ArticleCognitive science2025
Mark the Unexpected! Animacy Preference and Directed Movement in Visual Language.
Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The properties of panels in global comics: frequency and size of 76 K panels in 1,030 comics from 144 countries.Language resources and evaluation · 2026Article
- Whoosh! visual depictions of direction, speed, and temporality: a corpus analysis of motion events in global comics.Multimodal communication · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A preference for animate entities over inanimate entities is commonly found in perception and language. In our corpus study based on a cross-cultural set of 331 comics from 81 countries, we asked whether animacy preference plays a role in the morphological marking of motion in the visual language(s) used in comics. We were interested in whether animates or inanimates are more or less marked (i.e., use pictorial cues to signal motion) when compared to each other, similarly to differential marking modulated by animacy in grammars of many languages. We considered the animacy preference as the expectation that animates are moving in a directed way, while inanimates are not. We focused on motion lines (i.e., lines trailing behind a moving object) and circumfixing lines (i.e., lines surrounding a moving object) that indicate motion in comics, which are visual morphological markings that differ in their directedness: Motion lines are directional, while circumfixing lines are not. We found that inanimates are more marked by motion lines than animates in our data, while there is no difference between the two groups regarding circumfixing lines. These results persist across all global regions and styles of comics. Thus, similarly to spoken languages, visual morphology obeys what we call the mark the unexpected! principle, defined in the context of surprisal minimization: Inanimates need to be marked in order to signal that they are moving in a directed way, which is otherwise unexpected and of high surprisal. Animates are comparatively marked less because their directed movements are already expected and of low surprisal. As this principle persists across modalities and their diverse expressive systems, mark the unexpected! is a strong candidate for a cognitive universal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.