Multilevel Accentuation and its Role in the Memorization of Narrative

Author Oleg Sobchuk

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.57 MB
  • 17 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Oleg Sobchuk

Cite AsGet BibTex

Oleg Sobchuk. Multilevel Accentuation and its Role in the Memorization of Narrative. In 2014 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative. Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 41, pp. 192-208, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2014)


The paper is dedicated to the phenomenon of accentuation on multiple narrative levels. Accentuation is a textual device that indicates the elements of narrative that have to be memorized by readers. It is different from the well known notion of foregrounding, as accentuation does not violate the norm, but, on the contrary, is in itself conventional. While foregrounding draws readers' attention involuntarily, the accentuation is a way of facilitating the work of voluntary attention. In this latter case a text as if takes on itself a part of the unpleasant burden of purposeful concentrating of attention, so that the reading process becomes more comfortable. The paper describes the general principles of accentuation and also presents a typology of accentuation devices, based on a six-level model of narrative. It encompasses five main types (three syntactic ones and two semantic ones), including numerous subcategories.
  • accentuation
  • attention
  • memory
  • level model of narrative


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Jan Assmann. Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique, 65:125-133, 1995. Google Scholar
  2. Didier Coste and John Pier. Narrative levels. In Peter Hühn, Jan Christoph Meister, Wilhelm Schernus, John Pier, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert, editors, The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg University Press, 2012. Google Scholar
  3. David Crystal. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Google Scholar
  4. Ronald Derdelfield. The Adventures of Ben Gunn. Hodder and Stoughton, 1956. Google Scholar
  5. Charles Dickens. A Christmas Carol. In Prose. Being a Ghost Story of Christmas. 46-h/46-h.htm, 2004. Google Scholar
  6. S. S. Van Dine. The "Canary" Murder Case. Scribner’s, New York, 1927. Google Scholar
  7. Giovanna Egidi and Richard Gerrig. Readers' experiences of characters' goals and actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(6):1322-1329, 2006. Google Scholar
  8. Catherine Emmott and Marc Alexander. Schemata. In Peter Hühn, Jan Christoph Meister, Wilhelm Schernus, John Pier, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert, editors, The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg University Press, 2012. Google Scholar
  9. Catherine Emmott, Anthony J. Sanford, and Marc Alexander. Rhetorical control of readers' attention: Psychological and stylistic perspectives on foreground and background in narrative. In Lars Bernaerts, Dirk De Geest, Luc Herman, and Bart Vervaeck, editors, Stories and Minds: Cognitive Approaches to Literary Narrative, pages 39-57. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2013. Google Scholar
  10. Catherine Emmott, Anthony J. Sanford, and Eugene Dawydiak. Stylistics meets cognitive science: Studying style in fiction and readers' attention from an interdisciplinary perspective. Style, 41(2):204-224, 2007. Google Scholar
  11. Catherine Emmott, Anthony J. Sanford, and Lorna Morrow. Capturing the attention of readers? stylistic and psychological perspectives on the use and effect of text fragmentation in narratives. Journal of Literary Semantics, 35(1):1-30, 2006. Google Scholar
  12. Victor Erlich. Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1980. Google Scholar
  13. Simon Garrod and Anthony J. Sanford. Referential processes in reading: Focusing on roles and individuals. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, and K. Rayner, editors, Comprehension Processes in Reading, pages 465-485. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990. Google Scholar
  14. Gerard Genette. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Cornell University Press, 1980. Google Scholar
  15. Talmy Givon. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30:5-55, 1992. Google Scholar
  16. Arthur C. Graesser, Brent Olde, and Bianca Klettke. How does the mind construct and represent stories? In Melanie C. Green, Jeffrey J. Strange, and Timothy C. Brock, editors, Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations, pages 229-262. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. Google Scholar
  17. Algirdas Greimas. Sémantique structurale. Recherche de méthode. Larousse, Paris, 1966. Google Scholar
  18. John Huitema, Stephen Dopkins, Celia Klin, and Jerome Myers. Connecting goals and actions during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5):1053-1060, 1993. Google Scholar
  19. Daniel Keyes. Flowers for Algernon. Harcourt Books, Orlando, 1966. Google Scholar
  20. Geoffrey Leech. Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. Longman, 2008. Google Scholar
  21. Yuri Lotman. The text within a text. PMLA, 109(3):377-384, 1994. Google Scholar
  22. Yuri Lotman. Semiosfera [Semiosphere], chapter O modelirujushchem znachenii poniatij "kontsa" i "nachala" v khudozhestvennyh tekstah [On the modeling role of the notions of "ending" and "beginning" in artistic texts], pages 427-430. Iskusstvo-SPb, St. Petersburg, 2000. Google Scholar
  23. Alexander Luria. Vnimanie i pamiat' [Attention and Memory]. Moscow University Press, 1975. Google Scholar
  24. Mark F. Lutz and Gabriel A. Radvansky. The fate of completed goal information in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36:293-310, 1997. Google Scholar
  25. David Miall and Don Kuiken. Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22:389-407, 1994. Google Scholar
  26. Edgar Poe. MS. found in a bottle., 1850. Google Scholar
  27. Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan. The paradoxical status of repetition. Poetics Today, 1(4):151-159, 1980. Google Scholar
  28. David Rumelhart. Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow and A. Collins, editors, Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pages 211-236. Academic Press, New York, 1975. Google Scholar
  29. Alison J. Sanford, Anthony J. Sanford, Jo Molle, and Catherine Emmott. Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2):109-130, 2006. Google Scholar
  30. Anthony J. Sanford and Catherine Emmott. Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge University Press, 2012. Google Scholar
  31. Mary Shelley. Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus. 41445-h/41445-h.htm, 2012. Google Scholar
  32. Viktor Shklovsky. Sterne’s tristram shandy: Stylistic commentary. In Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, editors, Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, pages 25-57. University of Nebraska Press, 1965. Google Scholar
  33. Robert Louis Stevenson. Treasure Island. 120-h/120-h.htm, 2009. Google Scholar
  34. Perry Thorndyke. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9:77-110, 1977. Google Scholar
  35. Teun A. van Dijk. Narrative macro-structures. PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 1:547-568, 1976. Google Scholar
  36. Teun A. van Dijk. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980. Google Scholar
  37. Teun A. van Dijk and Walter Kintsch. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press, New York, 1983. Google Scholar
  38. Willie van Peer. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. Croom Helm, London, 1986. Google Scholar
  39. Willie van Peer. Introduction to foregrounding: A state of the art. Language and Literature, 16(2):99-104, 2007. Google Scholar
  40. Lev Vygotsky. The history of the development of higher mental functions. In Robert W. Rieber, editor, The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, volume 4. Plenum Press, New York, 1997. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail