Explanation
Semantic coercion is a contextually compelled adjustment of meaning that allows an expression to satisfy the requirements of a construction. When an aspectual verb requires an event but its complement literally denotes an object, comprehenders may supply a plausible action involving that object. The adjustment is systematic but not arbitrary: lexical knowledge, construction, situation, and cultural routines constrain the available reading. The conceptual movement locates the type mismatch, reconstructs the minimal semantic shift required, and tests whether conventional ellipsis, polysemy, or genuine coercion best accounts for the interpretation.
Movement of thought
1. The semantic selection requirements of the surrounding construction are stated explicitly. 2. The embedded expression is described in its initially most plausible lexical reading. 3. A type mismatch identifies the point at which literal composition would fail. 4. Contextual knowledge supplements or shifts meaning only as far as coherence requires. 5. Comparison cases test coercion against polysemy, ellipsis, and already lexicalised senses.
Scientific use case
Formal semantics, construction grammar, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics study coercion through judgements, processing times, and models of type adjustment. Analyses must control for alternative lexical senses.
Example
The sentence “She began the book” is normally understood as beginning to read or write it, although a book is not itself an event. Context and role knowledge supply the fitting action.
Counterexample
An unusual metaphor or any contextual specification is not automatically semantic coercion. There must be an identifiable conflict between the construction's semantic requirements and the expression's initial interpretation.
Distinction
Distinguish semantic coercion from external force, metaphor in general, ellipsis, and polysemy. It is a construction-triggered and contextually constrained adjustment to semantic requirements.
Effect on thought and perception
Coercion makes language flexible without making meaning unlimited. It enables economical expression but may presuppose hidden cultural routines and divergent default actions.
Resonance
A construction demands a kind of meaning the word does not initially provide. Through their interaction, interpretation shifts until both can answer one another semantically.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Semantic coercion“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-134-049. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-134-049The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen's resultative nexus supplies an earlier interpretive problem. Pustejovsky's 1991 account gives a direct definition of type coercion: begin a novel may require an implicit reading or writing event. This is distinct from his treatment of resultative co-composition. The Atlas profile therefore identifies a semantic type conflict and the licensed operation resolving it, rather than treating every contextual refinement or metaphor as coercion.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Semantic coercion requires an identifiable incompatibility and a contextually licensed adjustment.
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, resultative nexus-objects, 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.
- B-PUSTEJOVSKY-1991 · The Generative Lexicon, pp.422–426 / PDF pp.14–18, especially type-coercion definition p.425