/
Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon:

Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: - PowerPoint Presentation

olivia-moreira
olivia-moreira . @olivia-moreira
Follow
470 views
Uploaded On 2016-03-04

Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Phenomenon: - PPT Presentation

Processing Frequency and Semantic Compatibility Suzanne Kemmer Rice University Soyeon Yoon Seoul National University Rice University ICLC12 Edmonton June 2013 Coercion Resolution of semantic incompatibility between a construction and a lexical item occurring in it ID: 241619

coercion semantic processing compatibility semantic coercion compatibility processing construction verbs usage based lexical constructions language time exemplars cognitive compatible grammar linguistic general

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Rethinking Coercion as a Cognitive Pheno..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

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

Suzanne KemmerRice UniversitySoyeon YoonSeoul National University/Rice UniversityICLC-12, Edmonton, June 2013Slide2

CoercionResolution 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.I’m 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)2Slide3

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).3Slide4

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 timeAcceptability judgmentsHow 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

4Slide5

Why?Semantic compatibility;Frequency;Processing;Acceptability

--Why and how should these relate?5Slide6

Interrelation of 4 dimensionsIn a dynamic usage-based language system: Greatest

semantic compatibility: Maximal conventionality, minimal semantic extension; schemas and exemplars fit together in their specifications, no clashFrequency: 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 6Slide7

Interrelation, cont.Processing: Generally, cognitive mismatches should be harder to process. Specifically, in a cognitive competition

model, ambivalence/difficulty 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 individual’s language system matures. 7 Slide8

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 compatibilitythe number of participants in the prototypical event scene of the verbthe possibility that the Patient is transferrable as a result of the action prototypically designated by the verb (e.g. kill)8Slide9

Semantic compatibility of verbs in

Ditransitive Construction (DC)9Semantic Compatibility(1 most, 5 least)Semantic Typeof 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)Slide10

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, provideVerbs of continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner pull, carry, pushVerbs of manner of speaking shout, murmur, whisperVerbs of proposition and propositional attitude say, claimVerbs of choosing choose, pick10More verbs to be examinedSlide11

MethodCollexeme Analysis (

Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003)CorpusBNC, spoken subcorpus - ca. 1,450,000 words# of DC exemplars: 1,374# of verbs used in the DC: 491. Frequency of verbs in DC11Slide12

ResultVerbs 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:12Slide13

13

CompatibilityAverageCollostruction rank # of verbsfoundExamplesSemCom 11725give, send, tell

SemCom2

SemCom3

33

29

20

2

buy,

make, find

refuse, deny

SemCom4

SemCom5

-

34

0

2

-

run, wish

Compatibility and

Collostructional

RankSlide14

Verbs and collostructional rankNext chart shows relation of specific semantic classes of verbs (and their individual verbs) and collostructional rank

14Slide15

15Slide16

2. Processing effort and acceptability judgments (DC)

Experiment DesignStimuli35 verbs selected from semantic compatibility categories and result of corpus analysis35 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)

16Slide17

Design, cont.Task27 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 judgmentsAfter reading each sentence, the participants judged its naturalness on 7-point-scale.17Slide18

Verb semantic class

(from 1, most compatible, to 5, least compatible)Verb subclassSelected verbs

Verbs

of inherent transfer

Inherently signifying giving

give

Communication

tell

Instrument of communication

fax

Future having

owe, promise, leave, allow

Sending

send

Deictic

bring

Verbs

of possible transfer

Ballistic motion

throw, drop

Creation

create, cook

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

intransitive

stay, sneeze

Verbs occurring only in the corpus

(placed in 2

nd

most compatible)

Location

put, set

General causationcauseVerbs that were expected not to occur in the DC (the least compatible)present, donate, provide, push, whisper, say, choose

18Slide19

Result Significant trend

If semantically less compatible, processed slowerJudged as less acceptable19Slide20

Semantic compatibility with processing time; with acceptability judgments

20Figure 1. Average processing time of each semantic compatibility category

(Linear Trend:

t

(26) = 30.29,

p

< .001)

Average processing time of each semantic compatibility category

(Linear Trend:

t

(26) = 3.02,

p

< .01)

Average naturalness score of each semantic compatibility category

(

Linear Trend:

t

(26) = 30.29,

p

< .001)Slide21

Excluding outliers (misclassified?) put, set, and cause A

more linear trend21Average 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)

give, fax, allow, bringSlide22

Correlation of Four Dimensions (DC)All four aspects were significantly correlated with each other.

22(*p < .01, **p < .001)SemComColloRankNatScore

ProcessingT

SemCom

ColloRank

.42**

NatScore

.54**

.41**

ProcessingT

.09*

.12 **

.13**Slide23

Gradient Nature of CoercionIf 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 usedhow difficult the resolution is to processhow natural the speakers feel the co-occurrences are23Slide24

Coercion, Usage, ProcessingCoercion 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 24Slide25

Directionality of coercionSemantics 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 itemLarry refused Kim the lunch.Kevin caused Liz the fire.25Slide26

Linguistic and extralinguistic context affect coercionLinguistic 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 contextSpeakers try to resolve the incompatibility by exploiting extra-linguistic context.David broke Jean the bread.She squinted into the room. (Kemmer 2008)

26Slide27

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 (there’s 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).27Slide28

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.28Slide29

ConclusionsCoercion 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.29Slide30

Conclusions3. Coercion is the set of syntactically relevant subtypes of the dynamic

process of semantic integration of:conventional linguistic specificationsframe-based knowledge not specific to language contextual elementsThis general process occurs in language usage in general, not just in syntactic constructions noticed by linguists.30Slide31

CoercionPhenomena given the name “coercion” are disparate, e.g.:“NP-coercion” – specifically mass

construed as unit (Give me a beer) – is highly conventionalized in EnglishA 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 schemaUnder 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) 31Slide32

Conclusions4. 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 groundingNatural relation to acquisition, synchronic variation, and diachrony32Slide33

ReferencesBoas, 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

C

ompatibility and Coercion: An empirical usage-based approach.

Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, Rice University.

33Slide34

Additional SlidesDetails on regressions.34Slide35

Details: Regressions correlating the factorsRegression 1 y

NatScore = .79xSemCom + .03xColloRank + .001x ProcessingT – 2.87 (p <.001) (

p

< .001) (

p

< .05)

Semantically less compatible construction and verb

Less frequently used together

Processed with more effort

Judged less acceptable

More coercion

Regression 2

y

ProcessingT

= 7.79

x

SemCom

+ 1.47

x

ColloRank

– 67.72

(

p

= .22) (

p

< .01) 35Slide36

Multiple Regression

36Unstandardized

coefficient

Standardized

coefficient

p

Step 1

Constant

-34.70

r

2

= .01 (

p

< .01)

SemCom

15.37

.09

p

< .01

Step 2

Constant

-67.72

r

2

= .02 (

p

< .001)

SemCom

7.79

.04

p

= .218

ColloRank

1.47

.10

p

< .01

ProcessingT

ColloRank

SemCom