閱讀過程中,成功地理解文本來自一致的心理表徵(Kintsch, 1988),而心理表徵又與連貫關係(Hobbs, 1979)密不可分(Graesser, Millis & Zwaan, 1997),因此,本研究旨在探討漢語母語者閱讀四種連貫句對時,連貫關係於句對處理的影響反映在其連貫性判斷、閱讀時間及回憶表現上的情形。四種連貫句對乃是由因果關聯的高、低,以及語意關聯的高、低所組成。此外亦調查讀者類型中,理科生和文科生在上述三個調查重點的表現差異情形。整個研究透過 Prime Professional 2.0 軟體進行,並探究以下研究問題:(1)閱讀因果關聯、語意關聯高、低組合的四種句對之連貫性評估情況與差異為何?(2)線上(on-line)閱讀四種句對時反映在其目標句閱讀時間的情況與差異為何?(3)線下(off-line)回憶四種句對時反映在其目標句回憶表現的情況與差異為何?
本研究的實驗結果顯示,首先,當因果關聯的連貫關係高,受試者認為句對較有連貫性,語意關聯亦是如此。第二,因果關聯高的句對其目標句閱讀時間較短,語意關聯的效果僅在高因果時,使高語意的句對閱讀較低語意快。第三,因果關聯和語意關聯高的句對其目標句回憶表現較佳。第四,因果關聯對理組的影響較大,語意關聯對文組的影響較大。整體而言,本研究結果發現了在漢語句對閱讀中,母語者於評估句對是否具有連貫性上,語意關聯同因果關聯一樣為重要的角色。此外,閱讀時,因果關聯能有效促進句對的處理速度,語意的影響則不如因果。而在短時記憶上,兩種連貫關係對回憶出的句對質量皆有相當影響。

During the reading process, the successful understanding of the text comes from a consistent mental representation(Kintsch, 1988), and mental representation is
inseparable from the coherence relation(Hobbs, 1979 (Graesser, Millis & Zwaan, 1997). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate when native Chinese speakers read the four types of coherent sentence pairs, the effect of coherence on the sentence pairs that reflected in the coherence judgment, reading time, and recall performance. The sentence pairs are composed of high/low causal relatedness and high/low semantic relatedness. We also investigated the performance of science students and liberal arts students. The following research questions were explored: (1)What's the difference in the coherence judgment in reading the four types of coherent sentence pairs? (2)What's the difference in the reading time of the target sentences of the four sentence pairs? (3)What's the difference in the memory performance of the target sentences of the four sentence pairs?
The experimental results of this study show that, first, in the process of Chinese sentence pairs, both causal relatedness and semantic relatedness are important to judge whether the sentence pairs are coherent or not. Second, causal relatedness can effectively promote the processing speed of sentence pairs, while the effect by semantic relatedness is not as good as causality. Third, the two coherent relations are beneficial to the quality of the recall performance.

伍麗梅、莫雷(2010)。說明文閱讀中局部連貫因果推理的產生。心理學報,42,2,200-215。
伍麗梅、莫雷(2012)。說明文閱讀中整體連貫因果推理的產生。華南師範大學學報(社會科學版),3,40-49。
何先友、林日團和莫雷(2005)。文本信息的激活與整合:閱讀優生與差生的比較。心理學報,37,2,151-158。
余意(1999)。外語學習者閱讀故事的因果推理模式。現代外語,4,399-407。
李瑩、莫雷和王瑞明(2007)。記敘文中因果連貫對空間情境模型回溯建構的促進。心理發展與教育,3,79-88。
范琳、劉振前(2009)。英語敘事語篇因果連貫對中國學生即時主題推理影響的研究。外語研究,1,51-56。
吳思娜(2016)。詞彙、句法和元認知策略對日本學生漢語閱讀理解的影響。語言教學與研究,2,59-66。
吳思娜(2017)。詞彙知識、語素意識、詞彙推理與二語閱讀理解———來自結構方程模型的證據。世界漢語教學,31,3,420-432。
周強,周驍聰(2014)。基於話題鏈的漢語語篇連貫性描述體系。中文信息學報,28,5,102-110。
張妤婷(2015) 。國小六年級學生閱讀理解能力及其相關因素統合檢証與分析(博士論文) ,國立臺中教育大學教育學系,台中市。
張健(2011)。二語閱讀能力的培養。現代交際:下半月,11,39。
高亞偉、吳麗林(2013)。文科生與理科生語言學能差異調查分析。遵義師範學院學報,14,4,100-104
馬燕華(2005)。高年級留學生漢語閱讀理解難易語句分析。語言文字應用,S1,45-47。
黃星(2014)。個人背景知識在中級留學生漢語閱讀理解中的作用研究。廣東:廣東外語外貿大學碩士論文。
陳明蕾、王學誠和柯華葳(2009)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證:以潛在語意分析技術為基礎。中華心理學刊,51,4,415-435。
陳影星、趙迪斐、朱海燕、朱越、羅雨桐、譚昕和李菊菊(2019)。文理科大學生語言認同的差異、機制及其對教學策略的影響。太原城市職業技術學院學報,11,118-122
陳慕僑(2014)。Kintsch 建構—整合模型對二語語篇聽力理解的應用及其教學啓示。考試周刊,4,64。
雷寰宇(2018)。思維方式在醫學院校文理科大學生中的差異。山西高等學校社會科學學報,30,12,61-64。
趙豔玫(2004)。高中文科学生数学思维特点实证研究。吉林:東北師範大學碩士論文。
孫曉明(2003)。第二語言學習者句法知識與閱讀能力。雲南師範大學學報,1, 5, 35-39。
Ayraktar, H. (2014). The Impact of Coherence Relations on Text Comprehension of TurkishEfl Readers. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education (JTPE), 10, 4, 1120-1142.
COPI, I. M. (1978). Introduction to logic, 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.
Connell, L., & Keane, M. T. (2004). What plausibility affects plausibility? Concept-coherence and distributional word coherence as factors influencing plausibility judgments. Memory and Cognition, 32, 2, 185–197.
Dandotkar, S., Magliano, J. P., & Britt, M. A. (2016). Effect Logical Relatedness and Semantic Overlap on Argument Evaluation. Discourse Processes, 53, 7, 581–602.
Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press, 1983.
Fillmore, C. (1974). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In C. Fillmore et al. (Eds.), Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1, V-I-V-21. U. of California, Berkeley, California.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M.
(2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing Multilevel Analyses of Text Characteristics. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, (5), 223. Grimes, J. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1, 163-189.
Halldorson & Murray Singer (2002). Inference Processes: Integrating Relevant Knowledge and Text Information, Discourse Processes, 34, 2, 145-161.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512-521.
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
Horowitz, R. (1987). Rhetorical structure in discourse processing. In R. Horowitz & S. J.
Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 117-160). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The Effects of Causal Cohesion on Comprehension and Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 2, 115–
126.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 2, 163–182.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.) (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 5, 363–394.
Longacre, R. (1977). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. Symposium on Discourse, UCLA. November.
Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1997). Individual differences in readers’ sentence and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 1, 129–145.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57-90.
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 47, 4, 292-330.
Morishima, Y. (2016). Elaborations for the Validation of Causal Bridging Inferences in Text Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 4, 961–977.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121-143.
Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of Causal Relatedness and Memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 4, 453–465.
Nahatame, S. (2017). Standards of Coherence in Second Language Reading: Sentence Connectivity and Reading Proficiency. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29, 1, 86–112.
Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 5, 573-590.
Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The Role of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers in Text Processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 1, 37-60.
Schaffner, E. & Schiefele, U. (2013). The prediction of reading comprehension by cognitive and motivational factors: Does text accessibility during comprehension testing make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 42-55.
Singer, M., & Ferreira, F. (1983). Inferring consequences in story comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 437-448.
Singer, M. (1993). Causal bridging inferences: Validating consistent and inconsistent sequences. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 340–359.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1–38.
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507–524.
Singer, M., Revlin, R., & Halldorson, M. (1990). Bridging-inferences and enthymeme. In A.
Graesser & G. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 25) (pp. 35–51). New York: Academic Press.
Tapiero, I. (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Todaro, S., Millis, K., & Dandotkar, S. (2007). The impact of semantic and causal relatedness and reading skill on standards of coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 5, 421-446.
Trabasso, T. & L. L. Sperry (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 5, 595-611.
Warren, P. (2012). Introducing psycholinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wittwer, J., & Ihme, N. (2014). Reading Skill Moderates the Impact of Semantic Similarity and Causal Specificity on the Coherence of Explanations. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 143–166.
Wolfe, M. B. W., Magliano, J. P., & Larsen, B. (2005). Causal and Semantic Relatedness in Discourse Understanding and Representation. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39, 2–3, 165–187.