↓ Skip to main content

Complement Coercion: The Joint Effects of Type and Typicality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complement Coercion: The Joint Effects of Type and Typicality
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Zarcone, Ken McRae, Alessandro Lenci, Sebastian Padó

Abstract

Complement coercion (begin a book →reading) involves a type clash between an event-selecting verb and an entity-denoting object, triggering a covert event (reading). Two main factors involved in complement coercion have been investigated: the semantic type of the object (event vs. entity), and the typicality of the covert event (the author began a book →writing). In previous research, reading times have been measured at the object. However, the influence of the typicality of the subject-object combination on processing an aspectual verb such as begin has not been studied. Using a self-paced reading study, we manipulated semantic type and subject-object typicality, exploiting German word order to measure reading times at the aspectual verb. These variables interacted at the target verb. We conclude that both type and typicality probabilistically guide expectations about upcoming input. These results are compatible with an expectation-based view of complement coercion and language comprehension more generally in which there is rapid interaction between what is typically viewed as linguistic knowledge, and what is typically viewed as domain general knowledge about how the world works.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 5 45%
Neuroscience 2 18%
Computer Science 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,575,277
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,475
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,897
of 438,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#452
of 541 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 541 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.