Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
26. Karlsgren J. & Cutting, D. (1994). Recognizing text genres with simple met-
rics using discriminant analysis. International Conference on Computational
Linguistics Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational linguistics -
Volume 2 (pp. 1071-1075). Kyoto, Japan.
27. Kessler, Nunberg, G., & Schutze, H. (1997). Automatic detection of text genre.
In Proceedings of 35th Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Lin-
guistics, and in 8th Conference of European Chapter of Association for Com-
putational Linguistics (pp. 32-38). Madrid, Spain.
28. Kintsch, W. & Bowles, A. (2002) Metaphor comprehension: What makes a
metaphor di cult to understand? Metaphor and Symbol, 2002, 17, 249-262.
29. Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., LSA Research Group, Matthews, C., &
Lamb, R. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-
based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments 8, 87-109.
30. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension
and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
31. Labov, W. (1972). The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax, In
W. Labov (ed.), Language in the Inner City, 1972, University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia.
32. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The
Latent Semantic Analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representa-
tion of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
33. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent
Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
34. Lehman, S., & Schraw, G. (2002). Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow
and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 738-750.
35. Linderholm, T., Everson, M.G., van den Broek, Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A.,
& Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more and less skilled
readers comprehension of easy and di cult text. Cognition and Instruction, 18,
525-556.
36. Louwerse, M.M. (2002). Computational retrieval of themes. In M.M. Louw-
erse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 189-212).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
37. Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2004).
Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K.
Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meet-
ing of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843-848). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Loxterman, J.A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M.G. (1994). The effects of thinking
aloud during reading on students' comprehension of more or less coherent text.
Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353-367.
39. Mani, I. & Pustejovsky, J. (2004). Temporal discourse markers for narrative
structures.ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, Spain. East
Stoudsburg, PA, Association for Computational Linguistics.
40. Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward
a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8 (3). 243-281
41. McCarthy, P.M., Lightman, E.J., Dufty, D.F. & McNamara (in press). Us-
ing Coh-Metrix to assess distributions of cohesion and di culty in high-school
textbooks. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science
Society.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search