Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs
-
Oliver Bott
Abstract
This article presents a linguistic account explaining particular mechanisms underlying the generation of expectations at the discourse level. We further develop a linguistic theory – the Empty Slot Theory – explaining the phenomenon of implicit verb causality. According to our proposal, implicit causality (IC) verbs introduce lexically determined slots for causal content of specific types. If the required information is not derivable from the current or preceding context, IC verbs generate the expectation that these slots will be filled in the upcoming discourse. The cognitive mechanism underlying the bias is grounded in the general processing strategy of avoiding accommodation. Empirical evidence for the proposed theory is provided in three continuation experiments in German with comprehensive semantic annotation of the continuations provided by the participants. The reported experiments consistently show that IC bias can be manipulated in systematic ways. Experiment 1 demonstrates important ontological constraints on causal content crucial for our theory. Experiments 2 and 3 show how IC biases can be manipulated in predictable ways by filling the hypothesized slots in the prompt. Experiment 2 illustrates that stimulus-experiencer (experiencer-object) verbs in contrast to causative agent-patient verbs can be manipulated with respect to coherence and coreference by employing adverbial modification. Filling the lexically determined slot of psychological verbs resulted in predictable changes in coherence relations and types of explanations, resulting in the predicted effects on coreference. Experiment 3 extends the empirical investigations to so-called “agent-evocator” verbs. Again, filling the semantic slot as part of the prompt resulted in predictable shifts in coherence relations and explanation types with transparent effects on coreference. The reported experiments shed further light on the close correspondence between coherence and coreference as a hallmark of natural language discourse.
Funding source: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
Award Identifier / Grant number: Grant No. 01UG1411
Funding source: Norges Forskningsråd
Award Identifier / Grant number: NFR project IS-DAAD 216850
Funding source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Award Identifier / Grant number: Priority Program (SPP 1277)
Funding source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Award Identifier / Grant number: SFB 732 Incremental specification in context, Proj and SFB 833 “The construction of meaning” – proj
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Centre for Advanced Study (CAS, Oslo) for financial support, and the Research Council of Norway (NFR project IS-DAAD 216850) as well as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for funding the PPP project Explanatory Discourse. Oliver Bott furthermore is grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for funding this research within projects B1 and B2 at the SFB 833 “The construction of meaning” – project ID 75650358 and project Composition in Context (CiC) within the DFG Priority Program (SPP 1277) XPrag.de: New Pragmatic Theories based on Experimental Evidence. Torgrim Solstad would like to thank the DFG for funding within project B4 of the SFB 732 “Incremental specification in context” at the University of Stuttgart, as well as the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU, Trondheim) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; Grant No. 01UG1411) for financial support. We benefited much from discussing these issues with Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Joshua Hartshorne, Robin Hörnig, Juhani Järvikivi, Hans Kamp, Arnout Koornneef, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck, Antje Roßdeutscher, Emiel van den Hoven, Thomas Weskott and the audiences at a CAS workshop 2011, the CUNY 2013 conference, the Amsterdam Colloquium 2013, as well as the DETEC conferences 2013 and 2017, at which parts of this work were presented. We would also like to thank our experiment participants and Alex Dimitrov and Salome Maute for help with the annotation of the data. Finally, we would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, the editorial board of Linguistics, and Ann Kelly, who considerably helped to improve the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.
Appendix A: List of stimulus-experiencer verbs used in the study with coreference biases (unmodified because prompts)
| Item no. | Verb (+translation) | P (subject) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | amüsieren ‘amuse’ | 1.00 |
| 2 | ängstigen ‘frighten’ | 0.92 |
| 3 | beeindrucken ‘impress’ | 1.00 |
| 4 | begeistern ‘enthuse’ | 0.83 |
| 5 | erfreuen ‘delight’ | 0.82 |
| 6 | beunruhigen ‘worry’ | 0.92 |
| 7 | bezaubern ‘bewitch’ | 1.00 |
| 8 | enttäuschen ‘disappoint’ | 0.92 |
| 9 | entzücken ‘charm’ | 0.92 |
| 10 | erschrecken ‘frighten’ | 1.00 |
| 11 | erstaunen ‘astonish’ | 0.83 |
| 12 | faszinieren ‘fascinate’ | 0.92 |
| 13 | inspirieren ‘inspire’ | 0.92 |
| 14 | irritieren ‘irritate’ | 0.75 |
| 15 | langweilen ‘bore’ | 0.67 |
| 16 | schockieren ‘shock’ | 0.75 |
| 17 | stören ‘annoy’ | 1.00 |
| 18 | überraschen ‘surprise’ | 0.73 |
| 19 | verblüffen ‘baffle’ | 0.55 |
| 20 | verwirren ‘verwirren’ | 0.75 |
Appendix B: List of PSP (agent-evocator) verbs used in the study with coreference biases (unmodified because prompts)
| Item no. | Verb (+translation) | P (subject) |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | belohnen ‘reward’ | 0.36 |
| 22 | bestrafen ‘punish’ | 0.08 |
| 23 | danken ‘thank’ | 0.17 |
| 24 | gratulieren ‘congratulate’ | 0.00 |
| 25 | kritisieren ‘criticize’ | 0.17 |
| 26 | loben ‘praise’ | 0.00 |
| 27 | rächen sich an ‚take revenge on‘ | 0.00 |
| 28 | entlohnen ‘reward’ | 0.00 |
| 29 | ehren ‘pay tribute to’ | 0.08 |
| 30 | auszeichnen ‘honor’ | 0.00 |
| 31 | zur Verantwortung ziehen ‚hold accountable‘ | 0.36 |
| 32 | tadeln ‘chide’ | 0.09 |
| 33 | revanchieren sich bei ‘return the favor’ | 0.40 |
| 34 | verurteilen ‘condemn’ | 0.17 |
| 35 | belangen ‘sue’ | 0.30 |
| 36 | rügen ‘reprimand’ | 0.00 |
| 37 | anerkennen ‘honor’ | 0.10 |
| 38 | zurechtweisen ‘rebuke’ | 0.00 |
| 39 | prämieren ‘award a prize to’ | 0.00 |
| 40 | beschimpfen ‘berate’ | 0.25 |
Appendix C: List of causative agent-patient verbs used in the study with coreference biases (unmodified because prompts)
| Item no. | Verb (+translation) | P (subject) |
|---|---|---|
| 41 | täuschen ‘deceive’ | 0.90 |
| 42 | befreien ‘free’ | 0.33 |
| 43 | betäuben ‘anesthetize’ | 0.82 |
| 44 | behandeln ‘treat’ | 0.10 |
| 45 | ermorden ‘murder’ | 0.25 |
| 46 | erniedrigen ‘humiliate’ | 0.33 |
| 47 | foltern ‘torture’ | 0.64 |
| 48 | misshandeln ‘maltreat’ | 0.83 |
| 59 | retten ‘save’ | 0.70 |
| 50 | töten ‘kill’ | 0.33 |
| 51 | überlisten ‘dupe’ | 0.36 |
| 52 | verführen ‘seduce’ | 0.75 |
| 53 | vergiften ‘poison’ | 0.50 |
| 54 | verscheuchen ‘displace’ | 0.58 |
| 55 | verspotten ‘mock’ | 0.09 |
| 56 | vertreiben ‘deride’ | 0.42 |
| 57 | vertrösten ‘console’ | 0.82 |
| 58 | verunglimpfen ‘disparage’ | 0.40 |
| 59 | verunstalten ‘disfigure’ | 0.60 |
| 60 | heilen ‘heal’ | 0.83 |
References
Abelson, Robert P. & David E. Kanouse. 1966. Subjective acceptance of verb generalizations. In Shel Feldman (ed.), Cognitive consistency: motivational antecedents and behavioral consequents, 173–199. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-1-4832-2828-0.50011-8Suche in Google Scholar
Aloni, Maria & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Interpreting concealed questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 34. 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. & Yuki Kamide. 2007. The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 57(4). 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. & Yuki Kamide. 2009. Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition 111(1). 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. & Mark Steedman. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30(3). 191–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4). 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00193.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9Suche in Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2005. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Au, Terry Kit-Fong. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(86)90024-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Bart Geurts. 2021. Presupposition. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/ (accessed 28 January 2021).10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50022-9Suche in Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1994. The “namely” analysis of the “by”-locution. Linguistics and Philosopohy 17(1). 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00985040.Suche in Google Scholar
Bott, Oliver & Torgrim Solstad. 2014. From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Mertins & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 44), 213–251. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Deborah Fish. 1983. The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition 14(3). 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90006-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Cheung, Candice Chi-Hang & Richard K. Larson. 2015. Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33. 127–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9259-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta. 2001. Implicit causality in language: Event participants and their interactions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20(3). 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x01020003002.Suche in Google Scholar
Cosma, Ruxandra & Stefan Engelberg. 2014. Subjektsätze als alternative Argumentrealisierungen im Deutschen und Rumänischen: Eine kontrastive quantitative Korpusstudie zu Psych-Verben. In Cosma Ruxandra, Engelberg Stefan, Schlotthauer Susan, Speranţa Stanescu & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Komplexe Argumentstrukturen. Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum Deutschen, Rumänischen und Englischen, 339–420. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.10.1515/9783110343229.339Suche in Google Scholar
Cozijn, Reinier, Edwin Commandeur, Wietske Vonk & Leo G. M. Noordman. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Crinean, Marcelle & Alan Garnham. 2006. Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5). 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500199763.Suche in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Suche in Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2005. Flexible semantics for reinterpretation phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Featherstone, Cara R. & Sturt. Patrick. 2010. Because there was a cause for concern: An investigation into a word-specific prediction account of the implicit-causality effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(1). 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903134344.Suche in Google Scholar
Ferstl, Evelyn C., Alan Garnham & Christina Manouilidou. 2011. Implicit causality bias in English: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods 43. 124–135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0023-2.Suche in Google Scholar
Garnham, Alan. 2001. Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Garnham, Alan, Matthew Traxler, Jane Oakhill & Morton A. Gernsbacher. 1996. The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 35(4). 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0028.Suche in Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464.Suche in Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine, Alfonso Caramazza & Jack Yates. 1974. Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition 3(3). 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90010-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Goikoetxea, Edurne, Gema Pascual & Joana Acha. 2008. Normative study of the implicit causality of 100 interpersonal verbs in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods 40. 760–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.760.Suche in Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2013. The semantics of syntactic choice: An analysis of English emotion verbs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Guerry, Michèle, Manueal Gimenes, David Caplan & François Rigalleau. 2006. How long does it take to find a cause? An online investigation of implicit causality in sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59(9). 1535–1555. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500269105.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Joshua K. & Snedeker Jesse. 2013. Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1474–1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.689305.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Joshua K., Yasutada Sudo & Miki Uruwashi. 2013. Are implicit causality pronoun resolution biases consistent across languages and cultures? Experimental Psychology 60(3). 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000187.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Joshua K., Timothy J. O’Donnell & Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2015. The causes and consequences implicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(6). 716–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirsch, Nils. 2018. German psych verbs: Insights from a decompositional perspective. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1). 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4.Suche in Google Scholar
Horty, John F. 2012. Reasons as default. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744077.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 2001. The importance of presupposition. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher & Hans Kamp (eds.), Linguistic form and its computation, 207–254. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.10.1163/9789004252882_019Suche in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Antje Roßdeutscher. 1994. Remarks on lexical structure and DRS construction. Theoretical Linguistics 20(2/3). 97–164. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1994.20.2-3.97.Suche in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, Josef van Genabith & Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, 125–394. Dordrecht & Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3Suche in Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39(1–2). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001.Suche in Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25(1). 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018.Suche in Google Scholar
Kipper-Schuler, Karin. 2006. Verbnet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Jos J. A. van Berkum. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout, Jakub Dotlačil, Paul van den Broek & Ted Sanders. 2015. The influence of linguistic and cognitive factors on the time course of verb-based implicit causality. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(3). 455–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1055282.Suche in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8387.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Jason Grafmiller. 2013. Do you always fear what frightens you? In Tracy Holloway King & Valeria de Paive (eds.), From quirky case to representing space: Papers in honor of Annie Zaenen, 21–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258436.Suche in Google Scholar
Malle, Bertram F. 1999. How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(1). 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2.Suche in Google Scholar
Malle, Bertram F. 2002. Verbs of interpersonal causality and the folk theory of mind and behavior. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 57–83. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.48.06malSuche in Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2). 15–28.Suche in Google Scholar
Niemi, Laura, Joshua Hartshorne, Tobias Gerstenberg, Matthew Stanley & Liane Young. 2020. Moral values reveal the causality implicit in verb meaning. Cognitive Science 44. e12838. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12838.Suche in Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Majid Alisa. 2007. What are implicit causality and implicit consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes 22(5). 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601119876.Suche in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, Pirita & Juhani Järvikivi. 2010. Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology 57(1). 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000002.Suche in Google Scholar
Rohde, Hanna, Roger Levy & Andrew Kehler. 2011. Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition 118. 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.016.Suche in Google Scholar
Rudolph, Udo. 1997. Implicit verb causality: Verbal schemas and covariation information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16(2). 132–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x970162002.Suche in Google Scholar
Rudolph, Udo & Försterling Friedrich. 1997. The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin 121(2). 192–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.192.Suche in Google Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph. 2003. Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition 89(3). 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00119-7.Suche in Google Scholar
Simner, Julia & Martin Pickering. 2005. Planning causes and consequences in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language 52(2). 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.04.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim. 2007. Lexical pragmatics and unification: The semantics of German causal durch (‘through’). Research on Language and Computation 5(4). 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9041-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim. 2009. On the implicitness of arguments in event passives. In Anisa Schardl, Wallow Martin & Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 38, vol. 2, 365–374. Amherst, MA: GSLA.Suche in Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim. 2010. Some new observations on ‘because (of)’. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Kathrin Schulz (eds.), Proceedings of Amsterdam colloquium 2009 (Lecture notes in computer science), 436–445. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_44Suche in Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim. 2016. Lexikalische Semantik im Kontext: Die Spezifikation kausaler Relationen am Beispiel von ‘durch’. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Suche in Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim & Oliver Bott. 2017. Causation and causal reasoning in natural language. In Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning, 619–644. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199399550.013.32Suche in Google Scholar
Stewart, Andrew J., Martin J. Pickering & Antony J. Sanford. 2000. The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 42(3). 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2691.Suche in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Suche in Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66–109. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001.Suche in Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver & Degen Judith. 2018. How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35(3). 495–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy007.Suche in Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J. A., Arnout W. Koornneef, Marte Otten & Mante S. Nieuwland. 2007. Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research 1146. 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091.Suche in Google Scholar
van den Hoven, Emiel & Evelyn C. Ferstl. 2017. Association with explanation-conveying constructions predicts verbs’ implicit causality biases. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(4). 521–550. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16121.hov.Suche in Google Scholar
van den Hoven, Emiel & Evelyn C. Ferstl. 2018. Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions. Language and Cognition 10(4). 561–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.17.Suche in Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob A. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4). 333–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333.Suche in Google Scholar
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1980. Subjects, topics and agents: Evidence from property-factoring. In Bruce R. Caron, Meredith A. B. Hoffman, Marilyn Silva, Jeanne van Oosten, Danny Keith Alford, Hunold Karen Ann, Macaulay Monica & Manley-Buser John (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 479–494. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v6i0.2125Suche in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371.Suche in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 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.2010.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2014. Thematic prominence and animacy asymmetries: Evidence from a cross-linguistic production study. Lingua 143. 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.002.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Expectations in language processing and production: an introduction to the special issue
- Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: a comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch
- Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs
- The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives
- The processing signature of anticipatory reading: an eye-tracking study on lexical predictions
- Tracking who knows what: epistemic gaps and the prosodic realization of corrective focus
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Expectations in language processing and production: an introduction to the special issue
- Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: a comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch
- Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs
- The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives
- The processing signature of anticipatory reading: an eye-tracking study on lexical predictions
- Tracking who knows what: epistemic gaps and the prosodic realization of corrective focus
