SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 177 Sayı: 1

Verb-driven discourse relations in Turkish: implicit causality and consequentiality

Türkçede eylem temelli söylem ilişkileri: örtük nedensellik ve sonuçsallık

Oktay Çınar(İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9822-7574
Pages
78–93
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

These findings provide the first experimental evidence that verb-driven coherence biases operate in Turkish, extending cross-linguistic support for the universal relevance of implicit verb biases in discourse processing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates how different classes of interpersonal verbs shape implicit discourse relations and coreference preferences in Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on the frameworks of implicit causality (ICaus) and implicit consequentiality (ICons), the present study employs a sentence continuation task with 42 native speakers of Turkish to examine how four verb classes — stimulus-experiencer (SE), experiencer-stimulus (ES), agent-patient (AP), and agent-evocator (AE) — bias both discourse relation choice and coreference type in the absence of explicit connectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings provide the first experimental evidence that verb-driven coherence biases operate in Turkish, extending cross-linguistic support for the universal relevance of implicit verb biases in discourse processing.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Söylem ilişkileri · Örtük nedensellik · Örtük sonuçsallık

Abstract

This study investigates how different classes of interpersonal verbs shape implicit discourse relations and coreference preferences in Turkish. While a substantial body of psycholinguistic research has established that verbs systematically bias comprehenders toward particular causal and consequential interpretations, this phenomenon remains largely unexamined in Turkish. Drawing on the frameworks of implicit causality (ICaus) and implicit consequentiality (ICons), the present study employs a sentence continuation task with 42 native speakers of Turkish to examine how four verb classes — stimulus-experiencer (SE), experiencer-stimulus (ES), agent-patient (AP), and agent-evocator (AE) — bias both discourse relation choice and coreference type in the absence of explicit connectives. Participants were presented with 60 sentence prompts, each containing an interpersonal verb and asked to continue each sentence naturally. Continuations were coded for discourse relation type (explanation, consequence, contrast, temporal sequence, elaboration) and coreference bias (NP1 vs. NP2). Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses revealed that explanation was the dominant discourse relation across all verb classes, though verb class significantly modulated this preference. Coreference analyses revealed a systematic reversal of NP1/NP2 preferences between explanation and consequence contexts for the same verb classes. As for the other discourse relations, while temporal sequence, contrast, and elaboration relations were also observed, they occurred less frequently and exhibited weaker verb-driven biases, suggesting that these relations are more strongly shaped by additional discourse-level or contextual factors beyond verb semantics alone. These findings provide the first experimental evidence that verb-driven coherence biases operate in Turkish, extending cross-linguistic support for the universal relevance of implicit verb biases in discourse processing.

Özet

Bu çalışma, kişilerarası eylem sınıflarının Türkçede örtük söylem ilişkilerini ve gönderim tercihlerini nasıl biçimlendirdiğini araştırmaktadır. Psikodilbilim alanyazında, eylemlerin anlamsal özellikleri aracılığıyla konuşucuları belirli nedensel ve sonuçsal yorumlara sistematik biçimde yönlendirdiği kapsamlı biçimde ortaya konmuş olsa da bu olgu Türkçe bağlamında büyük ölçüde incelenmemiştir. Örtük nedensellik (ICaus) ve örtük sonuçsallık (ICons) kuramsal çerçevelerine dayanan bu çalışmada, 42 anadili Türkçe olan katılımcıyla bir tümce tamamlama testi uygulanmıştır. Söz konusu test aracılığıyla dört eylem sınıfının — uyarıcı-deneyimleyen (SE), deneyimleyen-uyarıcı (ES), etken-etkilenen (AP) ve etken-uyandırıcı (AE) — söylem ilişkisi seçimini ve gönderim çözümleme sürecini açık bağlayıcılar olmaksızın nasıl etkilediği incelenmiştir. Katılımcılara kişilerarası eylem içeren 60 tümce sunulmuş ve her tümceyi doğal biçimde tamamlamaları istenmiştir. Tamamlamalar, söylem ilişkisi türü (açıklama, sonuç, karşıtlık, zamansal sıralama, ayrıntılama) ve gönderim yönelimi (NP1 - NP2) bakımından kodlanmıştır. Karma etkili lojistik regresyon analizleri, tüm eylem sınıflarında en sık üretilen söylem ilişkisinin açıklama olduğunu ortaya koymuş ancak eylem sınıfının bu tercihi anlamlı ölçüde etkilediği görülmüştür. Gönderim çözümlemeleri, aynı eylem sınıfları için açıklama ve sonuç bağlamları arasında AÖ1/AÖ2 (NP1/NP2) tercihlerinde sistematik bir bakışımsızlık olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Diğer söylem ilişkileri incelendiğinde, zamansal sıralama, karşıtlık ve ayrıntılama ilişkileri de gözlemlenmiş olmakla birlikte, daha düşük sıklıkta ortaya çıkmış ve daha zayıf eylem kaynaklı yönelimler sergilemiştir. Bu da söz konusu ilişkilerin eylem anlambiliminden ziyade söylemsel veya diğer bağlamsal etkenler tarafından daha fazla şekillendirildiğini göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, eylem temelli bağdaşıklık yönelimlerinin Türkçede de işlevsel olduğuna dair ilk deneysel kanıtları sunmakta ve örtük eylem yönelimlerinin söylem işlemleme sürecindeki evrensel geçerliliğine ilişkin diller ötesi katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çınar, O. (2026). Verb-driven discourse relations in Turkish: implicit causality and consequentiality. Dil Dergisi, Cilt: 177 Sayı: 1, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.1797649

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237–273.
  2. Crinean, M., & Garnham, A. (2006). Implicit causality, implicit consequentiality and semantic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 636–648.
  3. Çınar, O. (in press). A taxonomy of implicit causality in 112 Turkish interpersonal verbs. Türkbilig.
  4. Dery, J. E., & Bittner, D. (2016). Time and causation in discourse: Temporal proximity, implicit causality, and re-mention biases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(4), 883–899.
  5. 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.
  6. Garnham, A., Vorthmann, S., & Kaplanova, K. (2021). Implicit consequentiality bias in English: A corpus of 300+ verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1530–1550.
  7. Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(3), 459–464.
  8. 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.
  9. Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 804–824.
  10. 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.
  11. Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 716–734.
  12. Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition (No. 21). Center for the Study of Language (CSLI).
  13. İbe Akcan, P. (2008). Türkçede duygu durumu eylemlerinin kılınış özellikleri. Dil Dergisi, (140), 19-31.
  14. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar (Vol. 380). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  15. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.
  16. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. 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.
  18. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of memory and language, 94, 305-315.
  19. Mendes, A., Zeyrek, D., & Oleškevičienė, G. (2023). Explicitness and implicitness of discourse relations in a multilingual discourse bank. Functions of Language, 30(1), 67–91.
  20. Mulder, G. (2008). Understanding causal coherence relations (Vol. 172). Utrecht: LOT.
  21. Özge, D., Evcen, E., & Hartshorne, J. K. (2025). Referential Form, Word Order, and Implicit Causality in Turkish Emotion Verbs. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 47).
  22. Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 780–788.
  23. R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  24. 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.
  25. Rudolph, U., & Főrsterling, F. (1997). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological bulletin, 121(2), 192.
  26. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 93–134.
  27. 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, 54(4), 558–568.
  28. 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.
  29. Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2023). Implicit causality and consequentiality of action verbs. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 2, 1143214.
  30. 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. Turkish Statistical Institute. (n.d.-a). Yeni doğan isimleri. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=YeniDoganIsimleri (Erişim tarihi: 25 Ocak 2025)
  31. Turkish Statistical Institute. (n.d.-b). En çok kullanılan isimler. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=EnCokKullanilanIsimler (Erişim tarihi: 20 Ocak 2025)
  32. Zufferey, S., & Degand, L. (2024). Processing and understanding discourse relations and connectives. In Connectives and discourse relations: Key topics in semantics and pragmatics (pp. 116–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Zeyrek, D., & Kurfalı, M. (2017, April). TDB 1.1: Extensions on Turkish discourse bank. In Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 76-81).
  34. Zeyrek, D., & Er, M. E. (2022). A description of Turkish Discourse Bank 1.2 and an examination of common dependencies in Turkish Discourse. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05008.