Linguistic consequences of event segmentation in visual narratives: implications for prominence

References

• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137–162. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3102_02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohn, N. (2013). Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 413–452. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N. (2015). Narrative conjunction’s junction function: The interface of narrative grammar and semantics in sequential images. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 105–132. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N. (2018). In defense of a ‘grammar’ in the visual language of comics. Journal of Pragmatics, 127, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N., & Kutas, M. (2017). What’s your neural function, visual narrative conjunction? Grammar, meaning, and fluency in sequential image processing. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(27), 1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohn, N., & Paczynski, M. (2013). Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology, 67(3), 73–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, N., & Wittenberg, E. (2015). Action starring narratives and events: Structure and inference in visual narrative comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 812–828. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1051535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comrie, B. (1985). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Language typology and syntactic description ( Vol. 3, pp. 309–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisner, W. (1985/2008). Comics and sequential art. New York, NY: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. (2010). Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(3), 459–464.
   Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229. doi: 10.1075/lab.15011.gru
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(7), 804–824.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
   Google Scholar
• Jasinskaja, K., Chiriacescu, S., Donazzan, M., von Heusinger, K., & Hinterwimmer, S. (2015). Prominence in discourse. In A. De Dominicis (Ed.), Prominences in linguistics. Proceedings of the pS-prominenceS international conference (pp. 134–153). Viterbo: University of Tuscia/DISUCOM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 23(2), 115.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffm018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2013). A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 1–37. doi: 10.1515/tl-2013-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 437–493. doi: 10.1007/BF00986208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Kopp, K., Higgs, K., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). Filling in the gaps: Memory implications for inferring missing content in graphic narratives. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 569–582. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandler, J., & Johnson, N. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90006-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
   Google Scholar
• McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4), 453–465. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90101-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olmstead, M. C., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2015). Comparative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Models, reasoning and inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Postema, B. (2010). Mind the gap: Absence as signifying function in comics (PhD Thesis). Michigan State University.
   Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G. (2012). Across the event horizon. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 269–272. doi: 10.1177/0963721412451274
   Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2000). Functionality and spatial relations in memory and language. Memory and Cognition, 28, 987–992. doi: 10.3758/BF03209346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G., Krawietz, S., & Tamplin, A. (2011). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Further explorations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1632–1645. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.571267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2017). Event boundaries in memory and cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 17, 133–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org /
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 912–927. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.854918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Brown & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211–236). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saraceni, M. (2016). Relatedness: Aspects of textual connectivity in comics. In N. Cohn (Ed.), The visual narrative reader (pp. 115–128). London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Stainbrook, E. J. (2016). A little cohesion between friends; or, we’re just exploring our textuality: Reconciling cohesion in written language and visual language. In N. Cohn (Ed.), The visual narrative reader (pp. 129–154). London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R., Crawley, R., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519–548. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testelec, Y. (1998). On two parameters of transitivity. In V. Kulikov & H. Vater (Eds.), Typology of verbal categories (pp. 29–45). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• von Heusinger, K., & Chiriacescu, S. (2013). The discourse structuring potential of differential object marking. The case of indefinite and definite direct objects in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVIII, 439–456.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1–48. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00004-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, J., Speer, N., Swallow, K., Braver, T., & Reynolds, J. (2007). Event perception: A mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 273–293. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, J., & Swallow, K. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 80–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00480.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar