Part of
Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 143172
Ariel, M.
2001Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A.
2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Banfield, A.
1973Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language 10(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
1982Unspeakable Sentences. Boston MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barr, D.
2008Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 457–474.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J.
2013Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P.
2003Psychonarratology: Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R. & Franks, J. J.
1972Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology 3(2): 193–209.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bray, J.
2007The ‘dual voice’ of free indirect discourse: A reading experiment. Language and Literature 16(1): 37–52.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
1973The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4): 335–359.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R.
2014The Semantics of free indirect discourse. How Texts Allow to Mindread and Eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M.
1993The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Garnham, A.
1981Mental models as representations of text. Memory & Cognition 9(6): 560–565.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, G.
1994Die Erzählung. Stuttgart: UTB.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.
1993Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. A.
2012Processing Perspectives. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
2014Shifting Viewpoints and Discourse Economy. Poster presented at the 27th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Ohio State University, USA.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M. & Waller, D.
2004A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence 32(2): 175–191.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, L.
1995Anaphor in subjective contexts in narrative fiction. In Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective, G. B. J. F. Duchan & L. Hewitt (eds), 325–339. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Holler, A. & Irmen, L.
2007Empirically assessing the effects of the right frontier constraint. In Anaphora: Analysis, Algorithms and Applications. DAARC 2007. LNAI-Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, A. Branco (ed.), 15–27. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F.
2008Categorical data analysis: Away from anovas (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 434–446.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. & Cohen, A.
2012Free indirect discourse and perspective-taking. Poster presented at the annual conference Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Riva del Garda, Italy. https://dl.[URL]
Kintsch, W.
1998Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: CUP.Google Scholar
Kotovych, M., Dixon, P., Bortolussi, M. & Holden, M.
2011Textual determinants of a component of literary identification. Scientific Study of Literature 1(2): 260–291.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
László, J.
1986Same story with different point of view. SPIEL 5: 1–22.Google Scholar
Long, D. L.
1994The effects of pragmatics and discourse style on recognition memory for sentences. Discourse Processes 17(2): 213–234.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, E.
2012Switches between direct and indirect speech in ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 12(1): 118–139.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–67.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, R., Pelzer, B. & te Grotenhuis, M.
2012 Tools for Detecting Influential Data in Mixed Effects Models. Version 0.9.2.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., Moar, K. & Garrod, S. C.
1988Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and Speech 31(1): 43–56.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P.
2004Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind & Language 19(3): 279–304.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Y.
2008The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(3): 353–395.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U.
2011False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C.
2011Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition 121(3): 447–453.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Bimpikou, Sofia
2020. Who Perceives? Who Thinks? Anchoring Free Reports of Perception and Thought in Narratives. Open Library of Humanities 6:2 DOI logo
Harris, Jesse A.
2021. Extended Perspective Shift and Discourse Economy in Language Processing. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Holler, Anke
2019. Alles eine Frage der Perspektive – Zur sogenannten erlebten Rede im narrativen Text. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 47:1  pp. 28 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.