Microsoft Word Schmid et al. (XXXX) lcm kodierung doc

LCM – A Short Description 
The Linguistic Category Model (LCM) as one form of language-based approach to the 
understanding of implicit causality employs several word classes that have implications for 
subject-object-attributions and for impressions of stability and generality of the described 
behavior (see Fiedler & Semin, 1988, 1992; Semin & Fiedler 1991, 1992). 
Further down, the different word classes are described extensively – here is a short description of 
the general idea: 
The LCM differentiates several verb classes that can be located on a concreteness-abstractness 
dimension. 
At the most concrete end, there are the Descriptive Action Verbs (DAVs) referring to specific 
behaviors in specific situations. There is almost no element of interpretation apparent. Examples 
are: to kick, to push, to phone. 
Next are the Interpretive Action Verbs (IAVs). These constitute the prevalent group. They 
abstract from concrete details, even though they still refer to specific action episodes. Examples 
are: to help, to insult, to obey, to fight. 
At the next level we find the State Verbs (SVs). They pertain to enduring states that are typically 
subjective and therefore not amenable to direct observation. Examples are: To hate, to abhor, to 
love, to admire. 
At the most abstract end the model adds Adjectives (ADJ), thus completing the following 
sequence: 
DAV IAV SV ADJ. 
As a description of a behavior approaches the abstract end of the continuum, the reader/listener 
tends to infer: 
High subject informativeness 
High enduringness 
Low verifiability 
High disputability 
Low situation informativeness (see Semin & Fiedler, 1988). 

---

A second dimension underlying the LCM is a product of the marking of affect and causality. 
Affect is an explicit feature of SVs. When considering the context of an episode (what does a 
listener think happened prior to the occasion and what will happen afterwards) there are certain 
patterns relating to the use of SVs and IAVs. The use of an SV tends to a stronger ascription of 
causality to the object of the sentence than to the subject – that is, if ”Albert despises Joe”, there 
must have been something about Joe that led to Albert’s contempt (see Semin & Fiedler, 1992). 
To demonstrate the applicability of this instrument this article contains language samples from 
very different sources: There are excerpts from the Nuremberg Trials (Schmid & Fiedler, 1996), 
from an article published in a scientific journal (Schmid & Fiedler, 1999), and there are even bits 
from a magazine about professional wrestling (Schmid, 1999). Additional examples are taken 
from the literature (mostly from children’s books).