Force interaction in the expression of causation

Bridget Copley, Phillip Wolff, Jason Shepard

Abstract


Causal meanings in verbs such as cause, enable and prevent have been analyzed as having two components that correspond to two interacting forces or tendencies: one associated with the agent and one with the patient (Talmy 2000; Wolff 2007). In this research we extend a force-dynamic analysis to a wider range of causal and quasi-causal expressions such as lead to, because, and after. The “structural causal pluralism hypothesis" (Copley & Wolff 2014) is not supported; instead force dynamics is shown to be relevant to expressions throughout syntactic structure. We find that the applicability of the classical force-interaction analysis depends on (i) whether an Agent/Causer is represented in the syntax, and (ii) what kind of causing entity is conceptually represented: either one that generates its own force or one whose force emerges from an interaction with and a field in the sense of Copley & Harley (2015) (e.g., a gravitational field). The latter case, we propose, suggests a criterion for force individuation. This account allows us to identify several classes of causal expressions and to further map out the division of labor between the grammatical and conceptual levels.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Copley, Bridget. To appear. Force dynamics. In Rob Truswell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure, Oxford University Press.

Copley, Bridget & Heidi Harley. 2015. A force-theoretic framework for event structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2). 103–158.

Copley, Bridget & Heidi Harley. Manuscript. Reifiying energy and change in the verb phrase using forces and degrees. Unpublished CNRS and University of Arizona ms.

Copley, Bridget & PhillipWolff. 2014. Theories of causation should inform linguistic theory and vice versa (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics vol. 52). In Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds.), Causation in grammatical structures, 11–57. Oxford University Press.

Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81–95. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Davidson, Donald. 1969. The individuation of events. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, vol. 24 Synthese Library, 216–234. Springer.

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Reidel.

Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v. In Paula Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 95–120. Springer.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Springer.

Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 556–567.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.

Moeschler, Jacques. 1989. Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence and relevance. Argumentation 3(3). 321–339.

Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press.

Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46. 152–174.

Roy, Isabelle & Elena Soare. 2013. Event-related nominals. In Gianina Iord˘achioaia, Isabelle Roy & Kaori Takamine (eds.), Categorization and Category Change, 123–152. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wolff, Phillip. 2007. Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(1). 82.

Wolff, Phillip, Ga-hyun Jeon, Bianca Klettke & Yu Li. 2010. Force creation and possible causers across languages. In Barbara Malt & Phillip Wolff (eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience, 93–110. Oxford University Press.

Wolff, Phillip & Grace Song. 2003. Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology 47(3). 276–332.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3482