动作动词的隐含因果关系和结果关系

T. Solstad, Oliver Bott
{"title":"动作动词的隐含因果关系和结果关系","authors":"T. Solstad, Oliver Bott","doi":"10.3389/flang.2023.1143214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investigating Implicit Causality (I-Caus) and Implicit Consequentiality (I-Cons) biases associated with action verbs (e.g., Peter praised/healed Mary because/and so …), this paper sheds light on the nature of the coreference and coherence biases associated with Implicit Causality verbs. We provide evidence in support of the Two-Mechanism Account, according to which I-Caus and I-Cons are driven by two different mechanisms: While I-Caus derives from empty explanatory slots for explanations in verb semantics, I-Cons follows from the general discourse principle of Discourse Contiguity. Evidence is provided by three production experiments in German investigating the coreference and coherence properties of agent-evocator and causative agent-patient verbs (e.g., praise vs. heal), which differ with regard to the availability of explanatory slots for I-Caus. Experiment 1 established I-Caus and I-Cons coreference biases for the two verb classes, while Experiment 2 investigated their corresponding coherence biases, showing that they pattern as predicted on the Two-Mechanism Account. Finally, Experiment 3 provided empirical evidence on the fine-grained types of causal relations associated with I-Caus and I-Cons for the two verb types.","PeriodicalId":350337,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Language Sciences","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implicit causality and consequentiality of action verbs\",\"authors\":\"T. Solstad, Oliver Bott\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/flang.2023.1143214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Investigating Implicit Causality (I-Caus) and Implicit Consequentiality (I-Cons) biases associated with action verbs (e.g., Peter praised/healed Mary because/and so …), this paper sheds light on the nature of the coreference and coherence biases associated with Implicit Causality verbs. We provide evidence in support of the Two-Mechanism Account, according to which I-Caus and I-Cons are driven by two different mechanisms: While I-Caus derives from empty explanatory slots for explanations in verb semantics, I-Cons follows from the general discourse principle of Discourse Contiguity. Evidence is provided by three production experiments in German investigating the coreference and coherence properties of agent-evocator and causative agent-patient verbs (e.g., praise vs. heal), which differ with regard to the availability of explanatory slots for I-Caus. Experiment 1 established I-Caus and I-Cons coreference biases for the two verb classes, while Experiment 2 investigated their corresponding coherence biases, showing that they pattern as predicted on the Two-Mechanism Account. Finally, Experiment 3 provided empirical evidence on the fine-grained types of causal relations associated with I-Caus and I-Cons for the two verb types.\",\"PeriodicalId\":350337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Language Sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Language Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2023.1143214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2023.1143214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

通过调查与动作动词相关的内隐因果性(I-Caus)和内隐结果性(I-Cons)偏差(例如,Peter表扬/治愈Mary是因为/和所以……),本文揭示了与内隐因果性动词相关的共指和连贯偏差的本质。我们提供了支持双机制说的证据,根据该理论,i - cause和I-Cons是由两种不同的机制驱动的:i - cause来源于动词语义解释的空解释槽,而I-Cons则遵循语篇连续的一般语篇原则。三个生产实验提供了证据,调查了施者-唤起者和致使者-受者动词的共指和连贯特性(例如,赞美与治愈),它们在i - cause的解释槽的可用性方面存在差异。实验1建立了两类动词的i - cause和I-Cons共指称偏倚,实验2研究了两类动词对应的连贯偏倚,结果表明它们的模式与双机制理论预测的一致。最后,实验3为两种动词类型提供了与i - cause和I-Cons相关的细粒度因果关系类型的经验证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implicit causality and consequentiality of action verbs
Investigating Implicit Causality (I-Caus) and Implicit Consequentiality (I-Cons) biases associated with action verbs (e.g., Peter praised/healed Mary because/and so …), this paper sheds light on the nature of the coreference and coherence biases associated with Implicit Causality verbs. We provide evidence in support of the Two-Mechanism Account, according to which I-Caus and I-Cons are driven by two different mechanisms: While I-Caus derives from empty explanatory slots for explanations in verb semantics, I-Cons follows from the general discourse principle of Discourse Contiguity. Evidence is provided by three production experiments in German investigating the coreference and coherence properties of agent-evocator and causative agent-patient verbs (e.g., praise vs. heal), which differ with regard to the availability of explanatory slots for I-Caus. Experiment 1 established I-Caus and I-Cons coreference biases for the two verb classes, while Experiment 2 investigated their corresponding coherence biases, showing that they pattern as predicted on the Two-Mechanism Account. Finally, Experiment 3 provided empirical evidence on the fine-grained types of causal relations associated with I-Caus and I-Cons for the two verb types.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信