From Verbs to Discourse: A Novel Account of Implicit Causality

Bott, Oliver; Solstad, Torgrim

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9

Cited by 39 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We note that this raises a challenge for the implicit causality literature, as current theories tend to argue that non‐linguistic cognition is either always relevant for implicit causality or never relevant for implicit causality. Certainly, implicit verb causality is a nuanced phenomenon (Bott & Solstad, 2014; Ferstl et al, 2011; Fiedler & Krüger, 2014; Garvey & Caramazza, 1974; Hartshorne, 2013; Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2012; LaFrance, Brownell, & Hahn, 1997; Pickering & Majid, 2007; Rudolph & Forsterling, 1997). Our aim here is not to test between theories of implicit causality per se .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers have proposed that implicit causality responses may differ systematically across different sorts of verbs because people draw on their experience with typical causes of those sorts of events (Bott & Solstad, 2014). However, evidence has been inconsistent, and the largest and most systematic investigations provide limited support for this claim (e.g., Ferstl et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future work will need to examine whether people higher in binding values are more likely to select the object as causal in the implicit causality task because they have a broader temporal representation of harm and force events that presupposes a prior event in which the patient performed a bad action that made them deserving of “punishment” by the agent (cf. Bott & Solstad, 2014). Here, a discourse semantics analysis of sentence completion data combined with a survey of moral values can illuminate potential differences in event representations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior psycholinguistics research (Hartshorne, 2013; Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2012; Kipper et al, 2008) has demonstrated that implicit causality responses tend to vary by verb class. Some verbs reliably prompt selections of pronouns that refer to the subject (e.g., “subject‐biased” verbs like frighten, amuse ); some prompt selections of pronouns that refer to the object (e.g., “object‐biased” verbs like praise, thank ), suggesting that people have systematic expectations about how some categories of events came about (Bott & Solstad, 2014; Brown & Fish, 1983; Ferstl, Garnham, & Manouilidou, 2011; Garvey & Caramazza, 1974; Hartshorne, 2013; Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2012; Kipper‐Schuler, 2006; Pickering & Majid, 2007; Rudolph, 2008; Rudolph & Forsterling, 1997). Some other work has shown that implicit causality responses are affected by perceived social hierarchy as well as implied gender roles (Bott & Solstad, 2014; Ferstl et al, 2011; Garvey & Caramazza, 1974; Hartshorne, 2013; Pickering & Majid, 2007).…”

Section: Novel Pathways To Gain Insight On Causality and Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Moral Values Reveal the Causality Implicit in Verb Meaning

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior work has found that moral values that build and bind groups—that is, the binding values of ingroup loyalty, respect for authority, and preservation of purity—are linked to blaming people who have been harmed. The present research investigated whether people's endorsement of binding values predicts their assignment of the causal locus of harmful events to the victims of the events. We used an implicit causality task from psycholinguistics in which participants read a sentence in the form “SUBJECT verbed OBJECT because…” where male and female proper names occupy the SUBJECT and OBJECT position. The participants were asked to predict the pronoun that follows “because”—the referent to the subject or object—which indicates their intuition about the likely cause of the event. We also collected explicit judgments of causal contributions and measured participants' moral values to investigate the relationship between moral values and the causal interpretation of events. Using two verb sets and two independent replications (N = 459, 249, 788), we found that greater endorsement of binding values was associated with a higher likelihood of selecting the object as the cause for harmful events in the implicit causality task, a result consistent with, and supportive of, previous moral psychological work on victim blaming. Endorsement of binding values also predicted explicit causal attributions to victims. Overall, these findings indicate that moral values that support the group rather than the individual reliably predict that people shift the causal locus of harmful events to those affected by the harms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Novel Pathways To Gain Insight On Causality and Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Moral Values Reveal the Causality Implicit in Verb Meaning

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En effet, si on demande de compléter les énoncés (7a) et (7b), la majorité des continuations en (7a) porteront sur « Pierre » alors qu'en (7b) les continuations porteront majoritairement sur « Marie » (Garvey & Caramazza, 1974 ;Ferstl, Garnham & Manouilidou, 2011). Ce biais causal a non seulement été observé à la suite de subordonnées causales comme en (7) mais aussi entre deux phrases indépendantes telles que dans nos questionnaires (Kehler, Kertz, Rohde & Elman, 2008 ;Bott & Solstad, 2014). Les verbes biaisés en faveur de N2 comme en (7b) font qu'un pronom sujet subséquent sera préférentiellement interprété en faveur du second nom mentionné (et objet) au lieu du premier nom et sujet (voir e.g., Caramazza, Grober, Garvey & Yates, 1977 ;Garnham & Oakhill, 1985 ;Vonk, 1985 ;Garnham, Oakhill & Cruttenden, 1992 ;McKoon, Greene & Ratcliff, 1993 ;Carreiras, Garnham & Oakhill, 1996).…”

Section: Préférence Pour N2unclassified

Influence du contexte expérimental sur l’interprétation des anaphores pronominales en français

Colonna

Schimke

Vincent

et al. 2016

SHS Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé. Cette étude présente les résultats de trois questionnaires réalisés en français afin d'observer les préférences d'interprétation de formes pronominales ambiguës. Plus précisément, nous nous sommes intéressés à l'influence du contexte expérimental sur l'interprétation de pronoms anaphoriques plus ou moins réduits. Dans un premier questionnaire, seules des constructions avec le pronom faible « il » étaient présentées. Un deuxième questionnaire comportait seulement la forme forte « lui, il ». Enfin, dans un troisième questionnaire les deux formes étaient mélangées afin d'observer si la présence, dans un même questionnaire, des deux formes (« il » et « lui, il ») pouvait influencer leur interprétation. C'est seulement lorsque les deux formes sont présentées dans un même questionnaire que nous observons une division fonctionnelle entre la forme pronominale réduite « il » et la forme accentuée « lui, il ». La présence de « lui, il » dans le même questionnaire que le pronom « il », augmente les interprétations du pronom « il » en faveur du référent saillant (premier mentionné, sujet et topique) et les interprétations de « lui, il » en faveur de l'antécédent moins saillant. Ces résultats révèlent à quel point les locuteurs sont rapidement capables d'adapter leur préférence d'interprétation à la présence de formes alternatives dans le contexte.Abstract. This paper presents the results of three questionnaires in which we investigated interpretational preferences for ambiguous pronominal forms in French. In particular, we examined the influence of the experimental context on the interpretation of more or less reduced anaphoric pronominal forms. In the first questionnaire, only constructions with the clitic pronoun "il" were tested. In the second questionnaire, only constructions with the strong form "lui, il" were tested. Finally, in the third questionnaire, both forms were mixed in order to test whether the presence of the two forms ("il" and "lui, il") in a single questionnaire influences their interpretation. A division of labour in the processing of the reduced form "il" and of the strong one "lui, il" was observed only in the third questionnaire, i.e. when both forms were presented together. The presence of the form "lui, il" in the same questionnaire as the pronoun "il" increased the interpretations of the pronoun "il" in favour of the more salient referent (i.e., first mentioned, subject and topic) and the interpretations of "lui, il" in favour of the less salient antecedent. These results reveal that comprehenders can and do adapt their interpretational preferences to the presence of alternative forms in the context. ,

show abstract

Information Structure and Pronoun Resolution in German and French: Evidence from the Visual-World Paradigm

Colonna

Schimke

2014

Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From Verbs to Discourse: A Novel Account of Implicit Causality

Cited by 39 publications

References 50 publications

Moral Values Reveal the Causality Implicit in Verb Meaning

Moral Values Reveal the Causality Implicit in Verb Meaning

Influence du contexte expérimental sur l’interprétation des anaphores pronominales en français

Information Structure and Pronoun Resolution in German and French: Evidence from the Visual-World Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About