English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Implicit Causality (I-Caus) and Implicit Consequentiality (I-Cons) biases ( Peter annoyed Mary because/and so … ) have been argued to be rooted in the argument structure properties of verbs. In particular, the mirror coreference biases displayed by stimulus-experiencer and experiencer-stimulus predicates have been considered strong evidence for this approach. We provide evidence for the Asymmetry Hypothesis, stating that I-Caus and I-Cons are derived from different mechanisms. While we also assume that I-Caus is driven by verb semantics, we contend that I-Cons follows from general discourse-structural principles. Evidence is provided by four production experiments in German investigating the coreference and coherence properties of the aforementioned verb classes in detail. Experiment 1 establishes that the classes mirror each other with respect to coreference biases. Experiments 2 and 3 show, however, that there is no such symmetry with regard to coherence biases. Finally, Experiment 4 provides fine-grained evidence for the underlying strategies for providing contingency specifications.

On the nature of implicit causality and consequentiality: the case of psychological verbs