@article{jacke_computationelle_2023,
	title = {Die (computationelle?) Operationalisierung unzuverlässigen Erzählens. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Methodik literaturwissenschaftlichen Interpretierens},
	doi = {10.17879/19958499445},
	volume = {21},
    issue = {2},
	journaltitle = {Textpraxis},
	author = {Jacke, Janina},
	date = {2023},
}

@InCollection{sep-necessary-sufficient,
	author       =	{Brennan, Andrew},
	title        =	{{Necessary and Sufficient Conditions}},
	booktitle    =	{The {Stanford} Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
	editor       =	{Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman},
	howpublished =	{\url{https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/necessary-sufficient/}},
	year         =	{2022},
	publisher    =	{Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}
}

@book{fricke_sprache_1970,
	title = {Die Sprache der Literaturwissenschaft. Textanalytische und philosophische Untersuchungen},
	publisher = {Beck},
	author = {Fricke, Harald},
	date = {1970},
}

@book{carnap_meaning_1965,
	title = {Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic},
	publisher = {Chicago University Press},
	author = {Carnap, Rudolf},
	date = {1965},
}

@inproceedings{gerstorfer_operationalizing_2025,
	title = {Operationalizing operationalizing},
	pages = {345--348},
	booktitle = {{DHd} 2025. Under Construction. Konferenzabstracts},
	author = {Gerstorfer, Dominik and Gius, Evelyn},
	editor = {Reiter, Nils and Haider, Thomas and Kababgi, Daniel and Buschmeier, Hendrik},
	date = {2025},
    doi = {10.5281/zenodo.14943080},
}

@book{jacke_systematik_2019,
	title = {Systematik unzuverlässigen Erzählens. Analytische Aufarbeitung und Explikation einer problematischen Kategorie},
	series = {Narratologia},
	shorttitle = {Systematik unzuverlässigen Erzählens},
	number = {66},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Jacke, Janina},
	date = {2019},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110659689},
}

@article{gius_hermeneutic_2017,
	title = {The Hermeneutic Profit of Annotation: On Preventing and Fostering Disagreement in Literary Analysis},
	number = {11},
	doi = {10.3366/ijhac.2017.0194},
	shorttitle = {The Hermeneutic Profit of Annotation},
	abstract = {Interpretation is widely regarded as the core activity of literary studies. Still, the appropriate balance between the plurality and the limitation of possible interpretations is a non-trivial issue. Whereas it is sensible to accept that literary texts can generally have various meanings, it should not be possible to attribute any kind of meaning to a text. Therefore, while interpreters must be allowed to disagree in their analyses, it must at the same time be possible to review whether a disagreement is actually based on adequate reasons like, for example, textual ambiguity or polyvalence. 
            In this paper, we propose a best practice model as one effective means to review disagreement in accordance with literary studies principles. The model has been developed during the collaborative, computer-assisted annotation of literary texts in a project in which short stories have been analyzed narratologically. The examination of inconsistently annotated text passages revealed four types of reasons for disagreement: misinterpretations, deficient definitions of the categories of analysis, dependencies of the relevant categories on preliminary analyses, and textual ambiguity/polyvalence. We argue that only disagreements based on textual ambiguity are considered legitimate or valuable cases of disagreement, whereas the other three types of disagreement can be resolved in a systematic way.},
	pages = {233--254},
	issue = {2},
	journaltitle = {International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing},
	shortjournal = {{IJHAC}},
	author = {Gius, Evelyn and Jacke, Janina},
	date = {2017},
	langid = {english},
}

@incollection{grice_logic_1975,
	title = {Logic and conversation},
	volume = {3: Speech acts},
	pages = {41--58},
	booktitle = {Syntax and semantics},
	publisher = {Academic Press},
	author = {Grice, Paul Herbert},
	editor = {Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry},
	date = {1975},
}

@article{heyd_understanding_2006,
	title = {Understanding and handling unreliable narratives. A pragmatic model and method},
	number = {162},
	pages = {217--243},
	journaltitle = {Semiotica},
	author = {Heyd, Theresa},
	date = {2006},
    doi = {10.1515/SEM.2006.078},
}

@article{heyd_unreliability_2011,
	title = {Unreliability. The Pragmatic Perspective Revisited},
	number = {5},
    issue = {1},
	pages = {3--17},
	number = {11},
	journaltitle = {Journal of Literary Theory},
	author = {Heyd, Theresa},
	date = {2011},
    doi = {10.1515/jlt.2011.003},
}

@book{kindt_unzuverlassiges_2008,
	title = {Unzuverlässiges Erzählen und literarische Moderne. Eine Untersuchung der Romane von Ernst Weiß},
	publisher = {Niemeyer},
	author = {Kindt, Tom},
	date = {2008},
}


@article{ryan_fiction_1980,
	title = {Fiction, non-factuals, and the principle of minimal departure},
	number = {9},
	pages = {403--422},
	issue = {4},
	journaltitle = {Poetics},
	author = {Ryan, Marie-Laure},
	date = {1980},
    doi = {10.1016/0304-422X(80)90030-3}
}

@article{pichler_zur_2021,
	title = {Zur Operationalisierung literaturwissenschaftlicher Begriffe in der algorithmischen Textanalyse. Eine Annäherung über Norbert Altenhofers hermeneutische Modellinterpretation von Kleists Das Erdbeben in Chili},
	number = {15},
	abstract = {Zur Operationalisierung literaturwissenschaftlicher Begriffe in der algorithmischen Textanalyse. Eine Annäherung über Norbert Altenhofers hermeneutische Modellinterpretation von Kleists Das Erdbeben in Chili},
	issue = {1},
	journaltitle = {{JLT} Articles},
	author = {Pichler, Axel and Reiter, Nils},
	date = {2021},
	langid = {german},
    doi = {10.1515/jlt-2021-2008},
    pages = {1--29},
}


@incollection{kindt_wieviel_2003,
	title = {Wieviel Interpretation enthalten Beschreibungen? Überlegungen zu einer umstrittenen Unterscheidung am Beispiel der Narratologie},
	rights = {De Gruyter expressly reserves the right to use all content for commercial text and data mining within the meaning of Section 44b of the German Copyright Act.},
	shorttitle = {Wieviel Interpretation enthalten Beschreibungen?},
	abstract = {Das Kapitel Wieviel Interpretation enthalten Beschreibungen? Überlegungen zu einer umstrittenen Unterscheidung am Beispiel der Narratologie erschien in Regeln der Bedeutung auf Seite 286.},
	pages = {286--304},
	booktitle = {Regeln der Bedeutung. Zur Theorie der Bedeutung literarischer Texte},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Kindt, Tom and Müller, Hans-Harald},
	editor = {Jannidis, Fotis and Lauer, Gerhard and Martínez, Matías and Winko, Simone},
    doi = {10.1515/9783110907018.286},
	date = {2003},
	langid = {german},
}

@book{descher_argumentieren_2019,
	title = {Argumentieren in der Literaturwissenschaft. Eine Einführung},
	publisher = {Reclam},
	author = {Descher, Stefan and Petraschka, Thomas},
	date = {2019},
}

@book{schmid_elemente_2008,
	title = {Elemente der Narratologie},
	rights = {De Gruyter expressly reserves the right to use all content for commercial text and data mining within the meaning of Section 44b of the German Copyright Act.},
    doi = {10.1515/9783110978520},
	abstract = {Dieses Buch ist ein Standardwerk der modernen Erzähltheorie. Es handelt sich um eine Übersetzung und Weiterentwicklung des russischen Werks Narratologija (Moskau 2003) und stellt eine umfassende Grundlegung der Narratologie dar. Der Verfasser expliziert und diskutiert ausführlich Probleme der Kommunikationsstruktur und der Instanzen, der Erzählperspektive, der Beziehung zwischen Erzählertext und Figurentext sowie der Narrativität und Ereignishaftigkeit literarischer Texte. Im Mittelpunkt stehen konstitutive Strukturen fiktionaler Erzähltexte. Das Buch entwirft eine Theorie des Erzählens und analysiert zentrale narratologische Kategorien wie Fiktion, Mimesis, Autor, Leser, Erzähler, Erzählperspektive, Text, Geschichte, Erzählzeit usw. vor dem Hintergrund der Forschungsgeschichte. Das Ergebnis ist eine Bestimmung aller für narrative Texte konstitutiven Merkmale, die fundamental ist und der künftigen narratologischen Forschung ein terminologisches und theoretisches Bezugssystem zur Verfügung stellt. Ein ausführliches Literaturverzeichnis und ein narratologisches Glossar machen dieses Buch zu einem Kompendium der Erzähltheorie, das für Wissenschaftler und Studenten aller Philologien relevant ist. Darüber hinaus entwickelt das Buch eine neue methodische Grundlegung für die weitere Forschung.},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Schmid, Wolf},
	date = {2008},
	langid = {german},
	keywords = {Erzählen, Erzählen / i. d. Literatur, Erzähltechnik, Erzähltheorie, Lehrbuch},
}

@article{folde_grounding_2015,
	title = {Grounding Interpretation},
	number = {55},
	doi = {10.1093/aesthj/ayv020},
	pages = {361--374},
	issue = {3},
	journaltitle = {The British Journal of Aesthetics},
	shortjournal = {{AESTHJ}},
	author = {Folde, Christian},
	date = {2015},
	langid = {english},
}

@book{tepe_interpretationskonflikte_2009,
	title = {Interpretationskonflikte am Beipsiel von E. T. A. Hoffmanns "Der Sandmann": kognitive Hermeneutik in der praktischen Anwendung},
	series = {Studienbuch Literaturwissenschaft},
	shorttitle = {Interpretationskonflikte am Beipsiel von E. T. A. Hoffmanns "Der Sandmann"},
	number = {1},
	publisher = {Königshausen \& Neumann},
	author = {Tepe, Peter and Rauter, Jürgen and Semlow, Tanja},
	date = {2009},
}

@book{booth_rhetoric_1959,
	title = {The Rhetoric of Fiction},
	publisher = {Chicago University Press},
	author = {Booth, Wayne},
	date = {1959},
}

@incollection{reiter_anleitung_2020,
	title = {Anleitung zur Erstellung von Annotationsrichtlinien},
	pages = {193--202},
	booktitle = {Reflektierte algorithmische Textanalyse},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Reiter, Nils},
	editor = {Reiter, Nils and Pichler, Axel and Kuhn, Jonas},
	date = {2020},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110693973-009},
}

@inproceedings{jacke_vom_2023,
	title = {Vom sprachlichen Indikator zum komplexen Phänomen? Operationalisierungsprobleme in der computationellen Literaturwissenschaft am Beispiel des unzuverlässigen Erzählens},
	pages = {317--321},
	booktitle = {{DHd} 2023. Open Humanities, Open Culture. Konferenzabstracts},
	author = {Jacke, Janina},
    editor = {Busch, Anna and Trilcke, Peer},
	date = {2023},
}

@inproceedings{blessing_agreement_2024,
	title = {Agreement und Kookkurrenz bei unzuverlässigem Erzählen. Ziele, Herausforderungen und erste Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt {CAUTION}},
    pages = {107--111},
	booktitle = {{DHd} 2024. Quo Vadis DH. Konferenzabstracts},
	author = {Blessing, André and Jacke, Janina and Kuhn, Jonas},
    editor = {Weis, Joëlle and Haider, Thomas and Bunout, Estelle},
	date = {2024},
}

@article{pichler_concepts_2022,
	title = {From Concepts to Texts and Back: Operationalization as a Core Activity of Digital Humanities},
	number = {7},
	doi = {10.22148/001c.57195},
	shorttitle = {From Concepts to Texts and Back},
	abstract = {This article puts operationalization as a research practice and its theoretical consequences into focus. As all sciences as well as humanities areas use concepts to describe their realm of investigation, digital humanities projects are usually faced with the challenge of ‘bridging the gap’ from theoretical concepts (whose meaning(s) depend on a certain theory and which are used to describe expectations, hypothesis and results) to results derived from data. The process of developing methods to bridge this gap is called ‘operationalization’, and it is a common task for any kind of quantitative, formal, or digital analysis. Furthermore, operationalization choices have long-lasting consequences, as they (obviously) influence the results that can be achieved, and, in turn, the possibilities to interpret these results in terms of the original research question. However, even though this process is so important and so common, its theoretical consequences are rarely reflected. Because the concepts that are operationalized cannot be operationalized in isolation, operationalizing is not only an engineering or implementation challenge, but touches on the theoretical core of the research questions we work on, and the fields we work in. In this article, we first clarify the need to operationalize on selected, representative examples, situate the process within typical {DH} workflows, and highlight the consequences that operationalization decisions have. We will then argue that operationalization plays such a crucial role for the digital humanities that any kind of theory needs to take off from operationalization practices. Based on these assumptions, we will develop a first scheme of the constraints and necessities of such a theory and reflect their epistemic consequences.},
	issue = {4},
	journaltitle = {Journal of Cultural Analytics},
	shortjournal = {Journal of Cultural Analytics},
	author = {Pichler, Axel and Reiter, Nils},
	date = {2022},
	langid = {english},
}

@book{genette_erzahlung_2010,
	edition = {3rd ed.},
	title = {Die Erzählung},
	publisher = {Fink},
	author = {Genette, Gérard},
	date = {2010},
}

@book{todorov_einfuhrung_1972,
	title = {Einführung in die fantastische Literatur},
	publisher = {Hanser},
	author = {Todorov, Cvetan},
	date = {1972},
}

@article{descher_wie_2023,
	title = {Wie plausibilisieren Literaturwissenschaftler*innen ihre Interpretationen? Das {DFG}-Projekt 'Das Herstellen von Plausibilität in Interpretationstexten. Untersuchungen zur Argumentationspraxis in der Literaturwissenschaft' ({ArguLit})},
	number = {7},
	pages = {1--7},
	issue = {2},
	journaltitle = {Textpraxis Sonderausgabe},
	author = {Descher, Stefan and Kröncke, Merten and Winko, Simone},
	date = {2023},
    doi = {10.17879/19958496834}
}

@incollection{schnitzler_andreas_1961,
	title = {Andreas Thameyers letzter Brief},
	volume = {1},
	pages = {514--520},
	booktitle = {Gesammelte Werke. Die erzählenden Schriften},
	author = {Schnitzler, Arthur},
	date = {1961},
}

@incollection{hoffmann_sandmann_1994,
	title = {Der Sandmann},
	volume = {3},
	booktitle = {Gesammelte Werke in Einzelausgaben},
	publisher = {{Aufbau}-Verlag},
	author = {Hoffmann, E. T. A.},
	date = {1994},
    origdate = {1816},
}

@online{eichendorff_auch_2012,
	title = {Auch ich war in Arkadien},
	url = {https://textgridrep.org/browse/msfg.0},
	titleaddon = {{TextGrid} Repository},
	author = {Eichendorff, Josef von},
	urldate = {2025-02-04},
	date = {2012},
    origdate = {1866},
}

@book{frisch_stiller_2001,
	title = {Stiller},
	publisher = {Suhrkamp},
	author = {Frisch, Max},
	date = {2001},
    origdate = {1954},
}


@article{trilcke_fernlesen_2016,
	title = {Fernlesen mit Foucault? Überlegungen zur Praxis des \textit{distant reading} und zur Operationalisierung von Foucaults Diskursanalyse},
	number = {2},
	rights = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	doi = {10.16995/lefou.15},
	shorttitle = {Fernlesen mit Foucault?},
	abstract = {Our paper offers a critical examination of the concept and practice of Distant Reading, as coined by Franco Moretti in 2000. We consider several definitions of the term and look for possible operationalizations. It becomes clear that Distant Reading has largely been a theoretical vehicle or mere buzzword in the past one and a half decades that adapts only slowly to the practices and technological standards of the Digital Humanities. In the light of these findings, we conclude with an examination of the operational potential of Foucauldian discourse analysis.},
	issue = {1},
	journaltitle = {Le foucaldien},
	author = {Trilcke, Peer and Fischer, Frank},
	date = {2016},
}

@article{krautter_operationalisierung_2022,
	title = {Die Operationalisierung als interdisziplinäre Schnittstelle der Digital Humanities},
	number = {26},
	doi = {10.1515/scipo-2022-009},
	pages = {215--244},
	issue = {1},
	journaltitle = {Scientia Poetica},
	author = {Krautter, Benjamin},
	date = {2022},
	langid = {english},
}

@article{moretti_operationalizing_2013,
	title = {“Operationalizing”: or, the function of measurement in modern literary theory},
    number = {6},
	journaltitle = {Literary Lab Pamphlets},
	author = {Moretti, Franco},
	date = {2013},
    url = {https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet6.pdf},
    urldate = {2025-01-30}
}

@book{bridman_logic_1954,
	title = {The Logic of Modern Physics},
	publisher = {Macmillan},
	author = {Bridgman, Percy},
	date = {1954},
}

@article{gius_are_2022,
	title = {Are Computational Literary Studies Structuralist?},
	number = {7},
	rights = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	doi = {10.22148/001c.46662},
	issue = {4},
	journaltitle = {Journal of Cultural Analytics},
	author = {Gius, Evelyn and Jacke, Janina},
	date = {2022},
	langid = {english},
}
@article{gius_computationelle_2020,
	title = {Computationelle Textanalysen als fünfdimensionales Problem: Ein Modell zur Beschreibung von Komplexität},
	url = {https://www.digitalhumanitiescooperation.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pamphlet_gius_2.0.pdf},
    urldate = {2025-02-04},
	abstract = {Ansätze der computationellen Literaturwissenschaft sind inzwischen fester Teil der Digital Humanities und basieren auf einer Reihe von etablierten und neuen Verfahren, die computationelle Textanalyse mit literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschungsinteresse ermöglichen. Entsprechend besteht ein großer Bedarf an der Beschreibung und Reflexion dieser Zugänge, sowohl innerhalb der Digital Humanities als auch mit Blick auf das Verhältnis von computationeller Literaturwissenschaft zur nicht-computationellen Literaturwissenschaft. Um eine solche Reflexion zu erleichtern, wird in diesem Beitrag ein Modell vorgestellt, das die Komplexität computationeller Textanalysen in Bezug auf die betrachteten Phänomene und Texte sowie auf die Erkenntnisse der Analyse fasst. Konkret werden fünf Dimensionen vorgeschlagen, anhand derer jede computationelle Textanalyse in der Literaturwissenschaft – und darüber hinaus – beschrieben werden kann: (1) die Zusammengesetztheit der analysierten Phänomene, (2) die Kontextualisierung der Phänomene, (3) die Heterogenität der betrachteten Texte, (4) der Analysemodus und (5) der Erkenntnisbeitrag der computationellen Analyse.},
    editor = {Weitin, Thomas},
	journaltitle = {LitLab Pamphlets},
	number = {8},
	institution = {Digital Humanities Cooperation},
	type = {Pamphlets},
	author = {Gius, Evelyn},
	year = {2019},
	langid = {german},
}

@incollection{weimar_literaturwissenschaft_2007,
	title = {Literaturwissenschaft},
	volume = {2},
	pages = {485--489},
	booktitle = {Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Weimar, Klaus},
	editor = {Fricke, Harald},
	date = {2007},
}

@incollection{buhler_vielfalt_2003,
	title = {Die Vielfalt des Interpretierens},
	pages = {99--119},
	booktitle = {Hermeneutik. Basistexte zur
Einführung in die wissenschaftstheoretischen Grundlagen von Verstehen und
Interpretation},
	publisher = {Synchron},
	author = {Bühler, Axel},
	editor = {Bühler, Axel},
	date = {2003},
}

@incollection{descher_probleme_2015,
	title = {Probleme der Interpretation von Literatur – Ein Überblick},
	pages = {11--70},
	booktitle = {Literatur interpretieren.
Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur
Theorie und Praxis},
	publisher = {Mentis},
	author = {Descher, Stefan and Borkowski, Jan and Ferder, Felicitas and Heine, Philipp David},
	editor = {Borkowski, Jan and Descher, Stefan and Ferder, Felicitas and Heine, Philipp David},
	date = {2015},
}


@incollection{spree_interpretation_2007,
	title = {Interpretation},
	volume = {2},
	pages = {168--172},
	booktitle = {Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Spree, Axel},
	editor = {Fricke, Harald},
	date = {2007},
}

@article{reichert_description_1969,
	title = {Description and Interpretation in Literary Criticism},
	number = {27},
	pages = {281--292},
	issue = {3},
	journaltitle = {The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism},
	author = {Reichert, John F.},
	date = {1969},
    doi = {10.2307/428674},
}

@book{weitz_hamlet_1964,
	title = {Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism},
	publisher = {Meridian},
	author = {Weitz, Morris},
	date = {1964},
}

@incollection{gerstorfer_entdecken_2020,
	title = {Entdecken und Rechtfertigen in den Digital Humanities},
	rights = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0},
	pages = {107--124},
	booktitle = {Reflektierte algorithmische Textanalyse},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Gerstorfer, Dominik},
	editor = {Reiter, Nils and Pichler, Axel and Kuhn, Jonas},
	date = {2020},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110693973-005},
}

@book{carnap_induktive_1959,
	title = {Induktive Logik und Wahrscheinlichkeit},
	publisher = {Spinger},
	author = {Carnap, Rudolf},
	date = {1959},
}

@article{gius_narration_2016,
	title = {Narration and Escalation. An Empirical Study of Conflict Narratives},
	number = {5},
	rights = {Copyright (c) 2016 {DIEGESIS}},
	url = {https://www.diegesis.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/diegesis/article/view/222},
	issue = {1},
	journaltitle = {{DIEGESIS}},
	author = {Gius, Evelyn},
	urldate = {2025-02-04},
	date = {2016},
	langid = {english},
}

@inbook{cook_intensional_2009,
	title = {Intensional Definition},
	pages = {155},
	booktitle = {A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic},
	publisher = {Edingurgh University Press},
	author = {Cook, Roy T.},
	date = {2009},
}

@incollection{margolis_concepts_2023,
	edition = {Fall 2023},
	title = {Concepts},
	url = {https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/concepts/},
	abstract = {Concepts are the building blocks of thoughts. Consequently, they arecrucial to such psychological processes as categorization, inference,memory, learning, and decision-making. This much is relativelyuncontroversial. But the nature of concepts—the kind of thingsconcepts are—and the constraints that govern a theory ofconcepts have been the subject of much debate (Margolis \& Laurence1999, Margolis \& Laurence 2015). This is due, at least in part, tothe fact that disputes about concepts often reflect deeply opposingapproaches to the study of the mind, to language, and even tophilosophy itself. In this entry, we provide an overview of theoriesof concepts, and outline some of the disputes that have shaped debatessurrounding the nature of concepts. The entry is organized around fivesignificant issues that are focal points for many theories ofconcepts. Not every theory of concepts takes a stand on each of thefive, but viewed collectively these issues show why the theory ofconcepts has been such a rich and lively topic in recent years. Thefive issues are: (1) the ontology of concepts, (2) the structure ofconcepts, (3) empiricism and nativism about concepts, (4) concepts andnatural language, and (5) concepts and conceptual analysis.},
	booktitle = {The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
	publisher = {Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University},
	author = {Margolis, Eric and Laurence, Stephen},
	editor = {Zalta, Edward N. and Nodelman, Uri},
	urldate = {2025-02-04},
	date = {2023},
	keywords = {Frege, Gottlob, Vienna Circle, abilities, animal: cognition, belief, cognition: embodied, connectionism, innate/acquired distinction, innateness: and language, knowledge: analysis of, language of thought hypothesis, linguistics: philosophy of, materialism: eliminative, mental content: nonconceptual, mental representation, mind: computational theory of, naturalism},
}

@article{lewis_truth_1978,
	title = {Truth in Fiction},
	number = {15},
	pages = {37--46},
	issue = {1},
	journaltitle = {American Philosophical Quarterly},
	author = {Lewis, David},
	date = {1978},
    url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009693},
    ulrdate = {2025-02-04}
}

@incollection{kroon_fictional_2023,
	edition = {Fall 2023},
	title = {Fictional Entities},
	url = {https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/fictional-entities/},
	abstract = {Philosophical issues surrounding fiction have attracted increasingattention from philosophers over the past few decades. What follows isa discussion of one familiar and quite fundamental topic in this area:fictional entities (both the issue of what such entities might be likeand whether there really are such entities).},
	booktitle = {The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
	publisher = {Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University},
	author = {Kroon, Fred and Voltolini, Alberto},
	editor = {Zalta, Edward N. and Nodelman, Uri},
	urldate = {2025-02-04},
	date = {2023},
	keywords = {Meinong, Alexius, abstract objects, existence, fiction, fictionalism, nonexistent objects, possible objects},
}

@article{descher_deduktive_2019,
	title = {Deduktive Schlüsse in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Praxis},
	number = {13},
	doi = {10.1515/jlt-2019-0005},
	pages = {145--160},
	issue = {2},
	journaltitle = {Journal of Literary Theory},
	author = {Descher, Stefan},
	date = {2019},
}

@book{winko_praktiken_2024,
	title = {Praktiken des Plausibilisierens: Untersuchungen zum Argumentieren in literaturwissenschaftlichen Interpretationstexten},
	rights = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de},
	shorttitle = {Praktiken des Plausibilisierens},
	publisher = {Göttingen University Press},
	author = {Winko, Simone and Descher, Stefan and Milevski, Urania and Kröncke, Merten and Finkendey, Fabian and Dalski, Loreen and Wagner, Julia},
	date = {2024},
	doi = {10.17875/gup2024-2639},
}

@incollection{nunning_unreliable_1999,
	title = {Unreliable, Compared to What? Towards a Cognitive Theory of "Unreliable Narration". Prolegomena and Hypotheses},
	pages = {53--73},
	booktitle = {Grenzüberschreitungen. Narratologie im Kontext / Transcending Boundaries. Narratology in Context},
	publisher = {Narr},
	author = {Nünning, Ansgar},
	editor = {Grünzweig, Walter and Solbach, Andreas},
	date = {1999},
	keywords = {Unzuverlässiges Erzählen},
}

@incollection{allrath_but_1998,
	title = {'But why \textit{will} you say that I am mad?' Textuelle Signale für die Ermittlung von \textit{unreliable narration}},
	pages = {59--80},
	booktitle = {Unreliable Narration. Studien zur Theorie und Praxis unglaubwürdigen Erzählens in der englischsprachigen Erzählliteratur},
	publisher = {{VWT}},
	author = {Allrath, Gaby},
	editor = {Nünning, Ansgar and Surkamp, Carola and Zerweck, Bruno},
	date = {1998},
}
@incollection{klinger_emotion_2020,
	title = {Emotion Analysis for Literary Studies: Corpus Creation and Computational Modelling},
	rights = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0},
	shorttitle = {Emotion Analysis for Literary Studies},
	pages = {237--268},
	booktitle = {Reflektierte algorithmische Textanalyse},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Klinger, Roman and Kim, Evgeny and Padó, Sebastian},
	editor = {Reiter, Nils and Pichler, Axel and Kuhn, Jonas},
	date = {2020},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110693973-011},
}

@misc{blessing_caution_2024,
	title = {{CAUTION} Annotations},
	doi = {10.5281/zenodo.10254506},
	abstract = {This repository contains the data set used in “Agreement und Kookkurrenz bei unzuverlässigem Erzählen. Ziele, Herausforderungen und erste Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt {CAUTION}”. The data set comprises the annotation guidelines, several {JSON} files, a Jupyter Notebook, generated boxplots, a {PDF} export of the notebook, and a visualization of the annotations. The {JSON} data contains annotation results from experiments labelled as {expA} and {expB}.},
	publisher = {Zenodo},
	author = {Blessing, André and Jacke, Janina and Kuhn, Jonas},
	date = {2024},
    note = {[Dataset]}
}

@inproceedings{jacke_platinstandard-annotation_2025,
	title = {Platinstandard-Annotation in der digitalen Literaturwissenschaft: Definition, Funktionen und diskursive Argumentvisualisierung als Best-Practice-Beispiel},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14887461},
	pages = {279--283},
	booktitle = {{DHd} 2025. Under Construction. Konferenzabstracts},
	author = {Jacke, Janina},
	editor = {Reiter, Nils and Haider, Thomas and Kababgi, Daniel and Buschmeier, Hendrik},
	date = {2025},
    doi = {10.5281/zenodo.14943180},
}

@incollection{bendixen_meine_2015,
	title = {Meine falschen Eltern},
	pages = {27--34},
	booktitle = {Gern, wenn du willst},
	publisher = {Poetenladen},
	author = {Bendixen, Katharina},
	date = {2015},
}