Explanation
A selection restriction describes the semantic expectation that a predicate or expression places on the meaning properties of its complements. A verb such as “drink” prototypically combines with an animate agent and something liquid, so grammatically possible combinations may nevertheless seem semantically unusual. Such expectations are not exceptionless natural laws. Metaphor, personification, technical language, and semantic change can deliberately violate or reorganise them. The concept reveals that sentence comprehension does not arise from syntax alone: lexical meanings open and constrain possible relations. Its conceptual movement proceeds from a formally well-formed combination to assessment of semantic fit and then to the question whether a deviation is error, figurative language, or evidence of a new context.
Movement of thought
1. A predicate first opens roles whose complements are typically expected to possess certain semantic properties. 2. A concrete word combination is compared with these expectations and experienced as ordinary, striking, or contradictory. 3. Context and genre determine whether deviation is repaired, interpreted metaphorically, or learned as a new sense. 4. A counter-test varies complement and context to separate semantic restriction from simple syntactic ill-formedness. 5. The expectation returns as a mobile boundary where lexical knowledge and creative meaning formation meet.
Scientific use case
Lexical semantics, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics study how selectional preferences are acquired, processed, and modelled. Corpus evidence captures gradient frequencies more accurately than rigid lists of permitted features.
Example
“The calendar swallowed the afternoon” combines an inanimate subject with a verb of bodily intake; the violated expectation opens the interpretation of lost time.
Counterexample
A syntactically ungrammatical complement is not the same as a violated selection restriction. Nor does an intelligible metaphor disprove the semantic expectation; it exploits the tension that expectation creates.
Distinction
Distinguish selection restriction from valency as a word's syntactic-semantic capacity to open complement positions, and from metaphor as one possible interpretation of violation. Selection restriction concerns the semantic fit of role fillers.
Effect on thought and perception
Selection restrictions accelerate ordinary comprehension and make deviations salient. Their violation can trigger surprise, repair, or productive figurative interpretation.
Resonance
Words bring expectations about possible partners. When an unexpected connection occurs, the semantic field begins to vibrate and seeks a new organisation.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Selection Restriction“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-091-036. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-091-036The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
The Nexus-Object discussion on p. 123 contrasts a full resultative construction with an implausible isolated verb-object combination. Jespersen argues that the construction can license relations beyond a verb's usual objects. This is a historical account of a constructional problem rather than an explicit theory of semantic selection restrictions. The later formal category requires direct evidence.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Evaluate the complete pattern. An unusual verb-noun pairing may be licensed by the construction rather than being a simple semantic error.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · Chapter IX, Nexus-Object, printed p. 123
Selected historical witness, not a complete genealogy or a first English attestation. Atlas comparisons and applications are original editorial interpretations. OCR of a later printing containing a 1934 afterword. The catalogue’s 1924 date identifies the work’s first publication, not the inspected copy. Historical judgments about languages and social groups require critical distance.