AN IMPARTIAL VIEW OF INFERENCE MAKING
Reply to Zwaan & Graesser on Garnham on Reading-Inference

Abstract

I agree with Zwaan and Graesser (1993) that "there is no empirical evidence that some inferences are automatically or partially encoded in text comprehension." They believe I disagree on the second point, about partial encoding, I clarify my stance.

Keywords

References

• Anderson, R.C. & Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem of polysemy. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 167-180.
• Garnham, A. (1992). Minimalism versus constructionism: A false dichotomy in theories of inference in reading. PSYCOLOQUY 3(63) reading-inference-1.1.
• Glenberg, A.M. & Mathew, S. (1992). When minimalism is not enough: Mental models in reading comprehension. PSYCOLOQUY 3(64) reading-inference-2.1.
• Gumenik, W.E. (1979). The advantage of specific terms over general terms as cues for sentence recall: Instantiation or retrieval? Memory and Cognition, 7, 240-244.
• McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1990). Dimensions of inference. In A.C. Graesser & G.H. Bower (Eds.), Inference and text comprehension (The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 25, pp. 313-328). San Diego: Academic Press
• McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
• Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
• Sharkey, N.E. & Mitchell, D.C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use of scripts in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 253-270.
• Zwaan, R.A. & Graesser, A.C. (1993). There is no empirical evidence that some inferences are automatically or partially encoded in text comprehension. PSYCOLOQUY 4(5) reading-inference.6.