Good Timing for Computational Models of Narrative Discourse

Authors David R. Winer, Adam A. Amos-Binks, Camille Barot, R. Michael Young

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 355 kB
  • 5 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

David R. Winer
Adam A. Amos-Binks
Camille Barot
R. Michael Young

Cite AsGet BibTex

David R. Winer, Adam A. Amos-Binks, Camille Barot, and R. Michael Young. Good Timing for Computational Models of Narrative Discourse. In 6th Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (CMN 2015). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 45, pp. 152-156, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)


The temporal order in which story events are presented in discourse can greatly impact how readers experience narrative; however, it remains unclear how narrative systems can leverage temporal order to affect comprehension and experience. We define structural properties of discourse which provide a basis for computational narratologists to reason about good timing, such as when readers learn about event relationships.
  • causal inference
  • narrative
  • discourse structure
  • computational model


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


  1. Edward Branigan. Narrative comprehension and film. Routledge, 1992. Google Scholar
  2. Rogelio E. Cardona-Rivera, Bradley A. Cassell, Stephen G. Ware, and R. Michael Young. Indexter: A computational model of the event-indexing situation model for characterizing narratives. In The Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative at the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 32-41, 2012. Google Scholar
  3. Seymour Benjamin Chatman. Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Cornell University Press, 1980. Google Scholar
  4. Yun Gyung Cheong and R. Michael Young. Suspenser: A Story Generation System for Suspense. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 11(4):1-1, 2014. Google Scholar
  5. David B. Christian and R. Michael Young. Comparing cognitive and computational models of narrative structure. In Proceedings of the 19th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 385-390, 2004. Google Scholar
  6. Gérard Genette and Jane E. Lewin. Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Cornell University Press, 1983. Google Scholar
  7. David A. Lagnado, Tobias Gerstenberg, and Ro'i Zultan. Causal responsibility and counterfactuals. Cognitive science, 37(6):1036-73, 2013. Google Scholar
  8. John Mikhail. Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(4):143-152, 2007. Google Scholar
  9. Jerome L. Myers, Makiko Shinjo, and Susan A. Duffy. Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4):453-465, 1987. Google Scholar
  10. James. Niehaus and R. Michael Young. Cognitive models of discourse comprehension for narrative generation. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29(4):561-582, 2014. Google Scholar
  11. Brian O'Neill and Mark Riedl. Dramatis: A computational model of suspense. In Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 944-950, 2014. Google Scholar
  12. Gabriel A. Radvansky, Andrea K. Tamplin, Joseph Armendarez, and Alexis N. Thompson. Different Kinds of Causality in Event Cognition. Discourse Processes, 51(7):601-618, 2014. Google Scholar
  13. Stephen J. Read, Peter R. Druian, and Lynn Carol Miller. The role of causal sequence in the meaning of actions. British journal of social psychology, 28(4):341-351, 1989. Google Scholar
  14. Susana Segura, Pablo Fernandez-Berrocal, and Ruth M. J. Byrne. Temporal and causal order effects in thinking about what might have been. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology, 55(4):1295-305, 2002. Google Scholar
  15. Barbara A Spellman. Crediting causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4):323-348, 1997. Google Scholar
  16. Tom Trabasso and Linda L. Sperry. Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and language, 24(5):595-611, 1985. Google Scholar
  17. R. Michael Young. Using grice’s maxim of quantity to select the content of plan descriptions. Artificial Intelligence, 115(2):215-256, 1999. Google Scholar
  18. Rolf A. Zwaan and Gabriel A. Radvansky. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological bulletin, 123(2):162, 1998. 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