A prominence-based account of temporal discourse structure

Becker, Martin; Egetenmeyer, Jakob

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2018.08.002

Cited by 35 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The properties influencing the prominence value of times are quite varied. Several are already noted in Becker and Egetenmeyer (2018a). Further relevant properties are mentioned in the context of prominence scales concerning individual referents when aspectual factors are taken into account (see Hopper & Thompson, 1980;Naess, 2007).…”

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is the point in time to which a narrative has developed when a certain event occurs (see Kamp et al, 2011: 199). It is central when it comes to determining temporal anchoring because, within a story, the location time of an event is anchored to a preceding reference time (see Kamp & Rohrer, 1983;and Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a, for formal specifics). It is also relevant for FID events which form part of temporal discourse structure.…”

Section: Jakob Egetenmeyermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four different values of time points have been shown to be relevant for temporal discourse structure (see Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a;Egetenmeyer, 2020): maximal prominence within a domain, an elevated prominence value, equal prominence and minimal or low prominence. A maximally prominent time point is the most important attractor in the domain it occurs in, which may be the case, e.g., for the first time point of an episode (see Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a: 47 ff.). A time point with an elevated prominence value diverges from surrounding time points due to certain features, e.g., precision or explicitness, which make it stand out.…”

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further possibility for foregrounding an eventuality and the time point at which it holds true is to mark it as being in progress by means of a progressive form (see Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a: 54). Foregrounded eventualities are expected to be more prominent than backgrounded ones, a mapping which extends to texts with diversified story lines, where eventualities and the associated time points of the main story line are also expected to be more prominent than those pertaining to lower-ranked story lines (see Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a: 53 f.).…”

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We can determine the second situation, the one we are most interested in, as a new (sub-)episode on the grounds that the time, the location and the persons involved change (see Van Dijk, 1982: 177). Thus, the anchor time point of the FID, which is the reference time introduced via montra ("showed"), is the first-mentioned time point of a new sub-episode and has, therefore, an elevated prominence value (again, see Becker & Egetenmeyer, 2018a: 47 ff. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Prominence Value of the Temporal Anchor of Free Indirect Discourse: A Comparison with the Perspectival Center

Egetenmeyer¹

2020

discours

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free indirect discourse (FID) is a kind of speech or thought representation that lacks specific marking. The entity to whom the speech or thought is attributed (the perspectival center) has been shown to be a contextually available prominent protagonist (see Hinterwimmer, 2019). A shortcoming of the literature is that it ignores the problem of the temporal anchoring of FID events. The present article is dedicated to such anchors. It focuses on their prominence value and discusses their relevant properties. It shows that FID has a strong tendency to be temporally anchored to a prominent time point. Thus, the protagonist and the anchor time point share the trait of prominence.

show abstract

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jakob Egetenmeyermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Prominence Value Of the Anchor Time Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Prominence Value of the Temporal Anchor of Free Indirect Discourse: A Comparison with the Perspectival Center

Egetenmeyer¹

2020

discours

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Anaphoric Pronouns and the Computation of Prominence Profiles

Tomaszewicz-Özakın

Schumacher

2022

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has investigated anaphoric resolution at the anaphor. Using a self-paced reading study we show that prominence profiles, i.e. the ranking of the referential candidates for anaphoric resolution, are dynamically established as discourse unfolds. We compared four types of context sentences introducing two referents and found that the cost of the computation of the prominence profile depends on the alignment of prominence-lending features, namely ‘left edge’, ‘agent’, ‘subject’. Cost occurs as referents become available. Further downstream, we contrasted two types of pronouns in German, personal pronoun vs. demonstrative pronoun. By the time the pronoun is encountered, profile computation is already complete, as indicated by the lack of interaction between context and pronoun type. An effect of pronoun reveals that resolution is driven by the form-dependent strength with which an interpretation is obtained (demonstrative pronouns being more stable than personal pronouns). The results also indicate that two prominence-lending features – subjecthood and agentivity – compete with each other.

show abstract

Perspective in German and French: Divergences in Formal Marking and Temporal Anchoring

Becker

Egetenmeyer

Hinterwimmer

2021

Z Literaturwiss Linguistik

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In narratives, either a narrator or a protagonist may be the perspective taker. Importantly, shifts between the two are possible. German and French differ with respect to the means which indicate that the perspective is shifted. While German may use a specific pronoun to indicate that the perspective is shifted from the protagonist to the narrator, French may display tense-aspect forms deviating from the expected ones. In our analysis, we take into account larger strings of context, thus committing to the discourse level. We apply a staged translation approach. This allows us to determine more precisely the diverging functioning of the language-specific means of perspective marking. The comparison of the means indicating perspective shifts opens a second question. If French allows for deviating tense-aspect forms, may the temporal anchoring diverge between the two languages? We confirm this on the grounds of a comparison of translations of German free indirect discourse to French.

show abstract

A prominence-based account of temporal discourse structure

Cited by 35 publications

References 12 publications

The Prominence Value of the Temporal Anchor of Free Indirect Discourse: A Comparison with the Perspectival Center

The Prominence Value of the Temporal Anchor of Free Indirect Discourse: A Comparison with the Perspectival Center

Anaphoric Pronouns and the Computation of Prominence Profiles

Perspective in German and French: Divergences in Formal Marking and Temporal Anchoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About