Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Representation of Causality Across Languages: Integrating Production, Comprehension and Conceptualization Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Causation

Part of the book series: Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science ((JSPS))

Abstract

We present three new studies into the representation of causality across languages and cultures, drawing on preliminary findings of the project Causality Across Languages (CAL; NSF Award BCS-1535846 and BCS-1644657). The first is an examination of the strategies that speakers of different languages employ when verbalizing causal chains in narratives. These strategies comprise the output of decisions concerning which subevents to represent specifically, which to represent in an underspecified manner, and which to leave to nonmonotonic inferences such as conversational implicatures. The second study targets the semantic typology of causative constructions. We implemented a multiphasic design protocol that combines the collection of production data with that of comprehension data from a larger number of speakers. Goodness-of-fit judgments were collected based on an eight-point scale. We found a strong main effect of language and of domain of causation (physical vs. psychological vs. speech act causation); in contrast, the involvement of an intermediate event participant in the causal chain did not exert a significant effect. The third study investigates whether culture modulates the effect of intentionality on nonverbal attributions of responsibility. A linear mixed effects regression model indicated a significant interaction between intentionality and population, in line with previous findings by social psychologists. These studies represent the first large-scale comparison of how speakers of different languages categorize causal chains for the purposes of describing them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    When we define a causal chain in terms of a series of causally related events (cf. Davidson (1969), Parsons (1990), and Croft (1998)), we are well aware of an alternative perspective which centers around force dynamic interaction (Talmy 1988, 2000). Both of these approaches have been informing our work, although the complex event view has been more central.

  2. 2.

    The term ‘subevent’ refers to an event that is part of another event. We treat causal chains as complex events that have proper parts that are events in their own right and thus subevents.

  3. 3.

    One exception to this is scenarios involving ‘letting dynamics’, which we explore as a variable in a supplementary set of stimuli, as described in Sect. 3.2.1.

  4. 4.

    Note that this term is used by some authors to denote the finally affected participant in the causal chain (human or inanimate), or the finally affected human participant in the causal chain. For Dixon (2000), the intermediator is the original A argument in the pre-causativized version of the clause. As we are defining our variables in terms of the etic properties of causal chains, rather than the emic properties of causative descriptions, this definition is not appropriate. We distinguish intermediator, an intermediate human participant, from affectee, the final participant (human or non-human) in the causal chain.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Sect. 3.3.3.1 for discussion of a further breakdown of causer intentionality into ‘intention to action’ and ‘intention to outcome’.

  6. 6.

    CR, IM and AF stand for ‘causer’, ‘intermediator’ and ‘affectee’ respectively.

  7. 7.

    We use the term ‘process’ in the sense of von Wright (1963) and Mourelatos (1978), i.e., for dynamic situations that do not involve state change. In this usage, it is more or less synonymous with (Vendeler 2005) ‘activity’. We prefer ‘process’ to avoid misinterpretations to the effect of controlled actions. All ‘processes’ in the CAL Clips are either externally caused (a swing swinging) or, at least by default, conceptualized as involuntary and uncontrollable (a person sneezing, yawning, or laughing).

  8. 8.

    The field manual and stimuli for all CAL studies is available online at https://causalityacrosslanguages.wordpress.com/project-summary/field-manual-and-stimuli .

  9. 9.

    ACT and UGR stand for ‘actor’ and ‘undergoer’, respectively.

  10. 10.

    We assume that conversational implicatures are defeasible default interpretations, and unlike presuppositions are polarity dependent. Entailments, on the other hand, are non-defeasible but also polarity dependant.

  11. 11.

    An alternative to the Gricean account relies instead on coherence relations to motivate the inference of a causal relation between two event descriptions (see Kehler & Cohen 2018 and references therein).

  12. 12.

    The CAL Clips comprise 43 core clips and 15 supplementary clips. Descriptions of solely the core clips were collected with Russian speakers. At the time of writing, data has also been collected (but not yet analyzed) from Basque, Datooga (Nilotic, Tanzania), Ewe (Gbe, Ghana and Togo), Mandarin, Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan, Mexico), Spanish, Urdu (Indo-Aryan, Pakistan and India), and Zarma (Songhay, Niger). Analysis is ongoing.

  13. 13.

    With the Japanese participants, an indirect question construction was used, since the direct form was considered too brusque.

  14. 14.

    Key to morpheme glosses: 3 – 3rd person; A – Cross-reference ‘Set A’ (ergative/possessor); ACC – Accusative; B – Cross-reference ‘Set B’ (absolutive/stative); CMP – Completive status (perfective aspect and declarative/realis mood); D2 – Anaphoric/distal particle; DEF – Definiteness; F – Feminine; GEN – Genitive; INC – Incompletive status (imperfective aspect and neutral/unmarked mood); NOM – Nominative; PL – Plural; PRV – Perfective aspect; PST – Past tense; SG – Singular.

  15. 15.

    Items that are represented in terms of the same description and configuration of variables in Table 3.1 differed from one another in terms of (1) the use of an instrument by the CE, (2) for unintentional CEs, the medium of interaction between the CR and the CE (physical (e.g., pushing) vs non-physical (e.g., yelling loudly to startle) manipulation). The impact of these further variables has not yet been analyzed.

  16. 16.

    Le Guen et al. (2015) stand on a tradition of research into the role of so-called magical thinking in causal attribution in traditional societies dating back to Evans-Pritchard (1937), and have interpreted this tradition to entail that members of such cultures are more ready to accept intention alone as the cause of an event even in the absence of observable actions. In a series of experiments, they tested Yucatec attribution of causality where an actor intended an outcome they had no way of affecting and found that intention to act impacted attribution of responsibility. One could interpret the findings to say that Yucatecans weight intentionality to a greater degree than other cultures in responsibility attribution.

  17. 17.

    That it was possible to reach these findings on the basis of the set of variables and levels we started out with and the video clips we created to represent the possible combinations of these variables and levels can be considered a proof of concept for the etic grid and stimulus set. An additional study further strengthening the case for these tools is Hafeez (2018), which applied them to the investigation of intricate agentivity-sensitive patterns of case alternations and light verb selection in Urdu, following broadly the methodology of our semantic typology study (while deviating from it in some details). Hafeez’s work in particular contributed to our understanding of the interaction of these variables in the design of the CAL etic grid.

  18. 18.

    We think that intentionality and control are crucial for the verbal representation of causality in all languages. Illustration of the importance of volitionality, intentionality, and control in the grammar of causality comes from Indo-Aryan languages, some of which have been shown to have case alternations and complex predicate constructions that are sensitive to these variables.

References

  • Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1971). Causality and determination. Reprinted in E. Sosa & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation (pp. 88–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellingham, E., Evers, S., Kawachi, K., Mitchell, A., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2017). An experimental approach to the semantic typology of causative constructions. Poster, 12th Association for Linguistics Typology Conference (ALT 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., & Kita, S. (2010). The macro-event property: The segmentation of causal chains. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language: Encoding events at the language-cognition interface (pp. 43–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C.-Y., Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and in the actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychology Bulletin, 125(1), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (pp. 1–43). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1969). The individuation of events. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 295–309). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. (2000). A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity (pp. 30–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escamilla, R. M. Jr. (2012). An updated typology of causative constructions: Form-function mappings in Hupa (Californian Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. (2010). Semantic typology. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 504–533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937). Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, S., Bellingham, E., Donelson, K., Du, J., Jódar Sánchez, J. A., Li, F., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2017). The role of intentionality in causal attribution is culturally mediated: Evidence from Chinese, Mayan, and Spanish populations. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 343–348).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafeez, S. (2018). Causality and agentivity in Urdu: Sensitivity of case clitics and light verbs to volitionality, intentionality and control in Urdu. Qualifying Paper, University at Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (2001). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. (1989). Norm-makers, norm-breakers: Uses of speech by men and women in a Malagasy community. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. (2nd ed., pp. 125–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, A., & Cohen, J. (2018). On convention and coherence. In G. Preyer (Ed.), Beyond semantics and pragmatics (pp. 261–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmer, S., & Verhagen, A. (1994). The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2015). Semantic typology. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 453–472). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Guen, O., Samland, J., Friedrich, T., Hanus, D., & Brown, P. (2015). Making sense of (exceptional) causal relations. A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, W. W., & Yuki, M. (2006). The “ripple effect”: Cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 669–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. (1976). Remarks on what can cause what. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics VI: The grammar of causative constructions (pp. 117–129). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics IX: Pragmatics (pp. 245–258). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 701–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. E., Donelson, K. T., Eggleston, A., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2015). Semantic typology: New approaches to crosslinguistic variation in language and cognition. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mourelatos, A. P. (1978). Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, K., & Knowles, E. D. (2003). Culture, education, and the attribution of physical causality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1272–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, M. (Ed.). (1976). The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, M., & Pardeshi, P. (2002). The causative continuum. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (pp. 85–126). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. S. (1979). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2(1), 43–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, J. J. (1996). Causatives and causation: A universal-typological perspective. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, LXVI, 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen, A., & Kemmer, S. (1997). Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88(1), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P., Jeon, G.-H., & Li, Y. (2009). Causers in English, Korean, and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–196.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The materials presented here are based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS153846 and BCS-1644657, ‘Causality Across Languages’; PI J. Bohnemeyer. In addition, Kawachi’s research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under grant KAKENHI Project ID 19K00565. We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and to the editors of the volume, Nora Boneh and Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, for their constructive criticism. We would like to thank the members of the University at Buffalo Semantics Typology Lab for assistance with the creation of the stimuli (Katherine Donelson, Alexandra Lawson, Randi Moore and Karl Sarvestani) and piloting of the Responsibility Assignment study design (José Antonio Jódar Sánchez) and the members of the Beihang Research Group for Event Representation and Cognition for their assistance in testing the Chinese participants (specifically, Enirile, Hongxia Jia, Fuyin Li, Jinmei Li, Sai Ma, Chenxi Niu, and Mengmin Xu). We also gratefully acknowledge helpful advice from Dare Baldwin, the late Sieghard Beller, Andrea Bender, and Bertram Malle, none of whom necessarily agree with the views expressed in our chapter. The responsibility for any mistatements or omissions is naturally ours alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Erika Bellingham, Stephanie Evers, Sang-Hee Park, Anastasia Stepanova & Jürgen Bohnemeyer

  2. National Defense Academy of Japan, Yokosuka, Japan

    Kazuhiro Kawachi

  3. Institute for African Studies and Egyptology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Alice Mitchell

Authors
  1. Erika Bellingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie Evers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazuhiro Kawachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alice Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sang-Hee Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anastasia Stepanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jürgen Bohnemeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jürgen Bohnemeyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Language, Logic and Cognition Center, The Department of Hebrew Language, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal

  2. Language, Logic and Cognition Center, The Linguistic Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Nora Boneh

Appendices

Appendix 1: Causal Chain Properties of Core Stimuli

Each video clip in the core set of stimuli is listed below, along with a short description of the causal chain depicted in the clip and the values intended for each causal chain variable. See Sect. 3.2 for a description of the causal chain variables.Causal chain participants: cr = causer, ce = intermediator, af = affectee, ins = instrument

HO6_paper :

A woman tears a piece of paper in half.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HC1_leave :

A woman tells a man to leave the room, and he leaves.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HOIproc1_swing :

A man pushes a swing with a tennis racquet and it moves back and forth.Mediation: ins but no ce. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

HUO3_paper :

A woman sneaks up behind another woman and yells loudly, which startles the other woman and makes her tear the piece of paper she is holding.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: human+reflexive (noise); affectee: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HO2_egg :

A woman cracks an egg into a bowl.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

NM2_reporter :

A reporter is blown away in strong wind.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HOI4_ball :

A man hits a ball off a wooden bench with a tennis racquet.Mediation: ins but no ce. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HO5_cuptower :

A man knocks over a cup towerMediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UO1_egg :

A woman trips while carrying eggs, and accidentally smashes them into a bowl.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UM3_faint :

A man faints onto another man and knocks him over.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HMO4_cups :

A woman pushes another man into a stack of cups, and he knocks it over.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: human+physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HU2_scare :

A girl jumps out of a box and shrieks, startling a boy, and he falls over.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+reflexive (noise)Resulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UO2_paper :

A woman is flipping through a book and accidentally tears a page.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HCO3_egg_new :

A man tells a woman to crack an egg into a bowl, so she does.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

NC1_tsunami :

A man sees a giant wave heading towards him on a beach, so he runs away.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; af: human+intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HOI3_plate :

A woman shatters a plate with a broom handle.Mediation: ins but no ce. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UC1_sing :

A woman is singing poorly, so another woman covers her ears and leaves the room.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HCOI2_paper :

A woman tells another woman to cut up a piece of paper with scissors, so she does.Mediation: ce and ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HO4_ball :

A man throws a ball into a box.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HM1_fall :

A woman pushes another woman to the floor.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

UMO2_cups :

A woman enters a room backwards, dragging a table. She bumps into a man standing in front of a stack of cups, and he bumps the cups and they fall to the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

NM4_umbrella :

An umbrella blows away in the wind.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HOI1_paper :

A woman cuts a piece of paper into pieces with scissors.Mediation: ins but no ce. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HUO2_cups :

A woman sneaks up behind a man and yells loudly, which startles the other man and makes him bump the stack of cups he is standing next to, then the cups all fall to the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: reflexive (noise); af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UM1_asleep :

A woman is sleeping in a chair, and a man walks across the room and accidentally trips over her foot, waking her up.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

NU1_thunder :

A loud thunder clap startles a woman.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; af: human+reflexive (noise)Resulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HMO3_paper :

A woman pushes a woman who is holding a piece of paper, and the paper tears.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HOproc1_swing :

A man pushes a swing and it moves back and forth.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

HCO2_paper :

A woman tells a woman to tear a piece of paper into pieces, and so she does.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UM2_overboard :

A reporter standing on a boat steps backwards and bumps into another man who is kneeling at the edge of the boat, knocking him (the kneeling man) into the water.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

UOproc1_swing :

A man accidentally bumps into a swing, causing it to move back and forth.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

HC2_sit :

A man tells a woman to sit, and so she does.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+intentionalResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HCOproc1_swing :

A woman tells a man to push a swing, and so he does.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

UOI1_cuptower :

A man is sweeping next to his stack of cups, he turns and accidentally knocks the cups over with the broom handle.Mediation: ins but no ce. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UU2_sneeze :

A woman sneezes behind another woman, startling her/making her jump.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+reflexive (noise)Resulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

HU1_laugh_new :

A man pulls a funny face and makes a woman laugh.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+reflexive (urge)Resulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

NCO1_umbrella :

It is raining, and so a man opens an umbrella.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HCOI3_plate :

A man tells a woman to shatter a plate with a broom handle, and so she does.Mediation: ce and ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

UO3_ball :

A woman accidentally kicks a ball over her head and out of the room.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

UUO2_paper :

A woman sneezes behind a man who is reading the newspaper. He is startled, and tears the newspaper.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: reflexive (noise); af: inanimateResulting event type: change of state. Force dynamics: causation

HCO4_ball :

A woman tells a man to throw a ball into a box, and so he does.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

HM2_strongman :

A man picks up another man and throws him across the room.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: human+physical impactResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: causation

UU1_yawn :

A woman yawns, another man sees her yawning and so he yawns.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: human+reflexive (urge)Resulting event type: process. Force dynamics: causation

Appendix 2: Causal Chain Properties of Supplementary Stimuli

HClet_door :

A man blocking a woman from exiting a room sees her and moves to let her pass.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

HO1_cup :

A woman throws a cup at the floor and it smashes.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

UUO1_egg :

A man accidentally slams the door, which startles another man in the room who is holding an egg, which makes him drop the egg and it smashes.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: human+reflexive (noise); af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: letting

HO_let_ball :

A woman releases the ball she is holding, allowing it to fall.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

HCO1_cup :

A man tells another man to throw a cup at the floor, so he does, and the cup smashes.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

HUO1_plate :

A woman sneaks up behind a man and yells loudly, which startles the man and makes him drop the plate he is holding. It smashes on the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: human+reflexive (noise); af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: letting

UC_let1_doorway :

A woman tries to exit the room, but a man is blocking the doorway (facing away from her). He doesn’t see her, but moves away from the door and she passes through.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

HMO_let1_ball :

A woman pulls the arm of another woman who is holding a ball, making her drop the ball.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: human+physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

UMO1_cup :

A woman enters a room holding a large bin which is blocking her vision. She bumps into a man who is holding a cup, he drops the cup and it smashes on the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: human+physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

UO4_cup :

A man is sitting at a desk, he moves his arm as he turns a page and bumps a cup off the desk, and it smashes on the floor.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

HMO1_plate :

A woman pushes another woman who drops the plate she was holding. It smashes on the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+intentional; ce: human+physical impact; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

UCO1_ball :

A man faints near a woman who is holding a ball, she lets the ball go to catch him and the ball falls to the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: human+intentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

NUO1_thunderclap :

A man is standing holding a plate, there is a loud thunderclap which startles him and he drops the plate, which smashes on the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: natural force; ce: human+reflexive (noise); af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: letting

UUO3_cup :

A man gestures for a woman sitting at a desk to hand him a jacket hanging behind her. She reaches for the jacket, and knocks a cup off the table. The cup smashes on the floor.Mediation: ce but no ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+unintentional; ce: human+unintentional; af: inanimateResulting event type: projectile breaking. Force dynamics: causation

MClet_doorway :

A man blocking a woman from exiting a room does not move, so she pushes him aside and exits.Mediation: No ce or ins. Participant type + degree of autonomy: cr: human+physical impact; af: human+intentionalResulting event type: change of location. Force dynamics: letting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bellingham, E. et al. (2020). Exploring the Representation of Causality Across Languages: Integrating Production, Comprehension and Conceptualization Perspectives. In: Bar-Asher Siegal, E., Boneh, N. (eds) Perspectives on Causation. Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation