SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkbilig / 2026 / Cilt: 2026 Sayı: 52

A Taxonomy of Implicit Causality in 112 Turkish Interpersonal Verbs

Türkçe Kişilerarası 112 Eylemde Örtük Nedensellik Taksonomisi

Oktay Çınar(İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9822-7574
Journal
Türkbilig
Pages
16–35
Publication Date
2026-07-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that previous research on the implicit causality biases of verbs can be extended to Turkish.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of 112 Turkish interpersonal verbs that denote implicit causality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This taxonomy is categorized into four distinct verb types: Stimulus-Experiencer (SE), Experiencer-Stimulus (ES), Agent-Patient (AP), and Agent-Evocator (AE), each comprising 28 verbs exemplifying its respective characteristics.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that previous research on the implicit causality biases of verbs can be extended to Turkish.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Örtük nedensellik · kişilerarası eylemler · eylem anlambilimi

Abstract

The objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of 112 Turkish interpersonal verbs that denote implicit causality. This taxonomy is categorized into four distinct verb types: Stimulus-Experiencer (SE), Experiencer-Stimulus (ES), Agent-Patient (AP), and Agent-Evocator (AE), each comprising 28 verbs exemplifying its respective characteristics. The primary aim is to establish a representational scale for each category. The selection of verbs is informed by cross-linguistic studies that encompass a variety of verb types across different categories. To examine implicit causality biases associated with these verbs, a sentence completion task was employed. Participants were asked to complete sentences such as ‘‘Ali Ayşe’yi korkuttu çünkü …’’ (Ali scared Ayşe because …) to assess the causal attributions linked to each verb. The study also investigates the interaction between verb type, the gender of the participant, and the gender of referents in the sentences. The findings indicate that previous research on the implicit causality biases of verbs can be extended to Turkish. This classification serves as a foundational framework for future research, enabling a more systematic investigation of implicit causality in Turkish interpersonal verbs.

Özet

The objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of 112 Turkish interpersonal verbs that denote implicit causality. This taxonomy is categorized into four distinct verb types: Stimulus-Experiencer (SE), Experiencer-Stimulus (ES), Agent-Patient (AP), and Agent-Evocator (AE), each comprising 28 verbs exemplifying its respective characteristics. The primary aim is to establish a representational scale for each category. The selection of verbs is informed by cross-linguistic studies that encompass a variety of verb types across different categories. To examine implicit causality biases associated with these verbs, a sentence completion task was employed. Participants were asked to complete sentences such as ‘‘Ali Ayşe’yi korkuttu çünkü …’’ (Ali scared Ayşe because …) to assess the causal attributions linked to each verb. The study also investigates the interaction between verb type, the gender of the participant, and the gender of referents in the sentences. The findings indicate that previous research on the implicit causality biases of verbs can be extended to Turkish. This classification serves as a foundational framework for future research, enabling a more systematic investigation of implicit causality in Turkish interpersonal verbs.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çınar, O. (2026). A Taxonomy of Implicit Causality in 112 Turkish Interpersonal Verbs. Türkbilig, Cilt: 2026 Sayı: 52, 16–35. https://doi.org/10.59257/turkbilig.1769523

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Anting Tan, F., Hürriyetoğlu, A., Caselli, T., Oostdijk, N., Nomoto, T., Hettiarachchi, H., Ameer, I., Uca, O., Ferdousi Liza, F., & Hu, T. (2022). The causal news corpus: Annotating causal relations in event sentences from news. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference: LREC 2022 (pp. 2298-2310). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  2. Au, T. K. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 104-122.
  3. Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2021). Discourse expectations: explaining the implicit causality biases of verbs. Linguistics, 59(2), 361-416.
  4. Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp. 213-251). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  5. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237-273.
  6. Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 601-609.
  7. Corrigan, R. (2001). Implicit causality in language: Event participants and their interactions. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 20, 285-320.
  8. Corrigan, R., & Stevenson, C. (1994). Children’s causal attributions to states and events described by different classes of verbs. Cognitive Development, 9, 235-256.
  9. Crinean, M., & Garnham, A. (2006). Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 636-648.
  10. Ferstl, E. C., Garnham, A., & Manouilidou, C. (2011). Implicit causality bias in English: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 124-135.
  11. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1985). On‐line resolution of anaphoric pronouns: effects of inference making and verb semantics. British Journal of Psychology, 76(3), 385-393.
  12. Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cruttenden, H. (1992). The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns. Language and cognitive processes, 7(3-4), 231-255.
  13. Garnham, A., Vorthmann, S., & Kaplanova, K. (2021). Implicit consequentiality bias in English: A corpus of 300+ verbs. Behavior research methods, 53(4), 1530-1550.
  14. Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of memory and language, 42(4), 526-544.
  15. Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic inquiry, 5(3), 459-464.
  16. Goikoetxea, E., Pascual, G., & Acha, J. (2008). Normative study of the implicit causality of 100 interpersonal verbs in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 760-772.
  17. Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality?. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 804-824.
  18. Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1474-1508.
  19. Kehler, A., (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar (Vol. 380). Stanford, CA: CSLI publications.
  20. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of semantics, 25(1), 1-44.
  21. LaFrance, M., Brownell, H., & Hahn, E. (1997). Interpersonal verbs, gender, and implicit causality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 138-152.
  22. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Long, D. L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 545-570.
  24. Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (1991). Interpersonal verbs: Implicit causality of action verbs and contextual factors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(5), 429-443.
  25. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1989). Semantic associations and elaborative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 326.
  26. McKoon, G., Greene, S. B., & Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1040.
  27. Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 780-788.
  28. Rigalleau, F., Guerry, M., & Granjon, L. (2014). The effect of connectives on the selection of arguments: Implicit consequentiality bias for the connective “but”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(4), 465-485.
  29. Rudolph, U. (1997). Implicit verb causality: Verbal schemas and covariation information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 132-158.
  30. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 21 39.
  31. Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2022). On the nature of implicit causality and consequentiality: the case of psychological verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(10), 1311-1340.
  32. Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2023). Implicit causality and consequentiality of action verbs. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 2, 1143214.
  33. Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (1998). Implicit consequentiality. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1031–1036). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  34. Stevenson, R. J., R. A. Crawley, & D. Kleinman (1994). Thematic roles, focus, and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 519–48.
  35. Trabasso, T., & Van Den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of memory and language, 24(5), 612-630.
  36. Van den Hoven, E., & Ferstl, E. C. (2018). Discourse context modulates the effect of implicit causality on rementions. Language and Cognition, 10(4), 561-594.
  37. Zheng, M., Marsh, J. K., Nickerson, J. V., & Kleinberg, S. (2020). How causal information affects decisions. Cognitive research: Principles and implications, 5, 1-24.