495236
research-article2013
CDPXXX10.1177/0963721413495236SingerValidation in Reading Comprehension
Validation in Reading Comprehension
Murray Singer
Current Directions in Psychological
Science
XX(X) 1­–6
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963721413495236
cdps.sagepub.com
University of Manitoba
Abstract
Language comprehension involves analysis at the level of the word, sentence, and message and the integration of
message meaning with the prior discourse and world knowledge. Contemporary research converges on another facet of
comprehension: the validation of message consistency. Existing evidence already favors several principles in validation
of reading and listening. Validation is initiated immediately and is routine rather than requiring intentional strategies.
Successful validation is a precondition to updating the situational representation of the message. Validation applies to
discourse inferences as well as explicit assertions. Finally, the memory-retrieval processes that enable validation closely
resemble those of intentional discourse memory. Competing observations of people’s validation failures are proposed
to systematically stem from features of the message, understander, and comprehension task. Therefore, theoretical
analysis that accommodates both successful and deficient language validation ought to be attainable.
Keywords
validation, language, comprehension, inference, memory
Many human activities depend on successful spoken or
written communication. However, ordinary language
messages bear errors of many types. A presidential candidate may be called “Rooney” rather than “Romney,” and
a teenager may be characterized as confronting “autopsy”
rather than “autism.” Story characters may perform actions
ranging from the unsuitable to the impossible, such as
going to bed before making an intended air reservation
or making a purchase in the absence of money. Such
deviations demand the understander to continually monitor message consistency: that is, to validate the message.
Language comprehension depends on people’s analysis
of word meaning, grammatical structure, and sentence
semantics. Sentence meaning, in turn, must be integrated
with prior discourse (coherent message) information and
world knowledge, resulting in situation-model representations of the message (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). However,
there is growing consensus that such integration depends
on processes of validation, which can expose message discrepancies (Nieuwland & Kuperberg, 2008; Schroeder,
Richter, & Hoever, 2008; Singer, Halldorson, Lear, &
Andrusiak, 1992).
Validation research already exhibits considerable theoretical convergence. In brief, this theory states that current message information passively cues the memory
retrieval of relevant ideas both from the prior discourse
and from world knowledge (O’Brien, Lorch, & Myers,
1998). Validation processes then assess the plausibility of
tentative links between current ideas and retrieved information (Schroeder et al., 2008; Singer et al., 1992).
Validation with reference to word meaning and sentence
semantics does not precede contextual validation; rather,
the two proceed in parallel (van Berkum, Zwisterlood,
Hagoort, & Brown, 2003). Only upon successful validation is the message situation model accordingly updated
(Ferretti, Singer, & Patterson, 2008; Schroeder et al.,
2008).
Researchers have evaluated numerous candidate principles of language validation. The current status of several noteworthy principles are
is considered next. Then, the
implications of systematic shortcomings in people’s validation are addressed. The emphasis is on reading comprehension, but many of these effects probably generalize
to listeners (van Berkum et al., 2003).
Principles of Reading Validation
Immediacy
Messages are proposed to be interpreted, at all levels of
analysis, immediately upon the appearance of each word,
Corresponding Author:
Murray Singer, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada R3T 2N2
E-mail: [email protected]
Singer
2
within approximately 0.25 s ( Just & Carpenter, 1980).
Immediacy apparently extends beyond words and sentences to message validation. Immediacy tends to deny
an alternative, two-step model, according to which sentences are fully interpreted syntactically and semantically
before they are integrated with the discourse representation (see discussions of Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002
and Nieuwland & Kuperberg, 2008).
The immediate contribution of discourse context and
world knowledge to sentence validation was addressed
by Matsuki et al. (2011; compare Rayner, Warren, Juhasz,
& Liversedge, 2004). They examined people’s comprehension of sentences such as Donna used the hose to
wash her filthy (car [plausible]/hair [implausible]) after
returning from the beach. Converging evidence from
word-by-word reading and eye fixation methods revealed
elevated reading time immediately upon the appearance
of the less plausible alternative (i.e., hair). The implausible version was not anomalous (compare wash her
luck), elevated reading times for which would diagnose
lower-level semantic processes.
Consider, likewise, people’s processing of Jenny saw/
heard the mountain lion pacing in its cage. Staub, Rayner,
Pollatsek, Hyona, and Majewski (2007) noted that Jenny
heard the mountain lion . . . is transiently implausible at
the word mountain, because one cannot hear a mountain. Processing time was immediately inflated upon people’s eye fixations of mountain in the implausible version
but not the plausible (saw) version.
In complex discourse, much evidence for immediate
validation stems from event-related potentials (ERPs). In
the ERP method, the measurement of electrophysiological
scalp signals (electroencephalography) begins with a critical stimulus (the “event”). A negative ERP voltage approximately 400 ms after the event (the N400) diagnoses
conspicuous sentence anomalies (Dutch trains are sour;
van Berkum et al., 2003). This pattern generalizes to textbased inconsistencies, such as describing a quick brother
as being slow (van Berkum et al., 2003). Within 750 ms,
extensions of the N400 revealed subtle differences
between a character believing a false fact versus actually
knowing it, an outright contradiction (Ferretti et al., 2008).
Validation is routine, not strategic
Nonstrategic validation posits that readers are routinely
sensitive to discourse consistency. In most relevant studies, subjects read simply to understand stimulus texts or
to answer questions about them afterward. Reading is not
interrupted—rather, the measures of validation are relatively unobtrusive.
One recent test of nonstrategic validation did impose
an unusual task: to judge whether the final word in a
sentence appeared in color rather than black (Isberner &
Richter, 2013). Stimulus sentence sequences ended with
a plausible or implausible word (e.g., Frank had a broken pipe. He called the plumber/doctor, respectively).The
researchers reasoned that if validation processes persisted in this Strooplike task, then “congruity effects”
would emerge: that is, faster “yes” than “no” color-change
judgments for plausible sentences and vice versa for
implausible ones. To minimize strategic opportunities,
the message words each appeared for only 300 ms. The
results exhibited the predicted congruity effects, indicating that validation processing accompanies even this
unusual task.
Nonstrategic validation is also supported by the finding that reading with the intention to validate discourse
ideas actually prompts more logical but less contextually
sensitive validation than reading for comprehension
(Singer, 2006, Experiment 3). Likewise, in Staub et al.’s
(2007) aforementioned examination of phrases such as
heard the mountain lion, the investigators emphasized
that the many plausible sentences interspersed among
their stimuli minimized people’s development of unusual
strategies for understanding them.
Validation enables representational
updating
Comprehension continually augments the discourse-situation model (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Successful validation is widely considered a prerequisite for situational
updating (Cook & Myers, 2004; Ferretti et al., 2008).
Schroeder et al. (2008) characterized this process as epistemic gatekeeping: If the current clause meshes with its
antecedents, its contents update the situation model.
Burkhardt (2006) noted that a positive ERP response
sometimes follows the N400 by approximately 0.5 s.
She proposed that this positivity diagnoses representational updating. In one relevant study, we created texts
that induced readers to engage in updating (Ferretti,
Singer, & Harwood, 2013). For example, they could
read, The boys ate while they cycled to practice . . . . The
coach established that it was oranges that the boys ate.
The latter sentence permits the discourse representation
to be amended to specify what the boys ate. Consistent
with Burkhardt’s proposal, the word oranges generated
a late positivity relative to conditions in which oranges
was clearly consistent or even contradictory, suggesting
that the representation was indeed updated.
The relations between validation and updating may be
complex. When a previously implied trait of a character
(e.g., messiness) is causally refuted by the text (e.g., his
apartment is messy because he just moved), the representation tends to be updated to negate the trait. Simple,
Validation in Reading Comprehension
still
noncausal refutations, in contrast, do not have this impact
(Rapp & Kendeou, 2009). In addition, updating does not
completely eradicate prior representations. Although a
character representation may be updated as no longer
vegetarian, reading that she ordered a cheeseburger
inflates reading time (O’Brien, Rizzella, Albrecht, &
Halleran, 1998).
Discourse inferences are validated
Inference pervades discourse comprehension. Successful
comprehension ought therefore to require the validation
of tentative inferences. Much relevant evidence originates
from inferences that bridge the current clause to its antecedents. Consider: Claudia arrived in Dresden after
Markus . . . She was awaiting him when he disembarked.
Reading time for the inconsistent second sentence was
greater than for a comparable consistent one, reflecting
the cognitive difficulties of the time-incongruence (Rinck,
Hahnel, & Becker, 2001). Myriad comparable results
obtain for both blatant and subtle causal, spatial, and
logical inferred inconsistencies (Albrecht & Myers, 1995;
O’Brien & Albrecht, 1992).
We advanced a formal analysis of the validation of
causal bridging inferences for sequences such as Joe
poked the balloon with the pin. The balloon burst (Singer
et al., 1992). The reader was hypothesized to first construct an idea that, when combined with the antecedent
idea, accounts for the outcome. If the constructed idea
(e.g., pins are sharp) is compatible with world knowledge, then the inference has been validated. Supporting
this analysis, people need less time to answer questions
about the hypothetically corroborating knowledge (Are
pins sharp?) after reading the former balloon sequence
than a control, noncausal sequence (Singer et al., 1992).
Comparable results obtain even for complex, unfamiliar
causal text such as Some fireworks burn with a crimson
flame BECAUSE they contain calcium salts (Singer,
Harkness, & Stewart, 1997).
Validation memory processes resemble
those of intentional retrieval
Having read Ken ate apples on the way to practice, one
can readily answer, Did Ken eat oranges? (no).
Analogously, if one later reads, The coach knew that Ken
ate oranges, full comprehension demands noticing the
apples-oranges discrepancy. It is parsimonious to hypothesize that the memory-retrieval processes of comprehension resemble those of intentional retrieval (O’Brien,
Lorch, et al., 1998).
In tests of this supposition, researchers have compared
measures of reading validation with those stemming from
intentional verification paradigms (Carpenter & Just,
3
1975). As in studies of verification time, an ERP N400
index of validation immediately signals when the verb of
a sentence (The gymnast PUNCHES the journalist) mismatches that portrayed in a prior picture viewed by the
subject (Knoeferle, Urbach, & Kutas, 2011). In intentional
verification, correct response time is often greater for
false (mismatching) than true affirmative test items but
vice versa for negative ones (Carpenter & Just, 1975). A
highly similar reading time pattern emerges for affirmative and negative sentences that match or mismatch their
message antecedents (Singer, 2006). This favors the close
similarity between passive and intentional retrieval processes in comprehension.
Conclusions and caveats
It is noteworthy that in the framework of Kintsch’s (1988)
construction-integration theory, comprehension first
entails the construction of a tentative network of explicit,
implied, and associated discourse ideas. Integration then
enhances the activation of the most relevant ideas, effectively discarding irrelevant ones. Ferretti et al. (2013) proposed that the integration stage encompasses both
validation and updating: That is, the relevance of an idea
is established by validation processes, which in turn may
lead to representational updating.
Some qualifications should be offered about the present validation principles. First, some of the principles are
closely associated with other features of cognition and
might be cast differently. For example, processing immediacy strongly suggests the parallel analysis of multiple
levels of language structure. Indeed, immediacy has been
explicitly equated with an “incremental,” multilevel analysis rather than a two-step framework, as discussed earlier (Ferreira et al., 2002; Knoeferle et al., 2011). However,
the immediacy of validation processing has been particularly addressed (e.g., Matsuki et al., 2011).
Second, yet other candidate principles may receive
more scrutiny in the future. In a different domain,
Ferguson and Zayas (2009) assessed the automaticity of
the validation or evaluation of potentially rewarding and
threatening stimuli. Researchers may have disregarded
the automaticity of reading validation because of the
complexity of applying criteria of automaticity (Bargh,
1994).
Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty:
Systematic Limitations of Validation
Among people’s comprehension deficiencies are
instances of validation failures. For example, readers
sometimes overlook the discrepancy of a character
making a purchase although he has forgotten his wallet
(Cohen, 1979). Some validation shortcomings probably
Singer
4
reflect systematic effects of the message, the reader, and
the reading task.
Message characteristics can thwart validation in conspicuous and subtle ways. Unsurprisingly, the sheer complexity of message content may stymie validation. Thus,
whereas readers validate even the scientific causal inferences underlying Some fireworks emit crimson flames
because they contain calcium salt (Singer et al., 1997),
validation fails for more complex examples (Noordman,
Vonk, & Kempff, 1992).
Another well-known instance of validation failure is
that the question How many animals of each kind did
Moses take on the ark? frequently evokes the answer
“two,” even though the ark builder was Noah (Barton &
Sanford, 1993). This “Moses illusion” partly results from
the fact that the question “presupposes” the truth of
Moses and focuses on the number of animals (Glenberg,
Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982).
Interrelated message ideas may be too distant to be
inferentially validated. Whereas readers may detect the
situational inconsistency of Mary going to bed without
making an intended air reservation, sufficient intervening
text obscures the inconsistency (Albrecht & Myers, 1995).
What constitutes excessive text distance, however, is
likely to differ among readers. The impact of understander differences on validation is considered next.
Readers’ language-specific working memory resources
(“reading span”) are strongly implicated in successful
comprehension, even at levels such as relating a pronoun
to its antecedent (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). These
observations likewise apply to the validation of causal
bridging inferences. As discussed earlier, fully understanding Joe stuck the balloon with the pins. The balloon
burst. depends on knowing that pins are sharp. Singer
and Ritchot (1996) demonstrated that people low both in
reading span and reading skill tend not to access such
relevant knowledge (see also Knoeferle et al., 2011).
Likewise, missing the discrepancy of making sandwiches
in the absence of bread increases with age (Cohen, 1979),
which probably reflects diminishing working memory
resources.
Reminiscent of the Moses illusion, people frequently
overlook the anomaly of phrases such as where to bury
the SURVIVING DEAD (Barton & Sanford, 1993). Hannon
and Daneman (2004) showed that this incoherence is
particularly overlooked by low-skill readers. They proposed that these people focus on global meaning and
therefore miss the discrepancy of SURVIVING DEAD.
Finally, task effects in reading validation originate in
the innumerable purposes of engaging in language comprehension, such as communication, learning, and entertainment. Tasks that highlight message form at the
expense of meaning tend to minimize validation. Thus,
ordinarily robust signatures of validating causal bridging
inferences do not appear in proofreading (Singer &
Halldorson, 1996). In the extreme, mind-wandering during reading (Smallwood, McSpadden, & Schooler, 2008)
is likely to appreciably stymie language validation.
Conclusions
The impact of message, understander, and task characteristics on successful validation must be accommodated by
theories of language comprehension. Some formulations
specifically address comprehension aberrations. The scenario mapping analysis (Sanford & Garrod, 1998) emphasizes that attentional focus at different levels of language
analysis may compete with one another. Thus, monitoring a message for global coherence may obscure local
anomalies such as surviving dead. Likewise, the “goodenough” processing framework posits that partial or erroneous representations may result from comprehension
(Ferreira et al., 2002). Restricted focus and erroneous representations result in validation failures at lower or higher
levels of language analysis.
The scenario mapping and good-enough processing
formulations attribute comprehension failures to regularities of cognition. Thus, immediate interpretation is
favored by the rapid forgetting of verbatim message form
but increases the risk of inaccuracies (Ferreira et al.,
2002). Deriving all candidate interpretations of each
phrase would overwhelm cognitive resources, but disregarding some alternatives might result in overlooking
anomaly (Sanford & Graesser, 2006).These analyses challenge some tenets of widely held comprehension theories (e.g., Kintsch, 1988) but share enough assumptions
with them that reconciliation is likely achievable.
Cognitive Generality of Validation
Routine and immediate validation in language processing
may reveal a more pervasive role of validation in human
cognition. It is striking that theoretical analyses of both
elementary and complex information processing allude
to this role. Memory performance has been proposed to
comprise both the retrieval of a candidate stimulus and
its subsequent, validating comparison with the memory
cue (Tulving, 1983). Change blindness may reflect failed
(validating) comparisons between earlier and later visual
stimuli (Mitroff, Simons, & Levin, 2004). Formal reasoning
has been proposed to entail a validating search for counterexamples to tentative mental models of a problem
solution (Schroyens, Schaeken, & d’Ydevalle, 2001).
Concerning social understanding, Wyer and Radvansky
(1999) presented evidence that the validation of person
and event information precedes situational updating.
Ahead lies the task of determining whether principles of
language validation generalize to these diverse domains.
Validation in Reading Comprehension
Recommended Reading
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. A thorough
and readable treatment of an influential theory of language
comprehension.
O’Brien, E. J., Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (Eds.) (1998). Memorybased text processing [Special issue]. Discourse Processes,
26(2–3). Empirical articles addressing the convergence of
the memory processes of intentional retrieval and language
comprehension.
Sanford, A. J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification [Special issue]. Discourse
Processes, 42(2). Empirical articles that document deviations from ideal comprehension and validation.
Singer, M., & Lea, R. B. (2012). Inference and reasoning in discourse comprehension. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Handbook
of cognitive pragmatics (pp. 85–119). Paris: Mouton de
Gruyter. An overview of research concerning the inferential
processes of comprehension.
van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). Understanding sentences in context.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 376–380.
An overview of the application of the methods of eventrelated brain potentials (ERPs) to language processes.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by Discovery Grant OGP9800
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.
References
Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing
distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459–
1468.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The Four Horsemen of automaticity:
Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition. In R. Wyer Jr. & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social
cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion
establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain
potentials. Brain & Language, 98, 159–168.
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification.
Psychological Review, 82, 45–73.
Cohen, G. (1979). Language comprehension in old age.
Cognitive Psychology, 11, 412–429.
Cook, A. E., & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles
in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world
knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 268–288.
5
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Ferguson, M. J., & Zayas, V. (2009). Automatic evaluation.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 362–366.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. B., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough
representations in language comprehension. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
Ferretti, T. R., Singer, M., & Harwood, J. (2013). Processes of
discourse integration: Evidence from event-related brain
potentials. Discourse Processes, 50, 165–186.
Ferretti, T. R., Singer, M., & Patterson, C. (2008). Electrophysio­
logical evidence for the time-course of verifying text ideas.
Cognition, 108, 881–888.
Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The
illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse
Processes, 37, 187–204.
Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore
implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of
event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta
Psychologica, 142, 15–22.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From
eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87,
329–354.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological
Review, 95, 163–182.
Knoeferle, P., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Comprehending
how visual context influences incremental sentence processing: Insights from ERPs and picture-sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 48, 495–506.
Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C.,
& McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 37, 913–934.
Mitroff, S. R., Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (2004). Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed
information. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1268–1281.
Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is
not too hard to handle. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218.
Noordman, G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal
inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal
of Memory and Language, 31, 573–590.
O’Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and cognition, 18, 777–784.
O’Brien, E. J., Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (Eds.) (1998). Memorybased text processing [Special issue]. Discourse Processes,
26(2–3).
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G.
(1998). Updating a situational model: A memory based text
processing review. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
6
Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2009). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes, 46, 1–24.
Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004).
The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 30, 1290–1301.
Rinck, M., Hahnel, A., & Becker, B. (2001). Using temporal
information to construct, update, and retrieve situation
models of narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 67–80.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. (1998). The role of scenario mapping
in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26, 159–190.
Sanford, A. J., & Graesser, A. C. (2006). Shallow processing and
under specifications. Discourse Processes, 42, 99–108.
Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and
epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59,
237–255.
Schroyens, W. J., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydevalle, G. (2001). The
processing of negations in conditional reasoning: A metaanalytic case study in mental model and/or mental logic
theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 7, 121–172.
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading.
Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574–591.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30,
1–38.
Singer
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., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing
inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse
Processes, 24, 199–228.
Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. (1996). Individual differences in inference validation. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733–743.
Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). When
attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering
mind. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1144–1150.
Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyona, J., & Majewski, H.
(2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 33, 1162–1169.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford,
England: Clarendon Press.
van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwisterlood, P., Hagoort, P., & Brown,
C. M. (2003). When and how do listeners relate a sentence
to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect.
Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 701–718.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse
comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension
and validation of social information. Psychological Review,
106, 89–118.