ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
Cognitive Psychology
Volume 5, Issue 3, November 1973, Pages 257-274
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (1148 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 1973 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences*1

Walter KintschCorresponding Author Contact Information and Janice Keenan

University of Colorado, U.S.A.

Accepted 13 March 1973. 
Available online 27 August 2004.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

English texts were constructed from propositional bases. One set of 16-word sentences was obtained from semantic bases containing from 4 to 9 propositions. For another set of sentences and paragraphs, number of words and number of propositions covaried. Subjects read the texts at their own rate and recalled them immediately. For the 16-word sentences, subjects needed 1.5 sec additional reading time to process each proposition. For longer texts, this value increased. In another experimental condition reading time was controlled by the experimenter. The analysis of both the text and the recall protocols in terms of number of propositions lent support to the notion that propositions are a basic unit of memory for text. However, evidence was also obtained that while the total number of propositions upon which a text was based proved to be an effective psychological variable, all propositions were not equally difficult to remember: superordinate propositions were recalled better than propositions which were stucturally subordinate.

Article Outline

• References

Cognitive Psychology
Volume 5, Issue 3, November 1973, Pages 257-274
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.