Abstract
Abstract The paper investigates the interaction of lexical and constructional meaning in valency coercion processing, and the effect of (in)compatibility between verb and construction for its successful resolution (Perek, Florent & Martin Hilpert. 2014. Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Constructions and Frames 6(2). 266–304; Yoon, Soyeon. 2019. Coercion and language change: A usage-based approach. Linguistic Research 36(1). 111–139). We present an online experiment on valency coercion (the first one on Italian), by means of a semantic priming protocol inspired by Johnson, Matt A. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2013. Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language & Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1439–1452. We test priming effects with a lexical decision task which presents different target verbs preceded by coercion instances of four Italian argument structure constructions, which serve as primes. Three types of verbs serve as target: lexical associate (LA), construction associate (CA), and unrelated (U) verbs. LAs are semantically similar to the main verb of the prime sentence, whereas CAs are prototypical verbs associated to the prime construction. U verbs serve as a mean of comparison for the two categories of interest. Results confirm that processing of valency coercion requires an integration of both lexical and constructional semantics. Moreover, compatibility is also found to influence coercion resolution. Specifically, constructional priming is primary and independent from compatibility. A secondary priming effect for LA verbs is also found, which suggests a contribution of lexical semantics in coercion resolution – especially for low-compatibility coercion coinages.
Highlights
In many languages, verbs are notoriously flexible in how they combine with their argument structure – especially in English
Lexical semantic specifications of the verb are dominant when the required coercion is stronger, that is, when the constructional meaning is distant from the preferred verb usage and imposes a deeper change in the verb meaning to produce the new coinage
We have presented one of the first psycholinguistic experiments on valency coercion, and the first one that investigates the phenomenon in Italian
Summary
Verbs are notoriously flexible in how they combine with their argument structure – especially in English. (2) People say I’m lazy dreaming my life away (John Lennon, “Watching the wheels”) Mismatches of this kind between the typical environments a verb is used in, and its occurrence in a novel, creative use, have been often discussed under the name of valency coercion. Examples such as (1) and (2) above, and the oft-cited example from Goldberg (1995: 9), repeated as (3) below, have typically featured prominently among the early arguments for the need for a construction grammar approach, especially in the domain of argument structure
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
