scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Anke Holler

Other affiliations: Heidelberg University
Bio: Anke Holler is an academic researcher from University of Göttingen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Free indirect speech & Dependent clause. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 25 publications receiving 182 citations. Previous affiliations of Anke Holler include Heidelberg University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
28 Jun 2017-Glossa
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined to which degree different textual modes of narration increase the degree to which the reader can generally relate to the protagonist (what we will call relatedness), make the reader prone to imagine the scene from the spatial point-of-view of the protagonist, and enhance the psychological perspective-taking of the reader, measured as identification with the protagonist.
Abstract: It is often assumed that narrating a story from the protagonist’s perspective increases the readers’ inclination to take over this perspective. In a questionnaire study, we examined to which degree different textual modes of narration (a) increase the degree to which the reader can generally relate to the protagonist (what we will call relatedness), (b) make the reader prone to imagine the scene from the spatial point-of-view of the protagonist, and (c) enhance the psychological perspective-taking of the reader, measured as identification with the protagonist. We employed two different types of texts—one literary and one non-literary—and tested them in four different modes of narration: free indirect discourse, psycho-narration, first-person narration and external focalization. In terms of the relatedness between the reader and protagonist and spatial perspective-taking the largest differences (descriptively) occurred between external focalization and psycho-narration (p < .05 for relatedness, p < .05 for spatial perspective-taking) and between external focalization and first-person narration (p < .05 for relatedness, for spatial perspective-taking p < .1). Identification, measured with items from a questionnaire on reading experience (Appel et al. 2002), was highest for first-person narration. Here, the difference between first-person narration and external focalization turned out significant only after including dispositional empathy, thematic interest for the text and attention during reading as covariates. Results for the other two perspective-taking measures were unaffected by the inclusion of the same covariates. In conclusion, our data show that first-person and psycho-narration increased the tendency to take over the perspective of the protagonist, but FID did not. This article is part of the special collection: Perspective Taking

31 citations

BookDOI
15 Jan 2011
TL;DR: This volume presents the current linguistic debate on the relationship between lexicon and grammar and on the status of constructions and makes reference to investigations of phenomena relating to valence, argument structure, diatheses, collocations and phrasemes.
Abstract: This volume presents the current linguistic debate on the relationship between lexicon and grammar and on the status of constructions. It makes reference to investigations of phenomena relating to valence, argument structure, diatheses, collocations and phrasemes. Starting from different positions within linguistic theory, thecontributions also reflect the empirical methodologies currently applied to substantiate basic positions in linguistic theory.

17 citations

Book ChapterDOI
21 May 2008

16 citations

Proceedings Article
01 May 2004
TL;DR: An annotation scheme for coreference developed within the application context of text-to-hypertext conversion is described, which relates referential expressions in the text to entities in a knowledge representation, modeled using XML Topic Maps.
Abstract: The paper describes an annotation scheme for coreference developed within the application context of text-to-hypertext conversion. In this context coference is used (1) for generating document-internal and cross-document hyperlinks, and (2) for resolving anaphoric expressions in order to achieve cohesive closedness in hypertext nodes. We will argue that for the purpose of cross-document linking it is necessary to separate the annotation of coreference relations from the annotation of anaphoric relations. To account for this requirement, we developed a knowledge-based annotation scheme that relates referential expressions in the text to entities in a knowledge representation, which is modeled using XML Topic Maps.

15 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: The modern applied statistics with s is universally compatible with any devices to read, and is available in the digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly.
Abstract: Thank you very much for downloading modern applied statistics with s. As you may know, people have search hundreds times for their favorite readings like this modern applied statistics with s, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their laptop. modern applied statistics with s is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our digital library saves in multiple countries, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the modern applied statistics with s is universally compatible with any devices to read.

5,249 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Barwise and Perry as discussed by the authors tackle the slippery subject of ''meaning, '' a subject that has long vexed linguists, language philosophers, and logicians, and they tackle it in this book.
Abstract: In this provocative book, Barwise and Perry tackle the slippery subject of \"meaning, \" a subject that has long vexed linguists, language philosophers, and logicians.

1,834 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2003

1,739 citations

01 Mar 1991

605 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that the authors do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into morphology and syntax, and that linguists should be very careful with general claims that make crucial reference to a cross-linguistic ‘word’ notion.
Abstract: The general distinction between morphology and syntax is widely taken for granted, but it crucially depends on a cross-linguistically valid concept of �(morphosyntactic) word�. I show that there are no good criteria for defining such a concept. I examine ten criteria in some detail (potential pauses, free occurrence, mobility, uninterruptibility, non-selectivity, non-coordinatability, anaphoric islandhood, nonextractability, morphophonological idiosyncrasies, and deviations from bi-uniqueness), and I show that none of them is necessary and sufficient on its own, and no combination of them gives a definition of �word� that accords with linguists' orthographic practice. �Word� can be defined as a language-specific concept, but this is not relevant to the general question pursued here. �Word� can be defined as a fuzzy concept, but this is theoretically meaningful only if the continuum between affixes and words, or words and phrases, shows some clustering, for which there is no systematic evidence at present. Thus, I conclude that we do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into morphology and syntax, and that linguists should be very careful with general claims that make crucial reference to a cross-linguistic �word� notion.

242 citations