Semantic macro-structures and macro-rules in visual discourse processing

REFERENCES

• Abdel-Raheem, A. 2018. “Multimodal Humour: Integrating Blending Model, Relevance Theory, and Incongruity Theory.” Multimodal Communication 7: 1. doi:10.1515/mc-2017-0013.
   Google Scholar
• Abdel-Raheem, A. 2020. “Mental Model Theory as a Model for Analysing Visual and Multimodal Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 155: 303–320. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Zidjay, N. 2019. “Digital Activism as Nexus Analysis: A Sociolinguistic Example from Arabic Twitter.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 221.
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N. 2004. “Discourse Topic.” Theoretical Linguistics 30 (2–3): 163–201. doi:10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, J., and K. Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal Film Analysis: How Films Mean. New York and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind: collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Co.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Bierwisch, M. 1965. “Poetik Und Linguistik.” In Mathematik Und Dichtung [Mathematics and Literaturej, edited by H. Kreuzer and R. Gunzenhauser, 49–66. Munich: Nymphenburger.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2015a. “Chronotopes, Scale and Complexity in the Study of Language in Society.” Annual Review of Anthropology 44: 105–116. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2015b. “Chronotopic Identities. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies.” paper 144. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/83e91218-34c2-4cdd-9fe3b5a587c690e7_TPCS_144_Blommaert.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2018a. Durkheim and the Internet: Sociolinguistics and the Sociological Imagination. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2018b. “Are Chronotopes Helpful?” Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, paper 243.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2018c. “Context and Its Complications.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 208.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2018d. “Formatting Online actions:#Justsaying on Twitter.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 209.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J., and A. De Fina 2015. “Chronotopic Identities: On the Timespace Organization of Who We Are.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 153. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/ba249987-6ece-44d2-b96b-3fc329713d59_TPCS_153_Blommaert-DeFina.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J., and I. Maly 2019. “Invisible lines in the online-offline linguistic landscape.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 223.
   Google Scholar
• Bostdorff, D. 1987. “Making Light of James Watt: A Burkean Approach to the Form and Attitude of Political Cartoons.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73: 43–59. doi:10.1080/00335638709383793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bounegru, L., and C. Forceville. 2011. “Metaphors in Editorial Cartoons Representing the Global Financial Crisis.” Visual Communication 10 (2): 209–229. doi:10.1177/1470357211398446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S. 1997. “Semantic Leaps: The role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction.” Doctoral thesis, UC San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Curran, T., and J. Doyle. 2011. “Picture Superiority Doubly Dissociates the ERP Correlates of Recollection and Familiarity.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23 (5): 1247–1262. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defetyer, M. A., R. Russo, and P. L. McPartlin. 2009. “The Picture Superiority Effect in Recognition Memory: A Developmental Study Using the Response Signal Procedure.” Cognitive Development 24 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denis, M., J. Engelkamp, and J. Richardson, Eds. 1988. Cognitive and Neuropsychological Approaches to Mental Imagery. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Domínguez, M. 2015a. “On the Origin of Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 30: 240–255. doi:10.1080/10926488.2015.1049858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domínguez, M. 2015b. “The Metaphorical Species: Evolution, Adaptation and Speciation of Metaphors.” Discourse Studies 17: 433–448. doi:10.1177/1461445615578963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domínguez, M., and A. Mateu. 2013. “Spanish Darwinian Iconography: Darwin and Evolutionism Portrayed in Spanish Press Cartoons.” Public Understanding of Science 22 (8): 999–1010. doi:10.1177/0963662512442050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. 1997. Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. New York/London: Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. L. 1993. “Pictorial Images as Narratives: Rhetorical Activation in Campaign 88 Political Cartoons.” Doctoral dissertation, UMass Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• El Refaie, E. 2003. “Understanding Visual Metaphor: The Example of Newspaper Cartoons.” Visual Communication 2 (1): 75–96. doi:10.1177/1470357203002001755.
   Google Scholar
• El Refaie, E. 2009. “Metaphor in Political Cartoons: Exploring Audience Responses.” In Multimodal Metaphor, edited by C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 173–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Endriss, C., and S. Hinterwimmer. 2008. “Direct and Indirect Aboutness Topics.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3–4): 297–307. doi:10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. 2011. “Pictorial Runes in Tintin and the Picaros.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 875–890. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. 2014. “Relevance Theory as a Model for Multimodal Communication.” In Visual Communication, edited by D. Machin, 51–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C., and B. Clark. 2014. “Can Pictures Have Explicatures?” Linguagem Em (Dis)curso 14 (3): 451–472. doi:10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., and A. L. Stevens, Eds. 1983. Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., and G. L. Bisanz. 2002. “Toward a Functional Analysis of Scientific Genres: Implications for Understanding and Learning Processes.” In The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension, edited by Jose A. Leon and Jose Otero, 19–50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, C. 2009. Making Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goutsos, D. 1997. Modeling Discourse Topic: Sequential Relations and Strategies in Expository Text. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Hempelmann, C. F., and A. C. Samson. 2008. “Cartoons: Drawn jokes?” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by V. Raskin, 609–640. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. 1974. “Ways of speaking.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by R. Bauman, and J. Sherzer, 433–451. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. 2004. “Focus, Presuppositions, and Discourse Restrictions.” Theoretical Linguistics 30 (1): 99–110. doi:10.1515/thli.2004.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jun, J., and S. C. Chong. 2018. “Visual Statistical Learning at Basic and Subordinate Category Levels in Real-world Images.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 80: 1946–1961. doi:10.3758/s13414-018-1566-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. 1974. The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Tell Us about the Nature of Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. 2000. “Across the Scales of Time: Artifacts, Activities, and Meanings in Ecosocial Systems.” Mind, Culture and Activity 7 (4): 273–290. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0704_03.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. 1968. Convention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mani, I., and M. T. Maybury, Eds. 1999. Advances in Automatic Text Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcu, D. 2000. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McBride, D. M., and B.A. Dosher. 2002. “A Comparison of Conscious and Automatic Memory Processes for Picture and Word Stimuli: A Process Dissociation Analysis.” Consciousness and Cognition 11 (3): 423–460. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00007-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montero-Melis, G., P. Isaksson, J. Van Paridon, and M. Ostarek. 2020. “Does Using a Foreign Language Reduce Mental Imagery?” Cognition 196 (104134): 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104134.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. 2011. Identity in Interaction: Introducing Multimodal Interaction Analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. 2019. Systematically Working with Multimodal Data: Research Methods in Multimodal Discourse Analysis. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Petӧfi, J. S., and H. Rieser, Eds. 1973. Studies in Text Grammars. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, T. 1981. “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–94.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J., and A. Maes. 2009. “Visual Metaphoric Conceptualization in Editorial Cartoons.” In Multimodal Metaphor, edited by C Forceville and E Urios-Aparisi, 213–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., and S. Scollon. 2004. Nexus Analysis. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seidlhofer, B. 1995. Approaches to Summarization: Discourse Analysis and Language Education. Tübingen: G. Narr.
   Google Scholar
• Sewell, E. H. 1986. Narrative Communication in Editorial Cartoons. In H. Geisser (Ed), On Narrative. The Proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium on Speech Communication (pp. 260–268). Frankfort: Scriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, R.N. 1967. “Recognition Memory for Words, Sentences, and Pictures.” Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 156–163. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance Theory: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Blackwell: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Stempleski, S., and B. Tomalin. 2001. Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, J. 1987. “Reading Political Cartoons.” Unpublished paper, Washington. D.C: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Tager-Flusberg, H. 1985. “Basic Level and Superordinate Level Categorization by Autistic, Mentally Retarded, and Normal Children.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 40 (3): 450–469. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(85)90077-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D., and C. Wallat. 1993. Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tseng, C., and J. A. Bateman. 2018. “Cohesion in Comics and Graphic Novels: An Empirical Comparative Approach to Transmedia Adaptation in City of Glass.” Adaptation 11 (2): 122–143. doi:10.1093/adaptation/apx027.
   Google Scholar
• Uidhir, M. 2017. “Comics and Seriality.” In The Routledge Companion to Comics, edited by F. Bramlett, R. T. Cook, and A. Meskin, 248–256. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1977. “Semantic macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse Comprehension.” In Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, edited by M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, 3–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1988a. News Analysis: Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1988b. News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1995. “On Macrostructures, Mental Models, and Other Inventions: A Brief Personal History of the Van Dijk-Kintsch Theory.” In Discourse Comprehension: Essays in Honor of Walter Kintsch, edited by C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, and C. R. Fletcher, 383–410. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 2008. Discourse and Context: A Socio-cognitive Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 2014. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 2018. “Discourse and Migration.” In Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies, edited by R. Zapata-Barrero and E. Yalaz, 227–246. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York/Toronto: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, T. J. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wekesa, N.B. 2012. “Cartoons Can Talk? Visual Analysis of Cartoons on the 2007/2008 Post-election Violence in Kenya: A Visual Argumentation Approach.” Discourse & Communication 6 (2): 223–238. doi:10.1177/1750481312439818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehouse, A. J., M.T. Maybery, and K. Durkin. 2006. “The Development of the Picture-superiority Effect.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24 (4): 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yablo, S. 2014. Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A. 1994. “Effect of Genre Expectations on Text Comprehension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 920–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar