Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding. Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar

Allen, J. F. (2009). Word senses, semantic roles and entailment. 5th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, September 17–19, 2009. Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary development. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Using LIWC and Coh-Metrix to investigate gender differences in linguistic styles. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 545–556). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Best, R., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explaining science texts: Strategies, knowledge, and reading skill. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 89–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. (1993). Register variation and corpus design, computational linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boonthum-Denecke, C., McCarthy, P. M., & Lamkin, T. (Eds.). (2012). Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRef

Bormuth, J. R. (1971). Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Project No. 9–0237. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21, 543–566.Google Scholar

Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brooks, C., & Warren, R. P. (1972). Modern rhetoric. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Brun, C., Ehrmann, M., & Jacquet, G., (2007). A hybrid system for named entity metonymy recognition. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (ACL-SemEval) (pp. 23–24). Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bruss, M., Albers, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Changes in scientific articles over two hundred years: A Coh-Metrix analysis. Proceedings of the ACM 22nd International Conference on Computer Documentation (pp. 104–109). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Cai, Z., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., Hu, X., Rowe, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). NLS: Non-latent similarity algorithm. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 180–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cain, K., & Nash, H. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). The effect of text organization (original vs. scrambled) on readers’ ability to search for information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799.Google Scholar

Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Proceedings of the First Conference on North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 132–139). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early year: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, F. G., & Schober, M. F. (Eds.). (2007). Envisioning the survey interview of the future. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and finish university students. Written Communication, 39, 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 84–102.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensive input: A case for intuitive approach. Language Teaching and Research, 16, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Dufty, D. F., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Toward a new readability: A mixed model approach. In McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 197–202). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using psycholinguistic indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Discriminating between second language learning text-types. In Wilson, D. & Sutcliffe, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 205–210). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing second language reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy, and McNamara (2007). Language Teaching, 41, 229–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 984–989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011a). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C., & Shipley, T. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1236–1231). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011b). Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life, 21, 170–191.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012a). Detecting the first language of second language writers using automated indices of cohesion, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity and conceptual knowledge. In Jarvis, S. & Crossley, S. A. (Eds.), Approaching language transfer through text classification: Explorations in the detection-based approach (pp. 106–126). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012b). Interlanguage Talk: A computational analysis of non-native speakers’ lexical production and exposure. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 425–437). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., & Mitrovic, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. (pp. 438–440). Auckland, New Zealand: AIED.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). LSA as a measure of coherence in second language natural discourse. In Sloutsky, V., Love, B., & McRae, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1906–1911). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59, 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010a). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010b). The development of semantic relations in second language speakers. A case for Latent Semantic Analysis. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 55–74.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2010c). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18, 55–80.Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (1995). Proceedings of the Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.Google Scholar

Day, R. S. (2006). Comprehension of prescription drug information: Overview of a research program. In Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation for Consumer Healthcare. Retrieved September 16, 2013, from

Dell, G., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphorix reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dempsey, K. B., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using phrasal verbs as an index to distinguish text genres. In Wilson, D. and Sutcliffe, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 217–222). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Dufty, D. F., Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Assigning grade level to textbooks: Is it just readability? In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1251–1256). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Dufty, D. F., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Automatic evaluation of aspects of document quality. In Tilley, S. & Huang, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Design of Communication: The Engineering of Quality Documentation (pp. 14–16). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Duncan, B., & Hall, C. (2009). A coh-metrix analysis of variation among biomedical abstracts. In Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 237–242). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Duran, N., Bellissens, C., Taylor, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Qualifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics. In McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 233–238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Duran, N. D., Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Using Coh-Metrix temporal indices to predict psychological measures of time. In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 190–195). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 212–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Duran, N. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2006, July). It’s about time: Discriminating differences in temporality between genres. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar

Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Freedman, A., & Ian, P. (1980). Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Composition and Communication, 31, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Gildea, D. (2001). Corpus variation and parser performance. In Yarowsky, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 167–202). Pittsburgh, PA: NAACL.Google Scholar

Gilhooly, K. L., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. (1995).Functionalism and grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., Louwerse, M., & Daniel, F. (2006). Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A web facility that helps survey methodologists improve the comprehensibility of questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Dowell, N., & Moldovan, C. (2011). A computer’s understanding of literature. Scientific Studies of Literature, 1, 24–33.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graesser, A. C., & Hemphill, D. (1991). Question answering in the context of scientific mechanisms. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 186–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L., & Clark, L. F. (1980). Structural components of reading time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Automatic analyses of language, discourse, and situation models. In Auracher, J. & van Peer, W. (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 72–88). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., & Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y., & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15, 199–213.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In Sweet, A. P. & Snow, C. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

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, and Computers, 36, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 231–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Graesser, A. C., & Ottati, V. (1996). Why stories? Some evidence, questions, and challenges. In Wyer, R. S. (Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 121–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greenfield, G. (1999). Classic readability formulas in an EFL context: Are they valid for Japanese speakers? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States (University Microfilms No. 99–38670).

Haberlandt, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, C., McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Lee, D. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A Coh-Metrix assessment of American and English/Welsh Legal English. Coyote Papers: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 40–54.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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, 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Healy, S. L., Weintraub, J. D., McCarthy, P. M., Hall, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Assessment of LDAT as a grammatical diversity assessment tool. In Lane, C. H. & Guesgen, H. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) International Conference (pp. 249–253). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Hempelmann, C. F., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P., Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Using LSA to automatically identify givenness and newness of noun-phrases in written discourse. In Bara, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 941–946). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hempelmann, C. F., Rus, V., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Evaluating state-of-the-art treebank-style parsers for Coh-Metrix and other learning technology environments. Natural Language Engineering, 12, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herskovits, A. (1998). Schematization. In Olivier, P. & Gapp, K. P. (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 149–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Hu, X., Cai, Z., Louwerse, M. M., Olney, A. M., Penumatsa, P., & Graesser, A. C. (2003). A revised algorithm for Latent Semantic Analysis. Proceedings of the 2003 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1489–1491). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47, 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2008). Speech and language processing. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kallet, H. (2004) How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory Care Services, 49, 1229–1232.Google ScholarPubMed

Kalyuga, S. (2012). Cognitive load aspects of text processing. In Boonthum-Denecke, C., McCarthy, P., & Lamkin, T. (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 114–132). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamil, M. L., Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keil, F. C. (1981). Constraints on knowledge and cognitive development. Psychological Review, 88, 197–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kieras, D. E. (1978). Good and bad structure in simple paragraphs: Effects on apparent theme, reading time, and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kincaid, J., Fishburne, R., Rogers, R., & Chissom, B. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for navy enlisted personnel. Branch Report 8–75. Millington, TN: Chief of Naval Training.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, M., & Rentel, V. (1979). Toward a theory of early writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 243–255.Google Scholar

Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (2008). SPSS 15 made simple. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kintsch, W., & Van Djik, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kireyev, K., & Landauer, T. (2011). Word maturity: Computational modeling of word knowledge. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 299–308). Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Klare, G. R. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Koslin, B. I., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effective measure in reading. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar

Lamkin, T. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2012). The hierarchy of detective fiction. In Murray, C. & McCarthy, P. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 257–262). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lappin, S., & Leass, H. J. (1994). An algorithm for pronominal coreference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 20, 535–561.Google Scholar

Leahey, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1997). Learning and cognition (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lehnert, W. G., & Ringle, M. H. (Eds.). (1982). Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lenat, D. B. (1995). CYC: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communication of the ACM, 38, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightman, E. J., McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2007a). The structural organization of high school educational texts. In Wilson, D. & Sutcliffe, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 235–240). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Lightman, E. J., McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2007b). Using computation text analysis tools to compare the lyrics of suicidal and non-suicidal song-writers. In McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1217–1222). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., Van Den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more-and less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 1245–1470.Google Scholar

Long, M., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. L. (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar

Longo, B. (1994). The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348–352.Google Scholar

Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Mogan, A. M. (1987). Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 24, 350–362.Google Scholar

Lorch, R. F., & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Sources of coherence in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Louwerse, M. M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291–315.Google Scholar

Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., The RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K. K., Muñoz, B. D., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcu, D. (2000). The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313–330.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.). (2012). Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRef

McCarthy, P. M., Briner, S. W., Rus, V., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Textual signatures: Identifying text-types using latent semantic analysis to measure the cohesion of text structures. In Kao, A. & Poteet, S. (Eds.), Natural language processing and text mining (pp. 107–122). London: Springer-Verlag UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D., Hempelmann, C., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Newness and givenness of information: Automated identification in written discourse. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 457–478). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Guess, R. H., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations. Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 682–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McCarthy, P. M., Hall, C., Duran, N. D., Doiuchi, M., Duncan, B., Fujiwara, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). A computational analysis of journal abstracts written by Japanese, American, and British scientists. The ESPecialist, 30, 141–173.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). A theoretical and empirical evaluation of vocd. Language Testing, 24, 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2013). From intrinsic to extrinsic issues of lexical diversity assessment: An ecological validation study. In Jarvis, S. & Daller, M. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 45–78). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Lehenbauer, B. M., Hall, C., Duran, N. D., Fujiwara, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A Coh-Metrix analysis of discourse variation in the texts of Japanese, American, and British Scientists. Foreign Languages for Specific Purposes, 6, 46–77.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Lewis, G. A., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Analyzing writing styles with Coh-Metrix. In Proceedings of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society International Conference (pp. 764–769). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Are seven words all we need? Recognizing genre at the sub-sentential level. In McNamara, D. S. and Trafton, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1295–1300). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Myers, J. C., Briner, S. W., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Are three words all we need? A psychological and computational study of sub-sentential genre recognition. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 24, 23–55.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Renner, A. M., Duncan, M. G., Duran, N. D., Lightman, E. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research and Methods, 40, 647–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McCarthy, P. M., Rus, V., Crossley, S. A., Bigham, S. C., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Assessing entailer with a corpus of natural language. In Wilson, D. & Sutcliffe, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 247–252). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Rus, V., Crossley, S. A., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing forward-, reverse-, and average-entailment indices on natural language input from the intelligent tutoring system, iSTART. In Wilson, D. & Sutcliffe, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 165–170). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, P. M., Watanabe, S., & Lamkin, T. A. (2012). The Gramulator: A tool to identify differential linguistic features of correlative text types. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 312–333). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In Shafto, M. G. & Langley, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 508–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational methods to extract meaning from text and advance theories of human cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and the reader: A driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse Studies, 15, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: Comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 227–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., & Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Optimizing LSA measures of cohesion. In Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 379–400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. D. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., & Dempsey, K. (2011). Reader expectations of question formats and difficulty: Targeting the zone. In McCrudden, M., Magliano, J., & Schraw, G. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 321–352). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 188–205). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In Sabatini, J. P., Albro, E., & O’Reilly, T. (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.Google ScholarPubMed

McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 229–257.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. (2006). Validating Coh-Metrix. In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 573–578). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Raine, R., Roscoe, R., Crossley, S., Jackson, G. T., Dai, J., Cai, Z., Renner, A., Brandon, R., Weston, J., Dempsey, K., Lam, D., Sullivan, S., Kim, L., Rus, V., Floyd, R., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). The Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing strategies. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 298–311). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meadows, M., & Billington, L. (2005). A review of the literature on marking reliability. London: National Assessment Agency.Google Scholar

Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners: Helping students take charge of their learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, J. R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 335–354.Google Scholar

Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Millis, K., Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Todaro, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Assessing and improving comprehension with Latent Semantic Analysis. In Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Min, H. C., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Identifying varietals in the discourse of American and Korean scientists: A contrastive corpus analysis using the gramulator. In Guesgen, H. W. & Murray, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 247–252). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. New York: Student Achievement Partners.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (Eds.), Cognitive bases of children’s language comprehension difficulties. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J., Yuill, N., & Donaldson, M. L. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. M. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehensive disability: Processes and remediation. In Cornoldi, C. & Oakhill, J. V. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 69–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.Google ScholarPubMed

O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition & Instruction, 25, 399–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of high and low cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47, 641–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Where’s the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question?Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1001–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561–565.Google Scholar

Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76 (3, Part 2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palmer, M., Kingsbury, P., & Gildea, D. (2005). The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31, 71–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.Google Scholar

Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.Google Scholar

Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) (Version LIWC2001) [Computer software]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Pennebaker, W. B. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar

Pentimonti, J. M., Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Informational text use in preschool classroom read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 63, 656–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell.

Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popken, R. (1991). A study of topic sentence use in technical writing. The Technical Writing Teacher, 18, 49–58.Google Scholar

Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rayner, K. (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Renner, A., McCarthy, P. M., Boonthum-Denecke, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Maximizing ANLP evaluation: Harmonizing flawed input. In McCarthy, P. M. & Boonthum-Denecke, C. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 438–456). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roscoe, R. D., Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Automated assessment of paragraph quality: Introductions, body, and conclusion paragraphs. In Murray, R. C. & McCarthy, P. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 281–286). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Rowe, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Inhibition needs no negativity: Negativity links in the construction-integration model. In Sloutsky, V., Love, B., & McRae, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1777–1782). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Rubin, D. C. (1995). Introduction. In Rubin, D. C. (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 1–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rufenacht, R. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Lamkin, T. M. (2011). Fairy tales and ESL texts: An analysis of linguistic features using the gramulator. In Murray, R. C. & McCarthy, P. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 287–292). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Rus, V. (2004). A first exercise for evaluating logic form identification systems. In Proceedings Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text (SENSEVAL-3), at the Association of Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting, July. Barcelona, Spain: ACL.Google Scholar

Rus, V., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2008). A study of textual entailment. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 17, 659–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanacore, J., & Palumbo, A. (2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of view. Educational Forum, 73, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992).Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Sekine, S., & Grishman, R. (1995). A corpus-based probabilistic grammar with only two nonterminals. In Fourth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (pp. 260–270). Prague/Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic.Google Scholar

Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Singer, M., & Leon, J. (2007). Psychological studies of higher language processes: Behavioral and empirical approaches. In Schmalhofer, F. & Perfetti, C. (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 9–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar

Spivey, M., McRae, K., & Joanisse, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Presented at the California Comparability Symposium, October, Durham, NC. Retrieved January 30, 2006 from

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.Google Scholar

SwaIes, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford.

Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing time in natural language: The dynamic interpretation of tense and aspect. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Tonjes, M. J., Ray, W., & Zintz, M. V. (1999). Integrated content literacy. New York: The McGraw-Hill Publishers.Google Scholar

Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tweissi, A. I. (1998). The effects of the amount and the type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 191–206.Google Scholar

U.S. Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. (1985). U.S. air power: Key to deterrence. Montgomery, AL: U.S. Air Force.Google Scholar

Van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist approaches in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weston, J., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Towards a computational assessment of freewriting quality. In Guesgen, H. W. & Murray, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 283–288). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Whitney, P., Ritchie, B. G., & Clark, M. B. (1991). Working-memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, P. J. (2007). Literacy in the curriculum: Integrating text structure and content area instruction. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 199–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process: Syntax. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yano, Y., Long, M., & Ross, S. (1994). Effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 20, 920–933.Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386–397.Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed