In this final comment, we point out several misunderstandings in Edwards and Potter's (1999) rejoinder and defend the arguments advanced in our original critique. In addition, we make an attempt to clarify that a lexical approach to language and attribution, based on the Linguistic Category Model (LCM), cannot be reduced to a lexical coding scheme. Rather, the LCM places numerous theoretical constraints on attribution, most of which have been tested and substantiated in many studies ignored in Edwards and Potter's articles. We point out in particular how the LCM can deal with the the sequential, contextualized, interaction oriented nature of conversation.
de Poot, C.J. & Semin, G.R. (1995). Pick your verbs with care when you formulate a question. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 351-368.
2.
Edwards, D. , & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23-41.
3.
Edwards, D. , & Potter, J. (1999). Language and causal attribution: A rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler. Theory & Psychology, 9, 823-836.
4.
Fiedler, K. , Armbruster, T., Nickel, S., Walther, E., & Asbeck, J. (1996). Constructive biases in social judgments: Experiments on the self-verification of question contents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 861-873.
5.
Fiedler, K. , & Semin, G.R. (1988). On the causal information conveyed by different interpersonal verbs: The role of implicit sentence context. Social Cognition, 6, 21-39.
6.
Fiedler, K. , Semin, G.R., & Finkenauer, C. (1993). The battle of words between gender groups: A language-based approach to intergroup processes. Human Communication Research, 19, 409-441.
7.
Fiedler, K. , Semin, G.R., & Koppetsch, C. (1991). Language use and attributional biases in close personal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 147-155.
8.
Fiedler, K. , Semin, G.R., Ritter, A., Bode, P., & Manderbach, M. (1992). A discourse grammar approach to understanding the causal impact of interpersonal verbs. Unpublished manuscript.
9.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & N.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and sematics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press
10.
Hamilton, D.L. , Gibbons, P.A., Stroessner, S.J., & Sherman, J.W. (1992). Stereo-types and language use. In G.R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 79-101). London: Sage.
11.
Heider, E. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-378.
12.
Karpinski, A. , & von Hippel, W. (1996). The role of the linguistic intergroup bias in expectancy maintenance. Social Cognition, 14, 141-163.
13.
Korte, T. , Fiedler, K., & Forgas, J.P. (1998). Freie Verbalisierungen ulber minimale Gruppen: Der moderierende EinfluJ3 von Stimmungen und Involvement. Un-published research, University of Heidelberg.
14.
Maass, A. , & Arcuri, L. (1992). The role of language in the persistence of stereotypes. In G.R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 129-143). London: Sage.
15.
Maass, A. , Corvino, P., & Arcuri, L. (1994). Linguistic intergroup bias and the mass media. Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 31-43.
16.
Maass, A. , Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
17.
Rubini, M. , & Kruglanski, A.W. (1997). Brief encounters ending in estrangement: Motivated language use and interpersonal rapport in the question-answer paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1047-1060.
18.
Schmid, J. , & Fiedler, K. (1996). Language and implicit attributions in the Nuremberg Trials: Analyzing prosecutors' and defense attorneys' closing speeches. Human Communication Research, 22, 371-398.
19.
Schmid, J. , & Fiedler, K. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on juridical attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140-1172.
20.
Schmid, J. , & Fiedler, K. (1999). A parsimonious theory can account for complex phenomena: A discursive analysis of Edwards and Potter's critique of non-discursive language research. Theory & Psychology, 9, 807-822.
21.
Semin, G.R. , & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
22.
Semin, G.R. , & Fiedler, K. (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actors' and observers' perspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491-508.
23.
Semin, G.R. , & Fiedler, K. (Eds.). (1992). Language, interaction and social cognition. London: Sage.
24.
Semin, G.R. , & Marsman, G. (1994). On the information mediated by interpersonal verbs: Event precipitation, dispositional inference, and implicit causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 836-849.
25.
Semin, G.R. , Rubini, M., & Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on locus of explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834-841.
26.
Shweder, R.A. (1982). Fact and artifact in trait perception: The systematic distortion hypothesis. In B.A. Maher & W.B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in personality research (Vol. 2, pp. 65-101). New York: Academic Press.
27.
Webster, D.N. , Kruglanski, A.W., & Pattison, D.A. (1997). Motivated language use in intergroup context: Need-for-closure effects on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1122-1131.
