RICE UNIVERSITY Constructions, Semantic Compatibility, and Coercion: An Empirical Usage-based Approach by Soyeon Yoon A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE Doctor of Philosophy APPROVED, THESIS COMMITTEE __________________________________ Suzanne Kemmer, Associate Professor Linguistics Director, Cognitive Sciences __________________________________ Michel Achard, Associate Professor Linguistics __________________________________ Nicoletta Orlandi, Assistant Professor Philosophy __________________________________ Amy Franklin, Assistant Professor National Center for Cognitive Informatics and Decision Making, School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center Houston HOUSTON, TEXAS ABSTRACT Constructions, Semantic Compatibility, and Coercion: An Empirical Usage-based Approach by Soyeon Yoon This study investigates the nature of semantic compatibility between constructions and lexical items that occur in them in relation with language use, and the related concept, coercion, based on a usage-based approach to language, in which linguistic knowledge (grammar) is grounded in language use. This study shows that semantic compatibility between linguistic elements is a gradient phenomenon, and that speakers’ knowledge about the degree of semantic compatibility is intimately correlated with language use. To show this, I investigate two constructions of English: the sentential complement construction and the ditransitive construction. I observe speakers’ knowledge of the semantic compatibility between the constructions and lexical items and compared it with empirical data obtained from linguistic corpora and experiments on sentence processing and acceptability judgments. My findings specifically show that the relative semantic compatibility of the lexical items and the construction is significantly correlated with the frequency of use of their co- occurrences and the processing effort and speakers’ acceptability judgments for the co- occurrences. The empirical data show that a lexical item and a construction which are less than fully compatible can be actually used together when the incompatibility is resolved. The resolution of the semantic incompatibility between the lexical item and its host construction has been called coercion. Coercion has been invoked as a theoretical concept without being examined in depth, particularly without regard to language use. By correlating degree of semantic compatibility with empirical data of language use, this study highlights that coercion is an actual psychological process which occurs during the composition of linguistic elements. Moreover, by examining in detail how the semantics of a lexical item and a construction interact in order to reconcile the incompatibility, this study reveals that coercion is semantic integration that involves not only dynamic interaction of linguistic components but also non-linguistic contexts. Investigating semantic compatibility and coercion in detail with empirical data tells about the processes by which speakers compose linguistic elements into larger units. It also supports the assumption of the usage-based model that grammar and usage are not independent, and ultimately sheds light on the dynamic aspect of our linguistic system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly grateful to the four professors on my committee, Professor Suzanne Kemmer, Professor Michel Achard, Professor Nicoletta Orlandi, and Professor Amy Franklin, for their kind guidance and profound insights. My advisor, Professor Suzanne Kemmer, has always guided me through investigating many interesting linguistic phenomena and given me intellectual inspiration. She spent a lot of time with me shaping up and specifying the ideas in the thesis. She has always encouraged me with patience throughout the long journey of writing my thesis. Suzanne, I will never forget your kindness and intellectual guidance, and will keep trying to become a good linguist just like you. My parents and parent in law deserve acknowledgement for their love. They have always supported me in many ways when I stayed and studied in the U.S. Mom and Dad, I love you! I would like to thank Professor Robert Englebretson, Professor Sydney Lamb, Professor Nancy Niedzielski, Professor Masayoshi Shibatani, Prefossor Stephen A. Tyler, and Professor Christina M. Willis of the Department of Linguistics at Rice University for their teaching and support. Also, I remember Professor Katherine Crosswhite and Professor Claire Bowern, who were once faculty members at Rice, for their help. I specially appreciate Ki-Sun Hong of Seoul National University for her care for me. I thank Rita Riley, the department coordinator, for her kind help at every turn. I met good colleagues here in the department of Linguistics at Rice University. They not only gave me intellectual stimulation as colleagues but also made my life more enjoyable as friends: Haowen Jiang, Sarah Lee, Ling Ma, Chelsea McCracken, Carlos v Molina-Vital, Katie Nelson, Piotr Nowak, Ann Marie Olivo, Cassandra Pace, Christopher Schmidt; and Alumni, Elizabeth Gentry Brunner, Michael Colley, Anne-Marie Hartenstein, Martin Hilpert, Jennifer Hoecker, Jayeon Jeong, David Katten, Christian Koops, Linda Lanz, Gujing Lin, Michelle Morrison, Naonori Nagaya, Andrew Pantos, Monica Sanaphre, Pumsup Shim, and Christopher Taylor. Also, Jennifer Walls, one of the students in my Ling200 class, was very kind to help me proofread this dissertation. Finally, I dedicate this humble dissertation of mine to God and my precious ones, my husband and my son, who were there right by me in every moment. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...v List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………x List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………xii 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….1 1.1. Aim of the Study ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Constructions and Semantic Compatibility ............................................................ 10 1.3. Coercion ................................................................................................................. 17 1.3.1. Nominal Coercion ........................................................................................... 22 1.3.2. Complement Coercion .................................................................................... 26 1.3.3. Aspectual Coercion ......................................................................................... 28 1.3.4. Argument Structure Construction Coercion ................................................... 30 1.3.5. Summary and Further Considerations on Coercion ........................................ 35 1.4. The Usage-Based Model ........................................................................................ 39 1.4.1. Implications for Semantic Compatibility ........................................................ 44 1.4.2. Implications for Frequency in Usage .............................................................. 47 1.4.3. Implications for Processing Effort .................................................................. 48 1.4.4. Implications for Acceptability Judgments ...................................................... 49 1.5. Organization of the Study ...................................................................................... 53 2. Correlation of Semantic Compatibility, Frequency, Acceptability Judgments, and Processing Time in Sentential Complement Construction …………………………57 2.1. Semantic Analysis on Compatibility between the SCC and a verb ....................... 58 2.1.1. Semantics of the Sentential Complement Construction .................................. 59 2.1.2. Criteria of Semantic Compatibility ................................................................. 61 2.1.3. Verbs of Different Semantic Compatibility with the SCC ............................. 64 2.1.4. Summary ......................................................................................................... 72 2.2. Web-Based Survey ................................................................................................. 74 2.2.1. Survey Design ................................................................................................. 76 2.2.2. Prediction ........................................................................................................ 79 vii 2.2.3. Result .............................................................................................................. 80 2.2.4. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 83 2.3. Processing Experiment ........................................................................................... 85 2.3.1. Experiment Design .......................................................................................... 85 2.3.2. Predictions ....................................................................................................... 89 2.3.3. Results ............................................................................................................. 91 2.3.4. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 97 2.3.5. Summary on the survey and the experiment ................................................. 102 2.4. Frequency in