Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 145–165

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 7
Acceptability properties of abstract senses in copredication

Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.08mur
Abstract
This chapter explores the acceptability properties of copredication and how they can inform debates about the representation of abstract concepts. Across a series of acceptability judgment experiments, it was tested whether copredication in book-, lunch- and city-type nominals is difficult across-the-board or depends on adjective ordering in sentences like “John said that the folded and educational newspaper was on the shelf”. The results revealed no acceptability difference between copredication and non-copredication, however there was a strong preference for concrete adjectives to be placed before abstract ones. It is suggested for the first time that the parser is sensitive to semantic complexity, and that it is more optimal to access abstract concepts after associated concrete concepts than the reverse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiment 1: Foundations of copredication
    • 2.1Materials and methods
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Materials
      • 2.1.3Procedure
    • 2.2Results
      • 2.2.1Comprehension question analysis
      • 2.2.2Acceptability judgment data
    • 2.3Discussion
  • 3.Experiment 2: Sense order effects
    • 3.1Materials and methods
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1Comprehension question analysis
      • 3.2.2Acceptability judgment data
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Norming studies
    • 4.1Study 1: Sense frequency and adjective coordination
      • 4.1.1Methods and materials
      • 4.1.2Results and discussion: Sense frequency
      • 4.1.3Results and discussion: Adjective coordination
    • 4.2Study 2: Adjective co-occurrence and sense relatedness
      • 4.2.1Methods and materials
      • 4.2.2Results and discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • References
References (22)
References
Arapanis, A. 2013. Referring to institutional entities: Semantic and ontological perspectives. Applied Ontology 8, 31–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, N. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Types, meanings and coercions in lexical semantics. Lingua 157, 66–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro 47, 73–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 429–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S. 2015. About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua 157, 17–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. 2010. Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 233–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gotham, M. 2015. Copredication, Quantification and Individuation. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24, 95–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jezek, E., & Vieu, L. 2014. Distributional analysis of copredication: Towards distinguishing systematic polysemy from coercion. First Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics 1, 219–223.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2013. Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, E. 2014. Review of Definite Descriptions by Paul Elbourne. The Linguistic Review 31(2), 435–444.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Phasal eliminativism, anti-lexicalism, and the status of the unarticulated. Biolinguistics 10, 21–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017a. Acquiring the impossible: developmental stages of copredication. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1072. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017b. Predicate ordering effects in copredication. Poster presented at the 30th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston. 30 March-1 April.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 14(3), 191–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. 1985. Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11, 28–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43(1), 155–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., McElree, B., Williams, R. S., & Pickering, M. J. 2005. Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Haber, Janosch & Massimo Poesio
2024. Polysemy—Evidence from Linguistics, Behavioral Science, and Contextualized Language Models. Computational Linguistics 50:1 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Ritchie, Katherine & Sandeep Prasada
2024. Explaining systematic polysemy: kinds and individuation. Inquiry ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Murphy, Elliot
2021. Persistence Conditions of Institutional Entities: Investigating Copredication Through a Forced-Choice Experiment. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Murphy, Elliot
2024. Predicate order and coherence in copredication. Inquiry 67:6 ► pp. 1744 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue