Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The paper investigates valency coercion effects in Italian by means of an acceptability rating task on nine argument structure constructions. The experimental design follows Perek & Hilpert (2014) in presenting three conditions: grammatical, impossible and coercion stimuli. This design allows us to test several factors: the acceptability of creative coerced structures, the role of age and – most importantly – the influence of the construction itself. Results overall confirm our hypotheses: valency coercion is identified as an intermediate level between grammaticality and ungrammaticality, with varying degrees of “coercibility” across constructions. An influence of age is not in evidence for coercion sentences, suggesting that the systematic variation in acceptability is due to the influence of different constructions. We propose that coercion resolution results from the interaction of constructional and lexical semantics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahrens, K. V.
    (1995) The mental representation of verbs. PhD Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
  2. Asher, N.
    (2011) Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511793936
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936 [Google Scholar]
  3. Audring, J., & Booij, G.
    (2016) Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baggio, G., Choma, T., van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P.
    (2010) Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 2131–2140. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21303
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21303 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic (Constructional Approaches to Language, Vol. 8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2013) Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.438–457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E.
    (2009) The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226. 10.1007/s10579‑009‑9081‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartoń, K.
    (2018) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.15. 6.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bencini, G. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boas, H. C.
    (2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. 10.1515/ling.2011.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.036 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boas, H. C., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2014) Applying constructional concepts to Romance languages. InH. C. Boas & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar (pp.1–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Buchstaller, I.
    (2006) Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 3–30. 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00315.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00315.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Busso, L., Pannitto, L., & Lenci, A.
    (2018) Modelling Italian construction flexibility with distributional semantics: Are constructions enough?InE. Cabrio, A. Mazzei, & F. Tamburini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018) (pp.68–74). Torino: Accademia University Press. doi:  10.4000/books.aaccademia.3106
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.3106 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cennamo, M., & Fabrizio, C.
    (2013) Valency classes in Italian. InI. Hartmann, M. Haspelmath, & B. Taylor (Eds.), Valency patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Available online atvalpal.info/languages/italian.).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cerruti, M., & Regis, R.
    (2014) Standardization patterns and dialect/standard convergence: A northwestern Italian perspective. Language in Society, 43(1), 83–111. 10.1017/S0047404513000882
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404513000882 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheshire, J.
    (2005) Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 479–508. 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2005.00303.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00303.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Coseriu, E.
    (1980) Historische Sprache und Dialekt. InJ. Göschel, I. Pavle, & K. Kehr (Eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie (pp.106–122). Wiesbaden: Steiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dąbrowska, E.
    (1997) The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735–766. 10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.735
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.735 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dehé, N., Rackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., & Urban, S.
    (Eds.) (2002) Verb-particle explorations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110902341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902341 [Google Scholar]
  25. de Roberto, E.
    (2012) L’oggetto interno tra lessico, semantica e sintassi. InS. Ferreri (Ed.). Lessico e lessicologia: Atti del XLIV Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI) (pp.131–142).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de Swart, H.
    (1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 347–385. 10.1023/A:1005916004600
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600 [Google Scholar]
  27. Downes, W.
    (1984) Language and society. Fontana Paperbacks.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dowty, D. R.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  29. Eckert, P.
    (2017) Age as a sociolinguistic variable. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), Handbook of sociolinguistics (pp.151–167). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405166256.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166256.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ellis, N. C.
    (2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. 10.1017/S0267190512000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fagard, B., Stosic, D., & Cerruti, M.
    (2017) Within-type variation in satellite-framed languages: The case of Serbian. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 70(4), 637–660.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language, 4(4), 373–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
    (2011) An R companion to applied regression. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  35. Friederici, A. D., Opitz, B., & von Cramon, D. Y.
    (2000) Segregating semantic and syntactic aspects of processing in the human brain: An fMRI investigation of different word types. Cerebral Cortex, 10(7), 698–705. 10.1093/cercor/10.7.698
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.7.698 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gleitman, L., & Gillette, J.
    (1995) The role of syntax in verb learning. InP. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The Handbook of child language (pp.413–427). London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldberg, A. E., & Ackerman, F.
    (2001) The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language, 77, 798–814. 10.1353/lan.2001.0219
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0219 [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldberg, A. E., & Bencini, G. M. L.
    (2005) Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. Language in use: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics Series, 3–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2007) ‘Saved by the reflexive’: Evidence from coercion via reflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 193–238. 10.1075/arcl.5.09gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.09gon [Google Scholar]
  43. Gries, S. Th.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013) Data in construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.93–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (1999) Structural priming: Purely syntactic. InM. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.208–211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hilpert, M.
    (2009) The German mit-predicative construction. Constructions and Frames, 1(1), 29–55. 10.1075/cf.1.1.03hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.1.03hil [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Holmes, J.
    (1992) An introduction to sociolinguistics. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  50. Iacobini, C., & Masini, F.
    (2007) The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: Locative and actional meanings. Morphology, 16(2), 155–188. 10.1007/s11525‑006‑9101‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-006-9101-7 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, A. H.-G. I.
    (2015) New horizons in the study of motion (1st edition). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jezek, E., & Lenci, A.
    (2007) When GL meets the corpus: A data-driven investigation of semantic types and coercion phenomena. InP. Bouillon, L. Danlos, & K. Kanzaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon (pp.10–11). Paris, Université de Paris VII.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2013) Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452. 10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.717632 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kako, E.
    (2006) The semantics of syntactic frames. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 562–575. 10.1080/01690960500101967
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500101967 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kemmer, S.
    (2008) New dimensions of dimensions: Frequency, productivity, domains and coercion. Presentation at theMeeting of Cognitive Linguistics, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Koch, P.
    (2001) Lexical typology from a cognitive and linguistic point of view. InM. Haspelmath, E. Koenig, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (pp.1142–1178). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  60. Labov, W.
    (1994) Principles of linguistic change. Vol 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2001) Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R.
    (1985) Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
    (2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. 10.1515/ling.2011.034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lebani, G. E., & Lenci, A.
    (2017) Modelling the meaning of argument constructions with distributional semantics. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (pp.197–204). Technical Report SS-17-02. Stanford: AAAI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lenci, A., Lapesa, G., & Bonansinga, G.
    (2012) LexIt: A computational resource on Italian argument structure. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC, 12) (pp.3712–3718).
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Length, R.
    (2019) Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
  67. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  69. Loporcaro, M.
    (2013) Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lukassek, J., Prysłopska, A., Hörnig, R., & Maienborn, C.
    (2017) The semantic processing of motion verbs: Coercion or underspecification?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(4), 805–825. 10.1007/s10936‑016‑9466‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9466-7 [Google Scholar]
  71. Malchukov, A., & Siewierska, A.
    (2011) Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  72. Marelli, M.
    (2017) Word-embeddings Italian semantic spaces: A semantic model for psycholinguistic research. Psihologija, 50(4), 503–520. 10.2298/PSI161208011M
    https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI161208011M [Google Scholar]
  73. Masini, F.
    (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]
  74. (2009) Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective 1. Word Structure, 2(2), 254–271. 10.3366/E1750124509000440
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1750124509000440 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2012) Costruzioni verbo-pronominali “intensive” in italiano. InV. Bambini, I. Ricci, & P. M. Bertinetto (Eds.), Language in the brain: Semantics, Atti del XLII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI) (pp.1–22). Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (2016) Grammatica delle costruzioni. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Massam, D.
    (1990) Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 161–190. 10.1017/S0008413100013566
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100013566 [Google Scholar]
  78. Melloni, C., & Masini, F.
    (2017) Cognate constructions in Italian and beyond: A lexical semantic approach. InL. Hellan, A. L. Malchukov, M. Cennamo (Eds.), Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, Vol. 237 (pp.220–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Mirto, I.
    (2011) Oggetti interni e reaction objects come nomi predicativi di costrutti a verbo supporto. Echo des Etudes RomanesVII, 1, 21–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
    (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Moore, E.
    (2004) Sociolinguistic style: A multidimensional resource for shared identity creation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 49(3–4), 375–396. 10.1017/S0008413100003558
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100003558 [Google Scholar]
  83. Moro, A., Tettamanti, M., Perani, D., Donati, C., Cappa, S. F., & Fazio, F.
    (2001) Syntax and the brain: Disentangling grammar by selective anomalies. NeuroImage, 13(1), 110–118. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0668
    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0668 [Google Scholar]
  84. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H.
    (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. 10.1111/j.2041‑210x.2012.00261.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x [Google Scholar]
  85. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus- based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  86. Perek, F. & Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 266–304. 10.1075/cf.6.2.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.06per [Google Scholar]
  87. Perek, F. & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2017) Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition, 168, 276–293. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  88. Pereltsvaig, A.
    (1999) Cognate objects in Russian: Is the notion “cognate” relevant for syntax?Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 44(3), 267–291. 10.1017/S0008413100017333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100017333 [Google Scholar]
  89. Piñango, M. M., Winnick, A., Ullah, R., & Zurif, E.
    (2006) Time-course of semantic composition: The case of aspectual coercion. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(3), 233–44. 10.1007/s10936‑006‑9013‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9013-z [Google Scholar]
  90. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. (2011) Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. 10.1515/ling.2011.039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.039 [Google Scholar]
  92. Pustejovsky, J., & Jezek, E.
    (2008) Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 175–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Real-Puigdollars, C.
    (2008) The nature of cognate objects. A syntactic approach. InS. Blaho, C. Constantinescu, & B. Le Bruyn (Eds.), Proceedings ConSOLE XVI (pp.157–178).
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Rice, S.
    (1987) Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives. InAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vol. 13 (pp.422–434). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Rostila, J.
    (2014) Inventarisierung als Grammatikalisierung: produktive Praepositionalobjekte und andere grammatikalisierte Linking-Muster. InA. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen: Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik. (pp.97–116). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110353693.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110353693.97 [Google Scholar]
  96. Schütze, H.
    (1995) Ambiguity in language learning: Computational and cognitive models. PhD Thesis, Stanford University.
  97. Simone, R.
    (2008) Verbi sintagmatici come categoria e come costruzione. InM. Cini (Ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali. Stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca (pp.13–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., Højsgaard, S., Fox, J., Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2015) Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.13–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2012) Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical formsInT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp.36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Tomasello, M.
    (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Torre, E.
    (2012) Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions: An embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 1, 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Townsend, D. J.
    (2013) Aspectual coercion in eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(3), 281–306. 10.1007/s10936‑012‑9216‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9216-4 [Google Scholar]
  104. Vazquez-Rozas, V.
    (2007) A usage-based approach to prototypical transitivity. InN. Delbecque & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Interpreting construction schemas from action and motion to transitivity and causality (pp.17–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Wagner, S. E.
    (2012) Age grading in sociolinguistic theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(6), 371–382. 10.1002/lnc3.343
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.343 [Google Scholar]
  106. Yamada, Y., & Neville, H.
    (2007) An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Research, 1130, 167–180. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.052
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.052 [Google Scholar]
  107. Yong, S.
    (2014) A new perspective on the relation between construction and its slot filler: Construction and lexicon interactive coercion model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(12), 115. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v4‑i12/1332
    https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i12/1332 [Google Scholar]
  108. Yoon, S.
    (2013) Correlation between semantic compatibility and frequency: A usage-based approach. Linguistic Research, 30(2), 243–272. 10.17250/khisli.30.2.201308.005
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.30.2.201308.005 [Google Scholar]
  109. (2016) Gradable nature of semantic compatibility and coercion: A usage-based approach. Linguistic Research, 33(1), 95–134. 10.17250/khisli.33.1.201603.005
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.33.1.201603.005 [Google Scholar]
  110. Zeschel, A.
    (2012) Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110274844
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
  111. Zucchi, S.
    (1998) Aspect shift. InS. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp.349–370). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_15 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zúñiga, F., & Kittilä, S.
    (Eds.) (2010) Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.92 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acceptability ratings; age grading; argument structure constructions; coercion; Italian
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error