Text content variables as a function of comprehension: Propositional discourse analysis

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Resumo

Text complexity impact on immediate recalls and range of metadiscourse markers remains a research niche due to the lack of multidisciplinary data necessary to shed light on the issue. The current study aims to identify effects of text complexity and Russian-English discourse differences on immediate text-based recalls relating to the amount and type of the information reproduced. For the research purposes we engaged 94 native Russian speakers as respondents in a text-retelling task to explore the amount of propositions recalled from an opinion article and the range of discourse markers employed. The reading text and text-based recalls were contrasted on informative and linguistic levels. The informative complexity of the reading text was evaluated on the basis of propositional analysis, and the linguistic complexity was carried out on the basis of descriptive parameters (word and sentence length, proportion of long words), readability index, word complexity and range of metadiscourse markers. The study revealed that the complexity level of the reading text is a strong predictor of propositional recall. The comparative analysis indicated a slight decrease in metrics of descriptive parameters. We also revealed that high ability readers make a choice in favor of superordinate propositions recalling about 60% of them and losing over 70% of the subordinate propositions. They also tend to shift the metadiscourse patterns of the original text from interactive to more logical ones by loosing hedges, emphatics and evidentials. The study furthers our understanding of cross-linguistic differences in the use of metadiscourse, its results will find application in discourse complexology and natural language processing.

Sobre autores

Marina Solnyshkina

Kazan Federal University

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: mesoln@yandex.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1885-3039

Doctor Habil. of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Head of “Text Analytics” Research Lab, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication of Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia. Her research interests include linguistic complexology, corpus linguistics, and lexicography

Kazan, Russia

Elena Harkova

Kazan Federal University

Email: halenka@rambler.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7582-6622

Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages at the Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication of Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia. Her research interests embrace intercultural communication, theory and practice of translation, teaching English, and lexicography.

Kazan, Russia

Yulia Ebzeeva

RUDN University

Email: ebzeeva-jn@rudn.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0043-7590

Doctor of Social Sciences, First Vice-Rector - Vice Rector for Education and Head of Foreign Language Department, RUDN University. She is a member of the international scientific committee of QS. She actively participates in international conferences and forums, has spoken at the Council of Europe, and has repeatedly acted as an expert on linguistic and migration issues. Her research interests include French lexicology and stylistics, translation studies, intercultural communication, sociolinguistics, migration studies and educational policy.

Moscow, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Adel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  2. Alipour, Mohammad & Parastoo Jahanbin. 2020. A comparative study of proximity in Iranian and American newspaper editorials. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (4). 796-815. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-796-815
  3. Aubry, Alexandre, Corentin Gonthier & Béatrice Bourdin. 2021. Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children: Contributions of processing skills and executive control. Acta Psychologica 218103358. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358
  4. Aull, Laura & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31 (2). 151-183.
  5. Bergman, Erik T. & Henry L. Roediger. 1999. Can Bartlett’s repeated reproduction experiments be replicated? Memory & Cognition 27. 937-947. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201224
  6. Blinova, Olga. 2019. Teaching academic writing at university level in Russia through massive open online courses: National traditions and global challenges. Proceedings of INTED 2019 Conference 11th-13th March 2019, Valencia, Spain. 6085-6090. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3504163
  7. Boginskaya, Olga. 2022. Functional categories of hedges: A diachronic study of Russian research article abstracts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (3). 645-667. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30017
  8. Bolsunovskaya, Lyudmila, Yulia Zeremskaya & Natalia Dubrovskaya. 2015. Types of discourse markers in Russian and English research papers on geology, oil and gas. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin 4 (157). 117-123. (In Russ.).
  9. Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
  10. Burleson, Brant R. & Scott E Caplan. 1998. Cognitive complexity. In James C. McCroskey, John A. Daly, Marcelo M. Marti & Michael J. Beatty (eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives, 230-286. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  11. Chang, Yuh F. 2006. On the use of the immediate recall task as a measure of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing 23 (4). 520-543. https://doi.org/10.1191 0265532206lt340
  12. Chall, Jeanne. 1999. Varying approaches to readability measurement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique. Quebec Journal of Linguistics 25 (1). 23-40. https://doi.org/10.7202/603125ar
  13. Crossley, Scott, Hae Sung Yang & Danielle McNamara. 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. 92-113.
  14. Crossley, Scott & Danielle McNamara. 2016. Text-based recall and extra-textual generations resulting from simplified and authentic texts. Reading in a Foreign Language 28 (1). 1-19.
  15. Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP.
  16. Embretson, Susan & Wetzel Douglas. 1987. Competent latent trait models for paragraph comprehension tests. Applied Psychological Measurement 11 (2). 175-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168701100207
  17. Fillmore, Charles. 2002. Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. 1: Papers on Semantic Roles. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  18. Fletcher, Charles. 1981. Short-term memory processes in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 20 (5). 564-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90183-3
  19. Fletcher, Paul, Chris D. Frith, Paul Grasby, Tim Shallice, Richard Frackowiak & Raymond Dolan. 1995. Brain systems for encoding and retrieval of auditory-verbal memory: An in vivo study in humans. Brain 118 (2). 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/118.2.401
  20. Gatiyatullina, Galia, Ludmila Gorodetskaya, Marina Solnyshkina & Elzara Gafiyatova. 2020. Investigating the differences between prepared and spontaneous speech characteristics: Descriptive approach. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9. 2591-2598.
  21. Gatiyatullina, Galia, Marina Solnyshkina, Roman Kupriyanov & Chulpan Ziganshina. 2023. Lexical density as a complexity predictor: The case of Science and Social Studies textbooks. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 9 (1). 11-26. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-1-0-2
  22. Graesser, Arthur & Danielle McNamara. 2011. Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 3. 371-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x
  23. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
  24. Hickey, Tina & Sheila Gilheany. 2003. High ability children and their reading needs. In G. Shiels and U. Ní Dhálaigh (eds.), Other ways of seeing: Diversity in language and literacy, 65-74. Dublin: Reading Association of Ireland.
  25. Hinds, John. 1987. Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In Ulla Connor & Robert Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts, 141-152. MA: Addison-Wesley.
  26. Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 17. 433-454.
  27. Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Language Writing 13. 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  28. Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
  29. Hyland, Ken. 2010. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2). 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jeap.2010.02.003
  30. Irwin, Jidith W. 1980. The effects of explicitness and clause order on the comprehension of reversible causal relationships. Reading Research Quarterly 14. 477-488.
  31. Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Korovina, Irina V. 2020. System of deictic coordinates and intertextual deixis in academic discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (4). 876-898. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020- 24-4-876-898
  33. Kotelnikova, Anastasiya. 2020. Two strategies of understanding. Bulletin of PNIPU. Problems of linguistics and pedagogy. PNRPU Linguistics and Pedagogy Bulletin 4. 70-78.
  34. Kulik, James A. 1992. Analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Research Based Monograph No. 9204. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  35. Lee, Icy. 2002. Helping students develop coherence in writing. English Teaching Forum 40. 32-39.
  36. Novikov, Anatoliy. 2007. Text and its Semantic Dominants. Moscow. Publishing House of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.).
  37. Petrova, Anna, El'zara Gizzatullina-Gafiyatova, Nadezhda Sytinan & Marina Solnyshkina. 2022. Technologies in analysis and computing immediate recalls. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 342. 660-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89477-1_63
  38. Petrova, Anna & Marina Solnyshkina. 2021. Immediate recall as a secondary text: Referential parameters, pragmatics and propositions. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (1). 221-249. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-221-249
  39. Sandor, Agnès. 2007. Modeling metadiscourse conveying the author's rhetorical strategy in biomedical research abstracts. Dans Revue Française de Linguistique Appliqué Vol. XII. 97- 108.
  40. Solnyshkina, Marina, Valery Solovyev, El’zara Gizzatullina-Gafiyatova & Ekaterina Martynova. 2022. Text complexity as interdisciplinary problem. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki 1. 18-39. https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2022-1-18-39
  41. Smolik, Filip, Hana Stepankova, Martin Vyshnalek & Nikolai Tomas. 2016. Propositional density in spoken and written language of Czech-speaking patients with mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 59 (6). https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0301
  42. Solovyev, Valery, Marina Solnyshkina & Danielle McNamara. 2022. Computational linguistics and discourse complexology: Paradigms and research methods. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (2). 275-316. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-31326
  43. Solovyev, Valery, Mihai Dascalu & Marina Solnyshkina. 2023. Discourse complexity: Driving forces of the new paradigm. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 9 (1). 4-10. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-1-0-1
  44. Spyridakis, Jan H. & Timothy C Standal. 1987. Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 22. 285-298.
  45. Taylor, Barbara M. 1980. Children's memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly 15. 399-411.
  46. Van den Broek, Kirsten Risden Paul & Elizabeth Husebye-Hartmann. 1995. The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In Robert F. Lorch Jr. & Edward J. O’Brien (eds.), Sources of coherence in reading, 353-373. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  47. Van Dijk, Teun & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic.
  48. Vande Kopple, William. J. 1985. Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36. 82-93.
  49. Vipond, Douglas. 1980. Micro- and Macro-processes in Text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19. 276-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90230-3
  50. Waters, Harriet. 1983. Superordinate-subordinate structure in prose passages and the importance of propositions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9 (2). 294-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.2.294
  51. Weir, Сyril, Roger Hawkey, Anthony Green & Sarojani Devi. 2009. The cognitive processes underlying the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS. IELTS Research Reports 9. 157-189.
  52. Yus, Francisco. 2018. Attaching feelings and emotions to propositions: Some insights on irony and internet communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1). 94-107.
  53. Zhang, Limei. 2018. Metacognitive and Cognitive Strategy Use in Reading Comprehension: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6325-1
  54. Ziafar, Meisam & Ehsan Namaziandost. 2020. A formulaic approach to propositional density and readability. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences 6 (6) 816-822.

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar

Declaração de direitos autorais © Solnyshkina M.I., Harkova E.V., Ebzeeva Y.N., 2023

Creative Commons License
Este artigo é disponível sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição–NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».