The epistemic stance between the author and reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing

This article explores the role of text cohesion in the comprehension and production of text. While most discourse models have considered the roles of the text features and the reader, the crucial role of writers’ epistemic stance has not been widely considered. The thesis explored here is that levels of cohesion emerge in text based on the epistemic stance of the author relative to the reader. Evidence is provided indicating that text genres (i.e. science, narrative) show compensatory relationships between different features related to text difficulty. For example, while science texts have more challenging words than do narratives, they tend to have higher cohesion and simpler syntax. These text profiles indicate that skilled writers have an awareness of readers’ needs. By contrast, less skilled writers seem to have less sensitivity to the interplay between textual dimensions and less audience awareness. For example, evidence is reviewed showing that more proficient essays are characterized by lower cohesion than less proficient essays: less skilled writers tend to use more cohesive cues (when they are likely unnecessary) than do more skilled writers. To the extent that an author understands the readers’ needs, the author has a more successful epistemic stance toward the reader. This stance is partially evidenced by the crucial role of cohesion in text comprehension and writing.

[1]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence , 1996 .

[2]  Danielle S McNamara,et al.  Suppressing Irrelevant Information: Knowledge Activation or Inhibition? , 2004 .

[3]  Michael B. W. Wolfe,et al.  Relations Between Adolescents' Text Processing and Reasoning , 2005 .

[4]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[5]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Processing Components of College-Level Reading Comprehension. , 1994 .

[6]  Eduardo Vidal-Abarca,et al.  Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. , 2000 .

[7]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994, Psychological review.

[8]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: Capturing Linguistic Features of Cohesion , 2010 .

[9]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Martha L. King,et al.  Toward a Theory of Early Writing Development. , 1979 .

[11]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production , 1982 .

[12]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Writing-Pal: Natural Language Algorithms to Support Intelligent Tutoring on Writing Strategies , 2012 .

[13]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence , 1984 .

[14]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  The Development of Writing Proficiency as a Function of Grade Level: A Linguistic Analysis , 2011 .

[15]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Revising Social Studies Text from a Text-Processing Perspective: Evidence of Improved Comprehensibility. , 1991 .

[16]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Predicting Human Scores of Essay Quality Using Computational Indices of Linguistic and Textual Features , 2011, AIED.

[17]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Improving Comprehension with Questioning the Author: A Fresh and Expanded View of a Powerful Approach , 2006 .

[18]  Aviva Freedman,et al.  Writing in the College Years: Some Indices of Growth , 1980, College Composition & Communication.

[19]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences , 1973 .

[20]  Philip M. McCarthy,et al.  Linguistic Features of Writing Quality , 2010 .

[21]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing , 2011 .

[22]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[23]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inference during reading. , 1992, Psychological review.

[24]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[25]  B. K. Britton,et al.  Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. , 1991 .

[26]  George J. Spilich,et al.  Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. , 1979 .

[27]  John Heritage,et al.  Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds , 2013 .

[28]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall , 1972 .

[29]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables , 1975 .

[30]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  How Subject-Matter Knowledge Affects Recall and Interest , 1994 .

[31]  L. Resnick,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction , 2018 .

[32]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis. , 1980 .

[33]  H. H. Clark,et al.  What's new? Acquiring New information as a process in comprehension , 1974 .

[34]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[35]  D. McCutchen Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability , 1986 .

[36]  R. Flesch A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Reversing the Reverse Cohesion Effect: Good Texts Can Be Better for Strategic, High-Knowledge Readers , 2007 .

[38]  Danielle S. McNAMARA and Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Self-Explanation and Metacognition: The Dynamics of Reading , 2009 .