2001). Conectores de la lengua escrita. Ariel.
Morera, Y., León, J. A., Escudero, I., & de Vega, M. (2017). Do Causal and Concessive Connectives Guide Emotional Expectancies in Comprehension? A Double-Task Paradigm Using Emotional Icons. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137445
Nadal, L., Cruz, A., Recio, I., & Loureda, Ó. (2016). El significado procedimental y las partículas discursivas del español: Una aproximación experimental. Signos, 49(S1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342016000400004
Nadal, L., & Recio, I. (2019). Processing implicit and explicit causality in Spanish. In Ó. Loureda, I. Recio, L. Nadal, & A. Cruz (Eds.), Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse (pp. 253–270). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.09nad
Ng, S., Payne, B., Steen, A., Stine, E., & Federmeier, K. (2017). Use of Contextual Information and Prediction by Struggling Adult Readers: Evidence From Reading Times and Event-Related Potentials. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1310213
Ng, S., Payne, B., Stine, E., & Federmeier, K. (2018). How struggling adult readers use contextual information when comprehending speech: Evidence from event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 125, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.01.013
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Pons, S. (1998). Conexión y conectores: Estudio de su relación en el registro informal de la lengua. Cuadernos de Filología Anejo XXVII.
Raible, W. (1980). ¿Qué son los géneros? Una respuesta desde el punto de vista semiótico y de la lingüística textual. In M. Garrido (Ed.), Teoría de los géneros literarios. (2nd ed., pp. 303–309). Arco.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye Movements in Reading: Models and Data. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03520106
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). Eye-Movement Control in Reading. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., p. 1197). Academic Press.
Ronderos, C. R., Münster, K., Guerra, E., Kreysa, H., Rodríguez, A., Kröger, J., Kluth, T., Burigo, M., Abashidze, D., Nunnemann, E., & Knoeferle, P. (2018). Eye Tracking During Visually Situated Language Comprehension: Flexibility and Limitations in Uncovering Visual Context Effects. JoVE, 141, e57694. https://doi.org/10.3791/57694
Tallerman, M. (2011). Understanding Syntax (3rd ed.). Hodder Education. Tskhovrebova, E., Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2022). Individual Variations in the Mastery of Discourse Connectives from Teenage Years to Adulthood. Language Learning, 72(2), 412–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12481
van den Bosch, L., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Online processing of causal relations in beginning first and second language readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.007
van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive Processes in Discourse Comprehension: Passive Processes, Reader-Initiated Processes, and Evolving Menta Representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive Processes in Comprehension of Science Texts: The Role of Co-Activation in Confronting Misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418
van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W., & Sanders, T. (2014). Connectives and Layout as Processing Signals: How Textual Features Affect Students’ Processing and Text Representation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036293
van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as Processing Signals: How Students Benefit in Processing Narrative and Expository Texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
Wetzel, M., Zufferey, S., & Gygax, P. (2022). How Robust Is Discourse Processing for Native Readers? The Role of Connectives and the Coherence Relations They Convey. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822151
Yang, F., Mo, L., & Louwerse, M. M. (2013). Effects of Local and Global Context on Processing Sentences with Subject and Object Relative Clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9215-5
Zunino, G. (2017). Procesamiento de causalidad y contracausalidad: Interacciones entre estructura sintáctica y conocimiento del mundo en la comprensión de relaciones semánticas. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 50(95), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342017000300472
Zunino, G., & Raiter, A. (2012). Construcción de coherencia textual. Un estudio preliminar acerca de la causalidad y sus implicancias neuropsicolingüísticas. Revista Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 4(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5579/ml.2012.0082