•  
  •  
 

Keywords

linguistic structure, language system, event semantics, transparency thesis, extralinguistic cognition

Abstract

Questions about the nature of the relationship between language and extralinguistic cognition are old, but only recently has a new view emerged that allows for the systematic investigation of claims about linguistic structure, based on how it is understood or utilized outside of the language system. Our paper represents a case study for this interaction in the domain of event semantics. We adopt a transparency thesis about the relationship between linguistic structure and extralinguistic cognition, investigating whether different lexico-syntactic structures can differentially recruit the visual causal percept. A prominent analysis of causative verbs like move suggests reference to two distinct events and a causal relationship between them, whereas non-causative verbs like push do not so refer. In our study, we present English speakers with simple scenes that either do or do not support the perception of a causal link, and manipulate (between subjects) a one-sentence instruction for the evaluation of the scene. Preliminary results suggest that competent speakers of English are more likely to judge causative constructions than non-causative constructions as true of a scene where causal features are present in the scene. Implications for a new approach to the investigation of linguistic meanings and future directions are discussed.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Elements of Grammar, ed. L. Haegeman. 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Baldwin, D., Baird, J., Saylor, M., & Clark, M. 2001. Infants parse dynamic action. Child Development 72: 708–717.

Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, ed. N. Rescher. 81–95. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.

Fillmore, C. 1970. The grammar of ‘hitting’ and ‘breaking’. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. A. Jacobs, & P. S. Rosenbaum. 120–133. Ginn.

Fisher, C., Hall, D., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. 1994. When it is better to receive than to give: syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. In Acquisition of the Lexicon, ed. L. Gleitman, & B. Landau. 333–375. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fodor, J. A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving “kill" from “cause to die". Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 429-438.

Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. 1998. The emptiness of the lexicon: reflections on James Pustejovsky’s the generative lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2): 269–288.

Folli, R., & Ramchand, G. 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: an analysis from event decomposition. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics: Perspectives on Aspect 32: 81–105.

Gleitman, L. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1(1): 3–55.

Goldman, A. I. 2007. A program for “naturalizing” metaphysics, with application to the ontology of events. The Monist 90(3): 457–479.

Heider, F., & Simmel, M. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology: 243–259.

Higginbotham, J. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4): 547–594.

Lidz, J., Halberda, J., Pietroski, P., & Hunter, T. 2011. Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics 19(3): 1–30.

Liverence, B., & Scholl, B. J. 2012. Discrete events as units of perceived time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 549–54.

Michotte, A. 1946[1963 trans]. The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.

Naigles, L. 1990. Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17: 357–374.

Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Pedhazur, E. 1997. Multiple regression in behavioral research. Wordsworth-Thomson.

Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and semantic architecture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pietroski, P. 2010. Concepts, meanings, and truth: First nature, second nature, and hard work. Mind & Language 25(3): 247–278.

Pietroski, P. in press. Conjoing meanings: semantics without truth values. Oxford University Press.

Pietroski, P., Lidz, J., Hunter, T., & Halberda, J. 2009. The meaning of most: semantics, numerosity, and psychology. Mind & Language 24: 554–585.

Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Schlottman, A., & Anderson, N. 1993. An information integration approach to phenomenal causality. Memory & Cognition 21(6): 785–801.

Schein, B. 2002. Events and the semantic content of thematic relations. In Logical Form and Language, eds. G. Preyer & G. Peter. 263–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scholl, B. J., & Nakayama, K. 2002. Causal capture: contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychological Science, 13(6): 493–498.

Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. 2000. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science 4(8): 299–309.

Sharon, T., & Wynn, K. 1998. Individuation of actions from continuous motion. Psychological Science 9: 357–362.

Thomson, J. J. 1987. Verbs of action. Synthese 72: 103–122.

Young, M., & Sutherland, S. 2009. The spatiotemporal distinctiveness of direct causation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(4): 729–735.

Yuan, S., & Fisher, C. 2009. Really? she blicked the baby?: two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science 20(5): 619–626.

Zacks, J., Tversky, V., & Iyer, G. 2001. Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130: 29–58.

Download

Share

COinS