Broek, P., Rohleder, L., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Cognitive processes in the comprehension of Literary texts. In H. Oostendorp & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Naturalistic Text Comprehension, (pp. 229-246). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. 13 Cognitive Processes in the Comprehension of Literary Texts Paul van den Brock Lisa Robleder Darcia Narvaez University of Minnesota When we read a novel, a newspaper article, or any other type of naturalistic text, we do not perceive the individual sentences to convey isolated pieces of information. Rather, we perceive them as being interconnected, as forming a coherent whole. The perception of coherence is the result of extensive inferential processes, some of which are automatic while others are intentional and strategic. In these processes, the reader draws on his or her general background knowledge as well as on memory for the preceding text to establish how the events. objects. and people described in the present state- ment are related to those in statements that were described earlier ‘The vast majority of the connections that readers detect in a text are between statements or events that follow each other closely. For example, in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Mr, Scrooge’s gift of food to his employee is directly related to the fact that the family rejoices in having a bountiful Christmas. Other connections, how-230 van den Brock etal ever, may connect statements or events that are separated widely in the text. For example, in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, the fact that Anna commits suicide by throwing herself infront ofa train attains added significance when the reader realizes the connection to the fact that she met her lover and nemesis. Prince Vronsky. in a train ‘scene hundreds of pages earlier. Thus, the perception of coherence is not only necessary for minimal comprehension of what one reads, but also is an essential component of the aesthetic and emotional experience that the text evokes in the reader. The purpose of the present chapter {s to discuss the coherence- building activities that underlle comprehension of texts. The chap- ter consists of three parts. The first part provides a description of the inferential processes that take place during reading, based pri- marily on research with nonnaturalistic, experimenter generated texts, In the second and third sections, the applicability of this general model to reading of naturalistic, in particular literary, texts {s explored. in the second section, it is demonstrated that many of the inferential processes that take place during reading of non- naturalistic texts also occur curing the reading of naturalistic texts. ‘The third section, in contrast, focuses on the differences between reading of naturalistic and nonnaturalistie texts. Here we suggest ‘hat naturalistic texts may involve more extensive. and in some respects qualitatively different, inferential activities and that they may provide a better window on the communicative process as a whole, which includes the reader, the text, and the author. INFERENTIAL PROCESSES DURING READING A central component of successful reading is the construction of a coherent mental representation of the text, Such a representation, results from extensive inferential processes that take place during reading, These inferences generally fall into two categories. First, inferences can be associative. These inferences result when words. concepts, or events are highly associated with the information con- tained in the statement that presently is being read. Second, infer: fences may be coherence-based. Coherence-based inferences are generated in an atte*hpt to connect information in the present state ‘ment to the remainder of the text. These two types of inferences are, of course. not independent; frequently, the associates that are act! vated during reading of the statement may fulfll the function of establishing coherence (cf, Kintsch, 1988). For example. consider the following sentence pair (from van den Broek, Risden. & Husebye. Hartmann, 1992): Margle intently peered at the beehive ‘Suddenly. she screamed and slapped her arm ao In this case, the reader is likely to establish coherence by inferring that Margie was stung by a bee. This inference is supported both by association ("beehive” is associated with “bee” and “sting") and by coherence ("sting’ allows the reader to connect the two statements} (See below for a detailed discussion of coherence.) Thus, in this case an associated inference would, as a side effect, also establish a coherence inference. At other times, however, the establishment of coherence takes more effort because associates of the words in the sentences do not provide a basis for coherence. In this case, the reader may search his or her memory for prior text or may access background knowledge in order to resolve the ambiguity in the present statement (Gerns- bacher. 1990; O'Brien, 1987: van den Broek, in press). Consider the following sentences: Margie peered intently at the nest Suddenly. she screamed and slapped her arm, a Here, the reader also is likely to infer that Margie was stung by a bee. ut now this inference is only supported by the demand for coher: nce not by a strong association (the association between “nest” and ting” is weaker than between “beehive” and “sting’). In order to understand that these sentences are related, the reader needs to access his or her background knowledge. ‘Two situations in particular are likely to lead to extensive, co- herence-based processing, namely anaphoric ambiguity and nsufli- ‘lent causal explanation. Anaphoric ambiguity occurs when an ob- Ject or person mentioned in the present statement is not clearly Identified. Consider, for example, the following sentence pair: ‘The editor had to make some decisions concerning the manuscript. ‘She decided to take a closer look at it. @ In this pair of sentences, the word "she" Is disambiguated by con- necting it to “the editor” in the previous sentence. This connection hhas two results: on the one hand, it now is clear to whom the word “she” refers: and on the other hand, the reader's knowledge of “the editor” has become more detailed, in that the gender of the person ts now specified. The resolution of this anaphor is relatively easy in this situation, because the disambiguating information is provided in the immediately preceding statement. As was noted above, how-252 van den Brock et al ever, the disambiguating information may have been presented ‘much earlier in the text or may be absent from the text altogether. In these cases. backward memory searches or activation of background Knowledge will take place. Causally insufficient explanation occurs when the event de- scribed in the present statement requires explanation in the current circumstances of the text. Consider, for example, the following sen- tence pair: ‘John accidentally dropped the banana peel. Danielle fell on her back. a In this ease, the event of Danielle’ falling on her back ts infrequent ‘enough to warrant a search for explanation. Such an explanation is readily found in the preceding sentence by making an inference that it was the banana peel that made Danielle fall. Notice that in this example, simple activation of the preceding statement is not sufli- cient; in addition, the reader will have to access background know! edge that banana peels are often associated with people's falling (Singer. Halldorson, Lear, & Andrusiak, 1992). As with anaphoric ambiguities, when the immediately preceding sentence does not provide causally sufficient explanation, extensive memory or know!- edge searches may be required for comprehension. ‘These inferential processes can be summarized as follows (sce Table 13.1). As the reader proceeds through the text, each statement that is being read evokes activation-based and coherence-based In- erences, Activation-based inferences include the anticipation of future events (for example, in Example 2, that Danielle may scold ohn). likely preceding evens (Danielle's falling might evoke the notion of “slipping”), or information that is contemporaneous with the present statement (“editor” in Example 3 may activate “books” or “Journals"). Coherence-based inferences take place when compre- TaBLe 13.1 “Types of Inferences During Reading 1 Associate inferences 2 Aniipatjon of fae eves 1. Activation of preceding events . Gontemporaneous information 2. Coherence Based inferences |. Connecnginerences to activated information 5. Reinsaterets rom ing tem memory Elaboration, based on baiground knowledge Cognitive Processes 233 hension is inadequate. They can take the form of connecting Infer- ‘ences, which connect the presently read statement to events from the prior text that are still activated (usually the preceding state- ment as in Example 4}. They also may involve the reinstatement of information that was encountered in the prior text from episodic memory. Finally, they may constitute elaborative inferences by ‘means of the activation of background knowledge in semantic mem- ory that explains or disambiguates what is being read at present. For example, when one reads the following as part of a text: "The secretary put the folder with papers under his arm and ran towards his car. The wind blew open the folder, and the papers got all wet, the reader is likely to make an elaborative inference (o explain the papers getting wet, perhaps by inferring that it must have been raining. Note that all three types of coherence-based inferences are backward, in that they connect the current statement to prior events, whereas association-based inferences can be backward, for ward, and concurrent to the statement that is being read. Empirical evidence for this general description of the reading process comes from studies in which the activation of concepts and events is measured. Among the most frequently used measures are naming and lexical decision. In each case, the opeed with which readers respond to target words (in the naming task by pronouncing, the word. in the lexical decision task by indicating whether the presented letter string is a word or not) is taken (o be an indication Of the availability of the tested information. If the speed with which subjects respond systematically is faster than in a contral situation, it ts concluded that an inference was drawn. The results of such studies indicate that assoclative Inferences are routinely generated during reading (Sharkey & Sharkey, 1992; Till, Mross, & Kintsch, 1988). These activations generally are short-lived, however, unless they establish coherence. When they do establish coherence. they are likely to be maintained and possibly encoded in a relatively stable ‘memory representation of the text. Coherence-based inferences also have been found to be generated. Connecting inferences (2a in Table 13.1) contribute to the memory for textual information (Myers & "Weshould be pointed out thatthe rote of context diferences should be ‘considered and. if possible. minimized, before conclusion art drawm. ‘The reason for this tg that responses in one condition also may be faster if the information {fo which the eader has to respond Is supported more strongly by. or is more ‘compatible with. the textual context gen in that condition chai he other condition (cf. Keenan, Potts. Golding. & Jennings. 1990, an Oastendorp. 1991) ‘The cited studies all conte for such fects,234 van den Broek et al Duffy. 1990}, Information that is hypothesized to be reinstated (2b) is more available immediately after such a reinstatement was to take place than at other points in the text (Dopkins, Klin, & Myers, in 1993; Suh & Trabasso, 1993; Thurlow, 1991; Trabasso & Suh. 1993). The evidence for elanorative inferences (2c) is less clear. although some empirical support exists (Graesser & Clark, 1985: Singer et al.. 1992: Whitney. Ritchie & Crane, 1992) ‘The end result of these inferential processes is the construction of coherent mental representetion of the text. Such representations include the individual pieces of information presented in the text, the relations among these pieces of information, and information, that was inferred in order to provide coherence. Thus, the mental representation constitutes a situation model, including both explic- Itly presented information and concepts that were inferred, rather than a mere reflection of the text base. The representation can be conceived of as a network of interconnected nodes. Many properties of these networks have been found to have psychological validity. Statements that have many causal connections to other statements in the text tend to be recalleé more often than statements with few connections (Fletcher & Bloom, 1988; Graesser & Clark, 1985: ‘OBrien & Myers, 1987: Trabasso & van den Brock, 1985). State. mente that are on a path that leads through the network froin Ute beginning to its end also are recalled more often, summarized more frequently. and rated as more important than are statements that are not on this path (Omanson, 1982). Finally, the more connec- lions a statement has, the more quickly it will be remembered (OBrien & Myers, 1987), In sum, the results of research on experimental texts suggest that the reader engages in extensive inferential processes. with some inferences being based on assoclations and others on a need for coherence, as dictated by tke reader's purposes for reading and eriteria for comprehension. Together. these inferences result in a coherent memory representation of the text that resembles a net ‘work of interconnected nodes. The representation provides a situa- ton mode! that contains both explicily mentioned and inferred information, COHERENCE IN NATURALISTIC TEXTS Recent evidence suggests that similar processes take place during the reading of nonexperimental, naturalistic texts. In one study, subjects read and recalled short literary stories (van den Broek, Robleder, & Narviez, in press). The structure of these stortes, a Grimm fairy tale and a shor: story from a novel by Maxine Hong Cognitive Processes 235 Kingston. is considerably more complex than that of texts typically used in experimental studies on reading. For example, they contain ‘multiple protagonists. have strongly interwoven causal chains. and are characterized by many unexpected turns. For these stories, the probability that a statement was recalled depended strongly on the umber of its causal connections to other statements in the text This suggests that the mental representation of these naturalistic texts also resembles a network of causally connected nodes, Further more, when a second group of subjects read the text but was fre- quently interrupted by the presentation of a string of letters. their speed at deciding whether the letter strings were English words was considerably faster when the letter string represented a word that ‘was hypothesized to have been reinstated or elaborated than when the letter string was either a nonword or a word that was not required for coherence at that point in the text. Similar results have been observed by Singer et al. (1992), who found that subjects systematically inferred elaborative information when it was needed {or comprehension. ‘Although these results suggest that there is similarity between the processing of naturalistic and nonnaturalistic texts, many more ‘systematic explorations of this issue need to be conducted. Support for the notion that the above inferential processes generalize beyond ‘experimenter-generated (ext comes from studies on the comprehen- sion of naturalistic but nontextual events. however. For example, ‘children as well as adults have been found to represent events that they encounter in the context of television programs as semantic networks (van den Broek, Lorch, & Thurlow, 1993). Similarly. these processes have been observed in the comprehension of plecure sto- Fes as well (Trabasso & Nickels. 1992; Trabasso. Stein, Rodkin, Munger. & Baugh, In press). As a final example, the structure of descriptions of accounts of complicated events such as U.S. govern- ment reports on the space shuttle Challenger disaster or the 1987 stock market crash reflect extensive causal inferences similar to those described above (Shapiro, van den Broek, & Fletcher, 1993) ‘Thus, the inferential processes and the resulting mental representa tions are a natural part of comprehension of events regardless of whether these events are depicted in experimental texts, in natue ralistic texts, or even in nontextual discourse, ‘THE IMPORTANCE OF NATURALISTIC TEXTS IN THE STUDY OF READING COMPREHENSION Although the commonalities between processing of nonnaturallstic and naturalistic texts are substantial, there also are important dif- ferences between the processes involved in each. These differences236 van den Brock et al center around two Issues. The first issue concerns the extent to which inferential activities take place as a regular part of reading. ‘The second issue concerns the unique communicative context that is involved in the reading of naturalist texts. ‘The Extent of Inferential Processes Although the research based on experimental texts indicates the ‘occurrence of various types of inferential processes during reading, the frequency with which several of these inferences take place has been found to be rather limited. For example, forward inferences, in which future parts of the text are anticipated, have been found to not occur at all {Keenan et al, 1990: Singer & Ferreira. 1983) or to ‘be made only when the text provides strong constraints toward that particular inference (Murray. Klin, & Myers, 1993; van den Broek, Risden. & Husebye-Hartmann, in press; Vonk & Noordman, 1990), A cursory inspection of literary texts suggests that forward infer- ences are generated routinely and with great frequency during the reading of these materials, Part of the attraction of some of the great, Russian novels, for instance, lies in the fact that the reader observes something that the protagonists do not observe, namely, that the protagonists are inevitably being drawn cowards a particular out: come. Similarly, a crucial cemponent of tragedies, such as those written by the Greek masters Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Euripides, is the realization by the audience that actions performed at the present moment have consequences, unbeknownst to the perpetra- tor. that can span generations. In these tragedies, forward infer- ences such as these often even extend beyond individual tragedies, thereby creating coherence between several plays. As a final example of forward inferences. the power of many novels rests to a large extent on the element of surprise that occurs when the forward inference made by the reader has to be revised in the face of new information in the text (Brewer & Lichtenstein, 1982). The findings on experimental texts suggest that backward, co- herence-building inferences are generated much more consistently than forward inferences. Even some of these inferences, however. have been found te occur only under special circumstances. Whereas connecting backward inferences are made with great re- lability, the results on experimental texts indicate that reinstate. ments and backward elaborative inferences frequently are made ‘only when local coherence fails (o be obtained (but see Albrecht & OBrien. 1993; van den Broek & Lorch, 1993, for evidence that reinstatements and elaborations occur even in the presence of local Cognitive Processes 237 coherence}. That is. they are made when anaphoric ambiguity exists or when the present event is not adequately explained by the imme. diately preceding textual information. Again, it is likely that back- ward inferences are gencrated with a much higher frequency during the reading of naturalistic texts. For example, detective stories and spy novels frequently conclude with a denouement in which the final information results in a restructuring of one's understanding of events that were described much earlier in the text, even though the novel information is coherent with the immediately preceding text. Likewise in Tolstoy's novel the dramatic impact of Anna Karenina’s sulcide by throwing herself in front ofa train is caused in part by the fact that her tragle circumstances began at the same railway sta- tion. in this case, Anna’s suicide is coherent within the context of the immediately preceding text, but the reader nevertheless (for reasons to be discussed below) is drawn towards integrating it with, distant text. Finally. the inferences that are elicited by literary texts may in- clude some that are of a different nature than those evoked by experimenter-generated materials, Whereas experiinental texts of- ten depict rather stereotypical, almost scriptlike events, literary texts frequently describe events that are unexpected or emotionally charged. or provide novel interpretations of familiar events, As a result, literary texts bring about powerful. global and, frequently, affective responses in the reader that rarely accompany the reading of experimenter-generated texts. ‘Thus. even a cursory examination of literary texts suggests that Inferential activities during reading are more plentiful and may Include inferences of a different nature than the research based on. ‘experimental texts would lead one to believe, Recent investigations, in which experimental methods are applied to naturalistic text, have ‘begun to provide empirical support for this conjecture. For example, readers proceed through some naturalistic texts at a pace that is much slower than that typically observed with experimental texts (Carpenter & Just. 1992). In some types of naturalistic texts, the reading speed may decrease by as much as 50 percent. These results suggest that nacuralistic lexts evoke considerably more inferential activity than do experimenter-generated texts—although some of the increased time is spent primarily on surface features of the text (ef. Zwaan, 1992) ‘The notion that the generation of inferences is even more impor- tant in the reading of naturalistic texts than in that of experimental texts is supported by the results of the eartier described study by van, den Broek et al. (in press). As with experimental texts, statements with many causal connections were recalled much more frequentlyr 238 van den Bock et al than were statements with fewer causal connections. The relation between number of connections and memorability was considerably stronger in the titerary texts than had been found previously in studies on experimental texts. however. This suggests that the memory representations of naturalistic text are more strongly af- fected by the causal structure of the text than are the representa. tions of nonnaturalistic tex, either because the former are more densely interconnected or because their causal connections are more strongly encoded in memory. Furthermore, whereas previous studies have shown little or no evidence that elaborative inferences are made, the evidence that such inferences were generated during reading of naturalist text is quite strong, In sum, both Intuitive analyses of literary text and recent results of experimental studies of reading of Ierary texts suggest that inferential activities are coasiderably more extensive during. the reading of naturalistic texts than during the reading of ‘ex: perimenter-generated texts. Why might this be the case? There are At least two possible reasons for this difference. First. reader tn- tolvement is ikely to be higher for naturalistic texts than for exper mental texts. Second, the sructure of naturalistic texts may elicit more extensive and varied inferential processes Reader involvement is high in naturalistic stories for several rea- sons, One reason. for exampee. s that they tend to be more interest. ‘ng (MeDaniel, Hines, Wadaill, & Einstein, 1992), Elements of sur. Prise. twists in the flow of the narrative, and the choice of topic al Combine to create a more conducive environment for inferential activity. Second, naturaliste texts usually are longer than non- naturalistic stories. One consequence is that the reader ts drawn into the hypothetical world deseibed in the text and hence becomes involved in the events that take place. Third, naturalistic texts re quently provoke a unique literary experience such as the perception of closure, aesthetic appeal, and moral implication, which divectly depends on and therefore encourages inferential processes (f. Tan, this volume). As a final example, the reader's purposes in reading natutaliste texts differ from those typically found with respect to artificial texts (van Oostendorp, 199%. this volume). As a result of these and other properties, reader involvement in naturalist texts generally Is greater than in nonnaturalistic texts Likewise, the structure of naturalistic texts prompts more infer ential processes than that ef nonnaturalistic texts. Again, several contributing factors can be discussed. First, the length of naturals tic texts noted above not ony evokes involvement, it also makes It {Imperative for the reader to make inferences in order to Keep track of the flow of the narrative, Second, naturalistic texts tend to be com Cognitive Processes 239 plicated in structure. Unlike experimental texts, naturalistic texts usually Involve multiple protagonists with multiple plans that all intertwine and are mutually dependent. The resulting complexity of naturalistic texts forces the reader to engage in considerable infer- ‘ential activity. Third, as mentioned above, literary texts often describe unfamiliar or unexpected patterns of events whereas ‘experimenter-generated texts usually are quite conventional. Liter: ary texts therefore may evoke more inferential and integrative pro- cesses (cf. van Oostendorp. this volume) than typically are found ‘with experimenter-generated texts. Fourth, the author of a literary text may control the flow of information in order to elicit specific responses on the part of the reader, for example by foregrounding information or by selecting particular linguistic constructions. As a result, the Informational structure is less straightforward and may even violate expectations by the reader, thereby requiring problem: solving activities by the reader. ‘The examples illustrate how reader involvement and structural ‘complexity together may prompt inferential processes usually not, found in the reading of nonnaturalistic texts. As a result, research based on nonnaturalistic text typically will underestimate the extent of inferential activity that takes place during regular reading. Only the use of naturalistic texts will allow a proper appreciation of these ‘inferences. In addition, the use of naturalistic text allows the con. ‘sideration of various factors that Influence the generation of differ ‘ent types of inferences. These factors might never be studied sf the ‘occurrence of the inferences is itself dismissed because they do not occur in reading of experimenter-generated texts. Coherence and Communicative Discourse Although much psychological research on reading focuses on the comprehension processes that take place in the reader (much like reader-response theory does in literary analysis), reading typically ts embedded in the larger context of communicative discourse. We propose that the act of communication through discourse is the result of an interaction between author, text, and reader. Although cach of these elements can be and has been investigated in isolation, {tis only when they are considered jointly that the full complexity of communicative discourse is revealed. Examples of aspects of each of the elements that contribute to the communication are given in Table 13.2, ‘These aspects interact extensively during the communicative pro- cess. For example, the extent to which the author's message will be conveyed adequately to the reader is limited by the extent to which240 van den Broek et al, ABLE 13.2 Aspects of Author, Text, and Reader that Contribute to Communicative Discourse Autor TT Mesage 1 be conveyed 4 Wea ei 4. Background krowledge 1 Suc complesity 2. Galt vip formation 5: Linguiic cue to inlerenal poceses eg. comectvs) 4 Cee Reader 1 Mesvaioneading gos! 2 Background knowledge 3. Reading selleeateges 5 MlrteanonyEnaviral imokement wi petagenst the author and reader bring similar background knowledge to bear upon the situation. For example. in Euripides Btectra, Electra rolls out a red carpet for her returning husband, Agamemnon. The Greek audience would have realized the fact that the color red is associated with death and therefore would have grasped Immediately the dra- ‘matic relevance of Agamemnon’s stepping onto the carpet. For a ‘modern-day western audience, the implication of Agamemnon’ act, may very well remain elusive. Similarly. the author ofa literary work implicitly or explicitly has the properties of the reader in mind when ‘writing, Information that can be inferred readily, m the judgment of the author, may be omitted from the text: elements of surprise. ‘emotion, and so on, can be inserted in the text on the basis of the author's intuitions of the reader's reading processes. Thus, proper tues of the reader affect the author and, vice versa, the author's Incuitlons affect the experience in the reader (Brewer & Lichten: stein, 1982; Britton & Gulgoz, 1991; van den Broek et al., in press) All of the above mentioned effects are mediated by the text. The text is the end produict of the author's intentions as well as of his or her intuitions about the reader's processes. From the reader's point fof view. however, the text is the starting point. Regardless of the author's intentions or intuitions, the content and structure of the text will elicit inferential processes on the part of the reader. AS has been described extensively above, aspects of the reader and those of the text will interact to yield a unique memory representation of the text in the reader. Cognitive Processes 241 Although both psychological research and theories of literary crit- {ism (for example, constructivism and reader-response theory] tend to focus primarily or exclusively on one element or another, commu- nicative discourse can be understood only by investigation of all elements (consider the diagram of the interactions between the author. text. and reader elements in Figure 13.1). Across instances of communicative discourse, the amount of overlap between the three elements varies. For example, although a text will capture parts of the author's intentions, thoughts, and so on, as indicated by the intersections labeled B and D in Figure 13.1. substantial aspects of the author's thoughts are not represented in the text and the text may contain information not intended or shared by the author. as indicated by the nonoverlapping parts of the author and text circles in Figure 13.1. Similarly, the reader may extract only some parts of the text, indicated by Segments D and C. Some parts of the text are not grasped by the reader and, conversely, the text ‘may not touch upon many aspects of the reader's world of thought, as indicated by the nonoverlapping segments of the reader and text circles. Finally. the author and reader may share many properties, intentions, and thoughts. as indicted by Segments A and D, but they also have many unique properties, as indicated by the non- overlapping author and reader circles Only the segment indicated by D represents an instance of com: FIGURE 13.1 Conmunictve course at an Inieacton of Author, Test, an Reader Author, Reader Text242 van den Broek et al muntcative discourse that involves all three elements, The larger the segment, the more extensively the author, reader. and text are united. A text perfectly communicates the author's intended mean- ing to the reader if neither assigns meaning to the text that is not shared by the other—that 's, if the Segments B and C are empty. This is unlikely to occur for various reasons. If the author and reader have very little in common, as may happen when they live in different cultures or have very different belief systems, then the Ukelihood of true communication is low. Similarly. the common- allties between the reader and the text. and the author and the text, respectively, may vary substantially. Finally, note that each element may share with another element without the involvement of the third element. Thus, the reader may extract the information from the text even though that was not part of the author's intentions or beliefS, as indicated by Segment C. Likewise, the author and reader ‘may share beliefs or properties that are not conveyed by the text (as Indicated by Segment A), and the text may convey information in- tended by the author but not grasped by the reader (as indicated by Segment B). ‘These considerations represent some of the implications of the hypothetical model of communicative discourse. Others could be pursued in a similar fashion, but the main point is that in order to understand the full complexity of communicative discourse i 1s essential to investigate the role of all three elements. In order to do 50, it is imperative to use naturalistic texts. The author's intentions, in experimenter-generated texts usually are limited to simply creat- ing a text that possesses certain structural properties. This has ‘several important implications for the validity of any conclusions about reading and communicative discourse. On the one hand, an important element of communicative discourse. the author's inten tons, is omitted from the picture. On the other hand. and perhaps more importantly from the point of view of psychological theories of reading, the obvious absence of intentions. purposes. or hidden meanings on the part of the author are likely to affect the compre- hension processes in which the reader will engage (ef. Gibbs, Kush- nner. & Mills, 1992; Zwaan, 1992), Asa consequence. a deseription of the cognitive processes during reading that is based on experiments ‘with nonnaturalistte texts only will be an impoverished one because {tis likely to omit central inferences that the reader makes about the author's purposes and consequently about the inferences that are generated in response to the textual information itself. ‘The Communicative Discourse view of reading (and writing) sug ‘gests unique directions for future research. For example. the simul taneous consideration of text, author. and reader properties allows, Cognitive Processes 243 fone to determine whether readers’ intuitions about the author's Intentions affect the comprehension processes in which they engage and, vice versa, whether the author's writing process Is affected by intuitions about the reader. Likewise, this depiction of the commu- nicative process predicts that the author's/reader’s reliance on text properties in writing and understanding is diminished as their shared background knowledge increases, A final example of the Implications of this theoretical framework is that memory for iter- ary texts, compared to memory for experimental texts, will be deter- mined even more strongly by the structural properties of the reader's ‘mental representation of the texts. Also, literary texts this represen- tation would include affective components in addition to the an- aphoric and causal ones typically found in the research on experi mental texts. CONCLUSIONS ‘The past decade has seen tremendous advances in our understand- Ing of the cognitive processes that take place during reading. It has become clear that a crucial component of successful reading is the construction of a coherent mental representation of the text. This representation resembles an elaborate network of interconnected pieces of information. The connections in this network are the result of inferential processes that take place as the reader proceeds through the texts. Some of these inferences are based on assocta- tions, while others are based on the need for coherence, particularly that of anaphoric clarity and causally sufficient explanation. ‘The inferential and representational processes that take place during the reading of nonnaturalistic texts have been found to take place during the reading of naturalistic texts as well. There are important differences, however. First, inferential activities are likely to be more frequent and in some respects different during reading of naturalistic texts than during that of nonnaturabistic texts. This ‘may reflect both greater reader involvement and greater structural complexity. Second. the use of experimenter-generated texts dimin- ishes the importance of the triad of central elements of communica- tive discourse during natural reading, namely author, text, and reader. Above, we proposed that it is exactly the interactions be- tween all three components that are central o reading. AS a result, the picture of reading processes and comprehension that results from research on nonnaturalistic texts will yield a simplistic render: Ing of the richness of reading and underestimate the powerful, and often long-lasting, effects that the text may have on the reader. The244 van den Brock eta. complexity of the reading process and its impact on the reader can only be gauged by extending existing experimental paradigms to the study of comprehension of naturalistic texts. REFERENCES Albrecht, J. E., & OBrien &. J.{1993}. Updating a mental model: Maintain- ng both local and global esherence, Journal of Experimental Psychol. ogy: Learning, Memory. and Cognition, 19(5). 1061-1070. Brewer, W. F., & Lichtenstein. E, H. (1982). Stories are to entertain: A structural-alfect theory ofstortes. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 473-486. Briton. B. K. & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintseh’s computational model to improve instructional tex! Eflets of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology. 3. 329-345. Carpenter, P.A.. & Just, M. (May. 1992). How mental capacity constrains werdry comprehension. Paper presented atthe third annual meeting ‘of the International Association for the Empirical Study of Literature, Memphis, TN. Dopkins,S.. Klin. Ce Myers, J. L. (1993). The accessibility of information about goals during the processing of narrative texts. Joumal of Exper imental Psychology: Leaming, Memory and Cognition. 1941), 70-80, Fletcher. C. R.. & Bloom, C. P. 1988), Causal reasoning in the comprehen sion of stimple narrative texts, Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 235-284. Gemsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure bulld- ing. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Gibbs, RW., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W.R.,l(1992). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycho-linguistte Re search, 30, 11-20. Graesser. A. C., & Clark, L. F. (1985), The structures and procedures of “implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ‘Keenan, J. M., Potts, G. .. Golding, J. M., & Jennings. T. M, (1990), Which elaborative inferences are drawn during reading? A question of meth edologies. tn D. A, Balote. G. B. Flores d'Arcals, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprenension Processes tn Reading (pp. 377-898}, Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. ‘Kintsch, W. (1988)’ The role o” knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-ntegration model. Psychological Review. 95. 163-183. MeDantel, M.A., Hines, R. J, Wadi P. J. & Einstein, G. 0. (May, 1992), What produces unique memory patterns in folktales: Content faml- (arty, causal structure, scripts. or superstructures? Paper presented at third annual meeting ofthe International Association for the Es pirteal Study of Literature, Memphis. TN, Murray, J... Klin, C. M., & Myers, J. L- (1993), Forward inferences about Cognitive Processes 245 specific events during reading, Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 464-473, Myers. J. L., &Duffy, S. A, (1990). Causal inferences and text memory. In ‘A.C. Graesser & G. H, Bower (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Inferences and text comprehension, 25. 35-31, Sun Diego. CA: Academie OBrien, E. J.. & Myers, J. L. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory and Cognition, 15, 413-427, OBrien, E. J. (19871, Anapharic inference during reading, Journal of Ex: perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. and Cognition. 12, 346-352. ‘Omanson. R. C, (1982). The relation between centrality and story category vartation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 21 326-397. ‘Sharkey, A. J. C., & Sharkey, N. B. (1992), Weak contextual constraints in text and word priming, Journal of Memory and Language. 31 543-572. Shapiro. BP. van den Broek. P.. & Fletcher, C. R. (1999). The understand: ng of complex real-ife events. Unpublished manuscript Singer. M., Halldorson. M., Lear, J.C. & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. Joumal of Memory and Language. $1, 507-524 Singer. M., & Ferreira, F, (1983). Inferring consequences in story compre- hhension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22. 437-448, Sub, S. ¥., & Trabasso, T. (1999). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence form discourse analysis. tall-aloud protocols, and recogat= tion priming. Journal of Memony and Language, J2. 275-300, ‘Thurlow. R. E. (1991). The inference of causal antecedents dunng the reading of narratives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ‘of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN. Tl, R. E., Mross. E. F.. & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cogntiion. 16(4}, 283-298, ‘Trabasso. T., & Nickels. M. (1992). The development of goal plans of action tn the narration ofa picture story, Discourse Processes. 15, 249-275. ‘Trabasso, T., Stein. N. L.,.Rodkin. P.C., Munger, M, P.. de Baughn, CR. (in Dress). Knowledge of goals and plans in the orine narration of events. Cognitive Development ‘Trabasso, T...& Suh, S. ¥. (1993). Understanding text: Achleving explana tory coherence through on-line inferenees and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34 ‘Trabasso. T.. & van den Broek, P. W. (1985), Causal thinking and the Fepresentation of narrative events, Joumal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630, van den Broek, P. W. (in press). Comprehension and memory an narrative {exts: inferences and coherence. in M. G. Gersbacher [Ed]. Hand: book of Psychelinguisties. New York: Academie.246 van den Brock et al van den Broek, P.. & Lorch, R. F (1993). Network representations of causal Felations in memory for narrative texts: Evidence from primed recog nition. Discourse Processes, 16(1~2). 75-98, van den Broek. P. W.. Lorch, E. P., & Thurlow. R. (1993). Children’s and Adults’ memory for television stories: The role of causal factors, story: ‘grammar categories and hierarchical level. Unpublished manuscript. van den Brock. P.. Risden. K., Husebye-Hartmann, E. (Nov, 1992), Causal and assoetative constraints in the generation of bridging inferences, Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Soci. ety. St. Louis, MO. van den Broek, P. W., Risden, K.. Husebye- Hartmann, E. (in press). Com: prehension of narrative events: Maintaining sufficient explanation. In R. F. Lorch, Jr. & OBrien, E. (Eds.). Sources of coherence in text comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, van den Broek. P. W., Rohleder, L., & Narvaez, D. (in press). Causal infer ‘ences in the comprehensten of literary texts. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S, McNealy (Eds.). The empirical study of literature. Norwood, Ni Ablex van Oostendorp, H. (1991). Inferences and integrations made by readers of script-based texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(1), 3-20, Vonk, W.. & Noordman. L. (1990). On the control of inferences in text understanding. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.). Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 447-465), Hills- dale, NJ: Eribaum, Whitney. P.. Ritchie, B. G., & Crane, R. S, (1992). The effect of foreground- Ing on readers’ use of predictive inferences. Memory and Cognition. 20, 424-432, ‘2waan, R. A, (1992). Aspects of lterary comprehension: A cognitive ap- proach. Doctoral dissertation. The Netherlands, Riksuniversiteit te Utrecht.