Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: Processing, Frequency, and Semantic Compatibility - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: Processing, Frequency, and Semantic Compatibility PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 8608b0-ZWFjM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: Processing, Frequency, and Semantic Compatibility

Description:

Highly frequent exemplars are analogical attractors for novel ... Processing:Generally, cognitive mismatches should be harder to process ... transfer of possession ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:29
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: Processing, Frequency, and Semantic Compatibility


1
Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon
Processing, Frequency, and Semantic Compatibility
  • Suzanne Kemmer
  • Rice University
  • Soyeon Yoon
  • Seoul National University/
  • Rice University
  • ICLC-12, Edmonton, June 2013

2
Coercion
  • Resolution of semantic incompatibility between a
    construction and a lexical item occurring in it
    (Michaelis 2005)
  • Give me some pillow!
  • I sneezed the napkin off the table.
  • Im liking it.
  • A contextual reinterpretation that occurs when
    semantic specifications clash (Pustejovsky)
  • An adjustment of specifications repairs the
    mismatch (de Swart)
  • Special meaning effects (de Swart)

3
Issues with coercion as typically conceived
  • Changes in binary feature specifications
    (Michaelis 2005 de Swart 2000) are inconsistent
    with a frame-based, gradient semantics
  • It is not clear how the coercion mechanism
    relates to online processing or other aspects of
    language use
  • -- Theories (Construction Grammar formal
    grammars) are generally either silent or
    inexplicit about how processing relates (but see
    Traxler et al. 2002, Piñango et al. 1999, Piñango
    et al. 2006).
  • --or, they explicitly divorce language structure
    from processing (e.g. Sign-based Construction
    Grammar).

4
Usage-based Model Correlation of Four
Dimensions
  • General prediction (Kemmer 2008 following from
    Langacker 1987, 1990, 2000 inter alia.)
  • There should be some correlation between
  • Semantic compatibility of a host construction
    with lexical item
  • Frequency of use (distributional/behavioral
    correlate of cognitive entrenchment)
  • Processing time
  • Acceptability judgments
  • How much? How does it play out? An empirical
    question.
  • But an empirically-demonstrated overall
    correlation will support the usage-based model as
    described by Langacker dynamic, gradient,
    integrated

5
Why?
  • Semantic compatibility
  • Frequency
  • Processing
  • Acceptability
  • --Why and how should these relate?

6
Interrelation of 4 dimensions
  • In a dynamic usage-based language system
  • Greatest semantic compatibility Maximal
    conventionality, minimal semantic extension
    schemas and exemplars fit together in their
    specifications, no clash
  • Frequency Constructions are schematizations over
    many exemplars they derive exactly from
    repetition of exemplars that (therefore) best fit
    them. Highly frequent exemplars are analogical
    attractors for novel exemplars of less frequency
    and less compatibility including coercions

7
Interrelation, cont.
  • Processing Generally, cognitive mismatches
    should be harder to process. Specifically, in a
    cognitive competition model, ambivalence/difficult
    y of categorization should take more time.
    Also--a well-known property of cognition the
    more frequent the experience, the easier (and
    therefore faster) it is to process.
  • Acceptability judgments Speakers like most what
    they have most heard before schemas with their
    usual exemplars in prototypical relations.
    Minimal mismatches. (Boas 2011 shows relation of
    coercion, semantic compatibility, and variable
    acceptability)
  • All subject to incremental change over time and
    construction and its conventional and productive
    uses developing as the individuals language
    system matures.

8
Investigated for one construction in Yoon (2012)
  • English Ditransitive Construction V NP1 NP2
  • Sally gave John the book.
  • Constructional meaning transfer of possession
    from an Agent to a Recipient
  • The criteria of semantic compatibility
  • the number of participants in the prototypical
    event scene of the verb
  • the possibility that the Patient is transferrable
    as a result of the action prototypically
    designated by the verb (e.g. kill)

9
Semantic compatibility of verbs in Ditransitive
Construction (DC)
Semantic Compatibility (1 most, 5 least) Semantic Type of Verb Eg.
SemCom1 SemCom2 SemCom3 SemCom4 SemCom5 Inherent transfer Potential transfer Prevented transfer Impossible transfer Events internal to the Agent give, send cook, find refuse, deny cut, break think, stay
Categories 1-3 based on Pinker (1989) and
Goldberg (1995)
10
More verbs to be examined
  • Verbs said to not occur with the DC (Goldberg
    1995 128)
  • Verbs of fulfilling (X gives something to Y that
    Y deserves, needs, or is worthy of)
  • present, donate, provide
  • Verbs of continuous causation of accompanied
    motion in some manner
  • pull, carry, push
  • Verbs of manner of speaking
  • shout, murmur, whisper
  • Verbs of proposition and propositional attitude
  • say, claim
  • Verbs of choosing
  • choose, pick

11
1. Frequency of verbs in DC
  • Method
  • Collexeme Analysis (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003)
  • Corpus
  • BNC, spoken subcorpus - ca. 1,450,000 words
  • of DC exemplars 1,374
  • of verbs used in the DC 49

12
Result
  • Verbs more compatible with the DC tend to be more
    frequently associated with the DC (higher
    collostructional rank).
  • Verbs less compatible tend to occur less
    frequently in the DC or do not occur at all.
  • Table shows the relation

13
Compatibility and Collostructional Rank
Compatibility Average Collostruction rank of verbs found Examples
SemCom 1 17 25 give, send, tell
SemCom2 SemCom3 33 29 20 2 buy, make, find refuse, deny
SemCom4 SemCom5 - 34 0 2 - run, wish
14
Verbs and collostructional rank
  • Next chart shows relation of specific semantic
    classes of verbs (and their individual verbs) and
    collostructional rank

15
(No Transcript)
16
2. Processing effort and acceptability judgments
(DC)
  • Experiment Design
  • Stimuli
  • 35 verbs selected from semantic compatibility
    categories and result of corpus analysis
  • 35 sentences where each verb was used as a main
    verb in the DC
  • (1) Eddie told Kim the news last month. (tell
    from SemCom1)
  • (2) Billy found Jane the ring six days ago. (find
    from SemCom2)

17
Design, cont.
  • Task
  • 27 participants read the sentences in a
    self-paced reading task.
  • The time taken to read the second NP (underlined
    in (1) and (2)) was recorded.
  • Acceptability judgments
  • After reading each sentence, the participants
    judged its naturalness on 7-point-scale.

18
Verb semantic class (from 1, most compatible, to 5, least compatible) Verb subclass Selected verbs
Verbs of inherent transfer Inherently signifying giving give
Verbs of inherent transfer Communication tell
Verbs of inherent transfer Instrument of communication fax
Verbs of inherent transfer Future having owe, promise, leave, allow
Verbs of inherent transfer Sending send
Verbs of inherent transfer Deictic bring
Verbs of possible transfer Ballistic motion throw, drop
Verbs of possible transfer Creation create, cook
Verbs of possible transfer Obtaining find, buy, rent (hire in BE)
3. Verbs of refused transfer Refusal refuse, deny
4. Verbs of impossible/impaired transfer Damaging break, cut
5. Verbs of events internal to the Agent Emotion/cognition/desire think, want, wish
5. Verbs of events internal to the Agent intransitive stay, sneeze
Verbs occurring only in the corpus (placed in 2nd most compatible) Location put, set
Verbs occurring only in the corpus (placed in 2nd most compatible) General causation cause
Verbs that were expected not to occur in the DC (the least compatible) present, donate, provide, push, whisper, say, choose present, donate, provide, push, whisper, say, choose
19
Result
  • Significant trend
  • If semantically less compatible, processed slower
  • Judged as less acceptable

20
Semantic compatibility with processing time with
acceptability judgments
Average processing time of each semantic
compatibility category (Linear Trend t(26)
3.02, p lt .01)
Average naturalness score of each semantic
compatibility category (Linear Trend t(26)
30.29, p lt .001)
  • Figure 1. Average processing time of each
    semantic compatibility category
  • (Linear Trend t(26) 30.29, p lt .001)

21
Excluding outliers (misclassified?) put, set, and
cause A more linear trend
give, fax, allow, bring
Average naturalness score of each semantic
compatibility category (excluding put, set, and
cause)
Average processing time of each semantic
compatibility category (excluding put, set, and
cause)
22
Correlation of Four Dimensions (DC)
  • All four aspects were significantly correlated
    with each other.

(p lt .01, p lt .001) SemCom ColloRank NatScore ProcessingT
SemCom
ColloRank .42
NatScore .54 .41
ProcessingT .09 .12 .13
23
Gradient Nature of Coercion
  • If semantic compatibility is gradable, will
    coercion be the same for all different degrees of
    semantic compatibility?
  • ? No, coercion is also gradable
  • Kelly sent Ryan the card.
  • Billy found Jane the ring.
  • Larry refused Kim the lunch.
  • Jean broke David the bread.
  • Ricky stayed Sue the space.
  • Semantic compatibility correlates with
  • how often the resolved co-occurrences are used
  • how difficult the resolution is to process
  • how natural the speakers feel the co-occurrences
    are

24
Coercion, Usage, Processing
  • Coercion is closely related with usage,
    specifically, processing.
  • In comprehension, speaker requires different
    amounts of actual processing effort, depending on
    the amount of semantic incompatibility.
  • Coercion can be thought of not as a theoretical
    mechanism in the grammar, separate from
    processing (and usage in general) but as part of
    an actual psychological process during language
    use resolving semantic incompatibility online in
    usage events

25
Directionality of coercion
  • Semantics of the target lexical item and the
    construction
  • Sometimes, the meaning of a lexical item
    overrides the constructional meaning.
  • ? challenges Override Principle (Michaelis 2005)
    claiming construction always coerces lexical item
  • Larry refused Kim the lunch.
  • Kevin caused Liz the fire.

26
Linguistic and extralinguistic context affect
coercion
  • Linguistic context
  • Sometimes, coercion is easier with particular
    linguistic contexts particularly V NP
    collocations (via activation of general or
    specific frames)
  • Larry owed Jane the watch. vs. Larry owed Jane
    10.
  • Kevin caused Liz the fire. vs. Kevin caused Liz
    trouble.
  • Extra-linguistic context
  • Speakers try to resolve the incompatibility by
    exploiting extra-linguistic context.
  • David broke Jean the bread.
  • She squinted into the room. (Kemmer 2008)

27
What is coercion, really?
  • What people call coercion is a subcase of
    dynamic semantic integration of constructional
    schemas, lexical schemas, their associated
    conventional frames, and contextual elements
  • --where the incompatibility is noticeable
    (theres some violation of a generalization that
    works in prototypical cases)
  • --during syntactic/semantic composition of
    open-slot constructions with lexical items
  • (purely semantic composition/resolution as in
    colorless green ideas, has not been of much
    interest in modern Linguistics).

28
Why investigate coercions in particular?
  • Relevance
  • Coercions are relatively novel motivated usages
    that partly conform to an existing constructional
    schema. Thus they are relevant to syntax.
  • We can closely observe the synchronic grammar and
    its processing at an interesting point where
    conventionalization of a construction is
    intermediate, and it works with some classes of
    lexical items but not others.
  • Diachrony Emergence and change of constructions
    can be studied. As exemplars of a particular type
    become more entrenched, the construction changes
    its specifications (cf. Israel 1996).
  • Acquisition Can investigate learning of a
    construction and expansion to new lexical
    items/classes of lexical items.
  • Variation Can observe variation among and within
    speakers.

29
Conclusions
  • Coercion is a concept widely invoked to allow
    for/explain semantic mismatches and to argue for
    existence of constructions.
  • We conclude
  • 1. Since theoretical ideas rest on it, its nature
    should be more closely investigated.
  • 2. Coercion is a gradient cognitive process
    reflected in variable processing time. It is not
    a unitary or all or nothing device or process.

30
Conclusions
  • 3. Coercion is the set of syntactically relevant
    subtypes of the dynamic process of semantic
    integration of
  • conventional linguistic specifications
  • frame-based knowledge not specific to language
  • contextual elements
  • This general process occurs in language usage in
    general, not just in syntactic constructions
    noticed by linguists.

31
Coercion
  • Phenomena given the name coercion are
    disparate, e.g.
  • NP-coercion specifically mass construed as
    unit (Give me a beer) is highly
    conventionalized in English
  • A schema with semantics conventionally unitized
    drink has entrenched exemplars with particular
    lexical items associated with particular frames
    is compatible with count noun constructions
    (singular indef. article, pluralization) and can
    be licensed for non-conventionalized nouns (new
    drink names, masses not usually unitized etc.),
    in contexts activating the frames associated with
    the schema
  • Under usage-based model, entrenched cases like a
    beer do not actually involve coercion. They are
    expected to be processed more quickly, show
    higher frequency, and have greater acceptability
    than found in cases of real incompatibility
    (genuine coercions)

32
Conclusions
  • 4. Coercion can be investigated for specific
    constructions, but we need to take into account
    the degree of entrenchment of relevant
    constructional schemas, specific and general.
  • Doing so will provide
  • A more general and accurate description of
    coercion phenomena
  • Stronger theoretical grounding
  • Natural relation to acquisition, synchronic
    variation, and diachrony

33
  • References
  • Boas, Hans. 2011. Coercion and leaking argument
    structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics
    49-6.
  • De Swart, Henriëtte. 2000. Tense, aspect and
    coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective.
    Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar
    Conference. Stanford CSLI Publications.
  • Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions A
    Construction Grammar approach to argument
    structure. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
  • Israel, Michael. 1996. The Way-Constructions
    Grow. In Adele Goldberg, ed., Conceptual
    Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford
    CSLI.
  • Kemmer, Suzanne. 2008. New dimensions of
    dimensions Frequency, productivity, domains and
    coercion. Presented at Cognitive Linguistics
    Between Universality and Variation. Dubrovnik,
    Croatia.
  • Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive
    Grammar. Vol. I. Stanford Stanford University
    Press.
  • Langacker, Ronald. 1990. A usage-based model.
    Chapter 10 of Concept, Image and Symbol The
    Cognitive Basis of Grammar , 261-288. Berlin
    Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based
    model. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, eds.
    Usage-based Models of language, 1-63. Stanford
    CSLI.
  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event
    coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In
    Jan-Ola Østman and Miriam Fried, Eds.
    Construction Grammar(s) Cognitive Grounding and
    Theoretical Extensions. (Constructional
    Approaches to Language 3.) Amsterdam Benjamins.
  • Piñango, M.M., A.E. Zurif, and Ray Jackendoff,
    1999. Real-time processing implications of
    aspectual coercion at the syntax-semantics
    interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
    28, 395-414.
  • Piñango, M.M.,A. Winnick, R. Ullah, and E. Zurif.
    2006. Time-course of semantic composition The
    case of aspectual coercion. Journal of
    Psycholinguistic Research 35, 233-244.
  • Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition
    The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge,
    MA The MIT Press.
  • Pustejovsky, J. 1995. Linguistic Constraints on
    Type Coercion. In P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas
    (eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics, 71-97.
    Cambridge New York Melbourne Cambridge
    University Press.
  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Gries. 2003.
    Collostructions Investigating the interaction of
    words and constructions. International Journal of
    Corpus Linguistics 8, 209-243.
  • Traxler, M. J., M. J. Pickering, and B. McElree.
    2002. Coercion in sentence processing Evidence
    from eye-movements and self-paced reading.
    Journal of Memory and Language 47, 530-547.
  • Yoon, Soyeon. 2012. Constructions, Semantic
    Compatibility and Coercion An empirical
    usage-based approach. Doctoral dissertation,
    Dept. of Linguistics, Rice University.

34
Additional Slides
  • Details on regressions.

35
Details Regressions correlating the factors
  • Regression 1
  • y NatScore .79xSemCom .03xColloRank
    .001x ProcessingT 2.87
  • (p lt.001) (p lt .001) (p lt .05)
  • Semantically less compatible construction and
    verb
  • Less frequently used together
  • Processed with more effort
  • Judged less acceptable
  • More coercion
  • Regression 2
  • yProcessingT 7.79xSemCom 1.47xColloRank
    67.72
  • (p .22) (p
    lt .01)

36
  • Multiple Regression

Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient p
Step 1 Constant -34.70 r2 .01 ( p lt .01)
SemCom 15.37 .09 p lt .01
Step 2 Constant -67.72 r2 .02 ( p lt .001)
SemCom 7.79 .04 p .218
ColloRank 1.47 .10 p lt .01
ProcessingT
ColloRank
SemCom
About PowerShow.com