On the Proper Role of Coercion in Semantic Typing 
James Pustejovskyt Pierrette Bouillon§ 
j amesp(c~cs, b r an d,,.is.ed u ph~divsun .unige.ch 
tComputer Science l)epartment, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254 USA 
§ISSCO, University of Genew~, 54 route des Acacias, (:11-1227 (hmeva., Switzerland 
Abstract 
In this paper, we discuss the phenomenon of logical 
polysemy in natural language as ~ddressed by Gener- 
ative Lexicon Theory. We discuss generally the role of 
type and sortal coercion operations in the selnantics, 
and specifically the conditions on the application of 
coercion in aspectual predicates and other contexts. 
We reply to some recent discussion regarding the use 
of coercion in the grammar, and show that type chang- 
ing operations are both useful and explanatory mecha- 
nisms for capturing linguistic and computatioiml gcll 
eraliza.tions. 
1 Introduction 
Recently, work in computational semantics and 
lexical semantics has made an interesting shift. 
Motivated by a concern for lexical organization 
and global coherence in tl~e structure of the 
language lexicon, some researchers ha,w~ moved 
towards more expressive semantic descriptions 
(\[16, 1, 5, 101), as well a.s more powerful meth- 
ods of composition (\[22, 3\]). 
Some, however, have expressed reservations a.s 
to the general applicability of type-changing op- 
erations such as coercion, as well as the notion of 
a generative lexicon itself (\[7\]). In this pa.per, we 
address these c.riticisms directly, and show that, 
upon closer examination of the data, these cri- 
tiques either miss the. point or are not substan 
tiated by the data. Still, without a proper no- 
tion of constraints on coercion, there can indeed 
be overgeneration of forms a.nd interpretations in 
the semantics, and in fact, the notion of con- 
ditions on coercion has always been integral to 
the basic spirit of Generative Lexicon Theory (el'. 
\[19\]). The empirical study of the range and lim- 
its of type change and cocomposition operations 
in natural language is an essentia.l part of the re- 
search in formal smnantics. The advantages ac- 
companying gelmrative mechanisnls and the char- 
acterization of languages as lmlymorphic in well- 
defined ways far outweight the explanatory in- 
adequacies inherent in traditional approaches to 
lexical design and semantic projection, what \[22\] 
have called word sense enumeration approaches. 
2 Polymorphic Languages and 
Semantic Expressiveness 
We will a, ssulne s(3me geueraJ familiarity with the 
framework of generative lexicon theory, as out- 
lined in \[16, 18, 1\]. ~'e feel it is important, how- 
ever, to clarify the motivating principles and gen- 
era.l methodology behind SllCh work, since these 
points seem to be overlooked or misunderstood 
by some authors (\[7\]). 
In order to help characterize the generative 
power of natura.l languages in terms of seman- 
tic expressiveness, it is natural to think in terms 
of senla.ntic systenls with increasing functional 
power, l:urthel'more, a nat u ra.I wa.y of Cal)tu ring 
this might be in terms of the type system which 
the gra.mmar refers to for its interl)retation. It 
has been argued elsewhere (\[19, 20\]), that there 
are reasons for describing how semantic systems 
fall on a hierarchy of increasing expressive power. 
It seems clear at this point that the current enu- 
mera.tiw ~. techniques for lexical description are too 
impoverished to adequately describe the richness 
of semantic da.ta, much less to explain either how 
word senses relate to one a.|tother or the creative 
use of wo,'ds i. ,,over ,:o.texts 
llrieily, a. genera.tiw', lexicon can be character- 
ized as a syste.nl involving at least the tbllowing 
four levels of re.presentations: Argument Strut 
1;nre, Event Structul'e, Qnalia. Structnre, and I,ex- 
ical Inheritance Structure. A set of generative de- 
vices connects these \[bur lew~qs, providing lbr the 
compositional interpreta.tioll of words in context. 
The exact nature of these devices will determine 
706 
the polym,m'phic expressiveness of t, he semanLics 
in fa,irly delinite ways. The best st.u(lied illustra- 
tion of this is the phenomet,on of ::+\]p++ coc?'cio?+, 
but it, is by no mea.ns the only one. 
" (.oer(lOlt 2.1 LinguisLic Evidence for " - 
As ment, ionell in \[18\], the t>henotnunon of multi 
l)le subcaLe+goriza, tion has tnotiva,t(+(l mu(:h of lhe 
type cha,\[lging literature. The alq)roa,ch taken itt 
getmrative lexicon l, heory build.,, ou tire ideas de 
veloped iu \[13\] and \[9\], while at:t,m~l/ting to derive 
the synta,ctic expressior~ ,:)f a verb's l+omplemeut: 
on the basis of a. deell senl,,inl.i(: type ;-issigl,tllellt, 
together with synta.cLic constraints, l:or examl)le, 
i0+ the we, ll-stludied case of aspectual verb conlple- 
mentation in (\]) a.nd ('2)below, the verbs bc:\]i++ 
a,n(\] (:O~ll, llto'lL('+'r (;a, rl'y a (lee I> l;ype s(qecl:in~ for at1 
event in (:oJnplement F.osi/,iol~. 
(I) a,. John h<'ga, to read the hook. (vP\[-t INI,'\]) 
h. ,lohI~ I)egau reading lh<' ho<>l,:. ((',1') 
c. Johu llega, n the huol.:. (NI') 
(:2) a.. Jea.t+ a cotuulen(:(' 5. tire l(' tivre. 
I1. Jean a (:oumten<:(, le livre, 
This <l(~ep I~yl)e ix able 1:o liJ'<>je(:l: to one o\[ 1,hree 
possible surl'ace forms, <h,pen<liug ou whi(:l~ coer 
don ,'ule a.l>lllies (\[IS\]), There is, ho,vewu, only 
one semantic t:yl m being seie<:te(I rot', aud tile 
<:hlstering of the part.i<:ula.r synl.:-icl.i(: Ibrms a p- 
Ilea, ring a,s surl'ace <:,.)tuplem(,iH, I,Vl>(,s iu (1) ;1re 
sysl, ema,ticatly I)rojected t~y virtue of this sema, tl 
tic t, ype. That ix, auy verb, like b+:li++, s,.,lectiug 
for a,u "u nsa,L m'a,ted (wet, t', will parad igmatica, lly 
allow for the expression or the three gramma,ti. 
ca\] forms showu a hove, a.ssuming surface syntac- 
tic consl, ra,inl:s a, re sa,l, isfie(l. For this reason, ~:he 
stru<:ttu'ing of this kiud or l(nowle<l~/,, where t lli~ 
event type ha,s syr~ta,,::l, ic exl)ression as ,any one o1' 
the surface types in (1), is called a hzi,:',l ,'o~+<:,7~- 
t~talparadi:\]m (lop). In this view, t, he NP, a boo\],:, 
is ('oer<:e<l to Lhe :.qipr<)l)rial;e t,yF, e re(luire<l hy its 
governing verh. Wha,t m:¢l.:es coercion l),Jssil)le in 
this <:a,se is the awfilability ,.ff lhe required type, 
given as pa,rt of the N l>'s qualia sh'~whu'c, in(If 
<:a,ting, for exa, ml>le, I, ha t t, he 'i'\],;I,\]<: r(>le for book 
iS tile activity (1\[' rea.dittp,, while Lhe AC;I')NTIVI') 
role ix IAte al:L (Jr wriLiug. Tim result of apply 
ing this coercion (:.l)erat,:)r t<> an N P ix (,ff('/:l.i,:(%' 
Lo crea, te ~n cxlc~,,,'#m, o1" 1,he N l' mt'a.tfing, calMl 
a 7uchngumic rccoTz.st?"uc.tio?~+. In the ('a.se o\[ Lhe 
NIl, (z boo/G for exa41H)\[(: + Lhe o\])(:.ra.gor prc.ditces 
illisagtlt'atc, d 0vot/t (\[(HIo|z4,LiOllS. 
There .h.re s(!v(:ra\] phe.ltOlnetta dis('ttssed iJt (',o ~ 
dard and Jayez IT\]+ which they c+lahn illustrate 
thaL coer(:iOll is noL a viable iut;erpregive sgraLeg:y 
for linguistic selna.ntics. All, hough none of ghese 
al)pa.rent, cou tlt, erexam l)h,.~ is in fact a l)rohlem for 
(;en(,ra.tive I,e×icon Theory, it. is itnportant to dis 
russ each I)He\[ly to show why they are false \[)rob 
\[(!tll5, "~\:0 \ViH COllCelltra.L(', howov(':r., oil \[,ho s.L,\](!c- 
tiona\[ prol)erLies of aspect:ua\] verbs stlch as co?n- 
?uc+z(++r and bc(\]i?+, in order t,o show very ('le+u'ly 
thaL sense enutl~era.tive a.l)proa.ches such a,s (++o+ 
dard a ud Ja.yez's are tnimsing Lhe poinL of li+}guis 
tic and computal.ional generaliza.tions, as regards 
l,o how t, lle lexicon (:ottLril)ttl, es t,o t, lie (:otnpos\]+ 
ti(mal setnautics. 
Th(, first, a, ppar(,ut, couttt, erexa.ntt)les , (liscuss,.+d 
in (',odat'd 'aud Jayez (\[7\])+ t,<) the ~e.eral a,p- 
plica, tion or 1,ype chauging oF, era,tions show tha, t, 
('om, m+,~c+r does not utfiwu'sa.lly allow NI' (:ore. 
i)l,:,ments with a <:oerced inl:erpreta,tiou, l"or ex+ 
aml)le, the Nl's in (3) below do uog have t, he 
expected eveul; readings that; one would predict, 
were, thore no i:o\]tsLra.inl;s ,:)tl tahe apl)lica,tion o1' 
l:yl)e (:u(,r(:i(:,tl o\[)era.tiolts. 
(3) a. *Jean a. co,t,,,,e,,c(+ t, ne sy,npho,fie (\[7\]). 
".John I>ega.n \[to listen to,\] a symphotiy". 
1). :~\[~\[;11'i(! D+ COlIIIII(!IIC(" \]~ltlLOl'Ottl,(L 
"Mary began \[t.o (lrive (m\] t.he highway." 
c. *.l<)hn begau the <lict, iouary (\[16\]). 
",John bega.n fro c<)nstflg/reference\] t, he dic- 
Lionary." 
But, as already l)oint, ed out iu \[.9\], the a,ccel)ta,tfil- 
ity of coerciol\[ wit\[i aspec, tua\] l)re(li(:~ges such as 
comn~(~?wcr and bcqh~ is conditioned 1)y Lhe te\]i(:- 
\]ty of Llle (went t, aken as it;s coln\])\[em(mL. Briefly, 
these verbs s,,qe(:L \[or an event of the sort 'L'RAN- 
.~\]TION, rtlli\[l~ OUl. Lhe coer(:ed illt(.'rl:,reL:.l.Liotls o\[' 
li.,+:r~?~ Z<., for (3a.), :h'ivc o7~+ \['or (3b), and co~.,,"Itlt 
For (?,c), wlfich are a.Jl I>RO(H,;BB ovenLq. \]:'urtJlor 
tnore, cotlstrainL~ due Lo "l)oundedttess" o\[' t, he 
pre(li(:a.Le ((,la) vs. (41))) are enL\]rely consist;('nl: 
\viLli condit.iOtlS oil (:Oel'CiOll ill (;(~'l\](',t';;tlSjv(+ \],ex$ 
co,, Theory ((:f. \[L(i, 17\]). 
(4) a+ Jean a commencd \[e t'romage. / le livre. 
"John I)(!gan the cheese (c, atiwj) / the book 
707 
(reading). 
b. *Jean a commenc(~ du frolnage / des 
livres. 
"John began cheese (catinq) / 1)ooks (read- 
ing). 
Namely, the homomorphic rela.tion between the 
NP type (mass vs. count) gives rise to i)rocess 
and transition interpretations of event structures 
(corresponding roughly to the amorl)hous and 
bounded readings resi)ectively, of (k)(lar(\[ and 
aayez's analysis). 
If it is truly an expla.na.tory and productive op- 
eration, coercion should be trot just a property 
of object phr~tses, but affecf the semantic inter-- 
pretation of subjects and other positions a,s well 
(cf. \[17\]). For exan, ple, the interpretation o|' 
psychological predicates such as ill (5) involves 
a inetonymic reconstruction of the subject as a.n 
e.xperiencing event. 
(5) a. Books bore me. 
b. The movie Mghtened Mary. 
c. Ma.ry's ihce / her chatter / listening to 
l'V\[ary bores nle (cf. \[7\]). 
Contrary to Godard and Ja.yez's claim, all of 
the above examples indicate very clearly a sub- 
ject event reaming; i.e., ~va(ling books, watching 
the movie, seeinq Mary's face, and listening to 
her chatter, as argued in \[J6\]. With examples 
such as *The book bcga'n last week, however, co 
ere|on is not possible for ra.ther trivial reasons; 
nalnely, as a violation o1' control. It is, by tile 
way, not surprising to lind asymmetries between 
argument positions. Anaphora., control, and ex- 
traction from subject position all behave differ- 
ently from argument positions within VP. The 
point is that linguistic evidence supl)orts an un- 
derlying semantic type, directly explaining what 
the connection between the subject and object of 
the experiencing relation is. in \[17}, the un(ler- 
lying semantics of psychological predicates such 
as bore, anger, and frighten is a causative strue 
lure where the surfa.ee subject is the logical ob- 
ject of an experiencing relation. For example, the 
event structure for the verb an.qcr has tire tbllow- 
ing form: 
\[PTxp(el,x,y) A ~\])(er,y) A ang'ry(e2, y) A 
~e.2-< q\] > cau,se(c'l,c2) 
The qualia structure projected by the NP cow 
tributes relational information as to just wha.t 
manner of experiencing is inw)lved. Short of gen- 
eral world knowledge, how are we to infer the 1)t~r - 
titular ma.nmu' in which Mary became bored in 
(4b)? By knowing what a. movie is, we know how 
to use it and experience it; this is the defining role 
of tire quaJia structure. And yet, to claim that 
the qualia are a useful representation (which C,o- 
dard a.nd Jayez admit), withont exploiting them 
through type reconstruction operations (e.g. co 
ercion), is to fail to see the logical relations be~ 
tWeell lexical senses a.nd derived senses in tile lan- 
guage. It is as though we were to i)ermit traces 
ill our granuna.tical formalism without having a. 
statement of binding, or otherwise knowing what 
to do with them. 
The third argu|nent aga.inst (:oercive opera.- 
tions involves exa.mples such as a long novel and 
a bright bulb. These. are to be contrasted with a 
red book and a,i opaque bulb. As pointed out in 
\[21\], the adjectives here modify a distinguished 
event predicate (i.e. a quale) associated with tile 
head, rcad for book, a~td ilh, min.atc tbr bulb. Go- 
dard a.nd Jayez seenl to think that because the 
NP can apl)ea.r in an environment typed for an 
individual, such as (6)below, 
(fi) .lean a. achet6 un h)ng roman. 
".John hought a long novel." 
tha.t this is a. counterexample to type coercion. 
But this surely misinterprets what role the ad- 
jective is playing in tile semantics. As already 
argued very explicitly in \[22\], the modification by 
an adjective such as long, rclpide (J?tsl), or brillant 
(bright), is a submodification on the al)propriate 
qualia of the head. 
(7) Ax\[rom, an(:c). ,.A 
\['/'~ic(x)- ,\,l,,\,,r\[ lo,~v(# r) \]\]\] lire(e T, w, x) A 
The resulting coinlmsitiona\] structure is still the 
type of tile whole NP, and has no effect whatso- 
ever on selection by an outside governor such as 
acheter (buy) as in (6). 
"File \[ina.I signili(-ant argument Go(lard a.nd 
Jayez l)resent against coercion operations in- 
w)lves the apparent lexically idiosyncrati<: na.ture 
of coercion. Why should commencer an<t finir 
allow eoercion while cesser and arr~.ter do not? 
There is no space to detail the distinction here, 
708 
but it is ai)parent that this is (hte to a selnanti(; 
tyl)e distinction between these classes of pl'edi 
(;ares. 
In what follows, we demonstrate how t, he al)- 
parent violations of the coercive behavior of 
begin-predicates actually reveal a much deeper se 
mantle distinction t)etween two logically relate, d 
senses of the verb, in all the complement fo|'ms 
they take, and not ,lust NI ) coml)lement, cases. 
This can be applied mutatis mutandis to eom- 
l)Zg~l, CCl', 
3 The Semantics of begin 
As argued in Section 2 al>ove, the well-formedt|ess 
of object coml)lement coe+rcion with ast)ectual 
predicates such as begin is ColMitioned by the 
event sort of the (lualia a.ssociate(1 with the NI ) 
itself. Thus, only Nl)s having associated tra.nsi+ 
tion events will allow coercion a,n(\[ control. This 
is not to sly, howew~r, that bcgi?z selects only for 
transition events. There are, of course, perfectly 
grammatical examples of prt)cess COm l)lelnents, 
as shown in (8) below: 
(8) a. The snow began to \['all at mi(llfight. 
b. John 1)egan to feel ill. 
c. The W~/l\] ' bega.n to t'each ilttO Bestride. 
These examples illustrate the use of begin as a 
raising verb. We will follow Perhnutter \[14\], in 
distinguishing between two senses of the. verb be- 
gin, distiuguishal)le not I)y the selectional proper- 
ties given in Codard and .layex. but, rather, con+ 
forming to the distinction that \[1.t\] ula(le; namely, 
~'~S eit\]:ter a Raisi'ng or a (~'o?~lrol verb. 
The analysis is as folk)ws. There are in(leed 
two grammatical expressions of the verb &:gin, as 
Raising and Sul)ject-(,'outrol forms: As a control 
verb, the event sort specified as tim c(maplement 
iS a TR+ANSI3'ION. As a Raising verb, however, the 
event may be any sort. This tbllows the' typing 
assignments below: 
Controh ((' .... (r) _ (( _ (r) 
Raising: (c ° ÷ t 'r) 
The examples above aud in (9a) and (9b) I>elow 
illustrate the raising i||terprt~tation (~\[' bcgi~: 
(9) a. The a.cid began to corrode the marble. 
b. It. began ~o rain. 
We will assume that ra.ising is accomplished by 
function composition, in the manner of \[8\]. The 
manner in which Raising is treated a.s func- 
tion composition (FC) is as follows: begin is 
~:* -~ ~'*', to corrode the marble in the exam- 
.ple above is e -+ c t'. Then, b'C(be(jin , VP) -- 
a?,\[b,:vi,,,'( ,,o,,,,oa,:( ?-,, O...-,..,.q,l~)\]. 
As pointed out irt \[?\], VP ellipsis can be used 
as a diagnostic for determining whether a conq)le- 
ment is l)art of a raising or control construction. 
Some l)redi(:ates permit 1)otl\] a control and non 
c()ntrol reading, such as (10)below, where John 
may I>e intentionaJly (lietitlg or he may be ill. 
(10) .\]ohn began to lose. weight. 
Notice however, that in English the sentence in 
(1 I) has only t.he intentional inclloative reading, 
aim not the raising version. 
(11) JohI| began tolose weight, and Mary began 
tot). 
What this illdicat(,s is that there are indeed two 
coJlstru(:tioJts at play here, as teased apart I)y cer- 
t, ain diaguostics. I"urther evidence comes ft'o|n 
im peraLive struct u res (12) an(l force-corn plement 
(:onstructions, which require tire control sense of 
the verl). 
(12) a. *llegit! lookitlg for a.iob, you lousy bum! 
b. Start Lot)king \[br a job, you lousy bum! 
These data iIMicate that, begi?z, in the control in- 
terl)retation , strongly preli~rs a relic (transition) 
evelLt cOllll)\[enlelll;. 
We have argued that there are, two senses of the 
verb bc(li?~, cor|'espondit|g to raising a.ud control 
predicates. These senses, howe, ver, are not arbi- 
trary t;ypes but are logically related t,o one an 
other in the same way that tile diffe|'ent senses of 
una.ccusa.tive/causative verbs, such as break, and 
sink are. related. In \[23\] it is shown titat verbs 
such as .~i~k and a./.fonda'rc are logically polyse- 
mous in predictabh~ ways, and don't need to be 
assigned multiple texical entries. The same geu 
eralization hohls for verl) such as begil~: begirt, is 
the lexical version of a,n u naccusative marker, 1)ut 
for propositions rather than ti)r entities. 
l,, \[~2\] +,,.1 \[~a\]. +, ~e,.erat ,.echa,,is,,, is ,It,- 
fined which makes the appropriate tyl)e a.wdlM)le 
for a ('oe|'cion operation. As disc.ussed in \[16\], 
709 
Gk-commencer: (e~er)~(e--eT'), Gt-h lire le liw'e: e ,{ T 
G ~- Marie : e, ae .............. • ~L life le livr ..... e ~ 
G k- Marie commencer h life le livre : c T 
Figure 1: Type Inference of (13a). 
Gk-commencer: (e~e'V)-+(e~eT), C;~e tie," .... ~(1')1 .... (e--, "r) o--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.7~t~7~llT~') 
G' I- Marie : e, G~-commencer le livre: e~e ~r 
G ~ Marie commencer lc livre : (r 
Figure 2: Type Inference of (13b). 
the qualia can be seen as partial fimctions, re- 
turning the value of a particular quale for a.u NP. 
The combined set of quaiia provide a set of type 
aliases for tile expression contaiuing them (of. 
\[18\]). One particular mechanism, type pumping, 
has been explored as a means to generating the 
alias set (\[20\]). 
l,et G be the typing judgements with respect 
to a grammar. Then, by convention, C I- ~, : r 
represents a type assignment of r to the expres- 
sion ¢~.1 Thus for example, the type a.wdlable to 
an expression o' with quale Qi of type r, can be 
see,) as the following type inference: 2 
G' k-L* : or, G'~-Qi\[~r,r\]:a~r 
(i' t- Qi\[cr, r\]((t) : r 
This says that, given an expression a' of type 
(r, there is a coercion l)ossible between (r and r, 
which changes the type of a' in this composition, 
from (* to r. We will illustra.te tile further a.1)pli- 
cation of this coercion ol)eration below, as used in 
the begin examples. \[n (13a), we see how the a.s- 
pectual verb commencer selects tile COm l>lenmnt 
VP, and how in (:lab), an NP is coerced into an 
event interpretation. 
(13) a. Marie a commenc6 5 lire le livre. (vp) 
b. Marie a commencd le liw'e. (NI') 
Following \[2()\], we can view tile l)a.sic COml)osi- 
tion of the sentence in (13a.) as type inference in 
Figure 1. 
1See .\[6\] for expla.nation of fbrmal mechanisms of 
type inference within the A-cah:ulus, and \[10, 2\], aim 
\[22, 19\] for its application to lexical ,'el)resentation. 
2See \[20\] for details of coercion as type inference. 
For the deriva.tion of (131)), coercion applies to 
the corn plement N \] ), resulting in the a.l)propriate 
type selected by the verb, as illustra.ted below ill 
Figure 2) 
In the case of b(;gin with NP co)nplements such 
as the symphony or lhe molorway, the <:oercion is 
not possible, given the type misma.tch in the in- 
tended qualia relation (i.e. li.stcning and driving 
are PROC\],~SS evelH;S). Notice, however, since the 
AGI~;NTIV\],', for each has all evellt of sort TRANSI- 
TION, these ;q.Fe possible coercive interpretations; 
i.e. perform the symphony, or build the highway. 
Notice that one might expect there to l)e rais- 
ing constructious involving coerced NP com\])le- 
ments. But these do not exist:, as the ungram- 
maticality o\[' *John &tan his ~ap (non-control 
reading) illustra.tes. This ix due to the fact that 
coercion is governed by the type of the controller, 
in this case C' type c~ ~ ('c. This coercion will 
be successful if suc}l a type exists in the alia.s set 
of the complemellt. Since function composition 
is an ol)eratiou at. the level o\[' the VP, there is no 
point iu the deriva.tiou such that the. api)ropria.te 
type is availal)le \['or the rule to apply. 
As a filial ol)servation, it should be ol)vious now 
why verbs such as enjoy allow a nluch I)roader 
range of complement coercious (of. \[16\] for (h> 
ta.ils). They are typed for taking an event of any 
sort, thereby allowing the I)ROC\[';SS evel/ts Of' the 
"\['l.;IAC roles ill enjoy lhc symphony / lhe movie. 
:~We ignore for now the t;yl)(', disl.inct;ion between in- 
dividuals, e, aud generalized quantifiers, <<e,t>,t>. 
In I;he full version o\[' t.hc l)al)er, we show the type shift 
taking this clist.iu('l.ion into ~ICCO\[IIIL. 
710 
4 Conclusion 
We ha.ve attempted to resl>ond to specific crit- 
icisms rega.rding (:oercion o\[)erations in l.ii(, so- 
mantic inCerpreta.tion of tiaCura\[ laligua.ges. The 
t)rot)\]erns pointed ()tit I)y (lodar(l and Jayez (lo 
illust.rate that (:onditious ou coercion are a nec- 
ossuary part of Clio semanCi(:s, but a.s we demon- 
st;rate(l, thoso aro ah'ea.dy a.n ini;egra.l (;(Jiili)Ollelil, 
of Generative Lexicon Theory. hi t\]ie t)rocess 
of this discussion, we hi~ve reiterated the a(lvan- 
Cages of a, generative lexicon in tho (:ontext of 
tim larger theoretical and niothod<>logical issuos. 
More specili<:a.lly, we showed how b(:/in a.ud co'm: 
mcnccrexhil~it both ra.isiug a.nd control i/eliavior, 
a.lld i, ha, t this is ;%11 instali('e o\[' the lal'g~or a\]Lorlia.- 
tion class between causative and inchoativo vorl)s, 
itself an oxaniple (ff logical i)olyseiny. 
References 
\[1\] Copestalo;, A. and E. lh'iscoe, "l,exical Operat.ions 
in ~ \[JniflcaJ;ion Based l"ranicwork," in J. Pllst.e- 
jovsky \[tlld ~. llergler (l",ds.) Lc,ical ,h'c'ntalllic's find 
Knowledge l~cprese'nlatioi~, Sl>ringer \:erlag, New 
York, 11192. 
\[2\] Copestake, Ann, "i)efaull, s hi the 1,1(IV, iu T. 
llriscoe and A. C1Ol)eSta\[,:e (\[",ds.) 1)cfaull hiD~ri- 
lance in IDe l, cmicon, ('.anll)ridgc University Press, 
1993. 
\[3\] |)61ling, Johannes, "l"h'xil>le h/teri)rl!tation<m 
dutch SorCenvorschie.bung", in llse Zilillllerilillllli, 
An<%oli Sl;rigen (eds.) I"@'ulLqspole~izen , Ilerlin~ 
Akadeinie Verlag, 19q2. 
\[4\] I)owty, i)avid R., "On Some l(eceiiC Aualyscs of 
ConCrol," Linyuislics and Philv.sophq 8, pl >. I-,11, 
1985. 
\[5\] Gerstl, Pel;er, Dic Bcrcch~u~9 yon kl/ortbedcu- 
l'ltlt.q ill. b'prac/~vcrarbeihtngsprozc,ssel~, Ph.l). The- 
sis, Univcrsil;~iL llalnlmrg, l"achl~er(qch hiforinat.il<:, 
1993. 
\[6\] (lunter, Carl, ,D'cmanhcs of Programmin:l Lan- 
guages, MIT Press, (:anibridgr, 1992. 
\[7\] l). ({o(lard aud ,1. Jayez, "Towards a \[)roper l.rcal. 
lllelll, of Coercion \[)hl?llOltlClltl '~ , ill t"roc~('di'ng of Ihr 
1993 Europeai~ A UL> 1.993. 
\[8\] aacolison, P, "l{aisiug as l:uncl,ion (:olnposit.ion", 
Linfjuislics and l~hilosol)h;q, 13:423-.d7(\], l{)90. 
\[9\] Klein, I!L m~d 1. Sag, "Type I)riv(!n Translalion", 
Lil~.:lUiSlics and Philosophy/, 8, 1(J3-7()2, 1985. 
\[10\] Morrill, Glyn, 7?pc-Logical gh'ammar, On(ler- 
zoeksinsCituut voor Taal en Sl)raak ,lli, r,~chC, l{){.12. 
\[11\] Nunl)erg, (\]. "The Non-uniqueness of Smnantic 
Solutions: Polyselny", giIL(l.tiislics and Philosophy 
3: 143- 184, 1979. 
\[12\] l'artee, Barbara, "Syut.a('t, ic Categories and Se- 
malitic Type", in M. l{osner and 11. Johnson (Eds.) 
Uomp ulalio~lal LTn.quislics a,td Formal 5'cmanlics, 
(:anlbridge thdwn'sity Press, 11)92. 
\[\[3\] Part.co, B. andM. Rooth. "(;eueralizedConjunc- 
t.ion and Type Anihiguity", in Meaning, l/so, and 
lnlc~prelatio~l of Lm~guagc, BSuerle, Schwarze, and 
von Stcchow (eds). Walter de (h'uyter, 1983. 
\[14\] l)el'hnuCt.er, David, Pecp a~ld ,S'urfacc Structure 
(/oT~sh'a~ds in ,b':qnlaa:, Ilolt, l{inehart, ~md Win- 
ston, New York, 1!171. 
\[\[5\] (L Pollard aud 1. Sag, i'nformation-/\]ascd S?lnlaz 
aT~d ,b'cmanlics (:SLI Lecture Notes Nuniber 13, 
Stanlord. (b\ (1987). 
\[\[6\] l'usl.@wsky, .lames, "The G,,nerativc Lcxico,F', 
(.:ompulatio,al LiT~guistics, 17.4, \[991. 
\[17\] I)usl~ejovsky, .lanies, "The Syntax of' |:,ve.ld, Struc 
1.ure', G'og~ilion, 41:47-81, 199l. 
\[18\] l~usl,@)vsky, J;tlilCS> "'l'ype (Joercion and l,exi- 
ca\] Select.ion". lu .l. I>ust, ejovsky (ed.), ,Tcm.anlics 
alid tk,: l;c:~ic<m, l(hlww Acadelnic Pul)lishers, l)or 
drccht., 1993. 
\[l 9\] I'ust, t'jovsky> ,i;tiileS, "l,inguistic (Jonsl,raint.s oil 
Type (locrcion'. \[11 1). Saint,-I)izier aild I,;. Vie.- 
gas (eds.), C'oinpTllationol l;c:l:ical ,b'e~lanDcs, Cam- 
bridge \[Jniversil.y Press, 199.1. 
\[29\] Pustejovsky, Jalnes, "Senmntic '\['ypiiig aim l)e- 
grees of 1%lyulorphisnl", in Martiu-Vide Uurrenl 
Issues i7~ Jl'hdDemalwal Liiigu~slics, \['3soviet, llol-- 
land, 1!)94. 
\[2 I\] l'usi,qiovsky, ,laines and Pel.er Anick, "Out, he Se- 
IlialltiC lilterl)ret.alioli of NOlllil/;llS'> ill Ib'occe.din.gs 
of 12lh h~h:r~latio~al (,'oTd?re~ce on (/ompulational 
Li'nguishcs, lhidalmsl,, llungary (1988) 518 523. 
\[22\] I~usi,qjovsky, Jai/ies aild l~rall I~oguraev, "\[,ex- 
ical l(uowledge \[{clJresellt, alion and Nal, llra.\] Lail- 
g~ll;igj(? I)rocessing" , Arhh'cial lTdell~gcncr, (33:193.- 
223, 19!):1. 
\[23\] l)usl.eiovsky, Jaiile8 and l"ederica Jlusa, "l)erivcd 
IJnaccusativil.y aud the. (Joniposil,ionaJity of V, venl, 
~tl'UCl.tlre', SUbl/liCCed /,o Nal~tral Lan\[lTtage alld 
l,i~guislic 7'keory. 
\[24\] Sag, I. and (:.. Pollard, "An integr~l,ed Theory 
of Conll)lenient. (:onl:rol", Languagc, 67:1, {33 113, 
1991. 
71I 
