Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 54, Issue 4

Issues

Cooperation and coercion

Jenny Audring
  • Corresponding author
  • Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9500, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Geert Booij
Published Online: 2016-06-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012

Abstract

Coercion is a much-discussed topic in the linguistic literature. This article expands the usual range of cases at the most subtle and the extreme end: it demonstrates how coercion extends into semantic flexibility on the one hand and into idiomaticity on the other. After discussing a broad variety of coercion cases in syntax and morphology and briefly reviewing the equally diverse literature, we identify three mechanisms – selection, enrichment, and override – that have alternatively been proposed to account for coercion effects. We then present an approach that combines all three mechanisms, arguing that they can be unified along a single axis: the degree of top-down influence of complex structures on lexical semantics.

Keywords: coercion; constructions; semantics; polysemy; idioms

References

  • Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert & Jenny Audring. 2007. Uitgezwaaid en aangezwaaid: Participiumconstructies in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 12. 52–62.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert & Jenny Audring. forthcoming. Coercion and category change in Construction Morphology. In Evie Coussé, Kristel van Goethem, Muriel Norde & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Briscoe, Ted, Ann Copestake & Bran Boguraev. 1990. Enjoy the paper: Lexical semantics via lexicology. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computational linguistics, Helsinki, Finland, 42–47.

  • Cappelle, Bert. 2014. Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR] 54), 251–281. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • De Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles & Paul Kay. 1993. Construction grammar coursebook. Unpublished MS, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

  • Grandi, Nicola, Malvina Nissim & Fabio Tamburini. 2011. Noun-clad adjectives: On the adjectival status of non-head constituents of Italian attributive compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio 10. 161–76.Google Scholar

  • Harder, Peter. 2010. Meaning in mind and society. A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41(1). 9–45.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 70–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kuperberg, Gina, Arim Choi, Neil Cohn, Martin Paczynski & Ray Jackendoff. 2010. Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(12). 2685–2701.Google Scholar

  • Lapata, Mirella, Frank Keller & Christoph Scheepers. 2003. Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy. Cognitive Science 27. 649–668.Google Scholar

  • Lapata, Mirella & Alex Lascarides. 2003. A probabilistic account of logical metonymy. Computational Linguistics 29. 263–317.Google Scholar

  • Lauwers, Peter. 2014. Between adjective and noun. Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In Rafaele Simone & Francesca Masini (eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations, 203–226. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning and constructional meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 163–210. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 1–67.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1359–1399.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 143–148.Google Scholar

  • Partee, Barbara & Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4). 409–441.Google Scholar

  • Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Pustejovsky, James. 2011. Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics 49(6). 1401–1431.Google Scholar

  • Pustejovsky, James & Elisabetta Jezek. 2008. Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics 20(1). 181–214.Google Scholar

  • Suttle, Laura & Adele Goldberg. 2011 The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000 [1978]. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Leonard Talmy (ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I: Concept structuring systems, 21–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Willems, Klaas. 2013. The linguistic sign at the lexicon-syntax interface: assumptions and implications of the generative lexicon theory. Semiotica 193. 233–287.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-06-21

Published in Print: 2016-07-01


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 617–637, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in