1. bookVolume 5 (2019): Issue 1 (September 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Implicit causality of action verbs at the interface between conceptual structure and discourse coherence relations

Published Online: 08 Nov 2019
Page range: 11 - 35
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Implicit causality of interpersonal transitive verbs (IC) pertains to preferences to attribute the cause of a given action to the subject or the object referent in active clauses. Causal attribution is operationalized as the probability of referential continuation in a subsequent explanatory clause. This paper presents an explorative investigation into the causal biases of action verbs, which in contrast to affective verbs have received less attention in IC research. We approach implicit causality as a discourse level phenomenon based on the textual level of discourse representation and enriched by conceptual knowledge. In study 1, we targeted IC effects of German action verbs (N = 52) in sentences containing causal, additive and adversative connectives. Results showed that IC based categories of subject-object-, and non-biasing predicates were clearly discernable in causal contexts only. In study 2, we examined effects of situational knowledge (physical affectedness & social acceptability) and affective appraisals (valence & arousal) represented in the conceptual structure of the verbs on the construal of causality biases and their interplay with immediate contextual information such as gender of referents. Results show that higher degrees of physical affectedness were associated with causal attribution to the object referent. This effect was modulated by the affective properties of the verbs. Our findings revealed the influence of physiological arousal, an affective dimension not considered in previous investigations of IC. Actions with a strong physical impact that were characterized by high arousal, e.g., kick, or tickle were more likely to be explained with reference to the subject. Participants also considered the available contextual information, as indicated by the significant interactions of gender information with arousal. Within the subsample of non-biasing verbs, higher estimates for social behavior increased probabilities of causal attributions to the subject.

Keywords

Ariel, M. (2014). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Arnold, J. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137-162.Search in Google Scholar

Au, T. K. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104-122.Search in Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617-645.Search in Google Scholar

Beavers, J. (2011). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335-370.Search in Google Scholar

Bittner, D. and Kuehnast, M. (2012). Comprehension of intersentential pronouns in child German and child Bulgarian. First Language, 32(1-2), 176-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272371140307410.1177/0142723711403074Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Bosch, P., Katz, G., and Umbach, C. (2007). The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten, and M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp. 145-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Bott, O. and Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: a novel account of implicit causality. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp. 219-251). Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14(3), 237-273.Search in Google Scholar

Carramazza, A., Grober, E., and Garvey, C. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 601-609.Search in Google Scholar

Corrigan, R. (1993). Causal attributions to states and events described by different classes of verbs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb01004.x10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb01004.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2009). Aspectual and causal structure in event representation. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 139-166). New York: Psychological Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(2), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464074800840116110.1080/14640748008401161Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Featherstone, C. R. and Sturt, P. (2010). Because there was a cause for concern: an investigation into a word-specific prediction account of the implicit causality effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747021090313434410.1080/17470210903134344Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Ferstl, E., Garnham, A., and Manouilidou, C. (2011). Implicit causality bias in English: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 43,124-135.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 120-133). Waltham: Ginn.Search in Google Scholar

Franco, F. and Arcuri, L. (1990). Effect of semantic valence on implicit causality of verbs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 161-170.Search in Google Scholar

Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., and Boyle, E. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.100310.1006/jmla.1994.1003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Garvey, C. and Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.Search in Google Scholar

Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., and Yates, J. (1974). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227-243.Search in Google Scholar

Goikoetxea, E., Pascual, G., and Acha, J. (2008). Normative study of the implicit causality of 100 interpersonal verbs in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 760-772. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.76010.3758/BRM.40.3.760Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. N., and Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.Search in Google Scholar

Green, S. B. and McKoon, G. (1995). Telling something we can’t know: Experimental approaches to verbs exhibiting implicit causality. Psychological Science, 6(5), 262-270.Search in Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 804-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.79639610.1080/01690965.2013.796396Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 716-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.100852410.1080/23273798.2015.1008524Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K., Sudo, Y., and Uruwashi, M. (2013). Are implicit causality pronoun resolution biases consistent across languages and cultures? Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 179-96. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a00018710.1027/1618-3169/a000187Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Johnston, J. (1984). Econometric Methods (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Kehler, A. (2004). Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics, 30, 227-240.Search in Google Scholar

Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., and Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1-44.Search in Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Knott, A. and T. J. M. Sanders. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: an exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175.Search in Google Scholar

Koornneef, A. W. and Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1169-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.69907610.1080/01690965.2012.699076Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Koornneef, A. W. and van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445-465.Search in Google Scholar

Kuehnast, M., Roeper, T., and Bittner, D. (2009). What is the acquisition path of topic shift? In S.L. Devi, A. Branco, and R. Mitkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th discourse anaphora and anaphora resolution colloquium (DAARC 2009) (pp. 37-47). Chennai: AU-KBC Research Centre.Search in Google Scholar

Kuehnast, M. and Valcheva, E. (2012). Implicit verb causality as a discourse cue in German. In S. Massalova (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference ‘Contemporary cognitive research’ [Когнитивные исследования на современном этапе. Материалы Третьей Международной научно-практической конференции 29-30.03.2012] (pp. 104-109). Rostov-on-Don: Southern Federal University.Search in Google Scholar

Kuehnast, M., Wassiliwizky, E., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., and Menninghaus, W. (2014). Being moved: Linguistic representation and conceptual structure. Frontiers in Psychology: Emotion Science, 5:1242. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0124210.3389/fpsyg.2014.01242Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

LaFrance, M., Brownell, H., and Hahn, E. (1997). Interpersonal verbs, gender, and implicit causality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 138-152.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mak, W. M. and Sanders, T. J. M. (2010). Incremental discourse processing: How coherence relations influence the resolution of pronouns. In M. Everaert, T. Lentz, H. de Mulder, Ø. Nilsen, and A. Zondervan (Eds.), The linguistics enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (pp. 167-182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Mak, W. M., Tribushinina, E., and Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of connectives guides referential expectations in discourse: An eye-tracking study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50, 557-576.Search in Google Scholar

Malle, B. F. (2011). Time to give up the dogmas of attribution: An alternative theory of behaviour explanation. Advances of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 297-352.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1986). Rhetorical structure theory: Description and construction of text structures. Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory. Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.Search in Google Scholar

Mannetti, L. and De Grada, E. (1991). Interpersonal verbs: implicit causality of action verbs and contextual factors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 429-443.Search in Google Scholar

McKoon, G., Green, S. B., and Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1040-1052.Search in Google Scholar

Morera, Y., De Vega, M., and Camacho, J. (2010). Differences in continuity of force dynamics and emotional valence in sentences with causal and adversative connectives. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 501-536. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.01710.1515/COGL.2010.017Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Mulder, G. and Sanders, T. J. M. (2012). Causal coherence relations and levels of discourse representation. Discourse Processes, 49(6), 501-522.Search in Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. (ed.). (1988). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, R. M. (2010). A caution regarding rules of thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.Search in Google Scholar

Pandelaere, M., Hoorens, V., and Peeters, G. (2003). Why ask about Peter? Do you think he caused it? How the description of causal events guides the selection of questions about them. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 291-297.Search in Google Scholar

Pander Maat, H. L. W. and Sanders, T. J. M. (2009). How grammatical and discourse factors may predict the forward prominence of referents: two corpus studies. Linguistics, 47, 1273-1319.Search in Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. and Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and implicit consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 780-788.Search in Google Scholar

Rudolph, U. and Försterling, F. (1997). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 192-218.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145-172.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M. and Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W., and Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W., and Noordman, L. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93-133.Search in Google Scholar

Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., and Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 83-119.Search in Google Scholar

Semin, G. R. (2009). Language and social cognition. In F. Strack and J. Förster (Eds.), Social cognition – the basis of human interaction (pp. 269-290). Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Semin, G. R. and Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.55810.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Semin, G. R. and Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 1-30.Search in Google Scholar

Semin, G. R. and Marsman, G. (1994). On the information mediated by interpersonal verbs: event precipitation, dispositional inference and implicit causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 836-849.Search in Google Scholar

Stevenson, R., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., and McDonald, S. (2000). Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(3), 225-262.Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, E. (2010). Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology, 14(2-3), 213-251. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2010.00910.1515/lity.2010.009Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Võ, M., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Urton, K., Hofmann, M., and Jacobs, A. M. (2009). The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL–R). Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 534-538. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.53410.3758/BRM.41.2.534Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Wu, L. -L. and Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.00210.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., and Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 386-397.Search in Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162-185.Search in Google Scholar

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo