Part of
Experiencing Fictional Worlds
Edited by Benedict Neurohr and Lizzie Stewart-Shaw
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 32] 2019
► pp. 97117
References (54)
References
Böhm, E. and Dennerlein, K. (eds). 2016. Der Bildungsroman im literarischen Feld. Neue Perspektiven auf eine Gattung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Butler, M. 2008. Explanatory Notes. In Mary Shelley: Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 Text, M. Butler (ed.), 252–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Chamisso, A. 1843. The Wonderful History of Peter Schlemihl. Translated by William Howitt. New York: Burgess and Stringer. Facsimile available online, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
1975. Peter Schlemihls wundersame Geschichte. In Sämtliche Werke in zwei Bänden: Nach dem Text der Ausgaben letzter Hand und den Handschriften von Adelbert von Chamisso, V. Hoffmann (ed.), Vol. 1, 13–67. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Vandelanotte, L. 2009. Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, G. Brône and J. Vandaele (eds), 319–370. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse, and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Text. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.Google Scholar
Emmott, C. 1999. Narrative Comprehension. A Discourse Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–254.Google Scholar
Fricke, H. and Müller, R. 2010. Cognitive poetics meets hermeneutics. Some considerations about the German reception of cognitive poetics. Mythos Magazin 6, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Gaiman, N. 2005. Neverwhere. London: Headline.Google Scholar
Galbraith, M. 1995. Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative. In Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective, J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt (eds), 19–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J.-M. 2011. Frame Semantics. In Semantics [HSK 33(1)], C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds), 664–687. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. 1987. Seuils. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gomel, E. 2014. Narrative Space and Time. Representing Impossible Topologies in Literature. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M. C. and Carpenter, J. M. A. 2011. Transporting into narrative worlds. New directions for the scientific study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature 1(1) [Special Issue: The Future of Scientific Studies in Literature]: 113–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grishakova, M. 2009. Beyond the Frame: Cognitive Science, Common Sense and Fiction. Narrative 17(2): 188–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igl, N. 2016a. Romantische Rahmen-Binnen-Konstruktionen als ‘mapping’ von inner- und außertextuellen Räumen. In Schlüsselkonzepte und Anwendungen der Kognitiven Literaturwissenschaft, R. Mikuláš and S. Wege (eds), 81–100. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
2016b. The double-layered structure of narrative discourse and complex strategies of perspectivization. In Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 21], N. Igl and S. Zeman (eds), 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1980. Mental Models in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science 4: 71–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1988. The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model. Psychological Review 95(2): 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljungberg, C. 2012. Creative Dynamics: Diagrammatic Strategies in Narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellmann, K. 2007. Biologische Ansätze zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Emotionen. Journal of Literary Theory 1(2): 357–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. 1974 [1975]. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, H. P. Winston (ed.), 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill. First published as MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, June 1974, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. S., Phelan, J. and Walsh, R. 2015. Ten Theses about Fictionality. Narrative 23(1): 61–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orosz, M. 1999. Raumsemantik und Modalität. KODIKAS/CODE. Ars Semeiotica 22(1–2) [Special Issue: Räume, Grenzen, Grenzüberschreitungen]: 13–24.Google Scholar
Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive Interaction. The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E. and Sandler, S. 2016. Fictive interaction and the conversation frame. An overview. In The Conversation Frame. Forms and functions of fictive interaction [Human Cognitive Processing 55], E. Pascual and S. Sandler (eds), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quendler, C. 2008. Novel Beginnings: Initial Framings as a Historical Category of American Fiction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 56(4): 337–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Interfaces of Fiction. Initial Framings in the American Novel from 1790 to 1900. Wien: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Rapaport, W. J. et al. 1989 [1994]. Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative Comprehension. Center for Cognitive Science State University of New York at Buffalo, 26 May 1994 [slightly updated version of Technical Report 89–01, SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science, 1989], <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. 1991. Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2004. Introduction. In Narrative across Media. The Languages of Storytelling, M.-L. Ryan (ed.), 1–39. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Segal, E. M. 1995. Narrative comprehension and the role of Deictic Shift Theory. In Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective, J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt (eds), 3–17. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Seibel, K. 2014. “Read, friend, and enter!” Generic world construction in fantastic texts. In Writing Worlds. Welten- und Raummodelle der Fantastik, P. Klenke, L. Muth, K. Seibel and A. Simonis (eds), 225–240. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Shelley, M. 1818 [2008]. Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 Text. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Marilyn Butler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2000 [2014]. The Poetics of Science Fiction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tobin, V. 2014. Readers as overhearers and texts as objects: joint attention in reading communities. SCRIPTA (Belo Horizonte) 18(34): 179–198.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. 2001. Does Beauty Build Adapted Minds? Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Aesthetics, Fiction, and the Arts. SubStance 30(94/95): 6–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. 1996. The Literary Mind. The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. Blending in Language and Communication. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. E. Dąbrowska and D. Divjak (eds), 211–232. Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Utell, J. 2016. Engagements with Narrative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wirth, U. 2009. Paratext und Text als Übergangszone. In Raum und Bewegung in der Literatur, B. Neumann and W. Hallet (eds), 167–180. Bielefeld: Transcript. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Die Geburt des Autors aus dem Geist der Herausgeberfiktion: Editoriale Rahmung im Roman um 1800: Wieland, Goethe, Brentano, Jean Paul und E. T. A. Hoffmann. München: Fink. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, W. 1998. Paratext. In Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie, A. Nünning (ed.), 413–414. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
1999. Framing Fiction: Reflections on a Narratological Concept and an Example: Bradbury, Mesonge. In Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext / Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in Context, W. Grünzweig and A. Solbach (eds), 97–146. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2006. Frames, Framing and Framing Borders in Literature and Other Media. In Framing Borders in Literature and Other Media, W. Bernhart and W. Wolf (eds), 1–40. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Young, K. 2004. Frame and Boundary in the Phenomenology of Narrative. In Narrative Across Media. The Languages of Storytelling, M.-L. Ryan (ed.), 76–107. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Zeman, S. 2016. Perspectivization as a link between narrative micro- and macro-structure. In Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 21], N. Igl and S. Zeman (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar