1 / 48

Causal Categories in Cognition and Language

This article explores the phenomenon of causal chain linguistic expressions, including direct and indirect causation, with a focus on understanding the distinctions and implications. Various theories and definitions of direct causation are examined, along with experimental evidence supporting the standard proposal. The role of intentionality and the effects of linguistic expressions on event interpretations are also discussed.

colettem
Download Presentation

Causal Categories in Cognition and Language

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Causal Categories in Cognition and Language Phillip Wolff Emory University Atlanta, GA

  2. The phenomenon Causal chain Linguistic expression Sara caused the door to open. (periphrastic) Sara opened the door. (lexical) Sara caused the door to open. *Sara opened the door.

  3. More examples (Dowty, 1979) 1) a. The low air pressure caused the water to boil. b. *The low air pressure boiled the water. 2) a. A change in molecular structure caused the window to break. b. *A change in molecular structure broke the window.

  4. What’s going on? (e.g., Brennenstuhl & Wachowicz, 1976; Comrie, 1985; Croft, 1991; Cruse, 1972; Dowty, 1979; Frawley, 1992; Gawron, 1985; Kozinsky & Polinsky, 1993; Kemmer & Verhagen, 1994; Levin & Rappaport Hovav; 1994; McCawley, 1978; Pinker, 1989; Shibatani, 1976; Smith, 1970; Wierzbicka, 1988) Sara caused the door to open.(periphrastic) Sara opened the door.(lexical) Sara caused the door to open. *Sara opened the door. Direct causation Indirect causation

  5. Why should we care? Davidson, 1969/2001; Wolff & Gentner, 1996; Wolff, 2003; Croft, 1991, DeLancey, 1983, 1984, 1991; Déchaine, 1997; Frawley, 1992; Goldberg, 1995; Haiman, 1983; Kiparsky, 1997; Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 1997; Shibatani, 1976 Sara caused the door to open.(periphrastic) Sara opened the door.(lexical) Sara caused the door to open. *Sara opened the door. Single event construal available No single event construal available

  6. The “standard” proposal Direct causation Event construals Causal expressions

  7. Definitions of direct causation • Temporal contiguity(Fodor, 1970; Smith, 1970; Goldberg, 1995) • Physical contact(Ammon,1980; Nedyalkov & Silnitsky, 1973; Shibatani, 1976; Wierzbicka, 1975) • Control(Brennenstuhl & Wachowicz, 1976; Smith, 1970) • Efficiency(Gawron, 1985) • Intentionality(DeLancey, 1983; Cary, Hilton, Keil, Morris, Spelke, & Talmy, 1995; Schlesinger, 1989; see also Kiparsky, 1997; Talmy, 1976, 1988) • Mediacy (Comrie, 1985; Cruse, 1972; Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 1999; Kemmer & Verhagen, 1994; Verhagen & Kemmer, 1997) • Conventionality(Shibatani, 1973) • Stereotypicality(McCawley, 1978) • Prototypicality(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

  8. Direct causation in terms of mediacy • “The distinction between direct and indirect causatives is concerned with the mediacy of the relationship between cause and effect.” (Comrie, 1985, p. 165) • “Indirect causation can be defined as a situation that is conceptualized in such a way that it is recognized that some other force besides the initiator is the most immediate source of energy in the effected event.” (Verhagen & Kemmer, 1997, p. 67) • “…the primitive requirement for direct causation is that there be no intervening event…between the causing subevent and the result subevent” (Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 1999, p. 33) • “It appears that in discussing covert causatives we must understand ‘direct’ to mean that no agent intervenes in the chain of causation between the causer (represented by the subject of the verb) and the sufferer of the effect (represented by the object)” (Cruse, 1972, p. 524)

  9. No-intervening-cause criterion (Wolff, 2003)

  10. Testing the no-intervening-cause criterion • Predictions of the standard proposal P(lexical | unmediated) > P(lexical | mediated) P(1 event | unmediated) > P(1 event | mediated) mediated unmediated

  11. Experiment 1: Mediated vs. unmediated causal chains • Participants. 16 undergraduates • Materials. 16 animations of causal chains involving 3 marbles • Procedure. 1. Choose description 2. Count events

  12. Procedure (continued) • Choose a sentence: a. The green marble moved the yellow marble. b. The green marble made the yellow marble move. c. neither of the above • Count events: How many events occurred between the green and yellow marbles?

  13. Exp. 1 Results

  14. Role of intention (DeLancey, 1983; Carey, Hilton, Keil, Morris, Spelke, & Talmy, 1995; Schlesinger, 1989; see also Brennenstuhl & Wachowicz, 1976; Kiparsky, 1997; Talmy, 1976, 1988) The assassin killed the ambassador with poison. The bowler toppled the pin. The woman extinguished the flame.

  15. Experiment 2: Describing mediated chains • Participants. 48 undergraduates • Materials. 12 pairs of mediated causal chains

  16. Procedure &Predictions • Sentence choices: a. The man collapsed the house of cards. b. The man caused the house of cards to collapse. c. neither of the above • Event judgments: Yes or No: This animation shows a single event.

  17. Exp. 2 Results

  18. Directness Events Expressions Summary • Evidence for the standard proposal

  19. Direct or indirect? The woman spread out the handkerchief. The woman caused the handkerchief to spread out.

  20. Direct or indirect? The truck tipped over the bookcase. The truck caused the bookcase to tip over.

  21. Definitions of “direct” • Having no intervening persons, conditions, or agencies • Proceeding without interruption in a straight course or line

  22. Directness in terms of direction • Direct causation – the causal influence and the result are roughly in the same direction • Indirect causation – the causal influence and the result are in different directions

  23. Force dynamics(Talmy, 1988; see also Jackendoff, 1991; Kemmer & Verhagen, 1994; Pinker, 1989) • Elements of a causal interaction Affector Patient Result (Antagonist) (Agonist) Sunlight caused the gases to react.

  24. Vector model (Jackendoff, 1991; Wolff & Song, 2002, 2003) The blast caused the boat to heel. Vitamin B enables the body to digest food. Heavy overnight rain prevented the tar from bonding.

  25. Support for the model (Wolff, Song & Driscoll, 2002; Wolff & Song, 2003) Shared features CAUSE & PREVENT: 1 CAUSE & ENABLE: 1 PREVENT & ENABLE: 1 Stress = .09; R2 = 0.97

  26. Designations A – Force exerted on patient by the affector P – Force vector associated with the patient (i.e., the patient’s tendency) O– Σ of all Other forces acting on patient R –Resultant force acting on the patient (A+P+O) E – Position vector

  27. Dimensions of the vector model CAUSE ENABLE PREVENT

  28. Testing the vector model a. The fans caused the boat to hit the cone. b. The fans helped the boat to hit the cone. c. The fans prevented the boat from hitting the cone. d. None of the above.

  29. Experiment 3: 1D interactions • Participants: 18 undergraduates • Materials: Eight animations generated from 3D Studio Max and the Havok Reactor physics engine 1-4: ||A|| > ||P|| 5-8: ||A|| < ||P||

  30. Predictions Cause Help

  31. Predictions Prevent No verb

  32. Results E3

  33. Experiment 4: 2D interactions • Participants: 18 undergraduates • Materials: Ten animations, ||A|| = ||P||

  34. Predictions CausePrevent Help No verb

  35. Results E4

  36. Configurations associated with CAUSE E E E E

  37. Configurations and direct causation Direct causation Indirect causation A-R angle 0 90 E E 45 135 E E

  38. Experiment 5: Direct vs. Indirect • Participants: 16 undergraduates • Materials: Eight animations • Procedure: • Choose descriptions • Make event judgments

  39. Procedure (continued) • Description task a. The fans pushed / blew the boat into the cone. b. The fans caused / made the boat move into the cone. c. None of the above • Event task • Can this animation be viewed as a single event?

  40. Description predictions

  41. Event predictions

  42. Description results

  43. Event results

  44. Experiment 6: Complex Scenes • Participants: 15 undergraduates • Materials: 12 animations • 6 Direct: A-R angle < 90 • 6 Indirect: A-R angle >= 90

  45. Procedure & Predictions • Procedure: • Description task • Direct – Lexical causative • Indirect – Periphrastic causative • Event task • Direct – 1 Event • Indirect – 1 Event

  46. Results

  47. Directness Events Expressions Conclusions • Causal expressions depend on the direction of the affector vis-à-vis the resultant • Mediacy is not the whole story • The results support the vector model • Implications for the “standard” proposal

  48. What next? • Relation to other categories of events / verbs • P : manner verbs (walk, crawl) • P & E : path verbs (approach, leave) • A & P : two-argument activities (push, pull) • A, P,& E : cause verbs (break, make) • E : preps (above, below) (Regier & Carlson, 2001; Zwarts & Winter, 2000)

More Related