Complement Coercion: The Joint Effects of Type and Typicality

Complement coercion (begin a book →reading) involves a type clash between an event-selecting verb and an entity-denoting object, triggering a covert event (reading). Two main factors involved in complement coercion have been investigated: the semantic type of the object (event vs. entity), and the typicality of the covert event (the author began a book →writing). In previous research, reading times have been measured at the object. However, the influence of the typicality of the subject–object combination on processing an aspectual verb such as begin has not been studied. Using a self-paced reading study, we manipulated semantic type and subject–object typicality, exploiting German word order to measure reading times at the aspectual verb. These variables interacted at the target verb. We conclude that both type and typicality probabilistically guide expectations about upcoming input. These results are compatible with an expectation-based view of complement coercion and language comprehension more generally in which there is rapid interaction between what is typically viewed as linguistic knowledge, and what is typically viewed as domain general knowledge about how the world works.

[1]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[2]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements , 2005 .

[3]  Petra B. Schumacher,et al.  The hepatitis called …: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition , 2011 .

[4]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Fitting, Not Clashing! A Distributional Semantic Model of Logical Metonymy , 2013, IWCS.

[5]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[6]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Coercion in sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading , 2002 .

[7]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Logical Metonymy Resolution in a Words-as-Cues Framework: Evidence From Self-Paced Reading and Probe Recognition , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  The Curious Case of Metonymic Verbs: A Distributional Characterization , 2013 .

[9]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[11]  Jelena Mirkovic,et al.  Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Petra B. Schumacher,et al.  Content and context in incremental processing: “the ham sandwich” revisited , 2014 .

[13]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Eye movements and semantic composition , 2004 .

[14]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[15]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  The Wind Chilled the Spectators, but the Wine Just Chilled: Sense, Structure, and Sentence Comprehension , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[17]  Maria Mercedes Piñango,et al.  Reanalyzing the Complement Coercion Effect through a Generalized Lexical Semantics for Aspectual Verbs , 2016, J. Semant..

[18]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The difficulty of coercion: A response to de Almeida , 2005, Brain and Language.

[19]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Same same but different: type and typicality in a distributional model of complement coercion , 2015, NetWordS.

[20]  Gina R Kuperberg,et al.  What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[21]  Jeffrey L Elman,et al.  Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? , 2011, The mental lexicon.

[22]  Brian McElree,et al.  Complement Coercion Is Not Modulated by Competition: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2022 .

[23]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[24]  J. Elman,et al.  Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[25]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension , 1998 .

[26]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[27]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Composing and Updating Verb Argument Expectations: A Distributional Semantic Model , 2011, CMCL@ACL.

[28]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  An MEG Study of Silent Meaning , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  Michiel van Lambalgen,et al.  There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics , 2006 .

[30]  Argyro Katsika,et al.  Complement Coercion: Distinguishing Between Type-Shifting and Pragmatic Inferencing. , 2012, The mental lexicon.

[31]  Ken McRae,et al.  People Use their Knowledge of Common Events to Understand Language, and Do So as Quickly as Possible , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[32]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analyzing Reaction Times , 2010 .

[33]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[34]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences , 2003 .

[35]  Tessa C. Warren,et al.  World knowledge affects prediction as quickly as selectional restrictions: evidence from the visual world paradigm , 2016, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[36]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Syntax-Semantics Interface , 2006 .

[37]  Petra B. Schumacher The hepatitis called , 2011 .

[38]  Brian McElree,et al.  Reading time evidence for enriched composition , 2001, Cognition.

[39]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Eye Movements Reveal Interplay Between Noun Capitalization and Word Class During Reading , 2013, CogSci.