Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:41:47.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

EMIEL VAN DEN HOVEN Open the ORCID record for EMIEL VAN DEN HOVEN [Opens in a new window]  and
EVELYN C. FERSTL
EMIEL VAN DEN HOVEN*
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Science, University of Freiburg
EVELYN C. FERSTL
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Science, University of Freiburg
*
†Address for correspondence: Emiel van den Hoven, DFG GRK 1624 “Frequency Effects in Language”, Belfortstraße 18, 79098 Freiburg, Germany. e-mail: emiel.vandenhoven@frequenz.uni-freiburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Certain verbs tend to elicit explanations about either their subject or their object. The tendency for one of the verb’s arguments to be rementioned in explanations is known as the implicit causality bias. In this paper we investigate the conditions underlying implicit causality remention biases by means of sentence and story completion studies. On one account of implicit causality, remention biases are the product of a combination of a particular lexico-semantic structure with a causal coherence relation. According to a competing account, the biases arise from a perceived lack of information in the discourse, and thus depend on knowledge about the world and the discourse context. To distinguish between the two accounts, it first needs to be established that information that potentially competes with implicit causality, such as relevant information from the discourse context, can reliably influence remention biases. We provide evidence that a violation of implicit assumptions underlying the standard use of implicit causality verbs leads to different inferences, and an alteration of the remention bias. We thereby lay the groundwork for future studies to distinguish between the two accounts.

Keywords

implicit causalitysentence continuationstory continuationdiscourse context
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 561 - 594
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Lukas Diestel for assistance in the creation of the stimuli, and Anne Mickan, Lars Konieczny, Adele Goldberg, and Anne Cutler for helpful discussion at various stages of the project.

References

references

Alba, J. W. & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93(2), 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, F. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes 31(2), 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, T. K. F. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: the causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language 25(1), 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bott, O. & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: a novel account of implicit causality. In Hemforth, B., Mertins, B. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp. 213–251). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition 14(3), 237–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C. & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, L. & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: the English word lie. Language 57(1), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W. & Noordman, L. G. M. (2011). The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: a visual world paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language 64(4), 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crinean, M. & Garnham, A. (2006). Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5), 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De la Fuente, I. (2015). Putting pronoun resolution in context: the role of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in pronoun interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Paris Diderot University, Paris.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, I., Benzerrak, M. & Hemforth, B. (2017). Implicit causality: when more than one explanation is missing. Poster presented at the 30th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA, March 2017.Google Scholar
Dickey, J. M. & Lientz, B. P. (1970). The weighted likelihood ratio, sharp hypotheses about chances, the order of a Markov chain. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 41(1), 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: a discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review 100(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferstl, E. C., Garnham, A. & Manouilidou, C. (2011). Implicit causality bias in English: a corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods 43(1), 124–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1969). Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. Research on Language & Social Interaction 1(1), 91–117.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3), 459–464.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G. & Su, Y. S. (2008). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4), 1360–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, J., Li, Y. & Mitra, R. (2018). On the use of Cauchy prior distributions for Bayesian logistic regression. Bayesian Analysis 13(2), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerry, M., Gimenes, M., Caplan, D. & Rigalleau, F. (2006). How long does it take to find a cause? An on-line investigation of implicit causality in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59(9), 1535–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M. & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304, 438–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7), 804–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(6), 716–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartshorne, J. K. & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: the advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10), 1474–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heister, J., Würzner, K. M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A. & Kliegl, R. (2011). dlexDB – eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung [dlexDB – a lexical database for psychological and linguistic research]. Psychologische Rundschau 62, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Järvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R. P. & Hyönä, J. (2017). The interplay of implicit causality, structural heuristics, and anaphor type in ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46(3), 525–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 15, 192–238.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist 28(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, A. W. & Van Berkum, J. J. (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(4), 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. D. & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Sanford, A. J. & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes? Cognition 99(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malle, B. F. (2002). Verbs of interpersonal causality and the folk theory of mind and behavior. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (pp. 57–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G. & Costa, A. (2014). From literal meaning to veracity in two hundred milliseconds. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8(40), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G. & Costa, A. (2016). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(2), 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinaro, N., Su, J. J. & Carreiras, M. (2016). Stereotypes override grammar: social knowledge in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 155, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicenboim, B. & Vasishth, S. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: foundational ideas–part II. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(11), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(7), 1098–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J. & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes 22(5), 780–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyykkönen, P. & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology 57(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Rudolph, U. & Försterling, F. (1997). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: a review. Psychological Bulletin 121(2), 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stan Development Team (2017). The Stan Core Library, Version 2.16.0. Retrieved from <http://mc-stan.org/>..>Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, E. & Ferstl, E. C. (2017). Association with explanation-conveying constructions predicts verbs’ implicit causality biases. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(4), 521–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S. & Nicenboim, B. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: foundational ideas–part I. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(8), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Lodewyckx, T., Kuriyal, H. & Grasman, R. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method. Cognitive Psychology 60, 158–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, D. (1975). Presupposition, assertion, and lexical items. Linguistic Inquiry 6(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

van den Hoven and Ferstl supplementary material

van den Hoven and Ferstl supplementary material 1

Download van den Hoven and Ferstl supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 347.1 KB