(1) Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models have been applied in information processing related research. In his study, Hutchins (1987) discusses the relevance of automated summarisation and information retrieval systems in the early information age and describes the different types of automated systems developed. All these systems are based on the models of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) and van Dijk (1980). Through a historical perspective, Hutchins (1987) shows how reliable automated models of text summarisation and information extraction are as tested against the above two models. In conclusion, however, he claims that macrorules are still applied intuitively and he predicts that the actual operation of these rules may well be unformalisable.

Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) examine what role long-term memory plays in text comprehension. This study is based on the supposition that on condition integrated representation (representation reinforced through the use of mnemonics) of a text is stored in the memory, persons will be more likely to recall information appearing in higher macrostructure levels of the text in question, as theorised by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978). The paper concludes that short-term and long-term working memories work in tandem: the retrieval of information stored reliably in the long-term working memory is only possible through cues stored in the short-term working memory.

(2) Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models have been used in automatic summary generating applications. With a view to establishing the topic-comment information structure of texts, Kintsch (2002) applies the Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) model, an automated tool for extracting and generating summaries, which, for most readers, usually equals to what they call the ‘topic’ of the text. When constructing the macrostructure of a text, this computational model works along semantic vectors automatically created using the semantically shared components of words in a text. Albeit in different forms, Kintsch’s Construction-Integration Theory (1988), which is in fact a further development of Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models, and LSA give similar results in terms of the macrostructure of a text. This, on the other hand, proves the reliability of Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models.

(3) Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models have pedagogical applications in the field of summary writing. Lemaire, Mandin, Dessus and Denhière (2005) build on the findings of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) and Kintsch’s (2002) above-described Latent Semantic Analysis model in their attempt to provide educators of middle school students with a reliable tool for assessing student summaries (irrespective of text types). The tool Lemaire et al. (2005) offer for that purpose will produce the macrostructure of texts. Examining the process of summary writing assessments, the paper sets up two stages of research with a view to comparing the results obtained in these two stages: educators’ production of summaries, which are deemed desired summaries by these educators, and educators’ assessment of students’ skills in summary writing. The latter stage comprises facilitating students’ operation with macrorules aiding them in selecting propositions to be used in their summaries. In order to exclude ad hoc macroproposition selection and subjective educator assessment, the authors provide a reliable automated method of summary writing and assessment, which is tested against human data (i.e. summaries produced by educators and summaries produced by students and deemed appropriate by educators). The automated method proves highly reliable for the purposes of student assessment, thereby underscoring the reliability of Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models.

(4) Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models have been utilised for cognitive linguistic applications, too. Based on a taxonomy of rhetorical relations, Meyer and Grice (1982) approach comprehension from a hermeneutical orientation. Based on Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) Model, Meyer (1975, 1977) concludes that when understanding different texts, readers, in order to comprehend a text, reconstruct a similar cognitive representation of the given text as the one probably existing in the mind of the author of the text. Meyer and Grice (1982) state that readers’ prior knowledge has a decisive role in understanding a text. According to Meyer and Grice (1982), readers first establish the global organisation of the text by constructing the author’s main points along the main propositions of the text and then find and link supporting details in the text to such propositions. Similarly to Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) Model of Text Comprehension and Production, Meyer and Grice’s (1982) model also talks about reading as a linear process but, in Meyer and Grice’s (1982) interpretation, text comprehension, unlike in Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) model, happens in a hierarchical, top to bottom way. What takes place during text comprehension, Meyer and Grice (1982) claim, is that cognitively first the main theses, i.e. highest level macropropositions, are constructed and lower ranking (macro)propositions are added to them later as reading linearly proceeds forward. Text recall functions similarly: first highest-level macropropositions are recalled followed by lower ranking ones. This way, the starting point in Meyer and Grice’s (1982) model is Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) comprehension model, but the act of text comprehension is pictured differently from that of the model described by Kintsch and van Dijk (1978). Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) speak about a cyclical bottom to top process while Meyer and Grice (1982) describe a top to bottom linear process. It follows from this that Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) Model takes previous propositions as the starting point in the next cycle of the comprehension process while in Meyer and Grice’s (1982) model the starting point is always higher-ranking propositions than the one actually processed.

(5) Text type related research also profited from Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models. When discussing the way readers understand the plot in stories, i.e. in narratives, Brewer (1982) takes as a starting point the difference between event structure (organisation of events in a temporal sequence of a presumed event world, i.e. how the actual events follow each other in the plot of the narrative) and discourse structure (sequential organisation of these events in terms of their occurrence in a narrative, i.e. how the events follow each other in the text of the narrative). Brewer (1982) connects the differences between event structure and discourse structure to the notion of plan understanding and narrative understanding. Plan understanding is the way humans are able to interpret observed actions of another person in terms of the person’s intentions and, based on this, construe the goal of the given action, while narrative understanding describes how humans are able to understand narrative discourse by deriving a mental model of the actions presented. In terms of narrative understanding, Brewer (1982) claims that van Dijk’s Macrostructure Model (1980) “can be viewed as [a means of] working out the relations between discourse structures that contain omitted information and their [narratives’] intended mental model” (Brewer, 1982, p. 477). Brewer (1982) thus urges that psychological processes related to generating a mental model from a given discourse structure be researched.

Toledo (2005) seeks to show how previous knowledge of genre characteristics influences the success of comprehension. On the basis of the analysis of two scientific texts, the genres of which are closely related (a book review and a book advertisement), Toledo (2005) claims and demonstrates that the comprehension of macrostructure (as envisaged by Kintsch and van Dijk [1978]) does not necessarily result in the comprehension of the texts in question. Toledo (2005) also states that a text’s pragmatic and communicative function is not identified, unless the reader is capable of identifying the genre of the text in question. In our interpretation, this points towards the existence of superstructure and the need to incorporate a superstructure model along a macrostructure model in the present undertaking, as described in Chapter 2 and the present Chapter 3.

(6) Kintsch and van Dijk’s (1978) and van Dijk’s (1980) models have been applied in text linguistic investigations to explore the structure of paragraphs. In a contrastive linguistic study, Evans (1998) aims at examining the discourse patterns of business and economics texts in the German business news magazine Wirtschaftswoche and its American counterpart Business Week. Texts about the same reported events are analysed in terms of their topic shifts (i.e. differing paragraph set-ups and structures) so as to determine if such shifts are attributable to differences in the linguistic and cultural environments of the two weekly magazines. In order to compare the structures of the corresponding texts and their thematic structure, Evans relies on van Dijk’s (1980) Macrostructure Model for the determination of propositions and, consequently, of macropropositions and macrostructure. Evan (1998) reveals topic shifts in the corresponding texts by comparing macrostructure. It is evidenced that no significant topic shifts are found through the comparison of the German and English language articles, nonetheless, the analytical method, including van Dijk’s (1980) Macrostructure Model, proves a reliable analytical tool. Furthermore, this study shows that van Dijk’s (1980) Macrostructure Model can be used as an effective tool facilitating the comparison of texts written in different languages.

In a discussion concerning the editorial practice of the French newspaper Le Monde, Le (2004) explores the ways Le Monde makes itself an authority among its readers through argumentations appearing in editorials. When analysing the structure of editorials, Le (2004), relying on the classification of metadiscourse by Crismore et al. (1993), uses three metadiscursive categories: evidentials (textual references to other texts as information sources), person markers (textual references to the author, including phrases such as In the next section, I will show...) and relational markers (textual references to the relationship between the author and the reader, such as using first person plural to engage readers, etc.). Le (2004) focuses on text coherence from the aspect of text production and interpretation. In order to do this, Le (2004) relies on and further develops van Dijk’s Macrostructure Model (1980) to establish the macrostructure of the individual paragraphs. The macrostructure within the paragraphs shows the theme and the highest level of macrostructure (= gist) of each paragraph. As the macrostructure remains in the long-term memory, it is the most focal aspect of the argumentation of editorials. After having identified the macrostructure of the selected Le Monde article, Le (2004) explores what role evidentials, person markers and relational markers play in the macrostructure of the article in order to specify their discursive effect. Le (2004) shows that metadiscursive elements surfacing in the macrostructure make an editorial a very powerful and reliable authority in the eyes of readers. The same study, on the other hand, reveals that van Dijk’s (1980) Macrostructure Model can serve as a useful analytical tool for describing the macrostructure of texts to be further analysed with the help of other theories.