Skip to main content
Log in

Marquage de l’importance et traitement des eléments dans un texte: Effets immédiat et différé

Importance signalling, and processing units in a text: immediate and delayed effects

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Résumé

Dans un texte explicatif présenté à des sujets, on manipule deux types de marques d’importance: marque linguistique (phrase attirant l’attention sur le contenu de la phrase-cible qui la suit); marque paralinguistique (soulignement d’une partie de la phrase-cible). On mesure le temps de lecture (TL) consacré aux différentes phrases du texte. Le soulignement a un effet non seulement sur le TL de la phrasecible elle-même (allongé en cas de soulignement), mais aussi sur le TL de la marque linguistique d’importance qui la précède (plus court quand la phrase-cible est soulignée), et sur le TL de la phrase qui la suit (plus court quand il y a cumul des deux marques d’importance). Pour interpréter ces résultats, on se réfère au rôle joué par les marques d’importance dans l’activation de représentations de haut niveau (ici liées à une structure rhétorique particulière, l’analogie), dont les effets peuvent jouer de manière différée sur l’intégration de la suite du texte. On conclut à la nécessité de prendre en compte l’articulation entre les représentations pertinentes, les indices susceptibles d’activer ces représentations, et les procédés pouvant attirer l’attention du lecteur sur ces indices.

Abstract

An expository text is presented, in which two types of importance signals are manipulated: a linguistic signal (a sentence calling attention on the following target-sentence’s contents); a paralinguistic signal (underlining a part of the target-sentence). Reading times (RT) allocated to the various text sentences were measured. The underline affects not only RT for the target-sentence itself (increased in case of underline), but also RT for the preceding linguistic signal (shortened when the targetsentence is underlined), and RT for the following sentence (shortened when the two types of signals are simultaneously present). The interpretation of these results is grounded on the importance signals’ function in activating some high level representations (here bounded to a specific rhetorical structure: analogy), the effects of which can be delayed on the following sentence’s integration. The necessity is argued to take over the connection between relevant representations, marks likely to activate these representations, and devices likely to call reader’s attention on these marks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Références

  • Adam, J.M. (1987). Types de séquences textuelles élémentaires.Pratiques, 56, 54–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D.P. (1963).The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New-York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backman, J., Lundberg, I., Nilsson, L.G., & Ohlsson, K. (1984).Reading skill and the processing of text structure.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J.B. (1985). An exposition on understanding expository text. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository texts: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 249–267). Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B.K., & Black, J.B. (1985). Understanding expository text: from structure to process and world knowledge. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository texts: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 1–9). Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B.K., Glynn, S.M., Meyer, B.J.F., & Penland, M.J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., & Smiley, S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units proses passages: a problem of metacognitive development.Child Development, 48, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesi, H., Spilich, G., & Voss, J. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coirier, P., & Passerault, J.M. (1988). Interpretative aspects of text summarization: diversification as a function of task goals.Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 8, 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M. (1987). Are there any surface cues that can help students select main points in texts? A tentative review. Tubingen, Second European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.

  • Gaonac’h, D., & Passerault, J.M. (1988). Un logiciel d’expériementation pour l’étude en temps réel de l’activité de compréhension. Document polycopié. Poitiers: Laboratoire de Psychologie du Langage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieras, D.E. (1980). Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages.Memory & Cognition, 8, 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C.O. (1985). Effect of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesgold, A.M., & Perfetti, C.A. (1978). Interactive processing and discourse comprehension.Discourse Processes, 1, 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R.F., & Chen, A.H. (1986). Effects of number signals on reading and recall.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R.F., & Lorch, E.P. (1986). On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading.Discourse Processes, 9, 489–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, E.P., Lorch, R.F., Gretter, M.L., & Horn, D.G. (1987). On-line processing of topic structure by children and adult.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?.Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F. (1975).The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F. (1985). Prose analysis: purposes, procedures, and problems. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository texts: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 269–304) Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nezworski, T., Stein, N.L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). Story structure versus content in children’s recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M. (1987). The role of context in written communication. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.),Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 197–214). New-York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omanson, R.C. (1982). An analysis of natratives: identifying central, supportive and distracting content.Discourse Processes, 5, 195–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passerault, J.M. (1984). Niveau, importance relative et rappel des éléments d’un texte: résultats et interprétations.L’Année Psychologique, 84, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passerault, J.M., & Coirier, P. (1987). Resumé d’un texte argumentatif: effet de l’accord avec les phrases et de leur importance subjective.Psychologie Française, 32, 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, J.P., & Bert-Erboul, A. (1987). Information selection strategies in the reading of scientific texts. Tubingen, Second European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.

  • Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjorstrom, C.L., & Hare, V.C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expository text.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spyridakis, J.H., & Standal, T.C. (1986). Headings, preview, logical connectives: effects on reading comprehension.Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 16, 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K.K. (1986). Summary writing by young children.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T.A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension.Discourse Processes, 2, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T.A. (1982). Attitudes et compréhension de textes. In J.F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Langage et compréhension. Bulletin de Psychologie, no spécial,35, 717–732.

  • Voss J.F., & Bisanz, G.L. (1985). Knowledge and the processing of narrative and expository texts. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.),Understanding expository texts: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 384–391). Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, D.E., & Malpass, R.S. (1981). Effects of attitudinal, cognitive and situational variables on recall of biased communications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J.P., Taylor, M.B., & Granger, S. (1981). Text variations at the level of individual sentence and the comprehension of simple expository paragraphs.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 851–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, P.N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts.Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Cette recherche a été réalisée dans le cadre du Laboratoire de Psychologie du Langage associé au CNRS (URA no 666). Merci à Marie-Françoise Ballaire pour sa contribution à la réalisation de l’expérience.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaonac’h, D., Passerault, JM. Marquage de l’importance et traitement des eléments dans un texte: Effets immédiat et différé. Eur J Psychol Educ 5, 59–68 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172769

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172769

Mots clés

Navigation