The construal of constructions: causal and temporal interpretations in change constructions

In this paper I first discuss some non-causal change constructions which have largely gone unnoticed in the literature, such as The butler bowed the guests in (which is said to code mild causation) and The supporters booed Newcastle off at the interval (which only codes temporal coextension between its two constitutive subevents). Since the same structure (i.e. the transitive object-oriented change construction) can be used to code a wide spectrum of causal and temporal relations, the question arises of what cognitive mechanisms may be involved in such meaning shifts. I argue that variation can be motivated on the basis of the figure/ground segregation which the conceptualiser can impose upon the integrated scene coded by the change construction. The integrated scene depicts a force-dynamic scenario but also evokes a unique temporal setting (i.e. temporal overlap or coextension between the constitutive subevents). Such a “bias” towards temporal overlap can be used by the conceptualiser to background causation and highlight temporal overlap interpretations. It is also shown that figure/ground segregation can be appealed to to account for the causal interpretation of intransitive change constructions, e.g. The kettle boiled dry. If the conceptual distance between the verbal event and the non-verbal event is (relatively) great, causality can be highlighted even in intransitive patterns.

Attributions of Responsibility for Terrorist Attacks: The Role of Group Membership and Identification

Three studies examine how people’s attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim’s or perpetrator’s ingroup (studies 2 and 3). We observe that people’s group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. We discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations.