Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions

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.

Implicit Causality and Consequentiality and Effect of Pronoun Resolution/Quality of Use among EFL Learners

“…Hence, when they identify the pronoun prompt or direction within the sentence fragment, these individuals are more inclined into completing the sentences using the NP1 references (Zunino et al, 2016). The findings support the existing evidence and literature supposition that IC bias, both in native and non-native language, more in pronoun resolution, is dependent on the strong coreferential connection between the subject and the pronoun (Van den Hoven, &Ferstl, 2018). EFL learners, due to IC, can distinguish the IC biases of the two verbs types and use these differences in establishing the incoming co-references, which implies the subject of the sentence.…”

The Roles of Implicit Causality and Discourse Context in Pronoun Resolution

“…The aim of the first analysis was to find out whether the eye-tracking record might, at some point during the target sentence, reveal a bias in the attention of the listeners in favor of the referent who was most likely to be rementioned in an explanation. In this analysis, we used the eye-tracking records to predict the remention biases obtained in the story continuation study by Van den Hoven and Ferstl (2018). Remention biases were calculated as the log-odds of rementioning the NP 1 (or NP 2 ) in the story continuation study.…”

“…World knowledge can ultimately influence pronoun resolution on the lexical semantic account, but only through revision of the initial interpretation (Hartshorne, 2014). A competing account (e.g., Corrigan and Stevenson, 1994;Pickering and Majid, 2007;Van den Hoven and Ferstl, 2017) puts inference processes involving world knowledge center stage, in the tradition of Hobbs (1979). According to this world knowledge account, the verb's semantic structure is only a reliable predictor of IC bias insofar as verbs that share the same semantic structure (i.e., verbs from the same verb class) tend to evoke similar explanations.…”

“…The discourse context in which the sentences containing IC verbs are embedded has been shown to affect remention patterns (Van den Hoven and Ferstl, 2018). When a verb is used in an isolated sentence, comprehenders may make additional assumptions about the (fictional) situational context.…”

“…Here, based on the information given by the discourse, it may be inferred that Marcel is not sincere in his criticism, but merely criticizes Aaron out of spite. An explanation that conveys this information (e.g., "Marcel was jealous of Aaron") is likely to be prioritized over an explanation that conveys Marcel's purported reason for criticizing Aaron, because it is more important to know that Marcel is not sincere than to know what the reason was that Marcel might have given for his criticism (see Van den Hoven and Ferstl, 2018). In other words, the Question Under Discussion (Roberts, 2012) has shifted from a question about an external reason to a question about an internal reason (Bott and Solstad, 2014).…”