Texto escolar y comprensión

References

1. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
   Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2012) Informe Técnico Simce 2012. archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/documentos-web/Informe_Tecnico_Simce_2012.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
2. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
   Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2014) Informe Técnico Simce 2014. archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/InformeTecnicoSimce_2014.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
3. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
   Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2016) PIRLS: Estudio Internacional del Progreso en Competencia Lectora. https://www.agenciaeducacion.cl/estudios/estudios-internacionales/pirls/
   [Google Scholar]
4. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
   Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2017) Informe técnico Simce 2017. Recuperado dehttps://www.agenciaeducacion.cl
   [Google Scholar]
5. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
   Agencia de Calidad de la Educación (2018) Informe de resultados: Estudio Nacional de Inglés 2017. Recuperado dehttps://www.agenciaeducacion.cl
   [Google Scholar]
6. Aravena, J.
   (2014) Conciencia fonológica en dos grupos de escolares que cursan primer año básico en colegios municipales y particulares. Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiología, 40–49.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Balbi, A., Von Hagen, A., Ruiz, C., & Cuadro, A.
   (2019) Precursores de la Competencia Lectora Inicial en Escolares Hispanoparlantes de Nivel Socioeconómico Vulnerable. Psykhe, 29(1), 1–15.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S.
   (2005) Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83. 10.1097/00011363‑200501000‑00007
   https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00007 [Google Scholar]
9. Black, J., & Bower, G.
   (1980) Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9(1), 223–250. 10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90021‑2
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90021-2 [Google Scholar]
10. Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K.
    (1980) Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of child language, 7(2), 235–261. 10.1017/S0305000900002610
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002610 [Google Scholar]
11. Bowey, J.
    (1995) Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 476. 10.1037/0022‑0663.87.3.476
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.476 [Google Scholar]
12. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F.
    (2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233 [Google Scholar]
13. Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R.
    (2013) Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190–213. 10.1177/0004944113495500
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113495500 [Google Scholar]
14. Cain, K., & Nash, H.
    (2011) The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 429–441. 10.1037/a0022824
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824 [Google Scholar]
15. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E.
    (2001) Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. 10.3758/BF03196414
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414 [Google Scholar]
16. Cain, K., Patson, N., & Andrews, L.
    (2005) Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32, 877–892. 10.1017/S0305000905007014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007014 [Google Scholar]
17. Canestrelli, A., Mak, W., & Sanders, T.
    (2013) Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1394–1413. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
18. Castillo, P., González, A., & Puga, I.
    (2011) Gestión y efectividad en educación: evidencias comparativas entre establecimientos municipales y particulares subvencionados. Estudios Pedagógicos, 37(1), 187–206. 10.4067/S0718‑07052011000100010
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052011000100010 [Google Scholar]
19. Centro de Microdatos de la Universidad de Chile
    Centro de Microdatos de la Universidad de Chile (2011) Estudio sobre el comportamiento lector a nivel nacional. plandelectura.gob.cl/recursos/estudio-sobre-comportamiento-lector-a-nivel-nacional-2011/
    [Google Scholar]
20. Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A.
    (2003) The classic study on poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Cheng, Y., & Wu, X.
    (2017) The relationship between SES and reading comprehension in Chinese: A mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 672. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00672
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00672 [Google Scholar]
22. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Coschiza, C. C., Martín Fernández, J., Gapel Redcozub, G., Nievas, M. E., & Ruiz, H. E.
    (2016) Características socioeconómicas y rendimiento académico. El caso de una universidad argentina. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia Y Cambio En Educación, 14(3), 51–76. 10.15366/reice2016.14.3.003
    https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2016.14.3.003 [Google Scholar]
24. Cozijn, R.
    (2000) Integration and inferences in understanding causal sentences [Tesis doctoral, Tilburg University]. Repositorio de Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Cozijn, R., Noordman, L., & Vonk, W.
    (2011) Propositional integration and world-knowledge inference: Processes in understanding because sentences. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 475–500. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.594421 [Google Scholar]
26. Crosson, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Martiniello, M.
    (2008) Factors that influence comprehension of connectives among language minority children from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 603–625. 10.1017/S0142716408080260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080260 [Google Scholar]
27. Degand, L., & Sanders, T.
    (2002) The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15, 739–757. 10.1023/A:1020932715838
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020932715838 [Google Scholar]
28. Degand, L., & Pander Maat, H.
    (2003) A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the speaker involvement scale. InA. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch (pp.175–199). LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
29. De Vega, M.
    (2005) El procesamiento de oraciones con conectores adversativos y causales. Cognitiva, 17(1), 85–108. 10.1174/0214355053114745
    https://doi.org/10.1174/0214355053114745 [Google Scholar]
30. Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T.
    (2009) The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 829–854. 10.1017/S0305000908009227
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009227 [Google Scholar]
31. Ferreres, A., Abusamra, V., & Squillace, M.
    (2010) Comprensión de textos y oportunidades educativas. InActas del Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación (pp.1–11). Universidad de Cádiz y Asociación Formación.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Fonseca, L., Pujals, M., Lasala, E., Migliardo, G., Aldrey, A., Buonsanti, L., & Barreyro, J. P.
    (2014) Desarrollo de habilidades de comprensión lectora en niños de escuelas de distintos sectores socioeconómicos. Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 6(1).
    [Google Scholar]
33. Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B.
    (1985) Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 331–346. 10.1080/10862968509547549
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968509547549 [Google Scholar]
34. Goldman, S. R.
    (1997) Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 357–398. 10.1080/01638539709544997
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544997 [Google Scholar]
35. Goldman, S., & Varnhagen, C.
    (1986) Memory for embedded and sequential story structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 401–418. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90034‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90034-3 [Google Scholar]
36. González, A., & Dupriez, V.
    (2016) Acceso a las universidades selectivas en Chile: ¿pueden las estrategias institucionales de los establecimientos secundarios atenuar el peso del capital cultural?. Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(3), 947–964. 10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n3.51492
    https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n3.51492 [Google Scholar]
37. Graesser, A., & Clark, L.
    (1985) Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Louwerse, M.
    (2003) What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?InA. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.82–98). Guilford Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Guardia, P.
    (2002) Relaciones entre kabilidades de alfabetización emergente y la lectura desde nivel de transición mayor a primero básico [Tesis de magíster, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile]. Repositorio de la Universidad Católica de Chile.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Haberlandt, K.
    (1982) Reader expectations in text comprehension. InJ. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and language comprehension (pp.239–249). North-Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60055-8 [Google Scholar]
41. Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M.
    (2009) Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00501.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x [Google Scholar]
42. Henning, C., McIntosh, B., Arnott, W., & Dodd, B.
    (2010) Long-term outcome of oral language and phonological awareness intervention with socially disadvantaged preschoolers: The impact on language and literacy. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 231–246. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2009.01410.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01410.x [Google Scholar]
43. Ibáñez, R.
    (2008) Comprensión de textos académicos escritos en inglés: Relación entre nivel de logro y variables involucradas. Signos, 41(67), 203–229.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Arriaza, V.
    (2018) Recontextualización del conocimiento en textos escolares chilenos. Revista Signos, 51(98), 430–456. 10.4067/S0718‑09342018000300430
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342018000300430 [Google Scholar]
45. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Cárcamo, B.
    (2019) Coherence relations in primary school textbooks: Variation across school subjects. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 764–785. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1565278
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1565278 [Google Scholar]
46. Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B.
    (Eds.) (2013) Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203123430
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123430 [Google Scholar]
47. Jiang, N.
    (2012) Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
    (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238. 10.1037/0096‑3445.111.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228 [Google Scholar]
49. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L.
    (2008) Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 323–345. 10.1080/01638530802145486
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145486 [Google Scholar]
50. Kieffer, M.
    (2010) Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Research, 39(6), 484–486. 10.3102/0013189X10378400
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10378400 [Google Scholar]
51. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Knott, A.
    (2001) Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. InT. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.127–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.08kno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.08kno [Google Scholar]
53. Knott, A., & Dale, R.
    (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 18(1), 35–62. 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
54. Knott, A., & Sanders, T.
    (1998) The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics30, 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
55. Lau, K., & Chan, D.
    (2003) Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 177–190. 10.1111/1467‑9817.00195
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00195 [Google Scholar]
56. Li, F., Mak, W., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T.
    (2017) On the online effects of subjectivity encoded in causal connectives. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 15(1), 34–57. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.02li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.02li [Google Scholar]
57. Loman, N., & Mayer, R.
    (1983) Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 402–412. 10.1037/0022‑0663.75.3.402
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.402 [Google Scholar]
58. Lorch, R., & Lorch, E.
    (1986) On-line processing of summary and importance signals in reading. Discourse Processes, 9, 489–496. 10.1080/01638538609544654
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538609544654 [Google Scholar]
59. Louwerse, M. M.
    (2004) Un modelo conciso de cohesión en el texto y coherencia en la comprensión. Revista signos, 37(56), 41–58. 10.4067/S0718‑09342004005600004
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342004005600004 [Google Scholar]
60. McDowell, K., Lonigan, C., & Goldstein, H.
    (2007) Relations among socioeconomic status, age, and predictors of phonological awareness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1079–1092. 10.1044/1092‑4388(2007/075)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/075) [Google Scholar]
61. McNamara, D.
    (2001) Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. 10.1037/h0087352
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087352 [Google Scholar]
62. McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288. 10.1080/01638539609544975
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 [Google Scholar]
63. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
64. Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., & Ruiz, M.
    (2013) Textos escolares para aprender Ciencias: habilidades, contenidos y lenguaje académico. InEvidencias para políticas públicas en educación: Selección de investigaciones Sexto Concurso FONIDE (pp.233–278). Centro de Estudios MINEDUC.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Meyer, B., Brandt, D., & Bluth, G.
    (1980) Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. 10.2307/747349
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747349 [Google Scholar]
66. Meyer, B. & Freedle, R.
    (1984) Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. 10.3102/00028312021001121
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121 [Google Scholar]
67. Meyer, T. & Webber, B.
    (2013) Implicitation of discourse connectives in (machine) translation. InProceedings of the Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (pp.19–26). Bulgaria.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Millis, K. & Just, M.
    (1994) The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–147. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1007 [Google Scholar]
69. MINEDUC
    MINEDUC (2018) ¿Qué debemos saber sobre los textos escolares?https://www.supereduc.cl/contenidos-de-interes/que-debemos-saber-sobre-los-textos-escolares
70. Moncada, F.
    (2018) Interacción entre conectores y conocimiento previo en el procesamiento de la coherencia causal. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada de la Comunicación, 76, 179–196. 10.5209/CLAC.62504
    https://doi.org/10.5209/CLAC.62504 [Google Scholar]
71. Morera, Y., & de Vega, M.
    (2006) Los conectores ¿conectan o no conectan? La dinámica de fuerzas en la construcción de frases con conectores causales y adversativos: un estudio normativo. InE. Gámez & J. Díaz (Eds.), Investigaciones en Psicología Básica ULL: Psicolingüística, Razonamiento y Emoción (pp.53–64). Universidad de La Laguna y Asociación Cultural Cabrera y Galdós.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Mulder, G.
    (2008) Understanding causal coherence relations [Tesis Doctoral, Utrecht University]. Repositorio de la Universidad de Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Murray, J. D.
    (1995) Logical connectives and local coherence. InR. F. Lorch & E. J. O’brieen (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp.107–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Noordman, L., & De Blijzer, F.
    (2000) On the processing of causal relations. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.35–56). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.35 [Google Scholar]
75. Noordman, L., & Vonk, W.
    (1997) The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. InJ. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp.75–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Olivera Vidal, M. P.
    (2016) Estudio de uso y valoración de textos escolares: Informe final. MINEDUC y Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (UNESCO).
    [Google Scholar]
77. O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.
    (2007) Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse processes, 43(2), 121–152. 10.1080/01638530709336895
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895 [Google Scholar]
78. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
    Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010) PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol.2). OECD.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Oversteegen, L.
    (2005) Causality and tense – Two temporal structure builders. Journal of Semantics, 22, 307–337. 10.1093/jos/ffh021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh021 [Google Scholar]
80. Parodi, G.
    (2005) Comprensión de textos escritos. Eudeba.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Peronard, M.
    (2007) Lectura en papel y en pantalla de computador. Revista signos, 40(63), 179–195. 10.4067/S0718‑09342007000100009
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342007000100009 [Google Scholar]
82. Renkema, J.
    (2004) Introduction to discourse studies. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.124 [Google Scholar]
83. Sanders, T.
    (2005) Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. InM. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Draoulec, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning SEM-05 (pp.31–44). University of Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Sanders, T., & Canestrelli, A. R.
    (2012) The processing of pragmatic information in discourse. InH. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.201–232). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.201 [Google Scholar]
85. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L.
    (2000) The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37–60. 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3 [Google Scholar]
86. Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G.
    (2007) Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. 10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.04san [Google Scholar]
87. Sanders, T. J., Spooren, W. P., & Noordman, L. G.
    (1992) Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15(1), 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
88. Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L.
    (1993) Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
89. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W.
    (1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245–302. 10.1006/drev.1994.1010
    https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1010 [Google Scholar]
90. Sirin, S. R.
    (2005) Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. 10.3102/00346543075003417
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 [Google Scholar]
91. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P.
    (Eds.) (1998) Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Soaje de Elías, R.
    (2018) Textos escolares: consideraciones didácticas. Educación y Educadores, 21(1), 73–92. 10.5294/edu.2018.21.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2018.21.1.4 [Google Scholar]
93. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
    (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
94. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T.
    (2008) The acquisition of coherence relations: on cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–2026. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
95. Spyridakis, J. H.
    (1989) Signaling effects: A review of the research – Part I. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(3), 227–240. 10.2190/UA49‑PQ9K‑H1MN‑DYK9
    https://doi.org/10.2190/UA49-PQ9K-H1MN-DYK9 [Google Scholar]
96. Spyridakis, J. H., & Standal, T. C.
    (1987) Signals in expository prose: Effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 285–298. 10.2307/747969
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747969 [Google Scholar]
97. Stukker, N., & Sanders, T.
    (2012) Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 169–190. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011 [Google Scholar]
98. Stukker, N., Sanders, T., & Verhagen, A.
    (2008) Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1296–1322. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
99. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
100. Taboada, M.
     (2009) Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJ. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of Course (pp.127–140). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
101. Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L.
     (1985) Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90048‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8 [Google Scholar]
102. Traxler, M., Bybee, M., & Pickering, M.
     (1997) Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 481–497. 10.1080/027249897391982
     https://doi.org/10.1080/027249897391982 [Google Scholar]
103. Traxler, M., Sanford, A., Aked, J., & Moxey, L.
     (1997) Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 88–101.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Van den Broek, P.
     (1990) The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. InD. Balota, G. Flores & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp.423–445). Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
105. Van den Broek, P.
     (2010) Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. 10.1126/science.1182594
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182594 [Google Scholar]
106. Van der Vliet, N., & Redeker, G.
     (2014) Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. InH. Gruber & G. Redeker (Eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence (pp.23–52). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.254.02vli
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.254.02vli [Google Scholar]
107. Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T.
     (2015) Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237 [Google Scholar]
108. Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W. & Sanders, T.
     (2014) Connectives and layout as processing signals: How textual features affect students’ processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1036. 10.1037/a0036293
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036293 [Google Scholar]
109. Villalón, M.
     (2008) Alfabetización Inicial: Claves de acceso al aprendizaje de la lengua escrita. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Voss, J., & Silfies, L.
     (1996) Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45–68. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2 [Google Scholar]
111. Wei, Y., Mak, W. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J.
     (2019) Causal connectives as indicators of source information: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 198, 102866. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102866
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102866 [Google Scholar]
112. Wolfe, M. B., Magliano, J. P., & Larsen, B.
     (2005) Causal and semantic relatedness in discourse understanding and representation. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 165–187. 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_4 [Google Scholar]
113. Zufferey, S.
     (2010) Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind: the acquisition of connectives (Vol.201). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.201
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.201 [Google Scholar]
114. Zunino, G.
     (2016) Construcción de causalidad y contracausalidad en sujetos con distinto nivel educativo. Acta de investigación psicológica, 6(2), 2412–2421. 10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
115. Zunino, G., Abusamra, V., & Raiter, A.
     (2016) Causality, iconicity and continuity: the effects of prior world knowledge on the understanding of causal relations. Alfa: Revista de Linguística, 60(2), 261–285.
     [Google Scholar]
116. Zunino, G., & Raiter, A.
     (2012) Construcción de coherencia textual. Un estudio preliminar acerca de la causalidad y sus implicancias neuropsicolingüísticas. Revista Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 4(2), 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
117. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
     (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]