Article in:
Belgian Journal of Linguistics, Volume 34 (2020): The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 17–29

Constructional creativity in a Romance language

Valency coercion in Italian

| Aston University
The present contribution summarizes findings on the understudied area of Italian valency coercion – i. e. the interaction of verbs and argument structure constructions in novel and creative ways – from four different studies. It highlights their innovative character, theoretical significance, and crosslinguistic implications for Construction Grammar. The paper suggests that valency coercion resolution involve different phenomena, such as distributional properties of constructions and compatibility between verb and construction. Sociolinguistic factors such as age and diatopic variables are also suggested to be relevant.
Keywords: construction grammar, Italian, coercion, experimental linguistics
References

References

Barak, Libby, and Adele Goldberg
2017 “Modeling the Partial Productivity of Constructions.” In Proceedings of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02,131–138. Stanford: AAAI.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna
2008 Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2011 “Coercion and Leaking Argument Structures in Construction Grammar.” Linguistics 49 (6): 1271–1303.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
(eds.) 2014 Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle
2006 “Diagnostics of Age-graded Linguistic Behaviour: The Case of the Quotative System.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia, Alessandro Lenci, and Florent Perek
2020 “Valency Coercion in Italian.” Constructions and Frames 12 (2): 171–205.Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia, Ludovica Pannitto, and Alessandro Lenci
2018 “Modelling Italian Construction Flexibility with Distributional Semantics: Are Constructions Enough?” In Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), ed. by Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei, and Fabio Tamburini, 68–74. CEUR-WS Team.Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia, Florent Perek, and Alessandro Lenci
In press. “Constructional Associations Trump Lexical Associations in Processing Valency Coercion. Evidence from Italian.” Cognitive Linguistics.
Busso, Lucia, and Domenica Romagno
Forthcoming. “Caused Motion Constructions between Standard and Substandard.” Italian Journal of Linguistics.
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cerruti, Massimo
2011 “Regional Varieties of Italian in the Linguistic Repertoire.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210: 9–28.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriette
1998 “Aspect Shift and Coercion.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope
2017 “Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable.” In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 151–167. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick
2019 “Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition.” The Modern Language Journal 103 (1): 39–60.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman
2004 “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019 Explain Me This. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen
2017 “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software 82 (13): 1–26.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2015 “From Hand-carved to Computerbased: Noun-participle Compounding and the Upward Strengthening Hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 26 (1): 113–147.Google Scholar
Johnson, Matt A., and Adele Goldberg
2013 “Evidence for Automatic Accessing of Constructional Meaning: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (10): 1439–1452.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter
2001 Lexical Typology from a Cognitive and Linguistic Point of View. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter and Dominique Willems
2011 “Coercion: Definition and Challenges, Current Approaches, and New Trends.” Linguistics 49 (6): 1219–1235.Google Scholar
Lebani, Gianluca, and Alessandro Lenci
2017 “Modelling the Meaning of Argument Constructions with Distributional Semantics.” In Proceedings of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02, 197–204. Stanford: AAAI.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro
2018 “Distributional Models of Word Meaning.” Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 151–171.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
2013 Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani [Linguistic Profile of Italian Dialects]. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca
2005 “Multi-Word Expressions Between Syntax and the Lexicon: The Case of Italian Verb-particle Constructions.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 145–173.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura
2004 “Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion.” Cognitive Linguistics 15 (1): 1–67.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
2016 “Using Distributional Semantics to Study Syntactic Productivity in Diachrony: a Case Study.” Linguistics 54 (1): 149–188.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent, and Adele Goldberg
2017 “Linguistic Generalization on the Basis of Function and Constraints on the Basis of Statistical Preemption.” Cognition 168: 276–293.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent, and Martin Hilpert
2014 “Constructional Tolerance: Cross-Linguistic Differences in the Acceptability of Non-Conventional Uses of Constructions”. Constructions and Frames 6 (2): 266–304.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
2011 “Coercion in a General Theory of Argument Selection.” Linguistics 49 (6): 1401–1431.Google Scholar
Ricca, Davide
1993 I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica [Deictic Movement Verbs in Europe: a Crosslinguistic Research]. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
Singmann, Henrik, Ben Bolker, Jake Westfall, and Frederik Aust
2018  Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. R package.Google Scholar
Suttle, Laura, and Adele Goldberg
2011 “The Partial Productivity of Constructions as Induction.” Linguistics 49 (6): 1237–1269.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne
2012 “Age Grading in Sociolinguistic Theory.” Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (6): 371–382.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, Elizabeth
2013 “Statistical Mechanisms in Language Acquisition.” In The Language Phenomenon, ed. by Paul Binder, and Katherine Smith, 65–92. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Yoon, Soyeon
2016 “Gradable Nature of Semantic Compatibility and Coercion: A Usage-Based Approach.” Linguistic Research 33 (1): 95–134.Google Scholar
2019 “Coercion and Language Change: a Usage-Based Approach.” Linguistic Research 36 (1): 111–139.Google Scholar
Zeschel, Arne
2012 Incipient Productivity: a Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar