A Parsimonious Theory Can Account for Complex Phenomena

A strong case was made by Edwards and Potter (1993) that discourse analysis is superior to alternative approaches to language analysis. In the present article we apply four models of language analysis to Edwards and Potter's paper, including our Linguistic Category Model (LCM) and their Discursive Action Model (DAM), with converging results. It is concluded that a complex phenomenon like real language in social context does not necessarily need models and methods approaching the same level of complexity. A more parsimonious model can be even better suited to the task.

[1]  G. Semin.  Interfacing Language and Social Cognition , 1995 .

[2]  W. Hippel,et al.  The role of the linguistic intergroup bias in expectancy maintenance , 1996 .

[3]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Language Use and Attributional Biases in Close Personal Relationships , 1991 .

[4]  K. Fiedler.  Suggestion and Credibility: Lie Detection Based on Content-Related Cues , 1989 .

[5]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Relocating attributional phenomena within the language-cognition interface: The case of actor-observer perspectives , 1989 .

[6]  Donal E. Carlston,et al.  Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. , 1989 .

[7]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Brief encounters ending in estrangement: motivated language use and interpersonal rapport in the question-answer paradigm. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  The psychological causality implicit in language , 1983, Cognition.

[9]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Language use and reification of social information: Top-down and bottom-up processing in person cognition , 1989 .

[10]  Klaus Fiedler,et al.  Actor-Observer Bias in Close Relationships: The Role of Self-Knowledge and Self-Related Language , 1995 .

[11]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  On the information mediated by interpersonal verbs: Event precipitation, dispositional inference and implicit causality , 1994 .

[12]  G. Semin,et al.  Language use in the context of congruent and incongruent in-group behaviours , 1994 .

[13]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The Backbone of Closing Speeches: The Impact of Prosecution Versus Defense Language on Judicial Attributions1 , 1998 .

[14]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics , 1993 .

[15]  A. Maass,et al.  Linguistic intergroup bias and implicit attributions , 1993 .

[16]  J. Potter,et al.  Natural Order , 1995 .

[17]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  On the causal information conveyed by different interpersonal verbs: The role of implicit sentence context , 1988 .

[18]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range , 1991 .

[19]  Derek Edwards,et al.  Language and causation : a discursive action model of description and attribution , 1993 .

[20]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The Battle of Words Between Gender Groups A Language‐Based Approach to Intergroup Processes , 1993 .

[21]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. , 1988 .

[22]  D. Hilton.  Conversational processes and causal explanation. , 1990 .

[23]  G. Semin,et al.  Language use in intergroup contexts: the linguistic intergroup bias. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  A. Maass,et al.  Implicit Versus Explicit Strategies of Out-Group Discrimination , 1996 .

[25]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Language and implicit attributions in the Nuremberg Trials: Analyzing prosecutors' and defense attorneys' closing speeches. , 1996 .